BC AD Appologizing for quotes in Globe article

[Scalito]

He mentioned depositions. It is possible that in the course of the lawsuit and discovery, Blumenthal and other CT people personally accused DeFillippo of certain things, beyond what shows up in the pleadings. Who knows?

No one knows for sure, and that is the point that I respectfully suggest upstater is missing when he dismisses reports of personal grudges. We don't know what comments made it to DeFillipo's inbox, what comments stung his pride the most, or what exactly motivates his self image. Maybe comments from Pitt and Cuse were discounted because they weren't repeated often in circles he cared to travel in? I don't know. But I do know that not all criticism is equal to most people. The source and likely audience matter.

 

[Uptop]

As for Businesslawyer and others who posited that these guys would lie under oath, I think we have our answer. If they were the type willing to lie under oath, they would never have done something as ridiculous as issue a retraction which only serves to draw more attention to the original statement.

The coverup is worst than the crime.

 

[Stinger92860]

http://novafacts.blogspot.com/2011/...tOnVillanovaSports+(Fact+on+Villanova+Sports)

 

[Stinger92860]

No one knows for sure, and that is the point that I respectfully suggest upstater is missing when he dismisses reports of personal grudges. We don't know what comments made it to DeFillipo's inbox, what comments stung his pride the most, or what exactly motivates his self image. Maybe comments from Pitt and Cuse were discounted because they weren't repeated often in circles he cared to travel in? I don't know. But I do know that not all criticism is equal to most people. The source and likely audience matter.

I would love access to all the emails.

 

[Scalito]

I would love access to all the emails.

Alas, BC is a private institution so only Congress or a litigant will gain access to them. Same goes for the ACC. Neither are subject to state FOIA laws. Of course, emails in the possession of the member state schools likely could be requested by any underworked and overzealous Boneyard member....

 

[upstater]

These things are not mutually exclusive. Human beings, even university administrators, are influenced by more than one factor. It is easier to convince yourself that regional rivalries would hurt your institution if you hold a grudge against the potential rivals. I have been involved in enough litigation disputes and related settlement talks to know that emotions are more important than you seem to think when the potential monetary benefits of settlement are uncertain.

I'm saying the grudge they hold would apply to schools they just admitted as well.

 

[upstater]

No one knows for sure, and that is the point that I respectfully suggest upstater is missing when he dismisses reports of personal grudges. We don't know what comments made it to DeFillipo's inbox, what comments stung his pride the most, or what exactly motivates his self image. Maybe comments from Pitt and Cuse were discounted because they weren't repeated often in circles he cared to travel in? I don't know. But I do know that not all criticism is equal to most people. The source and likely audience matter.

I can't imagine what would be uglier than being called a "liar" by a Cuse Trustee at an academic function in front of your academic peers.

 

[sportsart]

Do you get the feeling that shredders and email delete buttons are going crazy right now at ACC schools and ESPN?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Here's the text of his letter, courtesy Rick Green of the Hartford Courant:

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to apologize for any negative effects caused by my recent interview with a Boston Globe reporter.

I spoke inappropriately and erroneously regarding ESPN's role in conference expansion.

Further, while I harbor some ill feelings toward the University of Connecticut regarding the lawsuit, depositions and derogatory comments from UConn officials when we announced our decision to join the ACC, it was inappropriate to express personal feelings that might have been construed as the position of Boston College or the Atlantic Coast Conference.

I regret any misunderstandings or negative fallout my actions may have caused.

Sincerely,

Gene
Director of Athletics
Boston College

http://blogs.courant.com/rick_green/2011/10/bc-ad-retracts-claim-espn-behi.html

He has to be a even in his retraction.

 

[CTMike]

He has to be a even in his retraction.

On this we can agree. Hate that guy.

 

[Uptop]

Just what I was thinking!

Gene was born in CT, but grew up and play high school football in Northampton, MA. His father was a high ranking high school official that is credited for establishing state wide football playoffs. Gene went on to play QB at Springfield College. Even there, he was a divicive guy. As his father's stature made him the political starting QB over a much more talented player.

I've known Gene since 1969 and he was very competitive and outgoing. That all changed after an incident that is a little known fact. The selection committee at UNC approved him as the next AD only to have Dean Smith whack him in favor of his boy, Badour. Since then he's been bitter and a buttwh---

So, over time he became an enemy to the Big East and UConn. Therefore, he, bc and the acc are my enemies

 

[Scalito]

I can't imagine what would be uglier than being called a "liar" by a Cuse Trustee at an academic function in front of your academic peers.

Being accused of being a liar by someone you respect perhaps? You are assuming the speaker and audience were important to him. Maybe they were. Neither of us know, and that's my whole point. Instead of rationalizing the man like you know him and everything he heard, listen to his actual statements professing anger all these yeats later.

I don't pretend to know what influences DeFellippo. And I agree with the rationality of your underlying arguments: Pitt and Cuse did it too; UConn is a regional threat; etc.

However, and I guess it really doesn't matter at the end of the day, DeFillippo was consistent when talking to the Boston Globe and when apologizing for his comments about one thing: residual angst against UConn as a result of the way BC's exit from the Big East was handled. Personally, I say duck him. I applauded Calhoun's public refusal to schedule BC.

Nevertheless, based on the way I react when UCONN is attacked, and the grudge I hold against morons like the Squid, Sweaty Williams, Jeff Jacobs and Wetzel, it doesn't strike me as unbelievable when an AD professes to have hard feelings after he AND his university were attacked (rightly or wrongly) in public. And in my experience people sometimes act for reasons other than their institution's best interests, while convincing themselves to the contrary.

 

[epperson]

Talk to enough BC people about GDF and an image of smarmy, repugnant, arrogant, power-tripping, insecure man emerges.

To his credit, he's a decent and capable Administrator. He can make things happen behind closed doors.

Gene's problem is his character flaws. It tends to get in the way of productivity and sound decision-making.

My guess is the interview with the Globe was an act of desperation. His days at BC are numbered.

 

[upstater]

Being accused of being a liar by someone you respect perhaps? You are assuming the speaker and audience were important to him. Maybe they were. Neither of us know, and that's my whole point. Instead of rationalizing the man like you know him and everything he heard, listen to his actual statements professing anger all these yeats later.

I don't pretend to know what influences DeFellippo. And I agree with the rationality of your underlying arguments: Pitt and Cuse did it too; UConn is a regional threat; etc.

It was an important academic event. This isn't a mystery. We do know what was said. I'm talking about Leahy, first of all. I wrote that in my first response to you.

The anger thing simply deflects from the true intent, to hurt UConn sports. This isn't the first time DeFillippo has said this. Bob Ryan reported it BEFORE BC joined the ACC.

 

[Scalito]

As for Businesslawyer and others who posited that these guys would lie under oath, I think we have our answer. If they were the type willing to lie under oath, they would never have done something as ridiculous as issue a retraction which only serves to draw more attention to the original statement.

Not sure I get your point. The fact that a university administrator would issue a public retraction and apology for making gobsmackingly stupid comments to a newspaper reporter that could have harmed his university's and athletic conference's interest means that the same official will tell the truth under oath? I would have thought that evidence of flexibility would tend to show the contrary.

I don't think anyone associated with BC or the ACC is likely to commit perjury if asked about conference realignment under penalty of perjury, but DeFellippo's blatant retraction of truthful comments ain't the reason why.

 

[Scalito]

It was an important academic event. This isn't a mystery. We do know what was said. I'm talking about Leahy, first of all. I wrote that in my first response to you.

The anger thing simply deflects from the true intent, to hurt UConn sports. This isn't the first time DeFillippo has said this. Bob Ryan reported it BEFORE BC joined the ACC.

