For the First Time I Feel Sorry for Jim Boeheim

[SWC75]

------------------

The decision was made in 2003. SU wanted to move to the ACC.

Are you suggesting that Dr. G and the Chancellor were not aware of Coach B's views in great detail from scheduling to recruiting to rivalries and on and on. Or that Coach B lacked an opportunity to express his views?

What makes you think he was "treated like a nobody"?

The decision and responsibility to accept the invitation was a University decision: not the decision of the BB coach.

And this was obviously not a hasty decision.

Last year the Big 10 expansion was front page news for many months.

This year the issue of conference expansion has been front page news for seemingly forever. The ACC supposedly was contacted by more than 10 schools expressing interest.

I agree that it's been clear we wanted to elave the Big East behind for the ACC since 2003, maybe not with greta ehtusiasm, since we co-foudned the conferecne but because it was obviouslyu the better deals and JB surely knew that we would leave for the ACC if the opportunity ever came up again.

On top of that, it's well known that JB is likely to retire in the ehar future so his imput on decisons that will will impact SU for a genearation or more after he's left would be limtied.

I also think this was no where near as a sudden as it appearred: there had to be talks going on behidn the scenes long before this. I beleive the scenario that the ACC wanted to expand to 14 so thyey could re-negoiate thier TV contract and SU heard of this and went after it with the promise to play confercne games in MSG as a carrot. it worked.

 

[dollarbill44]

I think if he felt slighted or pi$$ed off, he would retire, or at least have made a stink about it.

 

[Col. Bleep]

------------------

Lot of assumptions, but the answer is simple: this was a University decision that was made a long, long, long, long time ago, that benefited from ongoing input from the AD and the coaches, and yes coach B, but the decision was not Coach B's to make.

Apparently the invitation came suddenly: at that point the only concern was to get the deal done.

The debate was over years ago, and certainly last year when the Big 10 expanded in a multi-month process, and again this year when the SEC expanded with A&M. The ACC had received 10 or more inquiries.

OK...my bad.
No point being oblique...especially on a sports board where we're generally so straight up and passionate about
our feelings.
So I'll lay it out and this (thankfully, I know) will be my final post on the matter.

One of two things appears to be true.

1. The Chancellor's timeline is accurate.
Jim Boeheim - among others - was not consulted before the fact.
No one took extended time to hash out the implications.
And the University just rushed off in the night to join the ACC.
(I don't believe that for a second. But if it is true I really would feel sorry for Boeheim).

2. The Chancellor's timeline IS NOT accurate.
There's no outright lie anywhere.
But it is deceptive.
She picks her words to create an impression that Jim Boeheim was not involved until
after the fact.
WHY?
Why shouldn't everyone just be straight up?
I have no doubt discussions on this contingency have been ongoing.
Administrators and major sport coaches would be remiss if they weren't prepared.
So why is the Chancellor apparently trying to insulate Jim Boeheim (and, by omission, others as well) from this decision?
What is she afraid of?
Why does he have to be protected?
From what?
And why go out of her way to make SU look like Bob Irsay and the Baltimore Colts?
Nice example that sets.

 

[orange79]

Again - it was not JB's decision to make. I have absolutely no doubts they knew his feelings on the subject. I also have no doubts he knew hers (and TGD's). He knew if we were offered, we would go. End of discussion. There was no, "Are you sure you're OK with this, JB?" And there was no need. He is not in a position to say yea or nay. Does it matter if he was asked his opinion that week or several months ago or several years ago? No. He could voice his opinion, but he had no say in the matter. Not sure why you don't get this.

 

[dollarbill44]

OK...my bad.
No point being oblique...especially on a sports board where we're generally so straight up and passionate about
our feelings.
So I'll lay it out and this (thankfully, I know) will be my final post on the matter.

One of two things appears to be true.

1. The Chancellor's timeline is accurate.
Jim Boeheim - among others - was not consulted before the fact.
No one took extended time to hash out the implications.
And the University just rushed off in the night to join the ACC.
(I don't believe that for a second. But if it is true I really would feel sorry for Boeheim).

2. The Chancellor's timeline IS NOT accurate.
There's no outright lie anywhere.
But it is deceptive.
She picks her words to create an impression that Jim Boeheim was not involved until
after the fact.
WHY?
Why shouldn't everyone just be straight up?
I have no doubt discussions on this contingency have been ongoing.
Administrators and major sport coaches would be remiss if they weren't prepared.
So why is the Chancellor apparently trying to insulate Jim Boeheim (and, by omission, others as well) from this decision?
What is she afraid of?
Why does he have to be protected?
From what?
And why go out of her way to make SU look like Bob Irsay and the Baltimore Colts?
Nice example that sets.

The way you've written the two scenarios it is obvious you don't approve of the move. What if, Cantor and Gross made the decision to move to the ACC because it is the best move for SU, regardless of what JB thinks??? Why do you assume that Cantor is insulating JB? Why do you assume she is afraid? Why do you say SU looks like Bob Irsay and the Colts? No one is changing conferences out of the blue. Anyone who is completely and utterly shocked (as was the case when the Colts left Baltimore in the middle of the night) when a school changes conferences in this environment hasn't been paying attention over the last 2 years. There isn't always a hidden agenda.