DiMauro: “The ‘new’ Big East: Is that all there is?“ | Page 3 | The Boneyard

DiMauro: “The ‘new’ Big East: Is that all there is?“

Gurleyman said:
I always go back to 2004, when JC unfairly ripped Dave Solomon about the Ryan Gomes question. DiMauro and Jacobs wrote columns about JC ripping Solomon. Solomon, the victim of the tirade, wrote about basketball, not centering himself in the story.

Then later that year, UConn came through without Okafor in the BET. DiMauro and Jacobs wrote columns demanding to know why they weren’t told Okafor was out and had to find out on TV. Solomon wrote a nice piece on Josh Boone stepping up.

The columnists who are about themselves bug me. I don’t want to read about your grievances. I want to read about the team you cover.

But that was 17 years ago, so I should get over it.
Expand ...
Dave Borges always seems to get scoops. Is it because he’s a “National guy” or “not a mushroom cap”
 
DiMauro is the kind of guy that drives in the center lane of the highway going 60mph. Seen it many times. He trolls fans of the men's teams. DB.
 
Borges is the best of the bunch, but I've even noticed some grumbling from him this year. Plus he ended up in the doghouse because of that quote that was taken out of context..
 
First, regarding the Big East, to ask "is that all there is?" is just pure ignorance and laziness. This conference went through a major change and no one knew exactly how things would play out short or long term. 4 teams in the dance, and recruiting is up throughout the conference. He references Louie and Rollie and John Thompson as being old Big East, while those programs are still here. I never considered Boeheim as part of that interesting crowd.

Second, Dan Hurley clearly has the program headed in the right direction. Every coach has years where the program steps back so when that happens, and it will happen, it would be unfair to automatically put the blame on Hurley. Duke and Kentucky not only stepped back, they out-right failed this year, and that's while going about business as usual, not changing conferences and rebuilding.

Just lazy.
 
Waquoit said:
Of course he's wrong. We've gone from irrelevant to Top 30 in 3 seasons. If anything, we got too good too soon. We started the season hoping to just make the tournament. Now folks are throwing shade because we didn't go far enough. DiMauro and his sympathizers are on dope.
Expand ...
If next year ends like this year, half the fanbase will turn on him. So, no, he wasn't wrong.

That said, I expect he will do well.
 
.-.
Blue Idiaco said:
And if there is a rule about staying in college for at least 2 years, then the disparity will only increase.
Expand ...
Lots wrong with your post but I feel like I should point out that if college players have to play for 2 years (even though there's no reason to believe this rule will change) then the Dukes and UNCs could only bring in half as many top recruits any given year, and those kids would then go to other schools (like UConn).
 
Gurleyman said:
I always go back to 2004, when JC unfairly ripped Dave Solomon about the Ryan Gomes question. DiMauro and Jacobs wrote columns about JC ripping Solomon. Solomon, the victim of the tirade, wrote about basketball, not centering himself in the story.

Then later that year, UConn came through without Okafor in the BET. DiMauro and Jacobs wrote columns demanding to know why they weren’t told Okafor was out and had to find out on TV. Solomon wrote a nice piece on Josh Boone stepping up.

The columnists who are about themselves bug me. I don’t want to read about your grievances. I want to read about the team you cover.

But that was 17 years ago, so I should get over it.
Expand ...
Most writers are far more passionate about their assignments than the subjects thereof. It's what allows them to be critical. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of writers couldn't care much less about their readers either, other than if their stuff is actually read. The animosity could very well be really. It seemed that way with Desmond Conner.

Dare I say that journalists are self-serving fans of the story, and the more controversy they can drum up, the more their name is out there.

Dimauro is looking to be a poorman's Dan Shaughnessey, who is now a shadow of his former self since John Henry bought The Boston Globe.
 
I really can't escape this guy or his bad takes. He used to talk shit about my high school too.
 
businesslawyer said:
Hurley is as far from a hot seat as a Stark sitting on the throne in the North. He has made the team much better each of the three years he has been here. He has a recipe that the Athletic Department believes in == recruit well and play hard. Even if he was Jim Calhoun, he will have years where the team isn’t as good as the year before. Next year may be one of them.

Saying that ot making a “tournament run” next year puts him on the hot seat is just dumb.
Expand ...
Year 3 was not a place where its ok to have a following year that isn't as good. Team performed poorly its last 2 games, mostly on the offensive end. Plenty of room to improve offense.
Hard to be better when Okafor and Gordon leave from a championship team, not so hard year 4 of rebuilding plan when only beat one top quality team all previous year.
 
Husky25 said:
Most writers are far more passionate about their assignments than the subjects thereof. It's what allows them to be critical. In fact, I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of writers couldn't care much less about their readers either, other than if their stuff is actually read. The animosity could very well be really. It seemed that way with Desmond Conner.

Dare I say that journalists are self-serving fans of the story, and the more controversy they can drum up, the more their name is out there.

Dimauro is looking to be a poorman's Dan Shaughnessey, who is now a shadow of his former self since John Henry bought The Boston Globe.
Expand ...
Disagree here.

I always cared what the readers thought and what readers want/need and should know. If you lose touch with your readers, then you are just writing for yourself and it is terrible journalism.

There is a term in the business, writing for awards, that a lot of writers do. That means writing for other writers.

But, what i learned to do was to know your audience and niche. What does your audience want and expect? That came after many years on the beat and didn't fully come into focus until I left the beat entirely and did things other than UConn sports. Your readers change, expectations change, and what works changes. That doesn't mean your general rules of journalism change, but people really want honest analysis, straight news, and when a team does well don't piss in their cheerios.

What readers don't want is food fights over the process.

Fans want content they can't get anywhere else. When was the last time someone read a Rothstein story and not his twitter feed?
 
Last edited:
.-.
Inyatkin said:
The way this played out on Twitter is both BC guy and Jacobs were met with criticism (including some posters on here) who took their arguments apart and offered reasoned critiques. There were a few expletives thrown in, but mostly it was straightforward debunking of their argument. But their reaction then becomes "I'm being attacked by UConn fans!"
Not really, you're just wrong. And no one besides you guys cares who finds out when on game day that some player is doubtful with a twisted ankle or whatever.
It's a little exhausting, but also kinda sad
Expand ...

Yeah, I tweeted at Jacobs that if a writer is trading positive press for scoops, isn't that a problem? Or, conversely, if they aren't getting those scoops, and are writing negative stories as a result. He pretty much just said "I'm not going down this rabbit hole" and refused to even engage. I didn't cross any sort of line, use abusive language, or anything like that.

If you're going to bring up a subject on twitter, why are you bailing on the conversation as soon as you get any kind of pushback?
 
JohnFSilver said:
Disagree here.

I always cared what the readers thought and what readers want/need and should know. If you lose touch with your readers, then you are just writing for yourself and it is terrible journalism.

There is a term in the business, writing for awards, that a lot of writers do. That means writing for other writers.

But, what i learned to do was to know your audience and niche. What does your audience want and expect? That came after many years on the beat and didn't fully come into focus until I left the beat entirely and did things other than UConn sports. Your readers change, expectations change, and what works changes. That doesn't mean your general rules of journalism change, but people really want honest analysis, straight news, and when a team does well don't piss in their cheerios.

What readers don't want is food fights over the process.

Fans want content they can't get anywhere else. When was the last time someone read a Rothstein story and not his twitter feed?
Expand ...

Respectfully, John, I hardly ever use absolutes, and in this case, your attitude is the reason why. Sadly it is an attitude that does not appear to be widely held.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
I think DiMauro's a duck___ loser, but it's not like people haven't posted on here that Hurley's on the hot seat next year without a tournament run.
Expand ...
It's actually hard to disagree with much of what was quoted above. It's been three years and we're still hearing about how bad things were. Dan Hurley seems like a high character guy who puts pressure on himself and he may be feeling a bit defensive because the results so far don't meet his standards.

If we end up with only IW as an "added" player then criticism is warranted, especially in this day and age when coaches have to be more aggressive in recruiting transfers.

Look at what Mick has done at UCLA in two years. They were on a three year downward spiral. Juzang was a great pickup and carried them in the tournament. Our transfers? Not so much.
 
Last edited:
JMick said:
we literally just extended him lol
Expand ...
The same AD extended KO too, so while the two are vastly different in what we believe it takes to be successful here, contract extensions don't always work out for the best.
 
Watchdog said:
It's actually hard to disagree with much of what was quoted above. It's been three years and we're still hearing about how bad things were. Dan Hurley seems like a high character guy who puts pressure on himself and he may be feeling like he hasn't done the job to his standards.

If we end up with only IW as an "added" player then criticism is warranted, especially in this day and age when coaches have to be more aggressive in recruiting transfers.

Look at what Mick has done at UCLA in two years. They were on a three year downward spiral. Juzang was a great pickup and carried them in the tournament. Our transfers? Not so much.
Expand ...