It wasn't a very subtle or effective attempt at deflection---the anger issue was brought up in an article in conjunction with the intent to try and relegate Uconn to Conference USA status. No one is making any bones against the latter intent. Not me, not the Boston Globe, or anyone else. Not even DeFillippo.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree over whether past acrimony has any effect on BC's position. But here's my last salvo: Herbst felt the need to try and distance UConn's new leadership from the past. It was believable then that she was being overly cautious. It now appears she knew something we could only speculate upon.

 

[businesslawyer]

As for Businesslawyer and others who posited that these guys would lie under oath, I think we have our answer. If they were the type willing to lie under oath, they would never have done something as ridiculous as issue a retraction which only serves to draw more attention to the original statement.

Do you care any more whether there is any logic whatsoever in what you post? He's following orders from people who are trying to calm down the non-ESPN media before this becomes a bigger issue than it already is. What the duck* does that have to do with whether he's willing to shade the truth under oath (because, despite your view of the world, there are middle grounds between truth and lie).

 

[nomar]

What kind of mushroom cap holds a grudge like that? It was all business, dude. Get over it.

This needs to get fired. He's actively screwing us and makes no bones about doing it.

 

[gabect]

His agenda is obviously to keep UConn down so he's going to keep bringing up the lawsuits from yesteryear regardless of Cuse/Pitt's involvement in them. It's just a facade for pushing that agenda.

 

[whaler11]

What I don't get is how everyone thinks it's easy for the State of CT to play hardball with a major employer. Yes, they gave them a sweetheart deal to 'add some jobs'. If Connecticut plays hardball they can get that deal and better from another state.

If the state sues them over conference affiliation and wins 10 million dollars... in the end they won't win.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

What I don't get is how everyone thinks it's easy for the State of CT to play hardball with a major employer. Yes, they gave them a sweetheart deal to 'add some jobs'. If Connecticut plays hardball they can get that deal and better from another state.

If the state sues them over conference affiliation and wins 10 million dollars... in the end they won't win.

Don't you think it would be cost inhibitive to just pick up and leave with all the telecommunications they have set up in Bristol? The deal the state gave them is beyond a sweetheart deal. I think the state has every right to make sure their investment in UConn isn't screwed over by someone they have given tax breaks too.

 

[whaler11]

Gene's real problem isn't his idiotic comments. His real problem is that his football team is going to go 1-11 because he ran off a decent to good coach because he interviewed with an NFL team.

 

[whaler11]

Don't you think it would be cost inhibitive to just pick up and leave with all the telecommunications they have set up in Bristol? The deal the state gave them is beyond a sweetheart deal. I think the state has every right to make sure their investment in UConn isn't screwed over by someone they have given tax breaks too.

Another state would pay every last cent of a move. The Big East tried to push ESPN around and got destroyed. The State of Connecticut would meet the same fate.

I'm sure that Waylon will tell me how stupid I am and how wrong I am and how he'd mail anthrax to the ESPN office and if they didn't inhale it he'd roll a tank through their campus.... but just remember how right he was about the huge NBC/Comcast deal the league was getting.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Another state would pay every last cent of a move. The Big East tried to push ESPN around and got destroyed. The State of Connecticut would meet the same fate.

You think in this economy, another state would finance ESPN's move from CT to their state, all for the sake of a couple hundred jobs. On top of that, they would have to match the tax breaks that CT has given to ESPN. I just don't see that happening.

I agree the Big East by itself can't go up against ESPN, but I do think there is a difference in power between an fragmented athletic conference and a US State.

 

[whaler11]

You think in this economy, another state would finance ESPN's move from CT to their state, all for the sake of a couple hundred jobs. On top of that, they would have to match the tax breaks that CT has given to ESPN. I just don't see that happening.

I agree the Big East by itself can't go up against ESPN, but I do think there is a difference in power between an fragmented athletic conference and a US State.

A couple of hundred? Do you have any idea how many people work in Bristol?

There would be states lined up to pay ESPN's expenses to move their operations to their geography.

 

[Rumrunner]

So the State of Connecticut is going to get destroyed by ESPN? ESPN is now possessed of the power of levying taxes, supporting the Nat'l guard, and the ultimate arbiter of enforcing and interpreting the laws?


Ummmm....no.

Hyperbole thy name is you.

 

[businesslawyer]

Would you all friggin stop it. On this and twenty similar threads, where everything is argued as if if it's not black it's necessarily totally white.

The State of Connecticut and ESPN are not going to war. Both of them have way, way too much to lose than whether UConn is or isn't in the right athetic conference. But the fact that they're not going to war doesn't mean that the Governor or Attorney General (George Jepson, not Dick Blumenthal) need to sit down with ESPN and have a talk about how not to damage the ongoing relationship between the two partners. Despite Waylon's moral and absolute clarity on things he can't know for sure, we don't know how close to what Flipper said the other day ESPN did ESPN actually did.. I tend to think ESPN isn't that stupid, but, unlike Waylon, I'd be the first to admit I don't know for sure. But the fact that Flipper said ESPN did this puts ESPN in a position whereby they need to do right by their partner. If Mizzou is not moving, and the SEC has an odd number, if it goes for an ACC team I expect ESPN to speak more clearly to the ACC about what ESPN needs to happen if the ACC wants to be a good partner to ESPN.

And a note to Flipper -- if you retracted your statement because the ACC ordered you to, fine. But if you did it because your lawyers told you to, you need better lawyers. Statements against interest are belived by judges and juries much, much, much more than their retractions. Very few people imply they've broken antitrust laws and aided and abedded others in violating contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. When they do, those statements tend to be given a lot of worth. Retractions that translate into your best impression of an Emily Letalla "never mind" -- not so much.

 

[whaler11]

So the State of Connecticut is going to get destroyed by ESPN? ESPN is now possessed of the power of levying taxes, supporting the Nat'l guard, and the ultimate arbiter of enforcing and interpreting the laws?

Ummmm....no.

Hyperbole thy name is you.

Do you live here? The economy is in complete shambles. ESPN employs 4,100 people in Bristol. If you think it's worth infuriating a major employer in Central Connecticut over winning a couple of tens of millions in a lawsuit...

In short the juice is not worth the squeeze.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So the State of Connecticut is going to get destroyed by ESPN? ESPN is now possessed of the power of levying taxes, supporting the Nat'l guard, and the ultimate arbiter of enforcing and interpreting the laws?

Ummmm....no.

Hyperbole thy name is you.

You forgot Prima Nocte. Whaler believes ESPN has that right too.

 

[noeynox]

Would you all friggin stop it. On this and twenty similar threads, where everything is argued as if if it's not black it's necessarily totally white.

The State of Connecticut and ESPN are not going to war. Both of them have way, way too much to lose than whether UConn is or isn't in the right athetic conference. But the fact that they're not going to war doesn't mean that the Governor or Attorney General (George Jepson, not Dick Blumenthal) need to sit down with ESPN and have a talk about how not to damage the ongoing relationship between the two partners. Despite Waylon's moral and absolute clarity on things he can't know for sure, we don't know how close to what Flipper said the other day ESPN did ESPN actually did.. I tend to think ESPN isn't that stupid, but, unlike Waylon, I'd be the first to admit I don't know for sure. But the fact that Flipper said ESPN did this puts ESPN in a position whereby they need to do right by their partner. If Mizzou is not moving, and the SEC has an odd number, if it goes for an ACC team I expect ESPN to speak more clearly to the ACC about what ESPN needs to happen if the ACC wants to be a good partner to ESPN.

And a note to Flipper -- if you retracted your statement because the ACC ordered you to, fine. But if you did it because your lawyers told you to, you need better lawyers. Statements against interest are belived by judges and juries much, much, much more than their retractions. Very few people imply they've broken antitrust laws and aided and abedded others in violating contractual duties of good faith and fair dealing. When they do, those statements tend to be given a lot of worth. Retractions that translate into your best impression of an Emily Letalla "never mind" -- not so much.

I thought making fun of people's names was beneath you. Or is that just when people make fun of Marinatto or Marinara, Marinate's name?