Well, even though New York’s two other major newspapers have
already run similar stories, it sure was nice to see a positive story about
Columbia athletics in the NY Times today.
The article was a piece about Joey Falcone and his role with the Ivy baseball champion Columbia
Lions. To give the Times a little more credit, I should say that I believe this
article is the first to report that Falcone is harboring some hopes of making
the majors even though he is about to turn 27.
This story is a reminder that fewer than 48 hours after Columbia
athletics reached a multi-year high point with the sweep of Dartmouth in the
ILCS, the Chad Washington story broke and everything about sports at CU became
negative again.
Hopefully, when
Columbia baseball’s season resumes in the NCAA Regionals at the end of this
month, (there is a “tune up” game vs. Sacred Heart this afternoon at home for
those of you who can play hooky and check it out), more of the positive glow of
this great season will seep through.
Other than that, the summer will be filled with scandal and
non-scandal questions surrounding the football program.
Here are just 5 that I can think of right now:
-Will the Lions be without players currently on the roster
die to suspension or expulsion from the team? (I think the key names to worry about are Chad Washington, Tom Callahan and Chris
Connors)
-Outside of the players, will anyone in the Lion coaching
staff or athletic department be disciplined in any way?
-How will these issues affect the morale and focus of the
team?
-What exactly will incoming transfer QB Brett Nottingham be doing to familiarize himself with the Lion
offense and how many of his Columbia teammates will be in the NYC area this summer
to work with him?
-How soon will we see overall changes in size for the
offensive line as the summer goes along?
We’ve got a lot of time to ponder all these questions.
It will be a long summer.
35 comments:
Jake, I think it is unfair to all concerned to speculate about disciplinary measures on the basis of the facts known to date. I also think it does a disservice to all concerned
It's a question that has to be asked. To your point, I WON'T offer an opinion on what should happen considering I don't know all the facts. But to write about a team that may or may not have three starters when the summer ends without asking those questions is impossible.
I don't think anything will happen to Conners, all his tweets were in high school.
3 starters? Where did you get that?washington is the 3rd end, Callahan doesn't play and Conners might be the #3 receiver. Lets not get dramatic.
Callahan was considered by some to be the best recruit of his class.
I agree Old Lion.... Very Unfair
Re Callahan, I do not think he broke into the two deep last year. We had three first years and two second years starting by the end of the season. But before the events of the last three weeks Coach M had good things to say about all three based on Spring ball. Nonetheless, my original comments still apply. Let's give this a rest and see how it plays out. PS, looks like Padilla is already hard at work based upon his tweets.
Baseball had an easy win against SH today and Alex Black showed off a 93 MPH fastball as the closer.
The online NYT had no story on the BB team winning the Ivy title; ditto the scandal,both as far as I could tell.
The NCAA parings will be announced May 27.
While Jake's questions are relevant, the answers won't be known for months...and there may be others. I find this sort of thing useless at this time, in other words. But, have fun!
Amazing thing about Black is that he closes out on the mound at 93 mph after playing first base. Another amazing thing is the bat speed of our hitters. Some of our guys swing the bat like pros. I would be surprised if the major league scouts are not watching the Lions closely.
Surprising that Alex Black was just 2nd Team All-Ivy. He led the league in home runs, the team in batting average (and some other hitting categories I believe), and on top of that is also an excellent closer. Not to take anything away from up-and-coming star Jordan Serena, but Black, especially as a senior, seemed more
deserving for 1st Team.
I saw three (3) scouts! They took out the jugs gun so I could see the 93!!
How fast is Speer? And who did the scouts come to see besides Black? My guess is Falcone and Serena
I would not be surprised if three players are drafted from both Columbia and Dartmouth.
Ford from Princeton is POY and beat out Black at 1st.
Ford is a terrific player and deserving of all his awards, but Black should have been first team, perhaps as utility given he plays 1b, pitches and was top five in the league in most offensive categories. Also, CU plays a substantially tougher schedule than most of the rest of the league, so his numbers are understated compared to other Ivy hitters.
Ford from Princeton is the first player in Ivy League history to be named Player of the Year and Pitcher of the Year over the course of a career. In his case, it was even in the same year, adding to the extraordinary achievement.
I would surmise that the League coaches gave adequate thought to the matter of who should receive these individual honors, given the unique situation this year.
That's not to say Black would not have been deserving of POY but the recent discussion sounds like so much home team complaining rather than real analysis, which would include the stats not just of Black but compared head-to-head with Ford.
Black was the best player on the best team in the league. The fact is, our non-conference schedule is quite tough. So Black was eighth in the league in BA for the year, but in Ivy-only play Black was third in BA, fifth in hits, fifth in runs, fourth in RBI, 3rd in HRs and 3rd in total bases. He was also third in the league in saves as an RP. Ford's numbers as a hitter and pitcher were better, and as I said above he is totally deserving of his awards. But that doesn't mean Black shouldn't be first team for a tremendous year on offense and on the mound. He is Columbia's MVP.
I dont know how expulsions and suspensions would benefit the University. It would only hurt the players ,including those who were not involved. Rather this should be an OPPORTUNITY TO EDUCATE people about how hateful words can hurt others, and how this type of behavior is everything Columbia DOES NOT STAND FOR....
Right on, Doc.
The witch hunt is OVER!!! Can We move on with Columbia Football and look forward to a very exciting future! The facts have come out and this whole thing has been completely over dramatized and pulled everyone through the mud. These are 19,20, and 21 year olds. Let it go. They are not racist. They are not bad kids. It really seems like the pot calling the kettle black in a lot of these tweets.
Well said!!
Do you want to "move on" because these are 19, 20 and 21 year-olds who are "not bad kids," or because they play for Columbia?
If you feel that the "witch hunt" should be over and we should all move on, make sure that the next time another school's team is beset by a scandal, you are equally forgiving.
The NCAA Baseball Selection Show will be on ESPNU on May 27th--30 conference champions including our Columbia Lions and 34 at large picks. I wonder if our guys have any favorite teams they would like to play.
"Scandal" seems like the wrong word to describe what happened at Columbia. "Poor judgment" of one or two players seems like a more apt description. Harvard found that 92 students including its two senior basketball captains "cheated " on a take home exam. That seems to fit the term "scandal" much better than what happened at Columbia.
The NCAA found Harvard guilty of various recruiting infractions at the start of the Tommy Ammaker era. Harvard did nothing about it and the Ivy League looked the other way. That to me is much reprehensible that what has arisen recently at Columbia.
How about a shout out for the three graduating seniors on our football team who are graduating Phi Beta Kappa!
How does Columbia show that this is the type of behavior that it won't stand for by doing nothing to the players in question?
What makes you think that Columbia is "doing nothing to the players in question." Are you jumping to that conclusion or do you know that as a fact? Surely, you realize, that at the very least anyone who has made inappropriate tweets will be spoken to by the coaches. However, the point is whether it is appropriate or fair to single out student athletes at Columbia or any other school for criticism merely because they are student-athletes. Surely, no one is suggesting that the University has any business reading the private statements posted on line by students.
Tweets are not private statements. Twitter is a public forum, and tweets are public statements. That's part if the problem here.
One of the Pac-12 teams would be a great opponent for our baseball team. I'm hoping that we play Oregon or Oregon State. Stanford and U.C.L.A would be great too, but the Oregon schools are ranked higher.
Years ago, Brown was penalized for dubious allegations, never substantiated.
You know that readers are feeling defensive and/or insecure about Columbia's situation when they start to cite "much [more] reprehensible" crimes committed by others. Yes, what Tommy Amaker did was worse. Yes, Harvard and the Ivy League did look the other way. How that investigation was handled made all three parties look very bad. So what? That has nothing to do with the situation at hand.
Are we to excuse all shoplifters because somewhere in the same city criminals are committing grand larceny? No, shoplifting is still illegal.
I don't know if Chad Washington committed shoplifting, grand larceny or neither, but Tommy Amaker abusing NCAA recruiting guidelines is irrelevant.
For a reader to post that "the fact have come out" reflects simple denial and ignors just how exposed Columbia is on this alleged assault. The facts have absolutely not come out. In a worst case outcome, Chad Washington could still be convicted of a hate crime. Let's stop advocating that the best way to handle a situation which could still get much worse before it gets better is to sweep this thing under the rug.
Come on, this is not being swept under the rug. You need to keep in mind that almost anything any student or administrator says or does today could be considered a "hate crime," or worse. For example, every college admissions officer in America is struggling with the question whether it is a "hate crime" to accept or deny admission to a candidate on any basis other than academic merit. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
I hope that last post was intended a an ironic commentary on the overblown rhetoric here in defense of the tweets. If not, then the author ought to get a full refund of his tuition payments.
Post a Comment