OT: Retired Numbers

[Piratz]

This topic has gotten some good traction around here in the past, wondering the thoughts about the NY Giants unretiring #1 from Ray Flaherty for rookie Malik Nabers?

The Flaherty family embraced it, similar to Richie Regan with Andre Barrett at SHU.

Personally this whole topic is simply about recognizing your all-time greats, which is what organizations should do. I think it’s fine to retire them or unretire them or just put them up to recognize a player but not remove them from circulation, whatever. But I know others are very rigid on this.

 

[SHUHitman]

If you retire a number, it should stay retired. This is why I prefer "rings of honor" or "jersey" retirements better, as both are inherently easier to celebrate a player without tying the hands of the organization.

 

[Halldan1]

BTW, on a similar subject...former Pirate great Glenn Mosley will soon be inducted into the Newark HOF. He is already in the school's HOF.

 

[Seton75]

BTW, on a similar subject...former Pirate great Glenn Mosley will soon be inducted into the Newark HOF. He is already in the school's HOF.

Ive said it before, but for me, Glenn changed SHU hoops. Seeing him in our uniform made me think of new possibilities. Hope he is feeling ok.

Retire and unretire? Up to Richie et al. Ok with them, OK with me.

 

[Halldan1]

Poster Harty9 is close to Glenn. Harty has often aided Glenn at his own expense. Heart of gold.

 

[GymRat]

BTW, on a similar subject...former Pirate great Glenn Mosley will soon be inducted into the Newark HOF. He is already in the school's HOF.

Dan ...any further information of when where for Glenn's induction..

 

[Halldan1]

I'll post it when it happens.

 

[TheHall87]

If you retire a number, it should stay retired. This is why I prefer "rings of honor" or "jersey" retirements better, as both are inherently easier to celebrate a player without tying the hands of the organization.

This is my thought as well. A number retirement is meant to be permanent. It's nice that the player or his family signs off on allowing the number back into circulation but that seems to be a given to do this in the first place.

Mind you I'm not against number retirements or whatever way you want to honor your great players. Teams should always recognize their elite contributors.

 

[SHUHitman]

This seems to be an annual discussion. I know we have the Seton Hall Athletics Hall of Fame, but at what point is our administration going to wake up and start doing more to honor it's past greats? We are trying to build a brand, and we often tout our "history" with this program but ultimately do very little to honor it.

The same retired jersey numbers have stood for what seems like a generation at this point. Where is the love for Nick Galis, Danny Callandrillo, Mark Bryant, etc? We've debated the pros and cons of retiring numbers here, but frankly I'm over the University's approach and the concept of retiring a number. If a retired number is such an honor that only the most mythological players earn the privilege, then why aren't we retiring jerseys? Short of Terry Dehere (who is literally the most prolific scorer in the progam's history), it seems like anyone that played after 1980 is off limits from consideration. We've had a championship finalist, sweet sixteens, NCAA appearances, 1,000 point scorers, 2,000 point scorers - none of those people are considered? Our all-time assist leader isn't considered? Or our all-time steals leader?

While I don't want to see our rafters overcrowded with participation trophies, we seem to be sorely lacking in giving proper due and acknowledgement of players across several generations at this point.

 

[hallwins]

This seems to be an annual discussion. I know we have the Seton Hall Athletics Hall of Fame, but at what point is our administration going to wake up and start doing more to honor it's past greats? We are trying to build a brand, and we often tout our "history" with this program but ultimately do very little to honor it.

The same retired jersey numbers have stood for what seems like a generation at this point. Where is the love for Nick Galis, Danny Callandrillo, Mark Bryant, etc? We've debated the pros and cons of retiring numbers here, but frankly I'm over the University's approach and the concept of retiring a number. If a retired number is such an honor that only the most mythological players earn the privilege, then why aren't we retiring jerseys? Short of Terry Dehere (who is literally the most prolific scorer in the progam's history), it seems like anyone that played after 1980 is off limits from consideration. We've had a championship finalist, sweet sixteens, NCAA appearances, 1,000 point scorers, 2,000 point scorers - none of those people are considered? Our all-time assist leader isn't considered? Or our all-time steals leader?

While I don't want to see our rafters overcrowded with participation trophies, we seem to be sorely lacking in giving proper due and acknowledgement of players across several generations at this point.

Convert all retired numbers to a Hall of Honor and add these monumental important players. This is so easy. I am sure the families of all players who have numbers already retired, would agree. If they will not move the retired numbers into the Hall of Honor and just don't retire numbers moving forward.

 

[HALL85]

The ring of honor is the best way to capture this.

It does make me wonder, with yearly free agency, less likely to see many considered going forward.

 

[TheHall87]

This seems to be an annual discussion. I know we have the Seton Hall Athletics Hall of Fame, but at what point is our administration going to wake up and start doing more to honor it's past greats? We are trying to build a brand, and we often tout our "history" with this program but ultimately do very little to honor it.

The same retired jersey numbers have stood for what seems like a generation at this point. Where is the love for Nick Galis, Danny Callandrillo, Mark Bryant, etc? We've debated the pros and cons of retiring numbers here, but frankly I'm over the University's approach and the concept of retiring a number. If a retired number is such an honor that only the most mythological players earn the privilege, then why aren't we retiring jerseys? Short of Terry Dehere (who is literally the most prolific scorer in the progam's history), it seems like anyone that played after 1980 is off limits from consideration. We've had a championship finalist, sweet sixteens, NCAA appearances, 1,000 point scorers, 2,000 point scorers - none of those people are considered? Our all-time assist leader isn't considered? Or our all-time steals leader?

While I don't want to see our rafters overcrowded with participation trophies, we seem to be sorely lacking in giving proper due and acknowledgement of players across several generations at this point.

Dehere was the last retired number and that came in 1993 so that's more than a generation.

There was a concerted effort during P.J.'s early years to recognize the program's all-time greats. I think Pep Saul, Bobby Wanzer and Bob Davies all had their numbers retired within a couple of years time during the 80's.

I've thrown out the Ring or Wall of Honor idea before as I think that's a way to recognize players without boxing yourself into a corner by limiting your number options. I think the issue is where does the physical manifestation of that idea happen. Having it in Walsh isn't an ideal option given we hardly play games there. Prudential would be fine but who knows if they have any interest.

 

[Halldan1]

Just a question. Does a player have had to graduate to get his number retired?

I ask because I do not know.