Valentine Thread: Set to visit this weekend....maybe.

[ACKCANE]

Al gave it the old college try and that's all that really matters. You win some, you lose some.

Not that I have a problem with the effort, but when you make $2+ million a year, trying is not all that matters. And as far as DTs go, we just seem to lose some. And by some I mean a lot.

That's an antiquated view of the measurement of success, my man. Evolved people realize that the only thing we can control is effort. It is only fair to judge people by things they can control. As effort is all Al can control, the only way we can fairly judge him is by the effort he puts into this job. I give him an A+!

When you are paying someone $2+ million a year, you expect results, not just great effort.

The results are, in fact, the great effort.

Now, like the trend in schools, if Donna and Co can just convince the NCAA to not keep score ... We might be back.

 

[Ibis Wingz]

Not that I have a problem with the effort, but when you make $2+ million a year, trying is not all that matters. And as far as DTs go, we just seem to lose some. And by some I mean a lot.

That's an antiquated view of the measurement of success, my man. Evolved people realize that the only thing we can control is effort. It is only fair to judge people by things they can control. As effort is all Al can control, the only way we can fairly judge him is by the effort he puts into this job. I give him an A+!

When you are paying someone $2+ million a year, you expect results, not just great effort.

The results are, in fact, the great effort.

Now, like the trend in schools, if Donna and Co can just convince the NCAA to not keep score ... We might be back.

We would all be happier if the NCAA had a more enlightened view. Instead, we are beholden to the ancient measures of success that are still embraced by guys like BillSwerski.

 

[cubin10]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

If you say something enough, it is true.

Is that you Nevin?

 

[PUNCICANE]

So it was not:
- getting paid
- PSU
- scheme

It was:
- family feeling
- LSU convinced him he was too dumb for Miami's academics

Wow.

its never one or the other… Its always a combination of things.

It was :

-Dbag Genron in his ear planting seeds daily
-Our Defense sucks so his seeds start to grow roots
-D'onfrio issue, ripping on Champagnat
-We pay, LSU pays… they have deeper pockets and better structure behind the pay(have been "building relationships" for years)
-and sometime kids are flip floppers… They fall in love, then start to The kid has committed to 4 schools for a reason.

PSU is an excuse, nothing to see there

 

[NoahZach]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

Fair points, but I dont believe that the school of thought that feels some underhanded dealings have occured here, are rejecting all the other factors. That would simply be asinine. Of course the kid is going to consider all factors. His relationships with coaches, playing time, the area, family, etc.. Anyone would be foolish to deny that Valentine has a very legit interest in LSU.

The issue is what puts LSU over the top, OVER and OVER again with these elite athletes in So Fla, at positions of need for them. Particularly, when you get a notorious street agent/hustler involved in the kid's recruiting? To insist that NOTHING unethical has transpired here, is to TOTALLY ignore L$Us history with top So Fla players, as well as Genron's history and the overall effect that these "street agents" have on recruiting. I mean people simply want to act like its not a huge issue. The entire Champagnat program, to be is very strange, and I have asked on here repeatedly if anyone has any more insight into it. The school as all of 120 kids in the ENTIRE High School, it has NO football field, no weight room, no facilities at all, and yet fielded a State Championship football team, despite only having started football 3 seasons ago. There are many stories of numerous players living with coaches, and insinuations that UM coaches are not very fond of that program. Id like to know why.

What I see here, is a kid who WAS legitimately torn between the hometown school, and a top SEC program. Yet at some point, something very definitively tipped the balance to L$U. Some will argue it was all our on field peformance. I have no doubt that played into his mind. But there are many top players going to schools all over the country that had cr@ppy seasons. What's different here? L$U's history, and the presence of a notorious street agent "handling" the recruitment of the kid, one who is publically trashing UM every chance he gets. I smell a rat, and history has shown that where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

[chicanego]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

I'm referring to the sheer fact we have people who have simply labeled this as a pay-for-play scenario (and that only), when, in fact, Valentine's timeline of actions may suggest otherwise.

Look back in this thread. I've maintained all along that I have no idea of if Valentine is receiving improper benefits or if illegal activity has occurred.

 

[itsacanething]

i try not to be a board dictator but i wish this thread would just fade away so i don't keep clicking on it.

 

[ACKCANE]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

Fair points, but I dont believe that the school of thought that feels some underhanded dealings have occured here, are rejecting all the other factors. That would simply be asinine. Of course the kid is going to consider all factors. His relationships with coaches, playing time, the area, family, etc.. Anyone would be foolish to deny that Valentine has a very legit interest in LSU.

