Our blessing is our curse

[beast of the east]

The problem with playing additional games on campus is we are stuck with a 5600 capacity, cramped, uncomfortable sweatbox, with few amenities. Had the administration torn down Alumni Hall and built a modern, comfortable 7500 capacity venue, we could have played the majority of games there, using the garden only when crowds of 12-20 thousand could be anticipated. Had Father Harrington not alienated the alum, Riley, who was reportedly going to donate 20 million toward athletics, we might have been able to have had Taffner and a new arena. When I see the campus arenas that schools such as; St. Louis, Xavier. Dayton, Butler and Richmond are playing their games in, it is unacceptable that STJ, with all the Big East money, is forced to play in a decidedly inferior venue.

Riley committed $20 mill that was earmarked for the Field House which was a $16 mill project. and which was picked up by the Taffners after Riley took his Doh-boy and went crying home. Nothing was ever committed for anything more than minor renovations to Carnesecca which is what I guess the other $4 mill was for, though the final budget for the recent renovations actually ended up at $5million.

You are correct that Riley's donation was contingent upon the hiring of Doherty. I believe that Doherty was the choice of the selection commitee. We ended up with Norm and no donation. As far as not getting a new arena, if both Taffner and Riley had donated, we might have been able to replace, rather than try to rehab, a 50 year old structure.

you are dead wrong that Riley's pledge had any contingencies to it. He pledged a large sum - I believe the number was $5 million, for a fieldhouse with practice facilities and student use facilities. He was then made head of the search committee, and felt that he did his job as stated, only to have FH embarrass him by hiring someone else. So he justifiably got angry, and pulled his pledge.

Actually, both Taffner and Riley donated millions to the University. I wish we'd stop ripping the guy on this board. Even after pulling his pledge, he still is one of our most generous donors in SJU history. Besides donating millions, he also estbalished intenrships and jobs for SJU students at Goldman Sachs. And no, he's not a friend of mine.

What we have at St. Johns is one of the worst alumni bases in the country in terms of percentgae of alumni who donate to the University. More than 80% of our alumni do not donate, and that number was under 4% when FH arrived on campus. Now imagine the type of arena we could build if even 60% of our alumni donated regularly. It's always easy to make excuses why you personally can't and why someone else should. Not a personal shot at you, but is a shot at all alumni who complain about our facilities yet never have donated a dime. And, no, buying season tickets isn't a donation - we are receiving something in return (tickets) for sending the school money. That doesn't build arenas - generous alumni - all of us - do.

First, no one is ripping Riley or any other donor. Also, Riley and Doherty were friends. Riley headed up the commitee that chose Doherty, although I recall one member preferred Bobby Gonzalez. In any event. Harrington and Louie interviewed Roberts and hired him, which completely undermined the search group and Riley, so the pledge withdrawal was directly related to Doherty not getting the position. Terrible way of conducting business. My initial comment came from watching games recently played at Butler, Richmond, St. Louis and Xavier, who will all be joining our new conference, and thinking how great the atmosphere looked on television.
I agree the donations from alums are very low, but the fault shouldn't be all on them. They obviously don't feel much affiliation with their alma mater, and some of the blame for that falls on the school.

First of all, you said his donation was contingent upon Doherty getting hired, which is not even close to the truth. A contingent donation would have been proferred by telling the school you would only donate X amount in return for hiring Y. That did not happen. I just wanted to point out that even without the Taffner Center (formerly to be the Riley Center) donation, the Riley family had donated large sums to the university and helped in other ways.

I do agree with your point about the school being somewhat responsible for low alumni donations, but at some point in your life, you have to be thankful for the extremely low cost Vincentian education that we received and direct some of your charitable donations towards the school. Without donations, no alumni has any reasonable right to be critical of the school offering second rate facilities, or second rate education for that matter.

While I should have said related rather than contingent, was is it not logical and reasonable to conclude that if Riley's choice had gotten the job, the large pledge to the athletic dept. would not have been withdrawn? Was there another reason? Were you privy to inside info? My comments were based on my recollection of the times, mostly from what I read on this site. The coach was going to be either Doherty or Roberts. One failed and the other probably would have, but with Doherty we might have had the start-up money for a new campus arena.
Lastly, you seem to think that only certain alumni should be permitted to comment on the state of affairs re stj, and only if they donate money. Well, how much does one have to give? I know of a number of alums who have stopped donating and won't even go to a game anymore, in part, because of the way Harrington and others have run things. They are past being critical - they've become indifferent. You can agree or disagree with whatever or whoever you wish, but give the pontificating a rest.

I never said the two events (NR's hire and the pulling of the pledge) were unrelated. What I said is that you were dead wrong to claim the pledge was contingent upon FH hiring whom Riley wanted - that's quite a different allegation.

My point regarding Riley is clear - they guy is not only in the 18% that donate, but one of the largest and most generous donors. Many people on this board simply repeat stuff they've read here years ago and it just bangs around without the positive things he had done for the university ever brought up. We treat Repole like a savior, but never mention guys like Belson, or another donor who dropped $10 million on the school as a Christmas gift a few years ago. Not that Repole shouldn't be thanked for being so generous, but any of us who have gone to SJU should be thankful for all the people who donate so generously.


In term of alumni not going to games anymore, let's be honest - it was due to two factors combined - losing their great seats when we went to a point system and created a student section, and the teams dismal record. If we were a top 20 program throughout the re-seating, most alumni would have changed their seats and still come to games. Can you name one thing that harrington has done other than hire Roberts that upset you so much? From all accounts, he has brought in enormous amounts of money into the University, and upgraded the campus enormously. Of course, the whole Chang thing is an enormous black eye, and the recent article is a brand new revelation.

Frankly the annoying thing to me is that alumni on this board who complain that we should have a new arena always seem to infer that someone else should be paying for it, you know, those rich people who should act based on our whims. They complain about the schlock remake of CA, but if the university had to rely on the complainers donations to renovate CA, we'd still have folding wooden bleachers, no student sections, no seatbacks, and no new scoreboard.

 

[Las Vegan]

This is getting tiresome, so this is my last post on this subject. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me on Harrington or anything else, but you seem compelled to lecture me and others on who is qualified to post an opinion on this site. Most of us are alums, others fans of the school's teams, and that is all that is required to render an opinion. We don't need your approval. You question what I have against the sainted Fr. Harrington, yet you excoriated him repeatedly regarding the latest school scandal. You are just being argumentative and pedantic, and you misrepresent the positions with those you contend with. I still care about St. John's, but I've seen the lack of accountability that permeates the school, both as a student and as an employee. I don't question your right to have an opinion. Don't question mine.

 

[beast of the east]

This is getting tiresome, so this is my last post on this subject. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me on Harrington or anything else, but you seem compelled to lecture me and others on who is qualified to post an opinion on this site. Most of us are alums, others fans of the school's teams, and that is all that is required to render an opinion. We don't need your approval. You question what I have against the sainted Fr. Harrington, yet you excoriated him repeatedly regarding the latest school scandal. You are just being argumentative and pedantic, and you misrepresent the positions with those you contend with. I still care about St. John's, but I've seen the lack of accountability that permeates the school, both as a student and as an employee. I don't question your right to have an opinion. Don't question mine.

Look, i really don't pay attention to your posts, and wasn't personally attacking you as you have done in your past three posts. You made an incorrect assertion as if you know something regarding Rileys pledge being contingent, and when I corrected your lack of knowledge, you claimed semantics and went off on a rant. I have never defended Harrington except the fact that he vastly improved the campus plant, which despite everything, he has. you have a right to post opinion and factual insights that you have, but if you insist on posting historically inaccurate material defaming other alumni, prepared to be called on it. You calim I am misreprenting your position, but was it not you who claimed that Riley made a pledge contingent upon hiring the coach of his choice? Ridiculous and idiotic assertion. He made the pledge, and because of his interest in the program and presumably his reputation as a ranking executive at Goldman Sachs was asked to head up the search committee. When he felt he was tasked to do a job and subsequently embarrassed by Harrington, he blew up, and pulled his pledge. Not contingent, but you seem incapable of grasping that.

If you don't want to be called on bs posts, then don't post bs.

So, please take your meds and bother someone else.

 

[Las Vegan]

This is getting tiresome, so this is my last post on this subject. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me on Harrington or anything else, but you seem compelled to lecture me and others on who is qualified to post an opinion on this site. Most of us are alums, others fans of the school's teams, and that is all that is required to render an opinion. We don't need your approval. You question what I have against the sainted Fr. Harrington, yet you excoriated him repeatedly regarding the latest school scandal. You are just being argumentative and pedantic, and you misrepresent the positions with those you contend with. I still care about St. John's, but I've seen the lack of accountability that permeates the school, both as a student and as an employee. I don't question your right to have an opinion. Don't question mine.

Look, i really don't pay attention to your posts, and wasn't personally attacking you as you have done in your past three posts. You made an incorrect assertion as if you know something regarding Rileys pledge being contingent, and when I corrected your lack of knowledge, you claimed semantics and went off on a rant. I have never defended Harrington except the fact that he vastly improved the campus plant, which despite everything, he has. you have a right to post opinion and factual insights that you have, but if you insist on posting historically inaccurate material defaming other alumni, prepared to be called on it. You calim I am misreprenting your position, but was it not you who claimed that Riley made a pledge contingent upon hiring the coach of his choice? Ridiculous and idiotic assertion. He made the pledge, and because of his interest in the program and presumably his reputation as a ranking executive at Goldman Sachs was asked to head up the search committee. When he felt he was tasked to do a job and subsequently embarrassed by Harrington, he blew up, and pulled his pledge. Not contingent, but you seem incapable of grasping that.

If you don't want to be called on bs posts, then don't post bs.

So, please take your meds and bother someone else.

Quite the hissy fit. Hope it's nothing I said. Get well soon, pal.

 

[beast of the east]

This is getting tiresome, so this is my last post on this subject. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me on Harrington or anything else, but you seem compelled to lecture me and others on who is qualified to post an opinion on this site. Most of us are alums, others fans of the school's teams, and that is all that is required to render an opinion. We don't need your approval. You question what I have against the sainted Fr. Harrington, yet you excoriated him repeatedly regarding the latest school scandal. You are just being argumentative and pedantic, and you misrepresent the positions with those you contend with. I still care about St. John's, but I've seen the lack of accountability that permeates the school, both as a student and as an employee. I don't question your right to have an opinion. Don't question mine.

Look, i really don't pay attention to your posts, and wasn't personally attacking you as you have done in your past three posts. You made an incorrect assertion as if you know something regarding Rileys pledge being contingent, and when I corrected your lack of knowledge, you claimed semantics and went off on a rant. I have never defended Harrington except the fact that he vastly improved the campus plant, which despite everything, he has. you have a right to post opinion and factual insights that you have, but if you insist on posting historically inaccurate material defaming other alumni, prepared to be called on it. You calim I am misreprenting your position, but was it not you who claimed that Riley made a pledge contingent upon hiring the coach of his choice? Ridiculous and idiotic assertion. He made the pledge, and because of his interest in the program and presumably his reputation as a ranking executive at Goldman Sachs was asked to head up the search committee. When he felt he was tasked to do a job and subsequently embarrassed by Harrington, he blew up, and pulled his pledge. Not contingent, but you seem incapable of grasping that.

If you don't want to be called on bs posts, then don't post bs.

So, please take your meds and bother someone else.

Quite the hissy fit. Hope it's nothing I said. Get well soon, pal.

Not angry at all. Just i'd advise next time you post something that defames someone, it should be accurate and original, and not regurgitated distortion. Now go hit the nickel slots.

 

[Las Vegan]

This is getting tiresome, so this is my last post on this subject. I couldn't care less if you disagree with me on Harrington or anything else, but you seem compelled to lecture me and others on who is qualified to post an opinion on this site. Most of us are alums, others fans of the school's teams, and that is all that is required to render an opinion. We don't need your approval. You question what I have against the sainted Fr. Harrington, yet you excoriated him repeatedly regarding the latest school scandal. You are just being argumentative and pedantic, and you misrepresent the positions with those you contend with. I still care about St. John's, but I've seen the lack of accountability that permeates the school, both as a student and as an employee. I don't question your right to have an opinion. Don't question mine.

Look, i really don't pay attention to your posts, and wasn't personally attacking you as you have done in your past three posts. You made an incorrect assertion as if you know something regarding Rileys pledge being contingent, and when I corrected your lack of knowledge, you claimed semantics and went off on a rant. I have never defended Harrington except the fact that he vastly improved the campus plant, which despite everything, he has. you have a right to post opinion and factual insights that you have, but if you insist on posting historically inaccurate material defaming other alumni, prepared to be called on it. You calim I am misreprenting your position, but was it not you who claimed that Riley made a pledge contingent upon hiring the coach of his choice? Ridiculous and idiotic assertion. He made the pledge, and because of his interest in the program and presumably his reputation as a ranking executive at Goldman Sachs was asked to head up the search committee. When he felt he was tasked to do a job and subsequently embarrassed by Harrington, he blew up, and pulled his pledge. Not contingent, but you seem incapable of grasping that.

If you don't want to be called on bs posts, then don't post bs.

So, please take your meds and bother someone else.

Quite the hissy fit. Hope it's nothing I said. Get well soon, pal.

Not angry at all. Just i'd advise next time you post something that defames someone, it should be accurate and original, and not regurgitated distortion. Now go hit the nickel slots.

I will attempt to end this on a more congenial note, although the temptation for sarcasm is strong, and would be easy. I never defamed anyone. I was just lamenting how inferior our campus court was in comparison with the new conference members. I think Riley was absolutely correct in withdrawing his pledge. I thought I was clear on that. The parties at fault were Harrington and Louie. A similar situation took place at Uconn, about two years ago, when an alum had pledged about seven million, but did not want the new football coach to be Paul Pasqualoni. The AD went ahead and hired him, ant the pledge was withdrawn, or if already paid, the donor wanted it returned. This is going on throughout college sports. The big donors want a say in the firing and hiring. Three years ago, at stj, Mike Repole went to Florida to interview Billy Donovan re his interest in our job. It's not just that money talks, it's the belief, I think, that the donors feel they can do a better job in choosing the coach. Without Repole, we probably would have ended up with a Paul Hewitt , who was offerred and declined, or an Al Skinner. The quality coaches cost and the donors are in play. In the big football schools, it's more of a factor. A USC alum, retired in Nevada, told me after USC poor season that Kiffin would be lucky to make it through next season. Big donor alums would buy him out.
Lastly, I think this new conference will be very successful competitively and financially, and not having Syracuse or Uconn fans at the conference tourney will be an unintended benefit. A new site, Holy Land Hoops, is a good place for info re the new schools. They did a thread re the relative academic strenght of all the schools, via the US News listing. The bottom three were Seton Hall, De Paul. and STJ, but considered as a group, the conf. is very competitve with the other major conferences.
This concludes my commentary.