|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2019 16:47:59 GMT -5
With so few students compared to many other D1 schools, spending on athletes per student is a very slanted use of numbers.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 14, 2019 16:55:41 GMT -5
A point I was thinking about, RGS. I wonder if there is sarcasm in PP's post in that regard, or more towards the fact that we're spending lots of money but it's not equating to wins on the fields of play.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2019 17:12:45 GMT -5
That is certainly worth considering.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 14, 2019 17:18:16 GMT -5
As the resident expert on sarcasm, I would say the highlights above are a tip-off that this is, in fact, PP being sarcastic. Now if Sarasota had written this (he of "Holy Cross is a seminary" fame), you could take it to the bank it was deadly serious.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2019 17:40:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 14, 2019 17:44:22 GMT -5
With respect to commitment to athletics, enough of the generalities bordering on banalities. Let's get to specifics. Spending on athletics per undergraduate 2016-17, selected Jesuit institutions(in thousands of dollars) Fordham 3800 Santa Clara 4150 Marquette 4375 Gonzaga 5200 Georgetown 6500 BC 7900 HC 11850 HC has beat out lowly Wofford @ 11765,.Furman @ 10370, and Rice @10250 and now trails Tulsa @ 13050 and Wake @ 13675 for the title of King of the Hill when it comes to athletics spending in Div I FAILURE!
Clearly, Fr. B. and TPTB must do better. Time to scrap a few faculty, maybe the entire Religious Studies department, and reach for that brass ring. Spending per undergraduate is a lousy and misleading stat. And if this is in the context of Borroughs caring about athletics, the meaningful number would be how this year compares to the time before he arrived.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2019 17:48:55 GMT -5
Well said, bbc.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 14, 2019 20:11:09 GMT -5
With respect to commitment to athletics, enough of the generalities bordering on banalities. Let's get to specifics. Spending on athletics per undergraduate 2016-17, selected Jesuit institutions(in thousands of dollars) Fordham 3800 Santa Clara 4150 Marquette 4375 Gonzaga 5200 Georgetown 6500 BC 7900 HC 11850 HC has beat out lowly Wofford @ 11765,.Furman @ 10370, and Rice @10250 and now trails Tulsa @ 13050 and Wake @ 13675 for the title of King of the Hill when it comes to athletics spending in Div I FAILURE!
Clearly, Fr. B. and TPTB must do better. Time to scrap a few faculty, maybe the entire Religious Studies department, and reach for that brass ring. Spending per undergraduate is a lousy and misleading stat. And if this is in the context of Borroughs caring about athletics, the meaningful number would be how this year compares to the time before he arrived. Since you asked for a meaningful number, Athletic spending per undergraduate, in 2011-12 (this was Fr. McF's last budget) / 2016-17Holy Cross 7212 / 11850. Fordham 3239 / 3800 Georgetown 4751 / 6500 HC's athletic spending per undergraduate increased over a five year period (2011-12 base year, five years are 2012-13 through 2016-17) under Fr. B by 64 percent; Fordham increased by 17 percent; Georgetown increased by 37 percent. I don't have time to run the rest, but I'm quite confidant HC's percentage increase outstrips the other schools in my small sample.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Jan 14, 2019 20:13:42 GMT -5
Spending money isn't everything.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 14, 2019 20:16:29 GMT -5
My thought is that being a college president is a results oriented business. I would like to know how HC's spending on athletics per undergraduate compares to our competitors, namely other PL schools especially Colgate, Lafayette, Bucknell which are all similar in size and we can add Lehigh. And, let's compare funding this year to the years prior to Fr Burough's arrival.(good point bbc) Now to my point: Unless one can show that the administration is starving or underfunding athletics in comparison to our PL competitors, then I think that it is totally unfair and overly simplistic to blame the school president for the failures of the HC teams. I assume our funding (and admissions policy) are similar to our PL brethren. I can see the headline in the Worcester Telegram: "HC Fires School Pres.; Losing Teams Cited!" LoveHC HC spends more on athletics per undergraduate than any other PL school. Colgate is closest. Lehigh spends more in absolute terms but has 5,000 undergraduates; BostU spends more but has over 16,000 undergraduates.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 14, 2019 20:18:41 GMT -5
Spending money isn't everything. What performance metric would you prefer to gauge the college administration's support of athletics?
|
|
|
Post by gks on Jan 14, 2019 20:34:42 GMT -5
I'm not smart enough for metrics but I know what I see. In my opinion mediocracy is accepted. School doesn't really seem to care if they win or not, they just like to participate behind the iron fence. Commitment to Division 1 athletics is just not there, a little better but way short.
I'm watching Bucknell kick HC's can up and down the basketball court right now. Think the President is watching?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 14, 2019 20:48:03 GMT -5
A legitimate question, mm67.
|
|
|
Pine out?
Jan 14, 2019 21:16:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 14, 2019 21:16:35 GMT -5
Spending per undergraduate is a lousy and misleading stat. And if this is in the context of Borroughs caring about athletics, the meaningful number would be how this year compares to the time before he arrived. Since you asked for a meaningful number, Athletic spending per undergraduate, in 2011-12 (this was Fr. McF's last budget) / 2016-17Holy Cross 7212 / 11850. Fordham 3239 / 3800 Georgetown 4751 / 6500 HC's athletic spending per undergraduate increased over a five year period (2011-12 base year, five years are 2012-13 through 2016-17) under Fr. B by 64 percent; Fordham increased by 17 percent; Georgetown increased by 37 percent. I don't have time to run the rest, but I'm quite confidant HC's percentage increase outstrips the other schools in my small sample. What the hell is that jump from? More scholarships?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 14, 2019 22:44:27 GMT -5
Been watching Holy Cross closely especially in the almost 20 years I have been living in New England. Just one person's opinion but I have a concern about the overall quality of Holy Cross as an institution.
Since this is a sports board, I will start there.
The philosophy seems to have been that "participation" in D-1 sports is "good enough." Yes, the various presidents over that period: Reedy, Vellaccio (interim), McFarland and now Boroughs, have expressed that they want our teams to excel but they have never put a focus on it. Goes back to Brooks' days that the emphasis on "student-athlete" was on the former, not the latter. That's not a bad thing but there could and should have been a little more balance. Admissions has had, justifiably from what I gather, a reputation for a failure to make exceptions or "bend" a little in order to have more success on the field or court or ice. This, I don't believe, rests totally on the shoulders of Ann McD. As I have posted before, Frank V told me on more than one occasion that every single varsity athlete needed his personal approval to be accepted to Holy Cross. Ann may have made decisions but Frank had veto power and I don't believe she is the one who made up the policy and was/is more an implementer.
I've also shared that in my discussions with Frank V that when I suggested to him that Holy Cross might benefit from having fewer teams that they could focus on, that perhaps the results would be better. He advised me that the NCAA "pays" for Holy Cross to have those "minor," "non-revenue" or whatever you want to call them so that it costs Holy Cross "almost nothing" to have them. I'm a big believer that when something is free or costs you very little, you take whatever it is for granted.
The athletic department was moribund and has been for years. People going through the motions. There seemed to be no pressure to actually succeed. Again, that comes from the president and BoT, not the fans.
Personally, I don't care if many of those sports are "free," it dilutes your focus on the key sports that can and do get you name recognition.
As for the College's reputation, Fr. McFarland in particular had a haughty attitude about USN&WR and other rankings. By gum, they weren't going to do anything and "play the game" just to be more highly ranked. We have our mission and we are unique. Doing away with required SATs helped the College to expand the scope of our student search (as per Tom Gilmore, all athletes must submit SATs as this is required by the NCAA). But, we suffered and continue to suffer in ratings and while the quality of the people that matriculate at Holy Cross are as good or better than ever, their academic profile has dropped off. Our rankings have tanked and with that, our alma mater's reputation.
The bottom line is that our academic reputation is down and our athletic reputation (and results) is down too.
For a series of administrations who seemed to want to play by their own rules and the heck with what others think, we go ahead and jettison a decades long mascot because some people might be offended. A mascot that stood for the defense of the religion upon which Holy Cross was founded. We have a religious studies professor who in the past wrote a blasphemous article that the College knew about but hired him anyway and when it came to light, essentially stonewalled with a tepid comment by the president.
Despite all that, the Luths, the Park Smiths and J.D. Powers continue to make large donations to improve and add facilities for athletics, meditation/retreats, dormitories, etc. For the most part, our facilities are top notch and the campus, as always, among the most beautiful in the country.
Here's the thing, "the powers that be" atop Mt. St. James do not seem to be held accountable for success whether academic or athletic.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 15, 2019 5:40:59 GMT -5
/\ Agree with just about all of that. /\
Although going test score optional and retaining/expanding the use of Early Decision (v Early Action) may not have been done to "play the game" and improve our rankings nevertheless those are two steps a college might take in order to "play the game" and improve their rankings. It is indeed interesting that even with steps such as these we still are not where many of us would like HC to be in the rankings.
It is possible to overstate our uniqueness. There are several Northeast Catholic schools known for their excellent undergraduate liberal arts education. The fact that they offer other options as well is not necessarily a weakness in the eyes of prospective applicants. To the prospective undergraduate looking for a Catholic liberal arts education, the fact that we are solely undergraduate and liberal arts while other Catholic schools with strong undergraduate liberal arts programs have additional options may be a distinction without much of a positive difference. Worse, it may be a growing disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 15, 2019 5:54:17 GMT -5
Since you asked for a meaningful number, Athletic spending per undergraduate, in 2011-12 (this was Fr. McF's last budget) / 2016-17Holy Cross 7212 / 11850. Fordham 3239 / 3800 Georgetown 4751 / 6500 HC's athletic spending per undergraduate increased over a five year period (2011-12 base year, five years are 2012-13 through 2016-17) under Fr. B by 64 percent; Fordham increased by 17 percent; Georgetown increased by 37 percent. I don't have time to run the rest, but I'm quite confidant HC's percentage increase outstrips the other schools in my small sample. What the hell is that jump from? More scholarships? Some of it, but one would need the NCAA revenue and expense report to determine how much. I don't really have time to start weighting variables affecting more granular metrics. For example, Georgetown's total expenses were $35 million in 2016-17 ($3 million more than HC spent), $20 million of that was for M/W basketball. If one were to 'normalize' GU's total spending compared to other PL schools (but not BE schools), one would substantially discount the amount spent on hoops.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jan 15, 2019 6:22:10 GMT -5
A point I was thinking about, RGS. I wonder if there is sarcasm in PP's post in that regard, or more towards the fact that we're spending lots of money but it's not equating to wins on the fields of play. I oversaw performance metrics for all Federal departments and agencies, so I know a little bit about metrics. Typically, an aggregate measure of 'support' is the amount of money spent on some program or activity, relative to other similar programs or activities. It is a blunt measure. Technically, the amount of money spent is an input measure. Input measures do not always correlate with a level of achievement, which would be an output or outcome measure. Not trying to run afoul of Dean Wormer's prohibitions on political discourse, but I will use the border wall as an example. $5 billion more for a border wall is an input measure, but it does reflect the level of support the President has for such an undertaking. The output and/or outcome measures would be the level of reduction in illegal border crossings of people or goods as a result of building this particular wall. (From what I read, there has been no quantitative, measurable goal(s) for what will be achieved from the standpoint of reductions after the wall was built. So from a budgetary standpoint, the additional $5 billion would be rejected, -- and from data I am familiar with, it would likely fail any cost-benefit analysis.) Colleges and universities are notoriously weak when it comes to measuring student outcomes. A university budget is all about inputs. The exception is for programs or departments that are significant revenue generators. Of which, Holy Cross has none.
|
|
|
Post by rf1 on Jan 15, 2019 11:03:27 GMT -5
If undergraduate enrollment is going to be heavily factored in, Holy Cross should not even be playing at the D1 level. Just look at the other enrollment and athletics level of area colleges:
Assumption 2,117 D2 Clark 2,301 D3 Holy Cross 2,787 D1 Worcester Polytechnic Institute 4,177 D3 Worcester State University 5,495 D3
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 15, 2019 12:25:34 GMT -5
Holy Cross isn't just any school......
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 15, 2019 13:41:10 GMT -5
. . . . and enrollment is north of 3,000 now.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 15, 2019 14:45:56 GMT -5
HCpride wrote:
It is possible to overstate our uniqueness. I know you know better than this. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Let those crazy kids who want to go to big Catholic universities use sloppy language but at HC that is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Jan 15, 2019 15:30:25 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's all about league affiliation. We can only be so "good" in basketball and football while being members of the Patriot League. We can be decent in those sports i.e. make the NCAA tourney in hoop and/or make the FCS playoffs but we'll nevah be "nationally relevant" in those sports...nobody (Bucknell in hoop or Colgate in football) in the PL is or will evah be so.
The school has also morphed into an institution that very much relies on offering all these Olympic and otherwise sports to round out its student body/enrollment.
As I posted in the Bucknell hoop game thread..."it is what it is"...but it's pretty boring or irrelevant to many except the extreme die-hards here on this board or elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Jan 15, 2019 20:39:50 GMT -5
HCpride wrote:
It is possible to overstate our uniqueness. I know you know better than this. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Let those crazy kids who want to go to big Catholic universities use sloppy language but at HC that is not allowed. LOL - In context the usage was just fine. "Overstate", BTW, means to describe something in a way that makes it seem more important or serious than it really is. That has nothing to do with a " degree of uniqueness". "Snark Fail", BTW , means a snarky correction that fails. Don't see the connection to BC, Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame, etc. They are unique too if that is the point. And don't know if their graduates are plagued by vocabulary deficiencies.
|
|
|
Post by realism on Jan 15, 2019 21:23:10 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's all about league affiliation. We can only be so "good" in basketball and football while being members of the Patriot League. We can be decent in those sports i.e. make the NCAA tourney in hoop and/or make the FCS playoffs but we'll nevah be "nationally relevant" in those sports...nobody (Bucknell in hoop or Colgate in football) in the PL is or will evah be so. The school has also morphed into an institution that very much relies on offering all these Olympic and otherwise sports to round out its student body/enrollment. n As I posted in the Bucknell hoop game thread..."it is what it is"...but it's pretty boring or irrelevant to many except the extreme die-hards here on this board or elsewhere. As Colgate won the 2018 Lambert Cup today and Lehigh/Bucknell prepare for another multi-game performance in the NCAA basketball tournament, these lowly PL schools will argue the value of "decent" for their brands. Without any success, HC desperately needs the association with the PL to just distance itself from complete anonymity in regional competition, let alone the national environment. Just being associated with institutions achieving "decency" helps keep the HC arhletic brand afloat.
|
|