http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/luke_winn/05/19/hoops.chain.reaction/

15. May 15: Hewitt lands a huge recruit in 6-8 Philadelphian Erik Copes, who's ranked No. 57 overall in the Class of 2011 and could see instant playing time at George Mason. Copes was released from his letter of intent at George Washington after the firing of coach Karl Hobbs, and Hewitt's plan to hire Copes' uncle, former GW assistant Roland Houston, helped seal the deal. As Copes told FoxSports.com, "I really wanted to be coached by my uncle."

Reverberations: New GW coach Mike Lonergan's rebuilding effort gets more difficult with the loss of Hobbs' top recruit. Hewitt bolsters his roster with the highest-rated prospect that any CAA school landed for the Class of 2011.

That article forgot to mention the rampant racism at GW. Poor reporting.

What does the rampant racism refer to?

Rebuilding???What the fuck? This is bullshit. We had a great team coming back with even better recruits coming in and a coach who got us to # 6 in the country plus an assistant whose son and friend probably would have come here and are both good players.

Now we have dick. If we don't go over 500 this year I think Chernak should be relieved of his basketball decision making duties and the people on the board of trustees should all bunch themselves in the balls. They let their personal feelings get in the way of basketball decisions and it screwed us, the fans.

If GW does go over .500 next year, can we expect Student to "bunch himself in the balls"? That would be a neat trick.

After 0 trips to AC in the last four years, did you see sustained success in GWBB's future?  

You have a stick up your ass. Shit happens. This is worse for the short-term but most likely better for the long-term. 

By the way Nock, I thought that was pretty damn funny. We all hope that you are doing fine.

In response to long term and short term success, my response is what are people's long term goals?  I guess the ultimate goal is to become Xavier but as many here are relatively realistic and for good reason as many of you have been fans much longer than me.  So how realistic is it that we become a national powerhouse for a sustained amount of time after having 2 good runs during the mid to late 90's and the '05 to '07 run and after all that time, we have little to show for it now in terms of prestige.  We can't use those years to recruits b/c they probably don't remember them. 

Meanwhile, we had a coach who showed both his competencies and his incompetencies.  At his best, GW was a very good team, at his worst, they were a terrible team.  But without his top two scorers returning, he led the team to a respectable finish.  Add in Kromah and a center capable of doing what Katuka did and GW seemed all but assured of at least a top 4 finish.  GW seemed on its way to another 2-3 year run.  And isn't that what GW strives for at this point.  What is this talk of sustained success when I think many would be happy to just have success. 

I have no doubts this is a generational thing, but I would think some of the older guys would want success when they can get it since it is so fleeting for this program.  Only time will tell for Lonergan but Hobbs had more success than most A-10 coaches including some with similar backgrounds to Lonergan.  Perhaps the lows won't be as bad b/c Lonergan is a better X's and O's coach so we will always be in the top 10 but who knows what his ceiling is in the A-10 but I think many here would sacrifice a few down years for a great years as opposed to being a consistent middle of the pack team in the A-10 which I'm not confident they got.

 Bacon Egg and Cheese>>Aren't you a student to? If so then fuck off. Why do I care about the long term? The last two years have been supposedly building to next year, my senior year, and all of a sudden that gets yanked out from underneath us. I don't care how many DIII championships Lonergan has won at Vermont. 

I don't want to hear another student preaching to me about the future and having a stick up my ass because I want to see our team win. Why do I waste my time then? The fact is we would have been very good next year if Hobbs wasn't fired and now we will probably be mediocre because some aholes on the board didn't like him. Screw them. I know a bunch of my friends don't want to go to games anymore because all our recruits who've been hyped for years are now gone. 

 I'm sorry, but this whole Hobbs=high variance, Lonergan=low variance stuff, for me at least, is just BS.  Hobbs may have, near the end, figured out a way to get the level of recruiting back to near where he was at the start, but he seemed to have no idea how to create an offense, at all. I think he's able to mentor point guards, but that's about it.

Student, you sound like someone who goes to the beach on vacation and leaves all their trash behind. Why should you care if the team sucks in the long run, because hey, you got yours, that's someone else's problem! "All our recruits"? Yeah, you need to learn plural v. singular. Even if more than one recruit leaves, only one has been hyped for years, and though I was excited to see him play, its depressing to base your hopes for a team on one player who may or may not be your savior. 

For the record, while I was at GW we never went to a tournament, and I was around for the Rainbow Classic and Atilla-gate. I missed Shawnta by one year, and Hobbs by one as well. Relative to that, this doesn't even compare.

i've heard too many times that 'next year is the year' to know that it's BS. Would it have been? Maybe. Maybe not.  

As far as Hobbs being high variance, I think his past speaks for himself.  When he has the players, his system works.  As far as Lonergan, we don't know what we can expect, everyone on here is just speculating that his lows won't be as bad b/c he is an x's and o's guy.  But what is his potential, nobody knows.  But some coaches have similar backgrounds and haven't lit up the A-10.  Most notably Giannini who went from D-3 championship to AE to A-10 and he hasn't exactly been great.  Or Everhart did the AE to A-10 transition but hasn't been that good either.  Of course Lonergan had more success in AE but Vermont also seemed to be a better program to take over for after Brennan and beating Syracuse.  So again, I'm not sure why everyone expects Lonergan to dominate the A-10. 

As far as the students, well yelling at one student won't really get you anywhere.  Some people can say 'I joined when the program was terrible' but for the most part, many of the fans here experienced the golden years.  Add on to the fact many students aren't from DC and their only affiliation to the program is the 4 years they have here and what do you really expect from the students?  And a majority of the kids don't stay in DC hence you get the fans on here from NY who still are fans b/c of their experience.  And as far as attendance, the student section was pretty rocking for the Temple and St. Joes games.  Heck, there was a wait for the St. Joes game.  And the kids there never had a GW program to root for so its a bit unfair to hold them accountable for early season games.  But I wouold say the students were coming back after attendance going from 500 or so during the Preseason NIT tournaments to 3500 for Temple, 3300 for Dayton, or even 2200 for St. Joes where the student section seemed pretty full meanwhile the alumni didn't exactly show up in full force.  Both sides are held accountable and talking down to either side won't get anyone anywhere.

 Top 68,

Those were all valid points. Thank you for discussing them in a friendly tone. I agree with you on just about everything in the first paragraph (Though I will give Everhart a little more credit for what he's done with the Dukes after the Denny Nee debacle); being great in the AE doesn't translate to being great in the A-10, and by no means do I consider Lonergan a slam dunk. To me, the problem was that Hobbs had become a known quantity, and I did not like what I saw. I agree that when he had the players things were good, but I don't think he knew how to develop players without a particular skill set, and he wasn't getting players with that skill set anymore. He may be a great coach somewhere someday; I certainly think that is possible, but I don't think that somewhere was GW in the long run. I do think there is a track record of some coaches being successful here, though. Lonergan may actually be worse, but there is also the potential for upside that I wasn't really seeing from Hobbs. You are free to disagree, and I don't think doing so is crazy.

As for the students, I agree that calling them out doesn't really do much. But when someone casts the first stone at me, I am picking that sucker up and throwing it through them, not at them.

 With the way people on this board talk about him you'd think we brought in John Wooden to be our next coach. it's pretty condescending to tell us students just to accept rebuilding throughout our college career. We weren't going to be rebuilding next year, we were going to be loaded, that's obvious to everyone who's not a complete Hobbs hater like Bobo. Now the new guy comes in and the first thing he does is lose our best recruit. And I'm supposed to be confident in him why exactly? Because he coached well at Vermont? Stop bringing up Catholic also. It's DIII who cares. 

Top68, to answer your question, I'll divide this into on-court and off-court goals.

On court, I'm not sure being Xavier is the goal. Sure we'd love that, and perhaps I'm setting my sights too low, for saying that's not the goal.

To me, the realistic goal is to get back to where we were basically from 91-2007.  That is, be a program that gets to the tourney 50% of the time and the NIT about 25% of the time, gets to play (and win) some big gamees, is in the league's top tier, and knocks out some name teams fromt time to time. In addition, part of the goal is that even in down years we should never miss the A-10 tourney, and we shouldn't be routinely losing to the dregs of D1 (like Navy and Longwood and Coppin St.)  

If we can exceed that, then it means we have a great coach, but most of us would be thrilled if we could just get back to what we had for that roughly 15 year period (I think we had 8 NCAAs and 4 NITs in that stretchm but my numbers could be off).

There's also three off-the-court goals, as well.  First, is to create a better vibe about the program.  I think people underestimate how much Hobbs' public statements and attitude contributed to his firing and to the demise of the program.  He spent a lot of time emphasizing GW's weaknesses, rather than promoting our strenghts. He cast a lot of blame while mostly refusing to accept personal responsibility for anything that went wrong.  He alienated virtually every reporter that tried to cover our team.  And even when we were good he liked to tear us down (by telling anyone who we would listen how we were "overachieving,").  In all, I think his negativity is something we really needed to get away from and was a big factor, so I'd say one of the goals is building up positive feelings about the program again. 

Second, is rebuilding attendance.  We have to get students and alumni back in the seats.  Even during the Atilla-gate days we had better attendance than we've had these last few years. This is not the fault of anyone on here (except people dumb enough to say they won't come to games anymore because we lost a recruit they've never seen play or because we changed coaches), but it's something we need to reverse.

Third, of course, is academics. I think a goal of the program is to recruit kids who can win without having to bend our admissions standards too far (as in no phony prep schools or kids who cause major consternation for the admissions department).  I know many think that's an unrealistic goal, but a lot of schools (like Richmond) seem to be winning like this.

GW is never going to be the final coaching destination for anyone.  Rather, it is a stopover for coaches on the way up (ala Jarvis) or on the way down (ala Penders).  I prefer the on the way up route.  Your best coaches at the biggest programs did not start at their school.  I know some of you bemoan the fact that Mason got Hewitt of the ACC while we only got Longergan of the AE, however remember that there is a reason that Hewitt was not available, and it wasn't that he chose Mason over Georgia Tech.  The man got fired because over the past few years he was not doing an adequate job.  Also, do not minimize the successess of ML at the lower levels.  Rather, look at a level playing field of talent, with his teams doing better than the rest.  That is mostly coaching.  Is Phil Jackson a great coach because he was able to win with Jordan and Kobie?  Put him in charge of the Wizards and is he still a great coach?  Is a losing coach in the a BCS conference a better choice than a winning coach in a lower conference?   For those who complain about ML, who would have you preferred?  Joe Dooley?  OK, I can see that, but is his resume significantly better than Lonergan?   Also, for those disappointed in losing Copes, which probably is all of us.  I think it is clear that he wanted to stay with his uncle, who's only positive coaching attribute seemed to be a talented nephew.  I see the argument to keep Houston just to get Copes, but if employing a different assistant opens up a pipeline of local talent and causes improvement to all bigs that come through GW, don't you think that it would have been short sighted to stay with Houston?  Finally, for that small handful of students who have supported the team and are desperate to see them succeed before they graduate, I feel your pain.  On the other hand, unless they have changed the rules, you can still follow the team after graduation.  To me, the biggest marketing failure of the athletic department was not tapping into the alumni base in DC, which, of course, starts by reaching the student base before they graduate.   However, with today's technology, you can still listen to every game and watch most of them, even if you live in the nether regions of the world, like GWAA or Mentzinger.

Student can just follow the lead of so many of us GW graduates and go a 5th year at Foggy Bottom. Who cares about student loans anyways since the world is coming to an end on Saturday.

Well I do agree that Lonergan has more upside, I just think that he or someone with his upside would have been there in a few years.  If we could somehow get a Shaka Smart, than you make subsequent arrangements,  I just don't think Lonergan was someone we should have altered our timeline for and perhaps that is what I disagree with most.  We give Hobbs another year and if he doesn't improve, than we bring in Lonergan or another guy.  If he does well, he gets a few year extension.  I guess the university didn't want to fire him after a few successful years but they did fire him after a good year with some future.  But I will give Lonergan a fair shot but I will be expecting many big things.

As far as Copes, I firmly believe if you got him on campus for one year, he wouldn't have transferred.  Sure some players do transfer like Hancock but even he had to wrestle with the decision.  It is more rare for a player to transfer from a school after enrolling if the coach or assistant coach who recruited him left while it is much more common that he reopens his recruitment if it happens before he gets to school.  Of course Roland was actually Copes' uncle but we can only speculate. 

As far as his success, while it is impressive, some of it is hard to judge b/c it is much easier to go to Xavier or VCU and suceed than Hofstra or Fordham b/c of the pedigree.  I agree that the Hewitt hire makes a splash but there is a reason G. Tech paid him $7.2 million to not show up. I don't think anyone thinks the Lonergan hire was a bad one, just that we sacrificed quite a bit for him. 

 I want to second FQ's goals. I whole-heartedly agree with all of them. I think those are attainable and I will root like hell for the new athletic staff to achieve them. I was in the camp that felt it was time for a change at the helm and Hobbs needed to be replaced, thuogh agree waiting that long after the season wasn't ideal.

Not to get into an argument with student, but I really hate to see such short-sightedness, self-entitled views like that. If you're a fan, you're going to show up to games regardless of the expectations and root like hell because you are a fan. And like it someone said earlier, you are allowed to follow the team after you graduate regardless of whether you stay in DC or not. I do. I follow games online and try to attend at least one or two each season. Might I also mention that you don't have to pay to get in, that alone makes it some of the best entertainment around. 

Does it stink that you might not get to see an NCAA Tournament team during your time? Yep. It does. I've been there. I was at GW for the end of Penders era and beginning of Hobbs tenure (covered the team for the hatchet and WRGW and when I wasn't at a game for that, you better believe I was in the stands).

So maybe a freshman who didn't average double-digit points in high school or who didn't make the all-city first team in Philly, but could rebound like hell and was said by ESPN to be a good recruit isn't coming (I've never seen him play, so won't judge his talents, just state the facts as I've read them). And maybe the team would've been slightly better if he was here and playing as a freshman. Maybe not. No one will ever be able to answer that. Regardless of that one recruit, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be at the games, cheering on the guys that did show up and are busting their asses on the court to represent the school

In how many threads are we going to have the same discussion with the same points being raised?

NO ONE knows good or bad how ML will do. WE ALL (at least if you are a GW fan) hope he does well. HE HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE YET TO SHOW US WHAT HE CAN OR CANNOT DO. SAME FOR NERO.

However, MOST OF US know that higher levels of the GW Administration messed this whole thing up. In my opinion most of the anger and disgust emanates from that alone. And unfortunately it is going to cost GW $$$ because people do not understand that athletics is a relationship driven business. People give $$$ because they have a connection to the program. There are plenty of concerned and upset AD/Colonials Club members right now who are wondering whether they have any more connection to the program. If it was up to me, I would be reaching out to each and every one of them and doing everything in my power to keep them in the fold. In fact, I would get ML and Nero in front of them pronto and keep Ramsey, Chernak and Knapp away (because that is where the anger is generally focused). Let Nero and ML make their case for where they see things headed and what support they need/want. They need to form bonds of their own with these folks because at the end of the day these are the loyal to GW people who will help them the most.

 How about summarizing some of the repetitive posts for us, seneca?

Lest anyone thinks Seneca seats speaks for all AD's club -- or even MOST (as he claims, incorrectly in my opinion) -- I just want to say for the record that I am not angry at the administration. In fact, I applaud them.

In an ideal world, Kvancz would have been replaced the day after the season ended and a new coach would have been hired ASAP, but I fully understand why the timing went down the way it did, and I'm not that upset about it.  Heck, if it had happened earlier, we would definitely not have Trey Davis, and now it seems like there's a chance -- meaning the timing might unwittingly wind up being good news for us.

But I actually believe most AD club members are thrilled about the changes and the direction the school is trying to take the program.  In fact, most of the grumbling (not all, MOST) on this board is coming either from students/recent alumni who have a very short-term point of view, or from insiders with close connections either to Hobbs or people close to Hobbs.  I've noticed almost no one on this board who fits neither category that is angry at the Ramsey, Knapp, et al for the way they are going about trying to upgrade the program. 

I don't know? I think GW Athletic's relationship with me may improve.

As they way, who's we white man?!

I do believe that this is what it is all about.

Chicken Little comes to mind.

I am with Free on applauding the school, assuming a plausible (official) explanation on the timing of the filing.   I am likewise very excited about what is happening.  I cannot wait until Fall.

 so you can be still long suffering fan?

Former AD club member...didn't pay up the last couple of years (but still kept my season tickets as I have since I graduated)...considering donating to the AD club next year.  Very exciting about some new blood in Lonergan and especially in Nero and others in the AD's office.  Jack and Dom were very friendly, but have basically been retired on the job for the past 5 years.  In my opinion, the Smith Center renovations happened in spite of the laziness of the Athletic Department.  Time to at least make an attempt to take us to the next level...

I generally do not suffer in the off season.  It is my unrealistic optimism in the off season that causes me the suffering once the season starts.

Seneca- you correctly state that college basketball is largely about connecting with the fan base/funders.  Isn't that precisely one of the reasons Hobbs was fired? 

Nobody is really arguing the timing of this was great (though FQ correctly points out that it might lead to a recruit in T. Davis).  It is just some are terribly upset about it, while others are ready to move on and embrace what is in front of us.  People are still bitter that T. Penders was hired---and paid on the way out.  People are still bitter M. Brey wasn't hired.  People will always be bitter that Hobbs was not fired until later in the game.....but I say we support GW, and move on.  Will there be people that stop supporting the school- probably. Will there be new additions- probably as well.  Let's hope the additions outweigh the subtractions.

There is a new energy and synergy at work in the athletic department that hopefully will tap the vast Colonial alumni base for support.   But I have read and experienced for too many years why alumni have turned their backs on giving to GW.  It always seems to emanate from a feeling that the school didn't show any interest in something or that something occurred, e.g. Hobbs fired, Hobbs courtside antics, Dom and Jack or Ramsey and Chernak did or didn't do something that is given as the reason for the disaffection. I remain highly skeptical...GW supporters seem to always be looking for reasons not to support the school and the teams rather than reasons why they should continue, i.e. it's my alma mater.  We can always find reasons and excuses to turn a deaf ear on the school. It would be nice if GW could get everyone hearing aids, at least until most of the hearing impediments are eradicated.

Well said, FQ, Poog and others.  Count me in as a alumni, donor and supporter of the changes taking place in the basketball program.

Lev, check the clock! You shouldn't be out of the box for another couple of hours, man.

FQ, once again you swung and missed. I said there are "plenty" of upset AD Club/Colonials Club members - I didn't say most or all. But why let words get in the way when you want to start a fight. Your "seneca seats" routine is looking more and more like pure deflection.

Poog, interesting point about looking for reasons. Of course!

The reason people stop going to the games is that, basically, they get tickets and no one wants to come along. So then, you are sitting by yourself. If you have several lousy evenings, you really think about it when the bill comes for the tickets. You ask yourself, is this what happened to my golf game? Too much money and too much time?

In the 5 years since '06, so much has happened to impact our decisions. It really isn't a slam dunk anymore. Many of us sit back and laugh at the thought of spending more than 100 bucks on any entertainment. THere are other obligations as well that mean that an unused seat is a bad idea.

If anything, the AD might want to focus hard on selling single games with promo's--maybe consider mini-packs of games. Of course, the challenge is that these promotions shouldn't cut into the existing season ticket holders.

Basically, there are no easy answers on this. At the end of the day, More information, more video, more access churning up interest will be the best route to building the fan base. Last year, there was a terrible drum beat of blaming the wayword fan for not showing at the same time that it was clear that nothing had changed at the AD. Now, we have change.

2 for 1's could draw my interest right now. Give me an early season OOC game ticket with a purchase of premium league game ticket and an invite to a pre-season event. It isn't the money as much as the loss of time... the pain. Now, you have to get folks back into the seat to see the new Colonial show. As far as tickets are concerned, it's "Let's Make a Deal" time. The school may end up making money on the concessions anyway. What are they giving away? Empty seats. Getting rid of empty seats would also improve the lot of the current season ticket holders.

So, basically, I am willing to be "woo'ed."

seneca, you said there are 'plenty' of AD Club/Coloniasl Club members that are upset about changes. good choice of words 'plenty'. how do you define plenty is it like a lot? or do you mean Good & Plenty?

Seneca Seats, you said, "MOST OF US know that higher levels of the GW Administration messed this whole thing up. In my opinion most of the anger and disgust emanates from that alone. And unfortunately it is going to cost GW $$$..."

i can say that I am not going to renew my seats this year - that's 4 x blue seats and am going to write a letter to the president why I am not going to renew my Luther Rice level gift.  Does that count?  

When Senaca says "most of US.....", the "US" he's referring to is not the the overall GW fandom or even the whole AD club but a small, select group of GW "insiders", friends and supportors of Karl Hobbs.  The "US", Seneca's referring to were not consulted on the changes and felt blindsided by them.  They now lash out in anger. 
 

I guess it sucks when you've bought a bunch of friendships with the old admin and they reset the board.

FQ, try very slowly to read the words. I know it's hard for you because you so very much want them to say something else and you love telling others what they meant. But for the rest of the board and it's right there in black/white - when I said most of us I was referring to those on the board who are complaining. I then said it would cost GW $$$ because I know the identity of several posters who made these comments and know their intentions to pull back support. I then specifically referred to AD Club/Colonials Club members and said in a separate statement that there were "plenty" of AD Club/Colonials Club members who were upset (Newtman "plenty" refers to more than a few but less than a majority but some who have given significant $$$ in the past) Some of those members are also posters on this board who are upset and some are not. It's really not that hard unless of course you choose not to read and sorry if it doesn't fit yours or anyone's narrative here.

But I think the GW administration would be well advised to take your implicit advice FQ - there really aren't that many people who are upset - so let's not address this at all because it is really insignificant. We'll then see if GW feels like they are better or worse off than before and I hope you will personally agree to make up any financial shortfall if they are worse off since you've strongly implied that there is no evidence for any problem.

Since you like political analogies so much FQ, it was sort of like Obama figuring he would just announce that Israel should accept the 1967 borders and then inviting Netanyahu to the White House the day after only to find that Netanyahu had a little public history lesson for the President (i.e we live there and have had to deal with it for years)  which concluded with "everyone knows that's not going to happen". It was one of the most humiliating foreign policy moments for a US President ever to occur in the Oval Office and could have been completely avoided by meeting with the Israelis first and laying the ground work so no one was caught by surprise by his statement (and if the israelis would not agree not to allow Netanyahu to humiliate the President in public by so dramtically demonstrating Obama's lack of understanding about the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). BTW, there is a great story making the rounds (don't know whether it is true or not) that Obama started explaining to Netanyahu at their meeting what he meant when he said "1967 borders" and Netanyahu said "Mr. President, we are prepared to accept the 1967 BC borders without pre-condition."

In any event, the analogy now is that Nero needs to do some damage control (again the damage was not of his making) soon so he doesn't find out that later when he asks certain folks for $$$ for tickets, memberships etc. he doesn't get a history lesson and "everyone knows that's not going to happen."

BM, not too sure what you are referring to about "buying friendships" but if it helps you any in my case, I knew JK, KH, DP well before they ever came to GW and also know ML and Nero. As I've said time and time again - I've got no beef with Nero or ML and plan to continue to support them maybe as much or more as the previous regime. I am giving voice to others (friends) who have stated they will walk away. These are good loyal folks who have supported GW for many years through thick and thin (in some cases more than 20 years). I am hopefully alerting GW to an issue that I believe that they can fix with time. If you, FQ or bobo cared to notice, I did not include myself in the group that needs to be shown some love.

seneca, the only good thing about losing fans when KH quit is there were so few fans to lose. i set next year's average attendance bar at 1,788 the avg attendance for '10-11 season. that's one fair bar...asses in the seats. BTW how many members in the AD Club and Colonials Club?

Notta, curious why in an era of great excitement, you would give up four blue seats and remove a donation to the school.'

If it's about Karl Hobbs, I am sure he was well taken care of. May have gotten even more than his $700,000 annually?

Hate to see anyone leave, including those who were turned off by Hobbs, who hopefully will come back.

Personally, have been subjected to some of the cruelest twists of fates involving both GW as an academic institution and those I watched GW basketball with for a long time, yet still go to every game.

I am probably right there with you Notta. I have supported GW athletics for many, many years at the same level. Unfortunately, I don't  like what I am seeing right now. I can live with KH being gone but I am not pleased with the way in which certain people (who I consider friends) have been treated on their way out. The only way historically to get GW to pay attention is to hit them right in the wallet. That's a damn shame but it might have to be that way.

Oh and one other point for whatever it is worth - FQ and others don't underestimate seneca's feel for all things related to GW athletics or you may do so at your own (GW's) peril. And I'd sure like to hear from Nero and Lonergan as he suggests. Maybe they can change my mind.

 bigfan, it is not about Hobbs.  It's about  the way they stepped on those kids and parents when they knew they were going to fire him and let him walk into their houses wearing GW colors with the apparent authority of being GW when they knew they very well may not honor what he promised - and they knew he was out there.  That is an integrity issue at the top.  It's not a coach issue.  What else are hey willing to shade or lie about, employment stats?  Graduation Stats, median SAT scores, crime on campus?  They will have many other fans and many other donors.  They will not need my money.  You should also know I have told my children to delete the GW college recruit emails and toss the letters they get.  I am not sending any of the three of them to GW until these folks are gone.  Again, not the coach it's the Veep and Co.  

Again, any recruit that did even a little homework about the school they were considering would have known that KH's job was in jeopardy.  Certainly no skin off of Copes back.  His decision was to play where his uncle coached...and he will still do that. 

Saw coach Sutton walking around campus today, he had just picked up his GW Shirts/Jackets and gear.

At least somebody's trying to hit the ground running! 

I want those guys on planes to TX and CA!

 No need to go to CA. Only Texas

 I feel bad for Erik in a lot of ways. Not only was he a pawn in an adult game this entire process, he's now going to a school which he had never visited and really knows little about. Sure his uncle will be there but this process was highly unusual, even for cutthroat college basketball. 

Appreciate the reply.

And in terms of Copes, maybe GMU isn't the best thing for him. It is kind of odd that for such a highly touted recruit, as we always hear, Uncle Roland didn't say, 'well nephew, you really might be better off at Maryland or UConn or Syracuse or Florida or Arizona State'  (just hyptheticals, not saying anything about the coaches).

Seems like he wanted  the kid to go with him as part of a package deal, whether or not it is in Erik's  best interests.

From what we've heard, Roland is like a father to Erik, so I'm guessing it was Erik's decision to follow him wherever he went, not Roland's. You could be right though, it's an interesting situation. At the very least, he should get a ton of minutes at Mason, which might not be the case at another school.

I'd like to applaud Notta and Big Shots for the actions they've decided to undertake.  I have a former classmate who I speak to often about this program and he is constantly asking me to give up my tickets and other financial support.  I am told it is the only way to truly make a statement.  Unfortunately, I'm either too addicted or simply feel like I'd be cutting off my nose.  I have written in great detail about how disgusted I was over how the powers that be would allow KH to make that recruiting trip to Texas knowing full well that KH would be fired shortly thereafter.  Notta sums it up perfectly in this thread.  And yet, the only responses I hear to this are either: a) I think we can all agree that this wasn't handled well or b) this is an ugly business.  Sorry but both of these reactions just aren't enough.  As Seneca states, this has so much to do with how people are treated.  So FQ can think that any negativity at this point can be chalked up to those select few who enjoyed a relationship with KH, but it's so obvious that there is so much more to the story than this.

Poog got it right when he said that people are seemingly always looking for reasons to throw stones.  During the 27-3 season, I was guilty of this with regard to the schedule.  I was often told to relax and enjoy the ride but at the same time, I knew that the lousy OOC schedule was going to cost us with a bad seeding and it certainly did.  And yet, if you would go back and review some of the game threads during that season, you'd read all about how our offense stagnates and why KH substitutes the way he does and how can Marshall take us to overtime and on and on.  Imagine a team winning 26 of 27 games yet being skewered like this.  At least my schedule criticisms had little to do with the team's actual performance. 

The one point I do agree with is that the school needs to be proactive in explaining why it did what it did and that it should be Nero/Lonergan leading this charge.  You really can't argue that Hobbs did not have this ship turned around.  A postseason tournament two seasons ago with a team led largely by freshmen, and a 4th place A10 finish without arguably the team's best player last season.  And, a new recruiting class that looked like it could fill may of the team's deficiencies.  If your concern is that you were afraid KH would have too much success this coming season so that you'd have no choice but to give him a lengthy extension, then you have fired him for personal reasons and there is no getting around that.  So what I'd like to know is how an athletic director who hadn't even officially started his job could fire his coach for personal reasons, or more the point, be instructed by others to fire the coach. 

I think we already got the code words "doing it the right way" in Lonergan's speech as meaning Hobbs was never really forgiven for the Post expose. If that's true, it follows that to prove himself again, he would need to show he could get those results without another blow against GW's acedemic reputation, no excuses allowed, and maybe they would live with his PR shortcomings, and the winning would bring back fans.  The bad timing for recruiting seemst  to me to be secondary, you can argue it would be worse for a freshman to be stuck with a lame duck coach, and have his sophmore year be about learning yet another new system with a new coash. Maybe it was all about having the replacements they wanted in place after the review was complete. I guess the useless what if question I have to waste time with is, if Kromah's injury had been more minor, and the season record was better, what point would the team have had to reach for the administration to extend Hobbs contract? Was there even such a possibiilty?

Ugh, the typing, sorry...

http://deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploads/Kevin-Bacon-All-is-well-remain-calm.jpg

Let it never be said that the Hobbs loyalists don't reflect the man himself.

Hey, by the way, Seneca Seats, your political analogy is perfect because it relies on you willfully misreading Obama, misquoting him, and using hyperbole to manufacture outrage. Kidn of like how you do it here to defend your guy.  All he said was that the negotiation should be based on the 1967 borders (meaning you use that as a starting point and then negotiate land swaps)- the exact same position as the Bush Adminstration -- and a far cry from telling Israel to "accept" the 1967 borders, as you changed it.

I also love how you call it one of the most humiliating foreign policy moments in the oval office (as if anyone cares what that blowhard Netanyahu or the Fox News outrage manufacturers say).  I'm sure it was much more humiliating than the Iraq War, Colin Powell's speech to the UN, Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, etc.  But I'm sure you'll parse and say that you meant most humiliating specifically in the oval office, which is sort of a riduculous meaningless standard and I highly doubt anyway that Obama was really humiliated listening to Netan-yahoo willfully misinterpret the same position America has held for years just beuase of how it plays with his rabid base.   And by the way, I'm an extremely stron g Israel supporter often at odds with my fellow progressives, and I even I think this criticism is just more phony BS by people desperate to spin an anti-Obama narrative regardless of facts. 

Back to GW, I've got news for you and the others threatening to withhold financial support -- not everything is about you and your personal relationships.  Grow up.

No FQ, it's not about me at all.  In fact, I'm really fine.  Now, ask Trey Davis and his family how they are?  If you don't like their answer, just cut them off in mid-sentence and tell them to grow up.  Ask Tony Taylor how he is.  Or ask Dan Guest how he is.  Or any other player who is here first and foremost to play for Coach Hobbs.

Yes, I know, firings happen all of the time.  It's a business.  The kids have to realize this.

Or do they?  They went from being laughable as they learned to play without arguably their best player to a team that went 10-6 in the Atlantic 10.  Don't you think that every player on this team felt that they helped save KH's job?  How could they not have? 

But they didn't because Russ Ramsey couldn't tolerate losing at home to St. Bonaventure for the first time in over 20 years.  It didn't matter that SBU has an NBA player on their team or that they were far from the perennial doormat that they once were.  Once the fickle fraternity boys and sorority girls started filing out after halftime, and face it, they were only there because the game was promoted as Greek Life Day or something to this effect, enough was enough.  But at the end of the day, personal feelings won out and that's why KH lost his job.

From a purely basketball perspective, you could have made a far more compelling case to fire KH after the 2008-09 season.  After this past season, from this same perspective, there wasn't a case to be made.  Mike Lonergan and his staff may very well wind up being a great solution for this program.  But for the time being, maybe you should be directing "grow up" at someone else.

In the words of Letterman (and pretty ironic coming from me), Levinator has "too much free time on his hands."

MV, I think you are the time guy, man.

FQ, your guy Obama messed up and was schooled by Netanyahu right in the Oval Office. Keep up with the amateur spin baby. I'm not spending any more time educating you on the piss poor advice Obama got on this.  Even liberals are criticizing him so you can stop with your Fox News schtick.

As far as people threatening to withhold support for GW what I find amazing now is that all kinds of people threatened that (and did so) during the Hobbs era. Didn't see you having a problem with it then. In fact weren't all the empty seats withholding of support? Now all of a sudden it's all about those folks who believe that Knapp, Ramsey and Levine messed up on several levels. I'm not advocating that these folks withold support - in fact I wish they wouldn't  - but it is completely hypocritical to now suggest that someone shouldn't withhold support because all of a sudden you happen to like what is going on whereas before you did not.

Levinator- again it appears you and FQ are fixated with Blue Seats. Not my problem. But how ironic is it now that you that advocate the Blue Seats position - GW love it or leave it?

 Three things-

1) Obama was not "schooled" by Netanyahu. Netanyahu is an arrogant blowhard who is not being smart trying to mess with the President of the United States. Obama's approval ratings are in a very good place right now and with the freakshow that is the Republican Party he won't lose in 2012.

2) I think this situation sucked as much as anybody and I've said it on this board but I'm not going to weep for the people involved. Karl is getting paid a ton to do nothing this year. Erik is playing for his uncle who's coaching elsewhere and Trey will be playing with a D1 scholarship somewhere in the fall(hopefully here).

3) I think Nero and Chernak put their necks out with this hire so I'm confident that approached the process of hiring a coach in the right way. What is irritating to me is the two people who I believe were responsible for the irresponsible and callous way this process has gone (Levine and Ramsey) are the two who will face the least reprecussions, in Levine's case none, if this whole thing blows up. 

With the exception of your indifference to Hobbs' situation because he is getting paid the last year of his contract, I'm with you on all 3 points, DEA.

I don't get why anybody would support witholding support from the University (or the athletic program) regardless of what was happening, because less money will definitely not lead to a better program--and the reality is, most of the money that will go away will not be THAT significant in the grand scheme of things.  I certainly do not applaud those who are witholding money because they don't like how things were handled.  And I don't applaud anybody who ddi that under the KH era either.  If the people want a good program, the people should support it. 

I do feel bad for T. Davis, but not so much for the current players.  Sure- they might have felt as though they saved the coaches jobp--and there is little doubt in my mind that the program was (and is) on a swing back up.  But I'm not sure that warranted an extension---and as has been reported by LFO, Hobbs requested that extension, and left when it was refused. 

Personaly relationships certainly played a role in this--and there are plenty of people to suffer- but I hardly feel bad fro the players- they came to GW, and should know this can happen.  If they don't want to lose their coach, they shouldn't play college basketball.  They could pick a school that they liked, instead of a coach- kind of like Jonathan Davis reportedly did.

I will stay out of the political part of the discussion, as I don't believe it is appropriate for this board.  But, I am not getting the outrage over the dismissal of KH.  There were good reasons to keep him...but there were good reasons to fire him also.  I would like to think that far more than the St. Bonaventure loss was the cause.  I would think that 4 years without Atlantic City, when coupled with massive fan defections (yes, a 50% drop in attendence does qualify as massive defections) clearly justified a change at the top.  Even during last years successes, I would still argue that the bad losses outnumbered the good wins.  IMHO, the only legitimate point of contention was the timing of the firing, about 6 weeks too late, which I don't understand (but maybe will if an official explanation was given).  But to warrant outrage to the extent that you would quit your support of the program?  I don't get it.

