[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 123456[7]8910 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thursday, July 17, 12:58:42pm
Author: Peacock
Subject: Re: Question for Peacock
In reply to: SPC Alum 's message, "Question for Peacock" on Thursday, July 17, 12:19:47pm

As you well know, the program is dirty at Binghamton. You also know the load Sowell was and I doubt you would have handled him or developed him either.

Now also if you read my post, I agree with the results which I have voiced displeasure with, but the issue here was Sutton. Would he develop here more so than at Binghamton. Yes I do and if you don't, voice your reason why. If he did not, then that would have been a another nail in Dunne's coffin. In fact if he contributed to a rise at SPC, he would garner press which would help him, for even the unknowns of JC get noticed when successful. Now you may have an opinion, I would like to know how this quote from NYHOOPS 6/20 from Anderson sits with you,

"The Kangaroos assistant coach Elmer Anderson stated the senior chose to play with the St. Peter's Peacocks in New Jersey because it was close to home and because he would get playing time as a freshman." Now Binghamton is a nightmare drive for his parents. He liked the campus which he visited right after he visited us and even announced his commitment 6/20 in NYHOOPS (11 days after his SPC visit, although he committed the day of his visit) to SPC after the visit to Binghamton. What happened after that, that changed his mind. Doesn't fit in with your logic. Fits more with the advisor pushing him and his parents that way. Hell he did well at the Elite and could have gotten higher pursuits. Why the commitment. My main point is Dunne has a lot to be held responsible for, but not the fiasco of Sutton. And not anything to do with the defections of the last two years. Much like the murder of a Brooklyn kid at Binghamton did not detered him either.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


[> Re: Question for Peacock -- oldtimer#1, Thursday, July 17, 01:33:13pm [1]

Just to add, a major reason stated by both Conley and Sutton for initially choosing SPC was based on talking to and relating to current players. Conley was especially vocal in this. As Alum correctly stated "players talk among themselves" If then the logic of Alum is to be followed the current players should have bad mouthed the staff and discouraged the above players from coming here right off the bat. Apparently, the feedback from current players was positive. Conley was directly quoted as such and Sutton verbaled on his visit, after speaking with our players but before "others" got involved.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.