|
Post by actualfactual on Apr 19, 2018 20:05:12 GMT -5
Alums keep loyally giving while teams keep sucking. You fellows HAVE leverage beyond complaining in a chatroom, you know........ I hear people have seen fr. Borroughs at basketball games. Yeah, but he's from Georgetown, basketball central. His profile is low or zero at other sports. HC has been coed for almost 50 years. Shouldn't at least one womens team be decent? If I'm either the President or the AD, I probably think things are going okay, judging by how polite the complaining is. Until the historical 50%+ annual donation rate, among the very best in the country, drops to 40%, or 30%. Then, maybe I see the light.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Apr 19, 2018 23:45:34 GMT -5
At a scholarship-level....we are probably at our nadir football and basketball-wise right now.
Just unexcusable on a lot of levels...Patriot League is to blame for a lot of it but the school should be (but isn't) embarrassed in general.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 20, 2018 6:59:43 GMT -5
In this case above, he says you fellows, so perhaps he's not an alum. But agree with you on all accounts
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Apr 20, 2018 8:23:06 GMT -5
mm67, you have been a refreshing breath of reason.
That said, there is no need to call people juvenile because they don’t believe as you do.
I am not taking what you said personally because I have not encouraged people not to give to Holy Cross but have made a personal choice that I will not give after close to 50 years of doing so. It has nothing to do with how good or bad the athletic teams are doing but because of what I see as a conscious decision by the BoT and Administration to abandon the Catholic roots and traditions that have made Holy Cross.
Respecting that others can continue or begin donating to the College because they support that direction is up to the individual’s conscience. I am neutral as to whether or not any other alum chooses to donate.
I wish for the success of Holy Cross but I know enough of TPTB that they are influenced by money. That’s not meant as an accusation because money is necessary to run the College. They tend to listen more closely when money is involved.
I have written to the appropriate people atop Mt. St. James and fully understand my position - and have actually received some feedback that while disappointed, they respect my position.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 20, 2018 8:30:52 GMT -5
It is actually intriguing that we can be so bad in so many sports simultaneously. Like an incompetent octopus.
Beyond a certain morbid fascination and perhaps embarrassment, I don't think it is of any great import.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Apr 20, 2018 9:24:04 GMT -5
In caro's recap of various team records, he does not even include m&w tennis because these have been effectively intramural activities for awhile. Our women's team wrapped up their season yday in the league tourney (as the no.9 and last seed). You'd think it might have been somewhat competitive vs. no.8 Colgate, but every match was one-sided.
Against low level D.1 schools this season we lost every match in a shutout except for one. the total points in these matches were 45-1 (that's right - one player managed to win a match all year - back in the fall). Why does the school insist on embarrassing itself ?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 20, 2018 13:14:51 GMT -5
I am of the belief that you get what you are willing to pay for.
PL football schools; total athletically-related financial aid 2016-17, as reported on Title IX report v(which is derived from an NCAA report). Bucknell $13,2M Colgate $12.8M Lehigh $12.4M HC $11,0M Fordham $11.0M Lafayette $9.2M Georgetown $8.9M
As a point of reference, 60 football scollies at $63,000 per would cost about $3.8 million. ______________________________________ PL football schools, number of athletic (merit) scollies and average scollie amount. From CDS reports for 2017-18, unless otherwise indicated.
total number of unduplicated athletes all sports / [school ranked by] number of athletes receiving merit scollie aid / average merit scollie award amount Georgetown 659 / 318 / $25.1K (2016-17) Colgate 585 / 282 / $43.5K (2016-17) Lehigh 624 / 276 / $38,3K Lafayette 512 / 231 / $40.3K HC 667 / 205 / $37.2K Bucknell 721 / 186 / $38.4K (The total merit scollie aid is $7.1M) Fordham 545 / 153 / $34.2K (2016-17)
As I recall the conversation on the old board with Eric or bison, Bucknell gives tuition waivers, which would not be counted as a scollie grant-in-aid.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Apr 20, 2018 14:12:12 GMT -5
mm67, with all due respect,this is (basically) a "HC sports" message board. Athletics are going to be discussed here...some (many?) of us here are very upset at where the overall athletic program is today.
Are athletics the most important function of the school? Obviously not, but it's still a significant part of the overall school's mission/pr/brand etc etc etc If it wasn't or isn't, we should drop to D3 immediately and save everybody the time and trouble.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 20, 2018 16:51:49 GMT -5
I am of the belief that you get what you are willing to pay for.
______________________________________ PL football schools, number of athletic (merit) scollies and average scollie amount. From CDS reports for 2017-18, unless otherwise indicated. total number of unduplicated athletes all sports / [school ranked by] number of athletes receiving merit scollie aid / average merit scollie award amountGeorgetown 659 / 318 / $25.1K (2016-17) Colgate 585 / 282 / $43.5K (2016-17) Lehigh 624 / 276 / $38,3K Lafayette 512 / 231 / $40.3K HC 667 / 205 / $37.2K Bucknell 721 / 186 / $38.4K (The total merit scollie aid is $7.1M) Fordham 545 / 153 / $34.2K (2016-17) As I recall the conversation on the old board with Eric or bison, Bucknell gives tuition waivers, which would not be counted as a scollie grant-in-aid. It definitely wasn't me. I have never heard of Bucknell giving tuition waivers. And if some school did, why would that not be considered to be the same as a scholarship? The number of merit scholarships shown for Bucknell, i.e. 186, sounds quite accurate. On the male side, there are no scholarships except in basketball and football. If the male number is 93, that would mean 13 for basketball and 80 for football (58 divided among 80 athletes), which is certainly very close.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 20, 2018 18:44:20 GMT -5
bison, in the CDS, reporting of tuition waivers is voluntary. Bucknell shows $0 for tuition waivers.
My foray into tuition waivers was my attempt to explain the discrepancy between the Title IX numbers and the CDS numbers for 2016-17 for Bucknell.
In the Title IX report, Bucknell reported athletically-related financial aid of $13.182M for 2016-17. In the CDS for that same year, the total athletic aid was $11.362M. (In the CDS, the total merit athletic scollie money in 2016-17 was $6.779M)
The HC difference between Title IX and the CDS values was $56K. The Colgate difference was $0.
As I recall the conversation on the old board, the question arose as to why Bucknell's football numbers were so low in the first several years of the scollie ramp-up.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Apr 20, 2018 19:57:57 GMT -5
bison, in the CDS, reporting of tuition waivers is voluntary. Bucknell shows $0 for tuition waivers. My foray into tuition waivers was my attempt to explain the discrepancy between the Title IX numbers and the CDS numbers for 2016-17 for Bucknell. In the Title IX report, Bucknell reported athletically-related financial aid of $13.182M for 2016-17. In the CDS for that same year, the total athletic aid was $11.362M. (In the CDS, the total merit athletic scollie money in 2016-17 was $6.779M) The HC difference between Title IX and the CDS values was $56K. The Colgate difference was $0. As I recall the conversation on the old board, the question arose as to why Bucknell's football numbers were so low in the first several years of the scollie ramp-up. I haven't had time to try to analyze the numbers, but Bucknell has given out a small amount of merit aid - but a significantly higher amount of athletically-related aid, which is very different. I am fairly sure there are no tuition waivers involved. The coaches would have a much easier recruiting job if they were given the same amount of aid to work with, but could give it out as merit scholarships instead of need-based aid where coaches have to determine need at an early stage and where parents have to fill out FAFSA before aid can be offered. Btw, I just confirmed in the NCAA bylaws what I was already sure of, i.e. that tuition waivers are treated by the NCAA in exactly the same way as any other type of athletically-related aid.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 21, 2018 5:49:53 GMT -5
bison, fyi, the way I calculated amount of merit aid for athletes was to multiply number of recipients x the average amount per recipient.
For the purposes of the NCAA report, that provision you cited could lead to a larger number than what appears in the CDS report, where the amount of tuition waivers, if any, need not be included.
I'm not an accountant, but in Federal budget terms, a tuition waiver would be considered as revenue foregone, whereas a grant-in-aid would be considered as an expenditure (spending) of revenue received.
In the Title IX report for Bucknell, athletically related financial aid for the men is stated as $6.158M, and for the women as $7.024M. The M/F ratio of Bucknell undergraduates is 50/50 so I believe it highly atypical for a football school awarding scollies to have more aid directed at women than men. That's not a complaint, just an observation.
At Colgate, where the M/F ratio is 45:55, male athletes get 56 percent of the financial aid. At HC, the ratio is 49:51, male athletes get 55 percent of the aid. At Villanova with a ratio of 47:53, male athletes get 49 percent of the aid. At Georgetown, which is 44 percent male, males get 49 percent of the athletically related financial aid. With no athletically related fin aid for football, one can readily see how merit scollies for football could greatly complicate Georgetown's life under Title IX.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 21, 2018 5:59:54 GMT -5
If we are actually trying to have winning teams and failing with every single team than it is a a systemic failure and falls on the AD. If we are merely trying to PLAY a large number of DI sports then this year’s collective performances are no biggee. Since our constructed identity is now as a “pretty good social justice/progressive school that PLAYS a lot of DI sports” I suspect the latter ....so no biggee.
|
|
|
Post by actualfactual on Apr 21, 2018 8:21:54 GMT -5
The idea of reducing or forgoing donations to your alma mater for a period of time is tough love, not disloyalty. A significant percentage of donations go to endowment or long-term capital projects. In the short and intermediate term, classes will be held, faculty will be paid and buildings will be warm and safe, no matter what the dollar amount or participation rate for alumni donations may be. From what I read, the school already engages past athletic luminaries such as Ron Perry and Gordie Lockbaum to advise leadership on athletic matters. There's a new gym and a full slate of intercollegiate teams are fielded for men and women. Unless alums make a point of their displeasure with lack of athletic SUCCESS, I think the administration has the right to say they are doing enough and the school's historic emphasis on athletics is still in place. The scary thing is that the current administration may actually believe that.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 22, 2018 10:29:33 GMT -5
Facts: We had one of most enviable 1AA athletic programs in the country.
WE went out of our way the redefine ourselves.
Our attractiveness to 18 year olds diminished. They voted with their feet
One reaps what one sows.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 22, 2018 10:45:55 GMT -5
Facts: We had one of most enviable 1AA athletic programs in the country. WE went out of our way the redefine ourselves. Our attractiveness to 18 year olds diminished. They voted with their feet One reaps what one sows. For perspective: during the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football, 1986 thru 1991, we went 60-5 in football. In those same years our record in other major sports was 96-78 in men's basketball--3 losing seasons, then a 24-6 season which took us to the NIT 72-103 in baseball 73-109 in hockey Does the extraordinary success of football, which we all remember so fondly, get overweighted when we evaluate the overall success of all sports??
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Apr 22, 2018 11:09:19 GMT -5
One cannot overweight any Holy Cross extraordinary success.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Apr 22, 2018 11:13:39 GMT -5
That football record and an NIT? I will take it. All losing teams is an embarrassing disgrace.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 22, 2018 11:36:42 GMT -5
As our athletic program is cratering it would be of some consolation if we could say that our academic reputation is soaring. Those of us who read the sports pages know the former is true and those of us on Naviance can confirm the latter is false.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 22, 2018 11:43:08 GMT -5
Facts: We had one of most enviable 1AA athletic programs in the country. WE went out of our way the redefine ourselves. Our attractiveness to 18 year olds diminished. They voted with their feet One reaps what one sows. For perspective: during the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football, 1986 thru 1991, we went 60-5 in football. In those same years our record in other major sports was 96-78 in men's basketball--3 losing seasons, then a 24-6 season which took us to the NIT 72-103 in baseball 73-109 in hockey Does the extraordinary success of football, which we all remember so fondly, get overweighted when we evaluate the overall success of all sports?? I don't know if this changes your calculations or your point, but the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football (IMHO) were really the TEN years from 1982 thru 1991. (essentially Carter/Duffner) I think Women's hoops was very good during this period. (No losing seasons, Togo, Sherry Levin and a very young Bill Gibbons)
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Apr 22, 2018 12:28:53 GMT -5
Facts: We had one of most enviable 1AA athletic programs in the country. WE went out of our way the redefine ourselves. Our attractiveness to 18 year olds diminished. They voted with their feetOne reaps what one sows. I doubt there are many (if any) “average” 18 year olds who care about the whole package of a school (academics, social life, sports, etc.) who got into Boston College, Villanova, and Holy Cross actually choosing HC these days. We need a total overhaul in college and athletics leadership.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 22, 2018 12:41:17 GMT -5
For perspective: during the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football, 1986 thru 1991, we went 60-5 in football. In those same years our record in other major sports was 96-78 in men's basketball--3 losing seasons, then a 24-6 season which took us to the NIT 72-103 in baseball 73-109 in hockey Does the extraordinary success of football, which we all remember so fondly, get overweighted when we evaluate the overall success of all sports?? I don't know if this changes your calculations or your point, but the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football (IMHO) were really the TEN years from 1982 thru 1991. (essentially Carter/Duffner) I think Women's hoops was very good during this period. (No losing seasons, Togo, Sherry Levin and a very young Bill Gibbons) 10 year records: Football= 89-19 Basketball= 146-146 Baseball= 119-166 Hockey= 140-166
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 22, 2018 15:07:40 GMT -5
I don't know if this changes your calculations or your point, but the glory years of Holy Cross 1-AA football (IMHO) were really the TEN years from 1982 thru 1991. (essentially Carter/Duffner) I think Women's hoops was very good during this period. (No losing seasons, Togo, Sherry Levin and a very young Bill Gibbons) 10 year records: Football= 89-19 Basketball= 146-146 Baseball= 119-166 Hockey= 140-166 Women's basketball for the same 10-year period (actually drew a good number of fans to these games BTW): 203-84
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 22, 2018 15:12:43 GMT -5
Facts: We had one of most enviable 1AA athletic programs in the country. WE went out of our way the redefine ourselves. Our attractiveness to 18 year olds diminished. They voted with their feetOne reaps what one sows. I doubt there are many (if any) “average” 18 year olds who care about the whole package of a school (academics, social life, sports, etc.) who got into Boston College, Villanova, and Holy Cross actually choosing HC these days. We need a total overhaul in college and athletics leadership. The BC and (more recently) Villanova successes are undeniable. (OK, there may be a couple of grads still in denial about one or the other.) The kids have voted with their feet. At this point we should be concerned with Fordham (our top cross-applicant school) and Providence College (another cross-applicant school).
|
|