So then he should write to DiMauro should write about that... instead he goes on about how going to the big east hurt women's basketball...
 
.-.
BC/UNC pre-pandemic! Mikey likes to piss on Hurley. Yes the guy who got us back to the dance, increased ticket sales, upgraded recruiting and by all accounts is beloved by his players. BCGenius probably should be throwing stones at his Eagles, literally the worst athletic program in the ACC.
 

Attachments

  • DC401CC7-AC01-4264-86D4-04A95F2D7662.jpeg
    DC401CC7-AC01-4264-86D4-04A95F2D7662.jpeg
    608 KB · Views: 151
Blue Idiaco said:
if his point was that the NBE is a meaningful disappointment in terms of quality of play, then the article makes sense. The conference is not nearly as good as we all remembered or hoped. And if Wright leaves, there is really nothing left. Sorry, but Creighton and Butler and Xavier are mid-major programs in another part of the world. I'd argue that the BE needs UConn to succeed a lot more than anyone wants to admit. You watch the P5 teams and the athletes they have versus the mediocrity of the BE...its meaningful. And its not going to get better. The P5 will continue to wrestle away the best talent and the best coaches. And if there is a rule about staying in college for at least 2 years, then the disparity will only increase.
Expand ...
People were saying the P5 money was going to crush non P5 schools before Villanova won 2 championships. It's a favorite go-to for fans of the Orange in fact.

College basketball is not college football. You don't need to spend 10 million on a coach to compete for a championship. Kids like playing in the Northeast just as much as they like playing for a Big 10 team like Michigan or Ohio State or the SEC footprint.

The Big East and UConn are good for each other. UConn has only been back for one year. The longer the relationship goes the better both will be each year.

As for this Dimauro piece, I could see him writing it next year if UConn again was bounced on a Friday night during the BET and lost in the first round in the NCAA tourney.

But this year? Ridiculous. The guy is a clown.
 
Other than Nova and UConn....all winners of the tournament in the 30 tourneys since UNLV won in 1990...have been teams that are current members of the P5.

A lot of folks, I'll bet, were hoping for a Gonzaga or Houston breakthrough....


But since UNLV in 1990....

UConn and Nova have together won six championships....

The only conference (using teams that are current ACC and not necessarily at the time of the win) that has won more NC's in that time is the ACC with 12.
 
StllH8L8ner said:
We have one less NCAA title than BC has tournament appearances in the last 15 years. Kick rocks.
Expand ...

So same # of Final Four appearances as their tournament appearances.
 
I am not going to take a shot at any of the media since they are my friends and some of them I learned a ton from. I also don't know what's behind the scenes driving this. Mike is someone I admire.

But, Tournament success can't be the measure of success. If Hurley gets a 3 seed and goes 24-4 next year and they get bounced in the first round was the season a failure? No. That's ridiculous IMO.

In same vein, if he goes 18-15 and gets to the second round or Sweet 16, which season would you rather take? I would take the 24-4 team TBH. Tournament success is fleeting.

I think we expect UConn to be a 20-win team and in the top 3 of the Big East. March success is too random. As Jim Calhoun said the day after winning the title...i am just as good a coach on Sunday as I was on Tuesday (or something like that as I remember reading).
 
.-.

“The ‘new’ Big East: Is that all there is?“​


If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing. Let's break out the booze and have a ball.
 
Last edited:
billybud said:
Other than Nova and UConn....all winners of the tournament in the 30 tourneys since UNLV won in 1990...have been teams that are current members of the P5.

A lot of folks, I'll bet, were hoping for a Gonzaga or Houston breakthrough....


But since UNLV in 1990....

UConn and Nova have together won six championships....

The only conference (using teams that are current ACC and not necessarily at the time of the win) that has won more NC's in that time is the ACC with 12.
Expand ...
Yep and I'm sure a lot of Pac-12 fans were pulling for UCLA and Big 10 fans were pulling for any number of their teams. 2000 and 1997 are a long time ago. It's no doubt difficult for anyone to win a championship and harder for any team outside of the P6 to win a championship.
 
I didn't read the article and I won't. Just saw a thread with Dimauro and here to join the dunkfest. Dimauro is a nobody. He has been a nobody for 30 years. The fact that he still has that gig at the Day is an embarrassment, to him, the paper, and every subscriber.

Gave his twitter a peak. At some point you gotta admit failure and just delete your account right? I mean he's almost following more people than he has followers... But he just keeps hacking on
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,486
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom