OT: St. Joes and Phil Martelli | The Boneyard

OT: St. Joes and Phil Martelli

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless St Joe's gives a reason, this reeks of universities hiding behind lawyers. It's the same "god complex" that they have at PSU.
 
All I would say is, we've only heard one side of the argument. He may be 100% accurate, but, at this point, it's like hearing the opening statement of the prosecutor at trial. We don't know both sides. Now, if St. Joe's declines to give a reason, as BRS24 says, then the SI article is all we have to go by.
 
pinotbear said:
All I would say is, we've only heard one side of the argument. He may be 100% accurate, but, at this point, it's like hearing the opening statement of the prosecutor at trial. We don't know both sides.
Expand ...

+1
 
If there is some suspicion of interference by UAB I can fully understand St. Joe's being unwilling to release the kid. Wait and see the whole story.
 
The guy went through the proper channels and even had a NCAA hearing, nothing solved. So what whole story are you looking for? Bad for St Joes, Martelli (who comes off vindictive) and the NCAA,
 
.-.
WillB4 said:
The guy went through the proper channels and even had a NCAA hearing, nothing solved. So what whole story are you looking for? Bad for St Joes, Martelli (who comes off vindictive) and the NCAA,
Expand ...

Actually, it was solved, just not how this gentleman wanted: It is our understanding that the NCAA has denied Mr. O'Brien's appeal.

I can't imagine why Martelli comes off vindictive, since it's all hearsay from the gentleman's point of view. I guess that's what you call the "whole story" these days....​
 
ThisJustIn said:
Actually, it was solved, just not how this gentleman wanted: It is our understanding that the NCAA has denied Mr. O'Brien's appeal.

I can't imagine why Martelli comes off vindictive, since it's all hearsay from the gentleman's point of view. I guess that's what you call the "whole story" these days....​
Expand ...

Actually it's not all hearsay.. St. Joe's won't comment on it.. The only reason it is getting press is because the likes of Jay Bilas, Dick Vitale and other big name college basketball guys are speaking out about it on Twitter. What reason could you POSSIBLY give to why this kid shouldn't be released? The kid GRADUATED, he has NO ties/owes NOTHING to St. Joe's.. Martelli should be ashamed of himself
 
Kait, Bilas and Vitale talking about it would be the very definition of hearsay.
 
Granted, we probably won't ever get to hear both sides, but I cannot imagine a scenario where the college prohibits the kid from doing what he wants to do. You suck it up, no matter what, and move on. Anything else results in exactly this kind of PR headache.

If I were running the world, I would save this kind of spitefulness, if that's what it is, or persistence, if that's what it is, for the college coaches who bail out of contracts because the grass is greener elsewhere. Out here where I live, ASU just hired a football coach who bailed from his previous job after only one year, having bailed out of his previous job after only a couple. Why universities allow this kind of thing is absolutely beyond me. In this case, I figure ASU (an alleged educational institution for which I have absolutely no use) got exactly what it deserves, a journeyman coach who will turn on them in a heartbeat as soon as a better offer comes along. But I digress.
 
As stated previously, the article provides only one side of the story. And that side has a lot of holes IMO. I'm making my own assumptions of course, but the kid comes off as a bit of an opportunist, whose taken full advantage of the free-ride that an athletic scholly offers. Nothing wrong with that, except for the whining now that the gravy train has ended.

His minutes got reduced - was that because of lack of effort or commitment? He marched into Martelli's office to tell him what he intended to do. Not to ask his coach for advise. Doesn't sound like they enjoyed a very close player/coach relationship. Why not? That initial and animated meeting with Martelli is central to what really went down, but the kid conveniently leaves out any details of that conversation other than Martelli's use of expletives. What got Martelli so exercised? We'll likely never know the whole story, but maybe Martelli had enough of the kid taking and took a stand - a teachable moment perhaps.

Just because the kid says..."To be honest, I didn't want to be "that guy", the player who had bounced around to three schools in five seasons", doesn't mean he wasn't exactly "that guy".
 
Replicant said:
As stated previously, the article provides only one side of the story. And that side has a lot of holes IMO. I'm making my own assumptions of course, but the kid comes off as a bit of an opportunist, whose taken full advantage of the free-ride that an athletic scholly offers. Nothing wrong with that, except for the whining now that the gravy train has ended.

His minutes got reduced - was that because of lack of effort or commitment? He marched into Martelli's office to tell him what he intended to do. Not to ask his coach for advise. Doesn't sound like they enjoyed a very close player/coach relationship. Why not? That initial and animated meeting with Martelli is central to what really went down, but the kid conveniently leaves out any details of that conversation other than Martelli's use of expletives. What got Martelli so exercised? We'll likely never know the whole story, but maybe Martelli had enough of the kid taking and took a stand - a teachable moment perhaps.

Just because the kid says..."To be honest, I didn't want to be "that guy", the player who had bounced around to three schools in five seasons", doesn't mean he wasn't exactly "that guy".
Expand ...

You mustn't have read the article.. He GRADUATED from St. Joe's.. With a year of eligibility left. He wanted to get his masters in a program that St. Joe's did not have.. And Martelli has his panties in a bunch because while he is pursuing his masters degree in a program he actually wants to do, he will use his last year of eligibility.Your entire post is full of assumptions.. He "marched" into Martelli's office? Where does it say that? It's HIS choice what he wants to do with his academic as WELL as his basketball career.. Who is Martelli to deny him of that? Usually when a party refuses to comment, it means they are guilty. Maybe it wasn't the kid that got Martelli animated, maybe Martelli is a dirtbag.. We don't know that, and you are drawing ridiculous assumptions trying to defend him.. And regardless if he WAS "that guy", who cares?! He wants to get his degree and finish his eligibility, Martelli has NO say in if he can or cannot do that. He's only making himself look like an . Too bad the gravy train hasn't ended, and he had a year left of his "train". But Martelli and St. Joe's have stripped him of that because he is butthurt that the kid wanted to pursue his masters elsewhere. This isn't the first time I've heard of Martelli being a jerk, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The fact that St. Joe's hired and hides behind legal counsel speaks volumes about the situation
 
.-.
I read it Kait. And what I took away (and this is an assumption on my part, since NONE OF US us know the whole truth), was that something very negative had to have happened between him and Martelli for him not to be released. We just don't know, but again, I have to assume it's bigger than Martelli just being bitter or vindictive for no good reason.
 
Replicant said:
I read it Kait. And what I took away (and this is an assumption on my part, since NONE OF US us know the whole truth), was that something very negative had to have happened between him and Martelli for him not to be released. We just don't know, but again, I have to assume it's bigger than Martelli just being bitter or vindictive for no good reason.
Expand ...

Martelli's transfer rate is ridiculous.. Me thinks this is him finally getting pissed off that no one really wants to play for him anymore and holding it over this kid's head
 
Since you don't seem to get it, imagine if this was a letter written, by, say a coach outlining all the hurts and errors another program committed -- errors so egregeous that said coach felt the need to cancel the series. And the only voice you heard was that one coaches voice. Would you completely agree with them, hook, line and sinker?

As for the twitters

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as her evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e. pronounced the words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness.
Many jurisdictions that generally disallow hearsay evidence in courts permit the more widespread use of hearsay in non-judicial hearings.
 
ThisJustIn said:
Since you don't seem to get it, imagine if this was a letter written, by, say a coach outlining all the hurts and errors another program committed -- errors so egregeous that said coach felt the need to cancel the series. And the only voice you heard was that one coaches voice. Would you completely agree with them, hook, line and sinker?

As for the twitters

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.
For example, a witness says "Susan told me Tom was in town" as her evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. Since the witness does not offer in this statement the personal knowledge of the fact, this witness statement would be hearsay evidence to the fact that Tom was in town, and not admissible. Only when Susan testifies herself in the current judicial proceeding that she saw Tom in town, that Susan's testimony becomes admissible evidence to the fact that Tom was in town. However, a witness statement "Susan told me Tom was in town" can be admissible as evidence in the case against Susan when she is accused of spreading defamatory rumors about Tom, because now the witness has personal knowledge of the fact that Susan said (i.e. pronounced the words) "Tom was in town" in the presence of the witness.
Many jurisdictions that generally disallow hearsay evidence in courts permit the more widespread use of hearsay in non-judicial hearings.
Expand ...

I do get it.. But when one side refuses to comment on a situation, it doesn't look good for that side.. And I say that completely understanding what went on between Pat and Geno
 
From the article above:
"Saint Joseph's University followed all applicable NCAA procedures and applied consistent internal practices in declining to support the requested transfer exception," St. Joe's officials said in a release. "Institutional policy and federal student records law prohibit Saint Joseph's from releasing additional or confidential information in this matter. As all eligibility determinations rest with the NCAA and not its member institutions, Saint Joseph's University has no further comment and considers the matter closed."

So, now you know why they can't comment. And now you know the NCAA has the power, NOT St. Joe's.

I'm not saying that there might not be something behind the smoke the gentleman is blowing. BUT, to fall for his story hook, line and sinker?
 
.-.
ThisJustIn said:
From the article above:
"Saint Joseph's University followed all applicable NCAA procedures and applied consistent internal practices in declining to support the requested transfer exception," St. Joe's officials said in a release. "Institutional policy and federal student records law prohibit Saint Joseph's from releasing additional or confidential information in this matter. As all eligibility determinations rest with the NCAA and not its member institutions, Saint Joseph's University has no further comment and considers the matter closed."

So, now you know why they can't comment. And now you know the NCAA has the power, NOT St. Joe's.

I'm not saying that there might not be something behind the smoke the gentleman is blowing. BUT, to fall for his story hook, line and sinker?
Expand ...

St. Joe's lawyers just using lawyer speak to prevent their clients from making a mistake and making themselves look worse than they already do.. If the student already spoke out, it shouldn't matter. And it's obviously not with the NCAA, because if Martelli or the AD sent an email to UAB and the NCAA saying "we release him and he can play", he would be eligible to play for UAB..