DEA not to get too bogged down in politics but have you already forgotten the 2010 elections? In May of 2009 who was predicting a Republican wave in 2010? I'm thinking that unless Obama can retrieve OBL from the bottom of the sea and shoot him again, that little thing called the economy is going to start another downward trend in those ratings very shortly. 

As for the other points, I do agree with #3 wholeheartedly.

LSF, I think you are missing the genesis of the outrage. It is not so much the fact that KH was dismissed. Reasonable people can disagree on whather it should have happened. It was the timing and the method in which it was done. Plus, the way in which others in the athletic department have been treated. It is a cumulative thing - cold and callous were the words DEA used. I agree that you should not quit the program over it but I don't think it is a completely unwarranted reaction to those who believe in treating people a certain way and respecting their contributions even if it is time to move on. Hell, Penders nearly got a parade when he left here. Hobbs got the "don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out" message. As between those two guys, one guy nearly wrecked this program while the other may have had some recent bad seasons. The difference couldn't be more stark.

Frankly, I too was very troubled by all of this initially and thought of doing the same. But after taking a deep breath, I realized that the show must go on under new leadership and in the end, I want GW basketball to be as successful as possible because I've already spent too much time, money and energy to see it go down the tubes now. Also, I realized that Nero and Lonergan can't be blamed for the manner in which all of this occurred. So why take it out on them? But some will feel aggrieved enough and move on. It happened over Penders, it happened when Jarvis left, so I guess no one should now be that surprised. However, if GW is smart, they will engage in some outreach efforts and maybe a few more will stay in the fold. You will never know unless you try.

 You're off-base, seneca. Stick to what you know, which I understand is what some insiders tell you about GWU basketball. Leave the analysis to FQ, who is right 99% of the time, and whose perspicacity in matters ranging from GWU bball to the Middle East, to water rights in Sub-Sahara Africa, and to the ravaging of the Amazon River Basin is simply unmatched. He's the Eric Sevarid to your Bill O'Nutso, to draw a parallel. Only Herve (who is right 67% of the time, down from his earlier high of 91%, largely because of football-and-track-related impairments), can touch FQ. And Bibi's boldness? How old are you anyway? Being bold in your host's living room has historically been a diplomatic/political attention getter. It's nothing new, but it's simply a cheap shot, because your host is so constrained by etiquette from tossing your ass out the door.

As for politics, 2010 was a local election: actually, 435 local elections, plus what, 34 others? It had nothing to do with the economy, because most voters cannot even spell the word, no less grasp it's concepts. It had everything to do with unfocused rage and anger, a fair amount of which has been spent, what with some of the crazies having come to terms with the changing complexion of our nation, and others having reconciled themselves to missing out on the rapture. The rest of us mature voters want our Medicare, and want our Hoverounds, and want the Hoveround cupholder attachment, for free. And we will vote. We know where to show up, and we will show up on time. 

Meanwhile, read broadly, Folks are figuring out how to rcreate themselves, and make themselves employable in new economies. The world is changing. You knuckleheads who think change is something to be blamed on a President are, well, ignorant. From what you've written over time, (I hate to venture saying this), I think you're too smart to be ignorant. Anybody who enjoys GWU can't be all bad.

So, sit back, have some milk and cookies, and enjoy the evening news. If you don't have a cookie jar, ask FQ about where to get one and how big it should be. And be glad the Laffer Curve is still a joke.Even Dave Stockman says so. 

Of course ziik, good luck with the unfocused rage and anger local angle. It seems to me like independents swing elections and I like how the independents who were apparently sane in 2008 and who deserted Democrats in 2010 suddenly became crazy. Good luck with that and I hope some share your view.  Meanwhile the rest of us will continue to worry about record national debt, spiking gasoline prices, lack of private sector job growth, medicare that will go bankrupt and the like. You know - all those crazy people local issues.

 Worrying about things you can't control is a major human frailty, seneca. We all share it to a greater or lesser extent, but you may want to read up on what the famous Western philosopher Mickey Rivers had to say about worrying.

And don't worry about the national "debt." Some of those big numbers were run up intentionally, in the process of saving the auto industry and our heavy industrial base, and in saving the banking and investment sectors. And they are, after all, just numbers. Don't believe me? That's fine. Read Paul Krugman. He's almost as smart as FQ.

I'm sorry you buy into the medicare/gas prices/private sector job growth hysteria. I have a fair number of hysterical true believers like you among my in-laws. They all are nuts. Thankfully, they've emerged from the 19th century into the early 20th, but there was a time they'd get all worked up about me being a basketball nut. They were afraid it would affect my political leanings. I gather that has not happened yet to you. Too bad.

If your anti-President Obama stuff is something dear to you, I hope you find a right wing candidate who can survive more than a week's worth of scrutiny. 

Now really, enjoy some milk and cookies. They are among the best things in life. 

 Only at GW can a basketball board still be invaded by politics...

DEA says that Nero and Chernak put their necks out on the line with this hire (Lonergan).  I just don't see things that way.  From Nero's standpoint, replacing Hobbs is the much better play in terms of job security, either this year or next.  Hobbs signed a lucerative 5 year contract 4 seasons ago and his teams have generally struggled since then:  25-39 A10 record, 0 wins in the A10 Tournament, average RPI of 170.5 with NO seasons better than 145.  GW likely would have fired him 2 seasons ago but couldn't afford the buyout and was stuck with a coach they didn't want.  So after 4 poor to mediocre season, let's say GW has one good season next year.  What do you do? Sign Hobbs up for another expensive contract extension! 

Nero would really be putting his neck on the line with any contract extension for Hobbs.   Nero had better hope and pray that GW continues to win consistently because, if anything goes wrong and GW starts losing again, Nero looks like a fool.  GW finally escapes under Hobbs burdonsome contract and GW makes the same mistake all over again.  GW is now back in the same situation it was 2 -3 years ago: wanting to get rid of Karl Hobbs but suck with his contract.  Add to this the fact that Nero's bosses clearly have grown tired of Hobbs in the first place.  Not a good situation for Nero and Co to be under and simply not a situation that Nero would likely allow himself to fall.  Chernack, Nero, Levine and Ramsey wanted Hobbs out and that was going to be the endpoint either this off-season or next.

Now that's no reason for Nero not to go kiss some AD Club members butts, as that too is part of his job description. 

 Bobo take a step back and gather some perspective here. For all the people who read any story of the firing the 2nd thing they see is that it was done by an AD who had been announced days earlier. If Lonergan flames out then this will look like the new guy bringing on his boy and he will get heat for it, fair or not. I don't think anyone was saying Hobbs should get extended this offseason, I certainly wasn't. I wanted to see how we did next year because I knew we would be loaded and if we went say 24-8 then an extension would be warranted.(Yes it would be no matter how much you may hate the guy personally which you clearly do based on the constant vitirol you have shown towards him for the past year)

As for the politics Seneca, I will just ask you who do the Repubs plan to run against POTUS in 2012? Newt(the unpopular with everybody multiple time philanderer,)Palin(The divisive quitter Governor who probably would not win Alaska if she ran now), Romney(the guy who invented Obamacare), Pawlenty(the blandest man on the planet). How about Joe the Plumber? Until you have even a halfway viable candidate 2010 doesn't matter because the Presidential election could have been in 2010 and Obama would have smoked any of these clowns. 

In 4 seasons a coach goes 25-39 A10 record, 0 wins in the A10 Tournament, average RPI of 170.5 with NO seasons better than 145 and the only reason you can find for his dismissal is personal hatred?  Really?  Try harder next time, DEA. 

I don't want to go down this road with you but when you cherry pick stats it's infuriating. He took the school to three straight NCAAs and the highest ranking its ever had.  He went 10-6 in conference this past year without his most talented player. To claim that politics were not involved in this firing is asinine. There's nothing anybody can do about it at this point so I don't see why you won't. 

So noting the 10-6 conference record last year but failing to mention the OOC disaster or any of the previous A10 season records since Hobbs' last contract extension is not cherry picking, DEA?  Right. Hobbs was fired for the lack of perfomance on the court since his last extension and for the dreadful attendence in the stands.

Before you overstate lasts years accomplishments too much, remember that we were only 2-7 against top 100 teams.  (We can discuss later why only 9 of the 30 or so games played were against top 100 teams).  We also had losses to Boston U on a neutral court (this was especially embarassing, as we were blown out from the opening tip); Hampton (at home); Wilmington (at home); Navy (at the BB&T, where we barely competed); the aforementioned St. Bonaventure and, of course St. Joes in our one truly meaningful game of the season.  We also struggled mightedly against the likes of Towson at home and Holy Cross at home.  And, don't forget the UAB debacle.  Or the Mason disaster, where we were shut out for the first 5 minutes of each half.  Did we improve last year?  yes. Did we even overachieve in the conference.  Yes.  But in the end, this team did not even get a sniff at an NCAA or NIT bid.   Was there some personal reasons for the firing of KH?  I will take the word of the insiders and say there was.  However, there was clearly on court justification, even after last years successes. 

DEA- Didn't you just cherry pick stats as well?  Looking at the whole picture, hobbs was average.  Some great years with a terrible OOC schedule.  Some bad years with a terrible OOC schedule.  Terrible PR management by the coach through the entire process- the only thing that saved him during the good years was the likeability of that team.  Finally a good year at the end, tarnished by a terrible tournament home game.

  Politics were most definitely involved---but I'm not so sure the decision was the wrong one.  And politics are involved in every decision at every university.  Why this is a big deal is beyond me.

Let's say you're interviewing for a job and your prospective new bosses tell you that you will have responsibility for a new initiative and that they would very much like for this initiative to go a certain way.  Again, you, the prospective new employee get to decide about the initiative but if it goes one way, your new bosses will be very pleased and if it should go a different way, then your new bosses will likely be giving you dirty looks and making your life a bit more unbearable than it otherwise would be.  How would most people handle this situation?

With this in mind, let's not make a case that Nero wanted to fire Hobbs.  He didn't know him.  He hadn't officially begun his position (he still hasn't).  He was told by Levine and Ramsey to do it (perhaps Chernak as well but I believe he had mixed feelings).  If you don't like the word "told", how about "strongly advised"?  Better than "bullied into", correct?

The other point that Lev made is a good one regarding withholding support.  Perhaps maintaining season tickets (which shows direct support of the players and coaches) while withholding athletic department contributions is the right way to go.  Need to give it some thought.

Last point, and I don't mean to speak for Notta but I believe this is where he's coming from, any protest would not be made simply because KH was released but rather because this school allowed KH to enter Trey Davis's home and recruit this player knowing full well that KH would be let go in a matter of weeks if not days.  To involve a family in this manner under these circumstances is inexcusable.  I really hope that Trey remains a Colonial, but to those of you who justify this by saying things like "a player should decide based on the school and not based on the coach (like Jonathan Davis)" do not understand: a) the normal motivating factors in these decisions and b) just how insensitive and inappropriate it was for GW to allow KH to fly to Texas that day.

Most new AD are inclined to bring their own guys in as head coaches.  Hobbs was hired under the previous AD and it's much more likely that Nero would prefer to have his own guy in charge of the basketball team. From their extensive time working together I think it's safe to say Lonergan is Nero's guy.

I do think MV is right that Nero's bosses "strongly advised" him to let Hobbs go.  But that's why it's a much safer move for Nero's own career to let Hobbs go than to sign him to any extension, either this year or next.  If Nero's bosses want Hobbs out, Nero would be truly putting his neck on the line if he would have given Hobbs another 4-5 year extension even after a good season next year.  If Hobbs slips back again, Nero's bosses are not going to be at all happy about either having to live under yet another burdensome Hobbs contract or have to eat the last 2-3 years of another extension. 

If Lonergan screws up, it's not all on Nero because all the powers that be at GW wanted Hobbs out and are now invested in the change of leadership.

MV- I do agree that Trey Davis is the guy on the short end of the stick here (and his family).  He got sold a bill of goods that wasn't delivered, and was sold the bill of  goods at a time when it appears the administration believed Hobbs was on the way out.  The point in saying that maybe students should pick their schools based on...the schools...doesn't mean that I don't understand their motivating factors or the inappropriateness of sending Hobbs to texas.  It means that I believe maybe their motivating factors should change.  For the coach and the university, this is a business.  The players, unfortunately, are the innocent bystanders in that game of business.  There is a possibility that a coach will leave after riding the success of players after a season or two (see Hobbs interviewing for jobs as GW was at its peak).  There is the possibility that the coach will be fired.  To make the decision based largely on the coach, leaves the player not knowing what will happen.  To base a decision on school---now that is something that will generally be constant.  Are there  basketball decisions to consider-of course!  If you hate  a coach and love a school, should you go there- probably not.  But this is no different than what most of us go through.  I went to GW because I liked politics.  I liked the campus at UVA better, but I didn't like the people as much.  I Loved penn state's campus, and it would have been cheaper as an in state tuition---but it didn't have the politics.  I had to balance these things.  

There is no denying this stunk for Davis.  However, I'd also like to again point out that the interview could have gone an entirely different way.  As the interviewee, I'd likely be very prepared for my interview- I'd know the ins and outs of the program, where it had been, where it was currently, and where it appeared to be heading.  I'd probably know the recruits of the basketball team---and maybe some recruits from other sports teams as well.  I'd know who each of the coaches were and the success of each sport.  I would CERTAINLY know the information as it related to the school's "main" sport- basketball.  I'd probably have a gameplan in place to share with my prospective bosses about my vision.  Maybe the administrators asked Nero what his plan was- and his plan included getting rid of hobbs, bringing in Lonergan, and moving forward with the consequences of that decision.  Does this work for GW admin-of course- I don't think there is any denying that they wanted Hobbs out.  but that doesn't necessarily mean Nero was bullied into or strongly advised to fire hobbs- that may have been in his plans as well.  Maybe that's why he was hired- I don't know.  But Nero had a good gig going- if he wasn't comfortable with what was going to take place, he was not obligated to take the GW job.

When it comes to Netanyahu it appear that the scoreboard should read seneca 1 everyone else 0. Not just a Fox News/Republican generated controversy - read below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-join-republicans-in-questioning-obamas-policy-on-israel/2011/05/24/AFkEJpAH_story.html?hpid=z2

Now back to your regularly schedule program debate on Hobbs, Ramsey, Lonergan, Knapp, Chernak, Nero etc.

Sorry, but you are not a very keen observer of news.  That article is a joke (not a surprise coming from a paper with discredited politiical coverage).  It doesn't quote one single Democrat joining the Republican criticism.

I'd actually like to ask our journalists on the board (GWAA, ELJ, Mentz, etc.) how this kind of stuff happens?  How can an entire article be crafted on the premise that Democrats have joined Republican criticism when the article doesn't provide even one single piece of evidence to support the contention? 

The bottom line is that the Fox News/Republican crowd are experts at feigning outrage over nothing. And regardless of whether some Democrats are wussy enough join them on the fainting couch, this case relies on the same kind of intentional misreading, mischaraterizing, and misquoting that frequently reflects Seneca Seats' approach to this board.

My my the lefties get very angry when the facts get in the way. While it doesn't quote one Democrat as directly criticizing Obama it certainly provides examples of strong indirect criticism. From the article ...

"Reid said late Monday night at AIPAC that “no one should set premature parameters about borders, about building or about anything else.” Hoyer said negotiations must begin “without preconditions.” And Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), drew applause Tuesday when he said Israel’s borders “ must be determined by parties on the ground.”

I am sure I can find other statements of elected officials and others who would not be affiliated with either the Republican Party or Fox News elsewhere if you would like.

Also, perhaps you'd like to read Dana Milbank's column (another hard line conservative and frequent critic of the President LOL) as to why Obama's "borders" speech was a blunder...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/into-netanyahus-arms/2011/05/24/AFH6CjAH_story.html?hpid=z1

Face it FQ, your guy made a big mistake, was called on it, and ever since has been backpedaling faster than a cornerback trying to cover Randy Moss. Stop the spinning!

None of those quotes (Reid, Casey, or Hoyer) are criticizing the President, because the President didn't say to do any of those things they are saying don't do.  Those are facts, as is the fact that Obama's positon is the same as Bush's.  The attack on him is pure spin from the selectively manufactured outrage machine. 

As for Milbank, he's an idiot and I could care less what he says.  Go read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his article. if you can't spot the disconnect, then you are not a well-educated news consumer and probably shouldn't be commenting.

Oh really? So all those Dems just decided to take it upon themselves to comment on "air"? Even you can't believe your own bullshit.

I bet you also thought Milbank was an idiot when he regularly blasted Bush.

This is getting really funny now.

To answer your quesations directly: 

1) Yes, really.

2) I have no idea what "air" in quotes is supposed to mean here. That's a very poorly written sentence.  I think the selective outrage machine pushed this front and center, so they answered questions about thier own position.  But that still doesn't mean their position contradicts Obama (it doesn't). If they wanted to criticize Obama, or say they disagreed with him, they could have but once again -- Obama's position is the exact same as Bush's, no matter how you, that blowhard NetanYahoo, or the outrage machine wants to spin it.

3) Yes, i thought Milbank was an idiot back then. He's not very good at facts or nuance, and he's just a mindless mouthpiece for the Beltway elite.

I know we are boring this board, so feel free to respond and have the last word.  Just try to write for clarity, if you can.

hey shit for brains (aka Keen Observer), how'd that NY-26 election go last night? wow, they really loved Ryan's Medicare proposal. liked it so much the Repubs lost a seat they held for decades. that Ryan budget is beyond DOA in the Senate. this may be the first time i agreed with Gingrich....Ryan's propsal is a piece of crap. but don't quote Gingrich he misspoke. he was confused by a direct question. that's quite a field of candidates the reps have.

Newtman first shove it up your ass sideways. Second, I thought you clowns thought 2010 was a "local" election. Now NY-26 is a bellweather "national" election. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA. Besides, when your side quits demagoging on medicare and social security then we can have a serious discussion. In the meantime, you lunatics keep pushing the pedal to floor on the runaway national debt and medicare bankruptcy train and see where it gets us. Ryan at least has a serious proposal whether you like it or not. Your side has nothing.

FQ, I was referring to "air" meaning nothing - you know ... the same thing that resides between your ears when you start talking politics.

Not sure how this thread turned into a political debate.  I'll jump in.  I think both FQ and Seneca are right- how about that.  i think Obama screwed it up.  He SOUNDED as though (based on the words and the tone)he was imploring Israel to return to its 1967 borders, and did not offer any specifics about what the give and take would be.  It didn't sound like a man supporting Israel.  BUT- I think the lack of specificity in saying that they would start with the 1967 borders was the problem.  Maybe I'm justifying, because I'd hope the President isn't changing the stance that every president since 1968 has stood for.  But I think his inclusion of land swaps gives him a little pass.

I don't think Obama is as supportive of Israel as I would like...and this speech didn't help me think differently- but I don't think it is the most embarassing foreign policy debacle--in the white house or otherwise.

Wow - sorry to miss most of the political debate that has been raging..

Putting aside all the name-calling, I just have one question for FQ. What exactly is selective outrage? Isn't all outrage selective based on issues? If I was a supporter of Obama on all issues but this one would I have exercised selective outrage?

More to the point, on this issue Keen Observer seems to have the facts nailed down. Obama has disappointed both allies and opponents with his speech. The reaction you saw in Congress to Netanyahu's speech was more than just a polite crowd and it came from both sides of the aisle. You might claim that no Democrat went on record as directly criticizing Obama's policy speech but on the other hand, why would Netnayahu get such rousing public support following his lecturing of Obama in the Oval Office if there wasn't a clear and umistakeable message being sent by the overwhelming numbers of both parties? Finally, as Keen Observer points out (by mentioning Obama backpedaling) if this was so clear and not perceived as a departure form the past, why did Obama have to spend so much time in his AIPAC speech explaining what he meant?

FQ you are entitled to believe that this is all a concoction of the birthers, tea party members, Fox News and other Obama opponents but I think you are missing the boat that there was something fairly dramtically different about the sound and feel of Obama's speech and people of all different parties and beliefs reacted to it. Perhaps he needs a new speech writer.

 Question for the Repubs on this board. What candidate could give BHO a run for his money in 2012? I honestly can't think of one in the Republican field right now as your best two options(Christie and Daniels) are both not running. Palin/Bachmann 2012!!!

danjsport - the point I was making initially was that Netanyahu's lecturing of Obama in the Oval Office was one of the most embarassing moments not the policy underlying it. Find me another example of a foreign leader publicly lecturing our President in the Oval Office and saying things like "we all know that is not going to happen" in direct response to a policy satement made a day before by a President. And Obama just sat there. And what makes it more embarassing is who rushed to Obama's defense afterwards? The answer is virtually no one in elected office. In fact, Obama might want to turn to this board for help because the most vehement defense (other than Andrea Mitchell) has been posted here by FQ and others.

I love it when people refer to Ryan's budget as a "serious proposal"

It is not a serious proposal in any sense, the numbers don't add up.

*Throws Confetti!!!*

100 posts

Turns on Search Light with Big L and projects it on the clouds over Foggy Bottom.

Alerting the Dark Lord of the Recap