The issue is what puts LSU over the top, OVER and OVER again with these elite athletes in So Fla, at positions of need for them. Particularly, when you get a notorious street agent/hustler involved in the kid's recruiting? To insist that NOTHING unethical has transpired here, is to TOTALLY ignore L$Us history with top So Fla players, as well as Genron's history and the overall effect that these "street agents" have on recruiting. I mean people simply want to act like its not a huge issue. The entire Champagnat program, to be is very strange, and I have asked on here repeatedly if anyone has any more insight into it. The school as all of 120 kids in the ENTIRE High School, it has NO football field, no weight room, no facilities at all, and yet fielded a State Championship football team, despite only having started football 3 seasons ago. There are many stories of numerous players living with coaches, and insinuations that UM coaches are not very fond of that program. Id like to know why.

What I see here, is a kid who WAS legitimately torn between the hometown school, and a top SEC program. Yet at some point, something very definitively tipped the balance to L$U. Some will argue it was all our on field peformance. I have no doubt that played into his mind. But there are many top players going to schools all over the country that had cr@ppy seasons. What's different here? L$U's history, and the presence of a notorious street agent "handling" the recruitment of the kid, one who is publically trashing UM every chance he gets. I smell a rat, and history has shown that where there is smoke, there is fire.

You think the D will be better next year?

 

[bocacane]

i try not to be a board dictator but i wish this thread would just fade away so i don't keep clicking on it.

Why? its good conversation. Don't like it - don't click it.

 

[NoahZach]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

I'm referring to the sheer fact we have people who have simply labeled this as a pay-for-play scenario (and that only), when, in fact, Valentine's timeline of actions may suggest otherwise.

Look back in this thread. I've maintained all along that I have no idea of if Valentine is receiving improper benefits or if illegal activity has occurred.

Agreed. I wasn't referring to you, as much as just using your post as a jump off point.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

Fair points, but I dont believe that the school of thought that feels some underhanded dealings have occured here, are rejecting all the other factors. That would simply be asinine. Of course the kid is going to consider all factors. His relationships with coaches, playing time, the area, family, etc.. Anyone would be foolish to deny that Valentine has a very legit interest in LSU.

The issue is what puts LSU over the top, OVER and OVER again with these elite athletes in So Fla, at positions of need for them. Particularly, when you get a notorious street agent/hustler involved in the kid's recruiting? To insist that NOTHING unethical has transpired here, is to TOTALLY ignore L$Us history with top So Fla players, as well as Genron's history and the overall effect that these "street agents" have on recruiting. I mean people simply want to act like its not a huge issue. The entire Champagnat program, to be is very strange, and I have asked on here repeatedly if anyone has any more insight into it. The school as all of 120 kids in the ENTIRE High School, it has NO football field, no weight room, no facilities at all, and yet fielded a State Championship football team, despite only having started football 3 seasons ago. There are many stories of numerous players living with coaches, and insinuations that UM coaches are not very fond of that program. Id like to know why.

What I see here, is a kid who WAS legitimately torn between the hometown school, and a top SEC program. Yet at some point, something very definitively tipped the balance to L$U. Some will argue it was all our on field peformance. I have no doubt that played into his mind. But there are many top players going to schools all over the country that had cr@ppy seasons. What's different here? L$U's history, and the presence of a notorious street agent "handling" the recruitment of the kid, one who is publically trashing UM every chance he gets. I smell a rat, and history has shown that where there is smoke, there is fire.

You think the D will be better next year?

If we get better talent? Absolutely. Will it be great, or dominant? I dont know. I have my doubts, but I dont believe the staff is retarded like some here do. I feel they had little faith in the players they had, and played a very conservative/scared type of football. I think with better talent, there is NO QUESTION the defense would improve, to SOME degree. The question is how much. And IF the talent is better, and the staff feels more confident in the players, I do believe they would probably play more aggressively.

I dont have a great deal of faith in Donofrio. I have no idea if the guy can improve, or will improve as a DC. But he's had better defenses than this. He's not a total fool. Ive also seen what we had to work with this year on D. Our LB and S corps was absolutely dreadful and not even Div 1 calibur. I do think that the coaching and "prevent" scheme made things worse, but I dont think that AG and Donofrio are totally incapable of adjusting it if they have better talent. At least I have to hope for as much, since we are going to have these same guys next year. I think our secondary is going to be better next year. Having DP back will be huge. And the DL talent we are bringing in should give us a lot more options.

 

[ACKCANE]

Holy **** at all of the people in this thread that have bought C4L's pay-for-play narrative hook, line, and sinker.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I guess the inverse question is why people are so quick to completely reject the possibility of something improper having occurred, given the circumstances? I doubt that most anyone in here has any clue what really happened anyway, so anyone pretending to have any answer either way is in the same position.

