In the end, what matters most is how Fordham performs in games, the quality of the facilities, etc.  But let's not overlook these other subtle points about perception.  The way I see it, if we're not going to promote ourselves and try to change perceptions about how desireable a program Fordham is for a top recruit, who will?  If we're relying and hoping that others will do so for us (either formally in the media or through informal word-of-mouth channels), we need to make sure the information is out there.  Like I said, it's a bit crass, I know.  It doesn't necessarily have to be a single brag page, but it should I think be woven into the information that Fordham publishes somehow.  For example, each player should have a bio page and in cases like Severe, we make sure how he chose Fordham over other offers is mentioned.

I disagree that few are unimpressed with who we beat out for a recruit.  This stuff really does matter to some people.  Look at how stunned the basketball community is to see that Fordham landed Severe.  We're getting mileage out of that.  I agree that the stories from decades ago are now completely irrelevant to the state of the program today, but what we're trying to show with those cases is that landing Severe over big time competitors is not unprecedented.  That was I think the whole reason RB even posted his thread in the first place, and it's a legitimate concern.  On this specific subject we can present ourselves as a troubled program who caught lightning in a bottle once, or as a program with some history of success (spotty though it may be). 

It's really about reminding people about past success but not leaning too heavily on it.  As I said at the top, what matters most is how Fordham performs in games, the quality of the facilities, etc.  No amount of spin can change that.

This is the kind of "brag" info that would be good for Fordham to permanently maintain and make readily available on its website.  I know it seems a bit crass, but anything Fordham can do right now to dispel its stigmas and create a new perception that Fordham is a destination program can only be a good thing.

Glad to see them in the A10.  I know that the A10 is about athletics first and foremost, but it's quite nice to have another academically solid school.  From their press release announcing their joining the A10:

"Davidson is a highly selective independent liberal arts college for 1,920 students located 20 minutes north of Charlotte in Davidson, N.C. Since its establishment in 1837 by Presbyterians, the college has graduated 23 Rhodes Scholars and is consistently regarded as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the country. Through The Davidson Trust, the college became the first liberal arts institution in the nation to replace loans with grants in all financial aid packages, giving all students the opportunity to graduate debt-free. Davidson competes in NCAA athletics at the Division I level, and a longstanding Honor Code is central to student life at the college."

I'm not sure what kind of "control" you're hoping Roach needs to get over Capital Spending for Varsity Athletic Facilities.  He can and I think should be lobbying internally for new facilities, but he will never have control over decisions on this topic, such as to spend or not, or to have a major fundraising drive or not, or to obtain land or site something here or there. 

I would agree that having such new faciities would certainly help the AD achieve more success, but that is a Presidential and BoT decision I don't hold him responsible for in any way.  I'm sure he's in a strange position given that those are the same people who hired him, and this topic must have been brought up somewhere in the hiring discussions.  In other words, you've got to understand no such facilities are coming anytime soon due to other commitments, so you must realistically be prepared to work within those limitations.

I look at whatever happened in the past as being a sunk cost.  We can't change it, and getting upset about it and continuing to blame Frank and those who we think were loyal to him doesn't do us any good at this point.  I'm far less concerned with the people and personalities than I am with the results.  As long as things continue to turn around and we start to see serious, meaningful improvements, I personally don't care who is behind if (lifers, new hires, consultants, etc.).

1.  Win half our games.
2.  Significant improvement on free-throws.
3.  TP shows significant improvemenet in his X-O's coaching.

I'm definitely going down a theoretical rabbithole on this, that's for sure.  But I think everyone's points are made so I'll stop on that.

As for Fordham's academic rep not taking a hit from the TBC and DW recruiting issues, I beg to differ.  Most people wouldn't say Fordham suddenly became a diploma or basketball mill.  But those who for whatever reason were Fordham-haters (MAAC rivals, some in the press) suddenly were handed some good fodder to lambaste us with. 

Remember those good ole' days?  Here's the condensed non-politically correct version: 

Fordham, the National University that was "too good" for the MAAC moves to the academically elite PL, can't compete in hoops after its talent leaves, so moves to the A10.  We then eventually drop our admissions standards way low to get some key players who we otherwise wouldn't dare touch.  All of this while many here (myself included for a while) were saying we are in a better conference and for that reason alone "should" be able to beat all those teams from "lower conferences", that it's embarrassing to lose to them, even though we got mostly beat up by those supposedly inferior but clearly better teams?

Yes Ace, Fordham did take a hit, at least in the eyes of some.  I think Fordham and we on this board have learned our lesson, but that doesn't mean some damage wasn't done.

No, Fordham reputation was taken down a notch with the recruiting screwups we experienced under TBC and DW.  Our Iona and Manhattan rivals certainly took glee in pointing these out, if you'll recall.  We made exceptions, and in the end didn't get much for them.  That's the backstory.  I'm all for flexibility where it makes sense, but I'm also keenly aware of the phrase "Death by exception".

Note that I make a distinction between ideals and practical reality.  I used the term "goal" (not "requirement"), I specifically said "I'm not insisting on academic purity, meaning that the athletes need to be absolutely representative of the student body", and I never said I expect someone to graduate in 4 years.  However, per your comment about the recruiting post-Nick, that whole subject is definitely what set my sensitivity on this subject so high.  We made lots of compromises on academic quality, and in the end it didn't work out.  It has always bothered me when hard-working legitimate students (and families) foot bills for athletes who essentially aren't qualified to be there academically and then fail out.

I totally recognize there are good and legitimate JUCOs and transfers out there.  Note that I never said you can't take them, just that it's not as ideal as getting the vast majority of your recruits the traditional way.

What set me off on this topic as it pertains to JJ Moore is my perception that there is something strange about this.  How can a kid say he's going to Fordham if he hasn't been granted a release and waiver?  Without the release, Fordham shouldn't be speaking with him.  Did Fordham talk with him?  Without the waiver, he can't get a scholarship.  Then there was the uncertainty of what would qualify as a legitimate family situation (if he's really confident, does that mean it's so bad that it might distract him from his studies and team?).  I guess it all reminded me of all the talk about all the great players who were *THIS* close, but for all those pesky details to be worked out later.  My sense is when you focus mostly on the traditional student who is coming for the right reasons, you mostly don't have these problems.

Does your friend Chris Higgins have a Fordham degree or a Yale degree?

It comes from my concern for Fordham's basketball program and institutional integrity.  I'm one of those people who does notice and care.  It just seems to me very unseemly that a school would pay a scholarship for a transfer kid to play, and then that kid gets his degree from somewhere else.  I already acknowledged that I may be a bit naive and out of step on this, but that's just how I feel.  I didn't know that this is going on at the top schools, but that doesn't necessarily change anything about my feelings on it.  I'm not insisting on academic purity, meaning that the athletes need to be absolutely representative of the student body - just that they be more than mercenaries.

As for my response to 85's objection regarding my goal, I was pointing out that I don't know how you can have some other goal.  If you recruit athletes who are legitimate students and want to be at Fordham, then you have a lot more stability in your program and don't need to deal with a lot of JUCO's and transfers.  If you do too much of the latter you've got a lot more "churn" and you establish yourself as a fallback option for those needing a second chance.  Again, maybe that's how a lot of programs do things.  I have in the back of my mind something a 93 years old Fordham Jesuit (Father Mulqueen) was famous for saying: "If it's worth doing, do it right the first time".

What the hell are you talking about - are you saying we should have something else as our goal?  Do any of these work better for you?

1.  Our goal should be to attract players based solely on their athletic ability, without regard to their ability to handle the academic load or benefit from a Fordham education.  Our graduation rate is not a concern, nor do we care what happens to players when they leave.  We want to be known as a school that uses up kids and spits them out long before they've gotten their degree.

2.  Our goal should be to attract players based solely on their athletic ability, and we're totally okay with them using us for a year or two and then transferring out.  We like to spend our money recruiting players for other schools, we intend to be the National Catholic JUCO.

3.  Our goal should be to attract players without regard to the legitimacy of their academic qualifications  We're willing to invest significant resources recruiting and trying to make eligible kids who other schools have passed on due to suspect transcripts from basketball mills.  We want to be known as the school of last resort for the academically unqualified.

