[ 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):
| Monday, May 11, 02:53:30am |
[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search |
Check update time
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]
|
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 22:10:14 07/06/04 Tue
Author: nyc '73
Subject: Re: Fingleton Gone
In reply to:
Crabcakes
's message, "Fingleton Gone" on 12:10:02 06/30/04 Wed
What about his schollie $$$ -- who's responsible?
Where's the accountability?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[> [>
Before we jump Fingleton for the $120K HC spent... -- HC1843, 13:28:19 07/07/04 Wed
how about you go after some better "game". Maybe you can explain the vast amount of $$$$$$ that has been spent on ten bad years of football at the Cross. I'll take the 120k bet on Fingleton vs. the 20 million that the Cross has had to spend on red ink for football.
The kid didn't work out, but by all accounts he was not a bad kid.
He has moved on and so should we. And if we're going to release the hounds on the HC admin, make sure the game is suitable to hunt.
No more cliches for a while...I promise.
Cheers.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Before we jump Fingleton for the $120K HC spent... -- sader1970, 13:49:43 07/07/04 Wed
1843, you are right on the mark as far as I'm concerned. And as MH indicated above, we HAD to take Neil. He probably wasn't considered much of a gamble being 7' 6" (warning, cliche ahead: "you can't teach height"), a McDonald's All American (how many has HC gotten of those over the years?) and a kid that was a local high school legend. This doesn't even consider the kid was obviously bright enough to make the grade academically at HC and would help fill the Hart Center.
As for football, I can't begin to tell you how happy I am with Coach Gilmore. I have been unhappy with the direction of the football program for some time and felt a change should have been made, conservatively, 5 years ago. I know, it's better "never late" but it's still better "late than never."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Before we jump Fingleton for the $120K HC spent... -- TS1970, 15:55:22 07/07/04 Wed
"...the kid was obviously bright enough to make the grade academically at HC and would help fill the Hart Center."
I also heartily agree accepting Neil was the correct move at the time and certainly worth the small risk HC took in offering him an athletic scholarship. No one really had a crystal ball to predict that he would continue to be plagued with chronic injury and back problems. As stated above by Sader1970, Neil was also "bright enough..." that I am sure many believed he could be instructed to learn and acquire the basketball skills needed to play in the PL for HC. Of course, at 7' 6" and 300 pounds, had he learned to consistently execute those athletic skills, he could have conceivably dominated the PL (ala Josh Sankes) for two and a half years. So for these reasons and the reasons expressed by others here, I say yes, it was worth it to give a shot to the tallest player in HC history and, I believe at the time, the tallest in the nation. I think it was really a no brainer under the circumstances. However, unfortunately again, the HC BB program was hit with some bad luck and disappointment with regard to Neil's progress and his health so things just did not work out the way we all had hoped. So now we move on and so does the big fella Neil, Class of 2004.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Fingleton scollie issue -- Rick, 14:35:53 07/07/04 Wed
nyc -
I'm not sure I understand your question on 'accountability' with Neil's athletic scholarship. I'm assuming your saying HC/Willard should not have accepted him into the program as a transfer, yes ?
1843 -
" I'll take the 120k bet on Fingleton "
Athletic scholarships are annually renewed. AIR, Neil was with the team for 2 years, correct ? At roughly $35,000 per, isn't that around $70,000 that Neil received ?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Fingleton scollie issue -- Wasn't this addressed before....?, 17:15:31 07/07/04 Wed
This board rumored that HC admin was NOT going to renew Neil's schollie with only 2 courses left to graduate. Any truth to this? Does this even make sense?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Fingleton scollie issue -- sader1970, 17:57:45 07/07/04 Wed
Since Neil took his two remaining courses over this summer and is supposed to be gone already, there would be no reason to renew a scholarship for a student who no longer attends the college. I think it was previously posted that this is no longer an issue, only whether HC would use this extra scholarship this coming year. However, my recollection was that reliable sources indicated that there was no one that warranted getting a scholarship so it would be going unused.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