From where I sit, I understand the suspicions about money having changed hands, but I also view the circumstances in this case a tad less suspicious than those in past cases, primarily because some of the circumstances support the other view. I don't see a basis to criticize either argument, except to the extent that it pretends to completely exclude the other possibility.

All of that said, the staff needs to land top quality DTs, period. Losing one kid, either to straight up competition or improper recruiting, should not leave a gaping hole at a position of need. To me, the bottom line question isn't whether this particular kid is going elsewhere for money. It is whether we're filling our needs with top quality prospects with the class that we bring in.

Fair points, but I dont believe that the school of thought that feels some underhanded dealings have occured here, are rejecting all the other factors. That would simply be asinine. Of course the kid is going to consider all factors. His relationships with coaches, playing time, the area, family, etc.. Anyone would be foolish to deny that Valentine has a very legit interest in LSU.

The issue is what puts LSU over the top, OVER and OVER again with these elite athletes in So Fla, at positions of need for them. Particularly, when you get a notorious street agent/hustler involved in the kid's recruiting? To insist that NOTHING unethical has transpired here, is to TOTALLY ignore L$Us history with top So Fla players, as well as Genron's history and the overall effect that these "street agents" have on recruiting. I mean people simply want to act like its not a huge issue. The entire Champagnat program, to be is very strange, and I have asked on here repeatedly if anyone has any more insight into it. The school as all of 120 kids in the ENTIRE High School, it has NO football field, no weight room, no facilities at all, and yet fielded a State Championship football team, despite only having started football 3 seasons ago. There are many stories of numerous players living with coaches, and insinuations that UM coaches are not very fond of that program. Id like to know why.

What I see here, is a kid who WAS legitimately torn between the hometown school, and a top SEC program. Yet at some point, something very definitively tipped the balance to L$U. Some will argue it was all our on field peformance. I have no doubt that played into his mind. But there are many top players going to schools all over the country that had cr@ppy seasons. What's different here? L$U's history, and the presence of a notorious street agent "handling" the recruitment of the kid, one who is publically trashing UM every chance he gets. I smell a rat, and history has shown that where there is smoke, there is fire.

You think the D will be better next year?

If we get better talent? Absolutely. Will it be great, or dominant? I dont know. I have my doubts, but I dont believe the staff is retarded like some here do. I feel they had little faith in the players they had, and played a very conservative/scared type of football. I think with better talent, there is NO QUESTION the defense would improve, to SOME degree. The question is how much. And IF the talent is better, and the staff feels more confident in the players, I do believe they would probably play more aggressively.

I dont have a great deal of faith in Donofrio. I have no idea if the guy can improve, or will improve as a DC. But he's had better defenses than this. He's not a total fool. Ive also seen what we had to work with this year on D. Our LB and S corps was absolutely dreadful and not even Div 1 calibur. I do think that the coaching and "prevent" scheme made things worse, but I dont think that AG and Donofrio are totally incapable of adjusting it if they have better talent. At least I have to hope for as much, since we are going to have these same guys next year. I think our secondary is going to be better next year. Having DP back will be huge. And the DL talent we are bringing in should give us a lot more options.

ok ... fair enough.

 

[Angry Ibis]

So it was not:
- getting paid
- PSU
- scheme

It was:
- family feeling
- LSU convinced him he was too dumb for Miami's academics

Wow.

its never one or the other… Its always a combination of things.

It was :

-Dbag Genron in his ear planting seeds daily
-Our Defense sucks so his seeds start to grow roots
-D'onfrio issue, ripping on Champagnat
-We pay, LSU pays… they have deeper pockets and better structure behind the pay(have been "building relationships" for years)
-and sometime kids are flip floppers… They fall in love, then start to The kid has committed to 4 schools for a reason.

PSU is an excuse, nothing to see there

 

[Problem2]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

 

[CANE4LIFE]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

Did he just post that? When did CI say he was committed? Thought the consensus accross the boards was he's likely to LSU.

 

[itsacanething]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

Did he just post that? When did CI say he was committed? Thought the consensus accross the boards was he's likely to LSU.

the fact that he is refuting it gives me slight hope. just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in.

 

[valid]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

are you ****ting me?

 

[txcane80]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

are you ****ting me?

What's going on? Consider me confused!

 

[caneinpsl]

travonte valentine ‏@traveeey99 3m
Lol canesinsider basically told ppl I'm committed lol wth when did I even do an interview with them lol #yallGottaDoBetter
Retweeted by Peter Ariz

They strike again.

are you ****ting me?

What's going on? Consider me confused!

Sounds like somebody on Canesinsider was either inferring or flat out said TV had committed to LSU and TV is refuting that at this point.