This for me is all about integrity and self-respect of the program. 

I'm willing to make these kinds of concessions in the very short term if it will help to build our program back up to competitiveness and respectability.  But I would hope that if/when Fordham reaches that point that we stop doing this sort of thing, and hopefully sooner rather than later.  The goal should always be to attract athletes who are legitimate students who really want to be at Fordham, not just use Fordham as a waystation or place to get a few credits and then get their degree from somewhere else.  Maybe that's naive, maybe it's not the way things are now.  It just doesn't feel right to me, and I would find it harder to rout for those players whose heart I feel aren't fully committed to Fordham.

Another way of looking at this is:  Look at all the top basketball programs - do you see players tranferring in there and playing for a year or two, but trying to get their degree from the school they transferred from?  If not, then it shows that those schools are where players want to be associated with for the rest of their lives (in the form of a degree and saying they are alumni of those schools).  Why should Fordham as a very respectable university (and its alumni) settle for anything less?

I don't think the study abroad year comparison is a legitimate one here because those schools set up those programs specifically to allow kids to do that.  Also, they charge a lot for those programs.  In this case, if I understand correctly the transfer in would be on a scholarship, which means Fordham is paying for him to be here (and then transfer those credits out).

Not to put too much pressure on Jon Severe, or to diminish the contributions of our other talented players (present and incoming), but it occurs to me that with a name of "Severe" there will be lots of opportunities in the years ahead to create some good puns.  Since it's a Friday and it's so far a slow news day, thought I would start a thread for anyone interested.

I'll start.  We're going to see Jon inflict some "Severe Punishment" on opposing teams...

+1.  This is a perfect example of a positive feedback loop.  A successful game (in terms of playing to a high and respectable level, even if we didn't win that particular game) helps to get us a top recruit, which will help to produce more successful games.  This is why it's so exciting to be a fan of a basketball program, and why it's been so frustrating to be a Fordham fan.

I also agree with JohnG92's comment about Severe being mature.  He turned down a ton of top national programs to come to Fordham and it does make you wonder why.  Beyond the usual stuff about liking the coaching staff and wanting playing time, was it because he wants to be able to see his family somewhat frequently while going to school?  Does he want a school that actually takes academics and moral development seriously?  Does he want to make a huge mark as one of the key players that turned around a troubled program and helped to launch it to a higher level? 

I just read in one of the threads that the last reason was one specifically cited, but IMO any of these would show that the kid does have his head on straight.

Really great news for Fordham basketball.  For the first time in least a year I'm actually feeling optimistic about this program again.  Go Fordham, and welcome Jon Severe!

This article has a "do you still beat your wife", "damned if you do or don't", piling-on sort of feel to it.

Rice's abuses were against adult males, in private practices, over the course of a year or two.  It's highly likely that Rice would behave differently in a single game, with pre-teen girls (one of which is his own), and knowing he's going to be under a harsh post-scandal public microscope.  People do behave differently in different contexts.  It was a non-story story in my opinion.

He really was put in a no-win situation.  If he doesn't get upset (to a reasonable degree) as a coach then he's basically not doing his job.  If he does get upset, then he's a hothead and lapsing back to his abusive ways.  Seems very unfair to me, and definitely like a cheap shot. 

It was perfectly legitimate to discuss Rice's behavior in the context of his team, whether he was wrong, what should be done about it, whether anyone else was to blame, etc.  It's all out there now, the matter thoroughly discussed from every perspective, and we're not likely to learn anything new at this point. 

IMHO this thread has fulfilled its intended purpose and should be closed.

Thanks, this does clarify for me what you were saying.

I agree on the point about public-private behavior, it does tend to raise doubts at the very least.  I don't want to go any farther than that though, since sometimes the doubts are completely unwarranted as some people do behave very differently in public than they do in private.

Your quote suggests a bit of pessimism, that you no longer presume a coach is innocent of abuse unless proven guilty.  It now seems that you think all coaches may or may not be guilty.  Sad.

This is the key distinction which differentiates a criminal "perp" from a guy who just made a mistake.  What Mike did, I think and hope, was all done in the spirit of trying to make his team better.  I believe that his faults were a "crime" of excess competitiveness and not knowing where the limits were.  I do compare him in that respect to Bobby Knight.  Rice and Knight's sins were far different than a coach who abused the kids in their charge for some purely selfish motivation or need to boost their own egos.

Every situation and person is unique.  As for the others, I can't testify as to what they did, if anything, to rehabilitate themselves and their images for purposes of getting back into coaching.

I know it seems counterintuitive, but Mike is now a nationwide celebrity (for the wrong reasons of course).  If he does what I just suggested, he can (eventually) use that to his advantage.  Mike can turn it around, if he's willing to swallow his pride and work harder than he has ever worked.  I said it would be possible to get back on top, but it definitely won't be easy.

Yes we dodged a bullet, and yes Mike Rice is currently radioactive.  However, I do believe he can and will be able to coach again if he wants to.

The truth of the matter is that people can change, and that the public seems to appreciate those who have overcome their demons to become a better person.  Mike is not some hardened criminal who committed some unforgivable and irreparable crime like murder.  He was an otherwise decent person who had anger management issues and some outdated concepts of what is acceptable and normal behavior for a head coach.  Those can all be worked on and overcome.  

I believe that if Mike Rice avoids the spotlight (insofar as that's possible given the inevitability of subpoenas to testify in a Murdock case) and takes some time away from coaching to work on his issues, he can definitely get back on the coaching track.  In order to be given a chance however, he'll need to also work on the public image.  If I were his PR consultant, I would strongly urge him to (when the time is right) stridently reject his past as a bully-coach and to become a lead advocate for opposition to bullying and calling for reform in the coaching profession.  I'm talking heartfelt articles, interviews, speeches, etc.  Talk about how far he's come, how he can't believe he was that person, the effect the whole affair had on him and his family, even get sappy at times, etc.  

Do all of that, and even his harshest critics would have no choice but to accept him back (however begrudgingly) since he would be singing from their song sheet.  Rice would go from being the coach you wouldn't want to hire, to the coach you would want looking out for your kids.

Having said all of that, that's the easy part IMHO.  The harder part is to also get the opportunity to show that he's still the guy who helped RMU succeed, rather than the guy who wasn't able to do much at Rutgers, and that he hasn't gotten rusty by being away from the game for so long that he has lost whatever edge he had.  This is where he'll really need some friends to take a gamble on hiring him again, in any capacity.

+1.  There's been absolutely no indication or reason to believe that there is such an issue, so no need to create rumors based on speculations.

I think you have it backwards.  Rice really should have been fired back in December.  Reasonable people can disagree on whether Pernetti should be fired (for not protecting the students and Rutgers) or just severely sanctioned (which takes into account the otherwise good job he was doing).

Unfortunate but true.  The most important thing is that Mike already came out with a very public, sincere apology, so there's no reason for the media to dwell on this.  We'll know within the next few days whether Pernetti will or won't be held accountable for his decision, and Rice may have to testify in one or more Murdock court cases, but other than those two unresolved items this is already yesterday's news.

I applaud Frank for his remarks.  That was the appropriate, professional, and charitable thing to do.

It would be the Christian thing to do, but I agree it would never happen for at least three reasons:
1.  Fordham as an institution passed on him once, no way would they want to create any further association at this point in time.  He's radioactive at the moment.
2.  Pecora does not need any more distractions to our program, even though it would make him look magnanimous in the process and fill that critical gap we all know is there.
3.  Rice may be a thoroughly humbled man, but I hope he's got some pride.  If he had any other option I think he would go somewhere else first before serving under the guy who got the job over him, and without even the courtesy of an interview. Also, I'd think there would be some reluctance to going back to square one, especially considering Fordham is now less competitive than when he was here the first time.

This whole question is really academic since he's going to have to "wander in the wilderness" for a while before he could even think of getting back into coaching.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe PhillyNY when he says the elements of criminality are there.  However, I think Mike won't have anything to worry about in this respect.  He's been outed and fired.  He's made a sincere public apology, is already in anger management, and I'm sure in the days ahead will make other gestures to show he's sorry and trying to make amends.  Most importantly, nobody appears to have been injured physically, and those who were disturbed by Mike's antics have the vindication of the public shaming he is going through.  As a political matter I think any DA who tries to bring charges would be met with public condemnation for wasting tax dollars in an attempt to pile on to a publicity-driven bandwagon.  Same thing for any politician who pushes the issue much further (save for calling for Pernetti to resign by year end).

I think your point about the inherent physicality context is a good one but even here there are some industry "standards" and references to NCAA regs that I'm sure would trump those at some point, if for no other reason than the sheer number of incidents and Mike's own hostile words.  However, as I said above I think that this whole point is moot for other reasons that are inherently political.

Agreed on both of these counts.  However, now that he has been nationally outed and publicly fired, and has already given a sincere mea culpa for the cameras, I think the worst of the bad publicity is now behind Mike.  Whoever here said that at least he didn't give one of those non-apology apologies hit it right on the head and I believe the sincerity of that will not be lost on the public.  Mike is now yesterday's news.  What still lies unresolved though is the fate of the Rutgers AD, and the whole Murdock story.  Rutgers claimed there's new info that they didn't have when they made the decision to suspend, so it will be interesting to find out whether that was in any way true.  Murdock chose to go on camera for that ESPN interview and to file a lawsuit, so he essentially made himself fair game.

I hope that Mike's family holds together and helps each other through this.  I suspect that Mike and his wife were probably living in fear of this moment for the past six months so it may paradoxically be a relief in some way, but certainly not a surprise (save for the degree of coverage and animosity the story generated).  For what its worth, I really believe that Mike will emerge stronger and a much better person.  I'm sure he'll do everything he can to turn his life around, and now is when his friends in the coaching community will be able to help him.  They owe him that I think.  It's a shame that it came to this though.

Actually, yes, (potentially) fatal, seriously.

I recently talked with an engineer who did some contract research for a sports helmet manufacturer.  Learned just how fragile the brain really is, and how little it actually takes to cause some damage.  Fundamentally it's a problem of force and sudden accelerations and decelerations stressing some very delicate tissue in all the wrong ways, from compressions to tearing of blood vessels and nerves.  Based on what I heard, I would imagine a basketball thrown with sufficient force could easily do some serious damage if it hit the head just so.

BTW, I was told in no uncertain terms that I shouldn't let my kids play football or soccer - ever.  There's a reason why we now regard concussions as much more serious than even just a few years ago.  The days of looking at a concussion as something to be shaken off are long gone, or should be.

I can't speak for anyone else here, but I personally am not revelling in Rice's misfortune.  In fact, the whole incident pains me.  I knew Mike Rice, liked him and had a lot of respect for him.  I was really happy for him and Fordham to have an alumnus coaching in the top ranks of college basketball.

Your comment about recognizing human frailty and the ability to seek redemption being important is gratuitous and sanctimonious itself.  Rice physically and verbally abused students who trusted him and were dependent upon him.  His transgressions were not fatal, but they could have been.  As others have said, he's most fortunate that nothing more serious happened.  Imagine what kind of conversation we would be having if his physical abuse resulted in an actual injury (such as a concussion or brain bleed), or a player with his own mental issues acted out in the form of committing a crime or suicide.  This stuff happens which is why we have laws and rules about how people should behave, especially towards those who are in dependent positions.  He needed to be held accountable when the incident was first brought to light.  Note that by accountable I only mean fired, not treated like a sex offender, or sentenced to death, or to eternal damnation. 

I'm glad that Rice was in the process of voluntarily changing his ways and that he was man enough to take responsibility for his actions.  I respect that.  However, he needed to make those changes two years ago on his own volition, not when threatened with job loss, not when involuntarily outed.  Rice's mea culpa now comes just a bit too late to matter here, but if he's sincere it can mark the beginning of a new day for him.  As much as we respect people who do things right the first time, we seem to respect more the people who've been brought low and have struggled back to the top again.  I do hope Mike Rice continues on a productive course and makes amends to those he's hurt.  I really think there is hope for him and a real chance to make it back again.  I personally will be routing for him, again.