|
Post by moose1970 on Nov 1, 2018 14:01:01 GMT -5
We have some tough games against BCS teams the next few years. Let's get better before we continue scheduling them and- get slaughtered. JMO. setting reality aside for a moment, let's assume that we do somehow "get better" and become competitive in games v BC, Syracuse. we will then dominate the PL and games v ivy league, etc. the push will then be to move past the Pl, ivy league since consistently winning by lopsided scores is no better than consistently losing. back to reality, we will NEVER somehow just "get better" and become competitive in games v BC, Syracuse. so why put our players and coaches through the farce of playing these "games"? just give them the chance to win! with time we will have both winning and losing football seasons which is what it is all about. unlike most, the HC football program is not merely a training camp for NFL football prospects. The vast majority of Crusader football players will hang up their cleats and never play the game again (which is as it should be) The focus of the HC football program should be the vast majority of Crusader football players, not the few who may pursue a career as a professional football player. ok, so now you know!
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Nov 1, 2018 14:06:15 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying Moose...but selfishly, I'd much rather get blown out at State College than say beat Bryant in Smithfield, RI. I'm willing to bet most of the guys on the team would feel that way/welcome the challenge too.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Nov 1, 2018 15:25:40 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying Moose...but selfishly, I'd much rather get blown out at State College than say beat Bryant in Smithfield, RI. I'm willing to bet most of the guys on the team would feel that way/welcome the challenge too. i hear you too but i do not think that the only choice is between playing penn state or bryant (whatever that is)
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 1, 2018 15:42:22 GMT -5
I hear what you're saying Moose...but selfishly, I'd much rather get blown out at State College than say beat Bryant in Smithfield, RI. I'm willing to bet most of the guys on the team would feel that way/welcome the challenge too. i hear you too but i do not think that the only choice is between playing penn state or bryant (whatever that is) Not so sure we could beat Bryant (they beat Fordham this year) in Smithfield, RI. Beyond that and the either/or fallacy moose1970 pointed out, I would much rather see us play URI/William & Mary/Villanova over Penn State. A competitive game versus a challenging CAA opponent within easy travel of many alums (perhaps at home BTW) over a lopsided match in the middle of nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Nov 1, 2018 15:50:57 GMT -5
I say play Penn State or any other power 5 school that gives us more exposure, provides a payday, and gives players and alums the chance to be in these stadiums. We'll never be great in the PL, CAA or any other FCS conference, if we are AFRAID to mix it up with the big programs, regardless of the outcome.
A recruit that is picking between PL and Ivy is more likely to pick a PL school that plays large FBS schools than if PL teams did not.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Nov 2, 2018 3:03:53 GMT -5
I say play Penn State or any other power 5 school that gives us more exposure, provides a payday, and gives players and alums the chance to be in these stadiums. We'll never be great in the PL, CAA or any other FCS conference, if we are AFRAID to mix it up with the big programs, regardless of the outcome. A recruit that is picking between PL and Ivy is more likely to pick a PL school that plays large FBS schools than if PL teams did not. interesting concept to mix it up with the big programs, "regardless of the outcome" so you agree that the chances of HC winning or even being competitive v a large FBS school are slim and none. we just come for the ambience, show that we do not really belong and go home with a smile and some money. now that is truly sad. btw, we will be great if we are not AFRAID to play competitive hard nose football. imho, that will attract recruits or, at least, the ones that we want to attract. we can take pride in Crusader football if we just give our players and coaches the chance to play and win.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Nov 2, 2018 8:17:53 GMT -5
I say play Penn State or any other power 5 school that gives us more exposure, provides a payday, and gives players and alums the chance to be in these stadiums. We'll never be great in the PL, CAA or any other FCS conference, if we are AFRAID to mix it up with the big programs, regardless of the outcome. A recruit that is picking between PL and Ivy is more likely to pick a PL school that plays large FBS schools than if PL teams did not. interesting concept to mix it up with the big programs, "regardless of the outcome" so you agree that the chances of HC winning or even being competitive v a large FBS school are slim and none. we just come for the ambience, show that we do not really belong and go home with a smile and some money. now that is truly sad. btw, we will be great if we are not AFRAID to play competitive hard nose football. imho, that will attract recruits or, at least, the ones that we want to attract. we can take pride in Crusader football if we just give our players and coaches the chance to play and win. I don't agree re slim or none. There is no reason why we cannot play some of these games and be competitive (at some point in the future). We were competitive against UConn - I know they stink. We caught BC on an up year. The score would not have been as lopsided if we played BC's team from a few years ago and if we had a solid QB. Colgate was tied with Cuse after the first quarter a few years ago (before new recruiting full roster population?) and ended up losing by 20-odd points. Once we populate the roster with better recruits top to bottom, we will be more competitive. The goals of the program should be: 1. to win the league, 2. advance in the playoffs and 3. seek a national championship. The way to accomplish those goals includes, necessarily, the scheduling of FBS games. Simply, we don't accomplish those goals without same. The scheduling of these games attracts recruits, and better recruiting = better team depth. The program does not get better by only playing regional I-AA teams. The program does not get national exposure playing those same games, or even playing the I-AA programs with the type of success we would like to emulate, e.g. some CAA teams. FACT - We get more exposure by playing FBS teams. The college football landscape is vastly different from when you stepped on campus in the 60's or when I did in the 90's. All focus has been shifted to the P5. In my day, most recruits' (at least the recruits from big football areas) first priority was to play for the highest division they could. I imagine that desire is magnified to the conference level with the increased focus on the P5. HC has a product to sell. We need to distinguish our product from those programs we are recruiting against. We can offer a top notch education, and the ability to play P5 schools. Educational aspect distinguishes us from many of the schools in the country playing division I football, except similarly situated PL teams and Ivies (eschewing comparison of the top academic schools in the P5 which are not our recruiting rivals). P5 scheduling distinguishes us vs. most Ivies. That is vitally important in this AI era. There is no reason that we should be afraid to play these games or shy away from these games. The coaches want these games. The players want these these games. Recruits wants these games. The athletic department wants these games. Regardless of the outcome, i.e. win, loss by 10, lose by 40, we need these games to take the program to the next level. Your opposition to these games is well noted. My disagreement with you is, likewise, well noted. While we can agree that we will never agree on this issue, your position re same is simply wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Nov 2, 2018 9:25:26 GMT -5
I don't agree re slim or none. There is no reason why we cannot play some of these games and be competitive (at some point in the future). We were competitive against UConn - I know they stink. We caught BC on an up year. The score would not have been as lopsided if we played BC's team from a few years ago and if we had a solid QB. Colgate was tied with Cuse after the first quarter a few years ago (before new recruiting full roster population?) and ended up losing by 20-odd points. Once we populate the roster with better recruits top to bottom, we will be more competitive. The goals of the program should be: 1. to win the league, 2. advance in the playoffs and 3. seek a national championship. The way to accomplish those goals includes, necessarily, the scheduling of FBS games. Simply, we don't accomplish those goals without same. The scheduling of these games attracts recruits, and better recruiting = better team depth. The program does not get better by only playing regional I-AA teams. The program does not get national exposure playing those same games, or even playing the I-AA programs with the type of success we would like to emulate, e.g. some CAA teams. FACT - We get more exposure by playing FBS teams. The college football landscape is vastly different from when you stepped on campus in the 60's or when I did in the 90's. All focus has been shifted to the P5. In my day, most recruits' (at least the recruits from big football areas) first priority was to play for the highest division they could. I imagine that desire is magnified to the conference level with the increased focus on the P5. HC has a product to sell. We need to distinguish our product from those programs we are recruiting against. We can offer a top notch education, and the ability to play P5 schools. Educational aspect distinguishes us from many of the schools in the country playing division I football, except similarly situated PL teams and Ivies (eschewing comparison of the top academic schools in the P5 which are not our recruiting rivals). P5 scheduling distinguishes us vs. most Ivies. That is vitally important in this AI era. There is no reason that we should be afraid to play these games or shy away from these games. The coaches want these games. The players want these these games. Recruits wants these games. The athletic department wants these games. Regardless of the outcome, i.e. win, loss by 10, lose by 40, we need these games to take the program to the next level. Your opposition to these games is well noted. My disagreement with you is, likewise, well noted. While we can agree that we will never agree on this issue, your position re same is simply wrong. Nicely stated, IHS. You're obviously very well educated.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 2, 2018 9:31:33 GMT -5
He must be a Holy Cross grad.
|
|
|
Post by 1974crusader33 on Nov 2, 2018 9:43:07 GMT -5
Check out Penn State future schedules. Both Villanova and Delaware are on them. No reason we can't if continue to upgrade recruiting.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Nov 2, 2018 11:04:36 GMT -5
I believe Colgate has played an FBS game regularly for a while now. It's about the money. Almost all FCS that help an FBS become bowl eligible do it. If I'm HC I go back to BC and demand more $$$ for putting 40K in the stands.
If you're against scheduling FBS then you should be against scheduling P5 basketball and top-tier hockey.
I also wish people would stop using the Ivies as a comparison. Why would you want to be like them in football? If you want to it's easy. Schedule 10 games, rarely challenge yourself and never aspire to the highest level of your sport.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Nov 2, 2018 11:21:31 GMT -5
Of course we can agree to disagree. I would say though the investment that HC has put into athletics recently isn't a deemphasis on athletics. Plus IMO if you deemphasize you're not getting Villanova, W & M, UNH to play you regularly. You're back to CCSU, Sacred Heart, Wagner, etc.
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Nov 2, 2018 13:31:05 GMT -5
mm67 - you may be missing a major point. While we here all know that HC is a wonderful high level academic institution, it is not viewed as favorably as it once was (down to 84th in latest USNWR rankings), which, downfall can be paralleled with the general loss of national reputation of HC in the big sports era (last 30 years). Colgate, on the other hand, has continually increased in the rankings during this period. It may be a pretty weak correlation, even a post hoc fallacy, but playing larger schools earlier and more often has certainly coincided with the increased rankings of Colgate. BC is an example of a relatively regional destination for most of its existence until football put it on the national radar in the early 80's. The Flutie bump caused an increase in applications and accordingly, a more selective admissions process. On a scale of 1-10 from a reputation standpoint (in a completely arbitrary and concocted system of my own devise) - I would say BC started from 4 (1940-1980) and got to 8 (1980+). We started from 7 (1920-1991), went down to 2, and now have to get to 6. The fastest way back is through sports.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Nov 2, 2018 14:01:21 GMT -5
HC is a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Nov 2, 2018 14:34:17 GMT -5
KY, I think he's talking about reputation, more specifically, name recognition. In that, he may not be far off.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Nov 2, 2018 14:38:27 GMT -5
I agree with inhoc in general, if not his ratings scale . Been saying this here for 10+ years....HC's brand was severely damaged by deemphasizing basketball and football. We have been on a trajectory ovah the last 30 years of having once been spoken in the same circles as ND, GTown, BC etc to one of being grouped in with PC, Fairfield, Stonehill et. al.
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Nov 2, 2018 14:45:59 GMT -5
just my two cents... I remember in the '80's fabulous HC teams that succeeded without playing any BCS/P5 teams. OK times have changed, I get it, oh do I get it and how. I just have to check my bad back, failing eyesight and faulty memory to know that times have changed, but I digress. Presently, do all the FCS schools sacrifice themselves for a game or two every year or even frequently to the BCS/P5? Do the Ivies play against BCS/P5 teams annually other than an occasional Yale-Army? I don't think so. Do all of the other PL teams play a P5/BCS powerhouse team other than an occasional go at it, eg "gate- Syracuse? Does every successful PL program schedule BCS/P5 teams annually or even frequently? I may be mistaken but I am not aware of any mad rush by other PL schools to dive into the BCS/P5 fires. Other FCS programs which apparently regularly schedule BCS/P5 teams like Appalachian State or CAA schools, etc. mean absolutely nothing to this old observer. I don't give a rat's derriere about those teams even though it appears that they frequently schedule one of the big turds. It seems to me that we should be able to schedule in a manner similar to our PL/Ivy cohort(HC is still considered by many to be near Ivy)) and succeed on our own merits - great school, terrific coach, great facilities with an interesting FCS sked. The players just want to play, period, G-D Bless 'em ! Build better teams and attendance will improve , although maybe not as much as we would like in the current national climate of lack of interest in CFB. I honestly don't see how HC gains by going lower(namely, offering ourselves up as a sacrificial lamb) to play higher ranked BCS/P5 teams. LoveHC BC ? ( thru 1986 )….Army ?
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Nov 2, 2018 14:53:01 GMT -5
Please be assured that my hope for HC football is that we develop a program that is competitive in the PL and against our traditional IL foes. As I wrote earlier Colgate seems to have set the template for us to emulate in establishing a successful football program over many years. Colgate did begin to play against its long time rival, Syracuse in the 2000's after a hiatus of many years but the success of Colgate's program predates the renewal of the Syracuse game . Colgate's stability seems to be based on long term strategic planning as evidenced by its hiring coaches from within to establish continuity and a tradition of success. I am sure that there are other factors such as facilities, funding, alumni involvement and quality and attractiveness of the school itself that contribute to the continuing success of Colgate's program. And, yes I do agree that against the backdrop of a successful FCS football program, Colgate's playing the 'Cuse, Army, Air Force and other BCS teams must be like candy for the players and fans. (Please note the care Colgate uses in selecting attractive, usually weaker BCS but certainly not traditionally big time BCS competition.) Quite simply, scheduling big time competition is not a sweet that appeals to me. LoveHC Colgate has been outspending HC on football and recruiting budgets for over a decade....and maybe still are per pp's #'s.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Nov 2, 2018 15:00:17 GMT -5
No doubt that Colgate has the stronger academic reputation now. I try telling high school kids that there once was a time HC had a similar academic reputation to Colgate but they either don't believe me or ask , "Where is Holy Cross"?
I don't think it is necessarily the relatively recent football divergence.
(Similar to the BC/Villanova v HC discussions with students at this point).
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Nov 2, 2018 15:07:36 GMT -5
mm67 - you may be missing a major point. While we here all know that HC is a wonderful high level academic institution, it is not viewed as favorably as it once was (down to 84th in latest USNWR rankings), which, downfall can be paralleled with the general loss of national reputation of HC in the big sports era (last 30 years). Colgate, on the other hand, has continually increased in the rankings during this period. It may be a pretty weak correlation, even a post hoc fallacy, but playing larger schools earlier and more often has certainly coincided with the increased rankings of Colgate. BC is an example of a relatively regional destination for most of its existence until football put it on the national radar in the early 80's. The Flutie bump caused an increase in applications and accordingly, a more selective admissions process. On a scale of 1-10 from a reputation standpoint (in a completely arbitrary and concocted system of my own devise) - I would say BC started from 4 (1940-1980) and got to 8 (1980+). We started from 7 (1920-1991), went down to 2, and now have to get to 6. The fastest way back is through sports. On your latter point: I've said for years that the Chestnut Hill school should have been renamed "Flutie University" about thirty years ago. Given the fact that they didn't rename it "Giles Mosher University" after BayBank essentially choreographed the financial resurrection of the school, I knew the Flutie thing wouldn't happen.
As to the former point, and that which has evolved in this thread: A highly-recognized and equally highly-respected member of the HC athletic department of many years ago, who was not a fan of the football program, readily acknowledged that there is no better way to get thousands of alumni on the campus (even multiple times per year) than to have a successful football program. Think of Fitton Field when Mark Duffner had the program running on all cylinders - the place was banged-out! While I believe that we should "play up" as a means of generating exposure and enticing recruits, I don't think playing Penn State is the answer. How 'bout we step it down a bit? How about playing Rice? Northwestern? Wake Forest? Or how about a Miami (Ohio) or how about a religious war with either TCU or SMU? If we don't get a big check, so be it. We'll have taken the brand to a different area of the country, provided the players a somewhat bigger stage, and maybe even posted a somewhat marquee "W'".
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Nov 2, 2018 15:30:12 GMT -5
mm67 - you may be missing a major point. While we here all know that HC is a wonderful high level academic institution, it is not viewed as favorably as it once was (down to 84th in latest USNWR rankings), which, downfall can be paralleled with the general loss of national reputation of HC in the big sports era (last 30 years). Colgate, on the other hand, has continually increased in the rankings during this period. It may be a pretty weak correlation, even a post hoc fallacy, but playing larger schools earlier and more often has certainly coincided with the increased rankings of Colgate. BC is an example of a relatively regional destination for most of its existence until football put it on the national radar in the early 80's. The Flutie bump caused an increase in applications and accordingly, a more selective admissions process. On a scale of 1-10 from a reputation standpoint (in a completely arbitrary and concocted system of my own devise) - I would say BC started from 4 (1940-1980) and got to 8 (1980+). We started from 7 (1920-1991), went down to 2, and now have to get to 6. The fastest way back is through sports. On your latter point: I've said for years that the Chestnut Hill school should have been renamed "Flutie University" about thirty years ago. Given the fact that they didn't rename it "Giles Mosher University" after BayBank essentially choreographed the financial resurrection of the school, I knew the Flutie thing wouldn't happen.
As to the former point, and that which has evolved in this thread: A highly-recognized and equally highly-respected member of the HC athletic department of many years ago, who was not a fan of the football program, readily acknowledged that there is no better way to get thousands of alumni on the campus (even multiple times per year) than to have a successful football program. Think of Fitton Field when Mark Duffner had the program running on all cylinders - the place was banged-out! While I believe that we should "play up" as a means of generating exposure and enticing recruits, I don't think playing Penn State is the answer. How 'bout we step it down a bit? How about playing Rice? Northwestern? Wake Forest? Or how about a Miami (Ohio) or how about a religious war with either TCU or SMU? If we don't get a big check, so be it. We'll have taken the brand to a different area of the country, provided the players a somewhat bigger stage, and maybe even posted a somewhat marquee "W'".
With the possible long-shot exception of Northwestern, NONE of those schools would have any interest in scheduling HC. 1) We bring nothing to their table and 2) they each have I-AA opponent options much closer to home at smaller 'guarantees' ( $$$ ).
|
|
|
Post by inhocsigno on Nov 2, 2018 15:38:46 GMT -5
mm67 - you may be missing a major point. While we here all know that HC is a wonderful high level academic institution, it is not viewed as favorably as it once was (down to 84th in latest USNWR rankings), which, downfall can be paralleled with the general loss of national reputation of HC in the big sports era (last 30 years). Colgate, on the other hand, has continually increased in the rankings during this period. It may be a pretty weak correlation, even a post hoc fallacy, but playing larger schools earlier and more often has certainly coincided with the increased rankings of Colgate. BC is an example of a relatively regional destination for most of its existence until football put it on the national radar in the early 80's. The Flutie bump caused an increase in applications and accordingly, a more selective admissions process. On a scale of 1-10 from a reputation standpoint (in a completely arbitrary and concocted system of my own devise) - I would say BC started from 4 (1940-1980) and got to 8 (1980+). We started from 7 (1920-1991), went down to 2, and now have to get to 6. The fastest way back is through sports. On your latter point: I've said for years that the Chestnut Hill school should have been renamed "Flutie University" about thirty years ago. Given the fact that they didn't rename it "Giles Mosher University" after BayBank essentially choreographed the financial resurrection of the school, I knew the Flutie thing wouldn't happen.
As to the former point, and that which has evolved in this thread: A highly-recognized and equally highly-respected member of the HC athletic department of many years ago, who was not a fan of the football program, readily acknowledged that there is no better way to get thousands of alumni on the campus (even multiple times per year) than to have a successful football program. Think of Fitton Field when Mark Duffner had the program running on all cylinders - the place was banged-out! While I believe that we should "play up" as a means of generating exposure and enticing recruits, I don't think playing Penn State is the answer. How 'bout we step it down a bit? How about playing Rice? Northwestern? Wake Forest? Or how about a Miami (Ohio) or how about a religious war with either TCU or SMU? If we don't get a big check, so be it. We'll have taken the brand to a different area of the country, provided the players a somewhat bigger stage, and maybe even posted a somewhat marquee "W'".
Excellent points. We should seek to play FBS programs in the South, TX and/or CA to the extent feasible and monetarily beneficial. Wake Forest is an great choice. I think a RIce game would be good solely for purposes of getting exposure in TX. A game in Florida would be great for recruiting exposure, but finding the right fit may be difficult. FAU or FIU would be the obvious choices, but not as sexy and economically attractive as a 2021 game against Miami marking the 75th anniversary of the Orange Bowl Match Up. As an aside in re competitiveness, if we had a top level QB right now, we could hang 24 points on FSU.
|
|
|
Post by thecrossisback on Nov 2, 2018 16:02:21 GMT -5
fbschedules.com/ncaa/holy-cross/I mean we have Central Connecticut three years in a row. I want wins, but would rather play bigger better schools than beat Central Connecticut. Who wants to go to those three games? Thats why they need to re develop Fitton Field and give teams a reason to come with nice locker rooms and facilities. Video Board
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Nov 2, 2018 16:07:40 GMT -5
I have been to a game at CCSU. They have a nice field with a very nice video board....one I wish we had at Fitton. They have been improving since we started the series by thumping them at their field, so 3 wins in 3 games is not automatic, even though HC is currently 2-0 against them in our series. The first game was HC by 56-21, the second at Fitton by 20-7. They clearly were getting closer.
We have not played them since 2014. (This year, against PL opponents, they beat Fordham by 9 and lost by seven to Lafayette.)
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 2, 2018 16:29:50 GMT -5
Cancel the games with CCSU and schedule some better opponents. How about Villanova, Delaware, William & Mary and maybe Wake Forest to name a few possible options. I don't think that Northwestern would be interested in playing HC. It may be possible to get Villanova, Delaware & William & Mary to come to Fitton Field while Wake Forest would be a road game.
|
|