"O'Brien's attorney, Donald Jackson, told ESPN that NCAA officials have said they will grant O'Brien a waiver to play immediately should St. Joe's grant his release.
I'm not necessarily falling for his story hook, line and sinker. But when the accused refuses to comment, how are you not supposed to side with the side that actually is talking? I'll say it again, refusing to comment makes you look guilty.. If you've done nothing wrong, why refuse to comment?
 
Replicant said:
As stated previously, the article provides only one side of the story. And that side has a lot of holes IMO. I'm making my own assumptions of course, but the kid comes off as a bit of an opportunist, whose taken full advantage of the free-ride that an athletic scholly offers. Nothing wrong with that, except for the whining now that the gravy train has ended.

His minutes got reduced - was that because of lack of effort or commitment? He marched into Martelli's office to tell him what he intended to do. Not to ask his coach for advise. Doesn't sound like they enjoyed a very close player/coach relationship. Why not? That initial and animated meeting with Martelli is central to what really went down, but the kid conveniently leaves out any details of that conversation other than Martelli's use of expletives. What got Martelli so exercised? We'll likely never know the whole story, but maybe Martelli had enough of the kid taking and took a stand - a teachable moment perhaps.

Just because the kid says..."To be honest, I didn't want to be "that guy", the player who had bounced around to three schools in five seasons", doesn't mean he wasn't exactly "that guy".
Expand ...
I just don't get the attitude on the part of St. Joe's. Martelli can hate the guy, as far as I'm concerned. But the man graduated. He did his time at St. Joe's, had a year of eligibility left, and as far as I can see, should have the ability to use it. If Martelli waited until now, months after graduation, to find a teachable moment, I'd say he's just a little late, don'tcha think?
 
I was reading about this in the paper this morning. I just don't really get it -

St. Joes has no obligation to permit the student to play elsewhere, but I don't understand why they wouldn't? He doesn't appear to have played much, he has graduated as noted, and he apparently wants to take a graduate program not offered at St. Joe's. Presumably, he wants to play the basketball to finance that. I simply can't think of a good reason for St. Joe's refusing - but the truth is, it is their right to do so.
 
KnightBridgeAZ said:
I was reading about this in the paper this morning. I just don't really get it -

St. Joes has no obligation to permit the student to play elsewhere, but I don't understand why they wouldn't? He doesn't appear to have played much, he has graduated as noted, and he apparently wants to take a graduate program not offered at St. Joe's. Presumably, he wants to play the basketball to finance that. I simply can't think of a good reason for St. Joe's refusing - but the truth is, it is their right to do so.
Expand ...

lol no, it really isn't their right to do so, considering he has graduated from their program and is going to school at UAB.. They have absolutely no right
 
Kait14 said:
lol no, it really isn't their right to do so, considering he has graduated from their program and is going to school at UAB.. They have absolutely no right
Expand ...
Unfortunately, it is. The NCAA has given that right to them.

I don't think it is appropriate. I also don't think they should have the right, given he has graduated. I am not saying it is fair or just.

But given that they do have the right, they can and have used it.

Life is filled with things that are not fair, just or appropriate.
 
Icebear said:
If there is some suspicion of interference by UAB I can fully understand St. Joe's being unwilling to release the kid. Wait and see the whole story.
Expand ...


There is no suspicion of interference. St. Joes signed the form giving him permission to talk to any teams and coaches he wanted about a transfer. That is what makes Martelli's behavior particularly reprehensible. If he didn't intend to allow him to play, then why sign a form allowing him to talk to schools about it.

Martelli is just having his own little hissy fit because he's mad that O'Brien decided to leave and put his education first. (Note that O'Brien did not figure into St Joes' plans anyway - other than as a potential fourth or fifth player off the bench.)
 
.-.
Why assume the connection of graduation as fulfillment of any obligation to St. Joel's. If players can expect schools to to give them 5 years for 4 years of play.
 
KnightBridgeAZ said:
Unfortunately, it is. The NCAA has given that right to them.

I don't think it is appropriate. I also don't think they should have the right, given he has graduated. I am not saying it is fair or just.

But given that they do have the right, they can and have used it.

Life is filled with things that are not fair, just or appropriate.
Expand ...

The same set of rules that gives him the possibility of playing anywhere after graduating. Simply it is the set of rules all have agreed to play by.
 
WillB4 said:
The guy went through the proper channels and even had a NCAA hearing, nothing solved. So what whole story are you looking for? Bad for St Joes, Martelli (who comes off vindictive) and the NCAA,
Expand ...

Sounds like a heaping helping of vindictiveness on the part of St.Joes and especially Martelli, the guy sounds like a putz in this situation, its no skin off his back , the kid is not playing for him anyway. and its not like the transfer would have substantive effect on their basketball program in any fashion, he already benched the kid.
 
Where's the grammer police when ya need 'em?

"Why, whut ma grammer do this time, Officer Otis?":oops:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,159
Messages
4,555,214
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom