|
Pine out?
Dec 16, 2018 19:27:12 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by joe on Dec 16, 2018 19:27:12 GMT -5
What’s more insane:
1. Despite decades of poor results, continuing to fund a broad based D1 program at a highly selective academic school of 2,800 students which is more suited to a non-selective state school of 28,000, and actually expecting success.
2. Dropping minor sports and focusing all efforts on fielding highly competitive major sports in better conferences?
I contend that what HC has tried to do for the last 30 years is the epitome of the word “foolhardy.”
What I’m curious about is to what degree HC appreciates the notion that the optics of competing at a very high level in a few sports is far superior to performing poorly in every sport.
|
|
|
Pine out?
Dec 16, 2018 19:43:25 GMT -5
via mobile
mm67 likes this
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 19:43:25 GMT -5
What’s more insane: 1. Despite decades of poor results, continuing to fund a broad based D1 program at a highly selective academic school of 2,800 students which is more suited to a non-selective state school of 28,000, and actually expecting success. 2. Dropping minor sports and focusing all efforts on fielding highly competitive major sports in better conferences? I contend that what HC has tried to do for the last 30 years is the epitome of the word “foolhardy.” What I’m curious about is to what degree HC appreciates the notion that the optics of competing at a very high level in a few sports is far superior to performing poorly in every sport. #2 would require changing the fabric of the school - adding 30-40% to the enrollment, expanding the curriculum, potentially adding grad programs, etc. Not saying it can’t be done, but the money has to come from somewhere. Cutting sports means having to replace those full and partial pay athletes coming through the door. How do you do that? Would probably require HC veering at least partially away from its strictly liberal arts roots.
|
|
|
Pine out?
Dec 16, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by joe on Dec 16, 2018 19:50:01 GMT -5
What’s more insane: 1. Despite decades of poor results, continuing to fund a broad based D1 program at a highly selective academic school of 2,800 students which is more suited to a non-selective state school of 28,000, and actually expecting success. 2. Dropping minor sports and focusing all efforts on fielding highly competitive major sports in better conferences? I contend that what HC has tried to do for the last 30 years is the epitome of the word “foolhardy.” What I’m curious about is to what degree HC appreciates the notion that the optics of competing at a very high level in a few sports is far superior to performing poorly in every sport. #2 would require changing the fabric of the school - adding 30-40% to the enrollment, expanding the curriculum, potentially adding grad programs, etc. Not saying it can’t be done, but the money has to come from somewhere. Cutting sports means having to replace those full and partial pay athletes coming through the door. How do you do that? Would probably require HC veering at least partially away from its strictly liberal arts roots. Why? Just to upgrade to CAA for example, and drop a few sports?
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 19:57:46 GMT -5
#2 would require changing the fabric of the school - adding 30-40% to the enrollment, expanding the curriculum, potentially adding grad programs, etc. Not saying it can’t be done, but the money has to come from somewhere. Cutting sports means having to replace those full and partial pay athletes coming through the door. How do you do that? Would probably require HC veering at least partially away from its strictly liberal arts roots. Why? Just to upgrade to CAA for example, and drop a few sports? You mentioned dropping sports and upgrading to a major conference. So I laid out what HC would likely need to do to achieve that and have any chance of being successful. I'm talking A-10 or higher.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Dec 16, 2018 20:16:54 GMT -5
Why several folks here think upgrading to a better athletic conference is simply an ask and you're in is absolutely mind boggling.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 16, 2018 20:21:52 GMT -5
1,) You can't drop minor sports. The NCAA doesn't allow it.
2.) There is no going to FBS. There are many posters on this board who criticize UMass for going FBS, and a growing swell of opinion that UConn is miserable because it can't find an acceptable FBS conference. So now suggesting that small enrollment HC go FBS is either inconsistent logic or simply trolling, IMO.
3.) With the exception of Davidson for hoops, there are no strictly liberal arts colleges who are members of higher level conferences. Davidson is non-scollie football. And no ice-hockey.
4.) If one wants out of the PL, and out from the stricture of the AI, then first start with the academic program and rigor of Holy Cross. Move away from the liberal arts into a more broad-based curriculum, and offer less demanding majors, --like kinesiology, or early childhood education, or hospitality management, or the basket-weaving major purportedly offered years ago at the U.
A recruit who is in the low low AI band means that recruit's high school academic performance places he/she between 2.5 standard deviations of the school-wide AI to the floor (which, let's assume, is about three standard deviations). For an entering class of 750 students, an AI low low band student would be ranked between #714 (2.5 standard deviations) and #749 (three standard deviations) among the entering students. Given the time demands of many sports, that level of high school academic performance is likely to be concerning / disconcerting for those coaches being measured by the academic progress of their roster. (HC's AI bands are probably so compressed that the low low band is practically non-existent, because one gets to the AI floor first.)
|
|
|
Pine out?
Dec 16, 2018 20:30:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 20:30:31 GMT -5
1,) You can't drop minor sports. The NCAA doesn't allow it. 2.) There is no going to FBS. There are many posters on this board who criticize UMass for going FBS, and a growing swell of opinion that UConn is miserable because it can't find an acceptable FBS conference. So now suggesting that small enrollment HC go FBS is either inconsistent logic or simply trolling, IMO. 3.) With the exception of Davidson for hoops, there are no strictly liberal arts colleges who are members of higher level conferences. Davidson is non-scollie football. And no ice-hockey. 4.) If one wants out of the PL, and out from the stricture of the AI, then first start with the academic program and rigor of Holy Cross. Move away from the liberal arts into a more broad-based curriculum, and offer less demanding majors, --like kinesiology, or early childhood education, or hospitality management, or the basket-weaving major purportedly offered years ago at the U. A recruit who is in the low low AI band means that recruit's high school academic performance places he/she between 2.5 standard deviations of the school-wide AI to the floor (which, let's assume, is about three standard deviations). For an entering class of 750 students, an AI low low band student would be ranked between #714 (2.5 standard deviations) and #749 (three standard deviations) among the entering students. Given the time demands of many sports, that level of high school academic performance is likely to be concerning / disconcerting for those coaches being measured by the academic progress of their roster. (HC's AI bands are probably so compressed that the low low band is practically non-existent, because one gets to the AI floor first.) Disagree with #1. What sports a school sponsors is an institutional decision. It’s more about Title IX than the NCAA. These days dropping a sport or sports will be litigated.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 20:36:29 GMT -5
Why several folks here think upgrading to a better athletic conference is simply an ask and you're in is absolutely mind boggling. It’s fun to dream but I agree it isn’t happening in the near future. Who knows when the next round of realignment happens - crazy things happen then. But I agree HC is not currently positioned for such a move and drastic changes would be required to get to that point.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Dec 16, 2018 20:52:06 GMT -5
1,) You can't drop minor sports. The NCAA doesn't allow it. 2.) There is no going to FBS. There are many posters on this board who criticize UMass for going FBS, and a growing swell of opinion that UConn is miserable because it can't find an acceptable FBS conference. So now suggesting that small enrollment HC go FBS is either inconsistent logic or simply trolling, IMO. 3.) With the exception of Davidson for hoops, there are no strictly liberal arts colleges who are members of higher level conferences. Davidson is non-scollie football. And no ice-hockey. 4.) If one wants out of the PL, and out from the stricture of the AI, then first start with the academic program and rigor of Holy Cross. Move away from the liberal arts into a more broad-based curriculum, and offer less demanding majors, --like kinesiology, or early childhood education, or hospitality management, or the basket-weaving major purportedly offered years ago at the U. A recruit who is in the low low AI band means that recruit's high school academic performance places he/she between 2.5 standard deviations of the school-wide AI to the floor (which, let's assume, is about three standard deviations). For an entering class of 750 students, an AI low low band student would be ranked between #714 (2.5 standard deviations) and #749 (three standard deviations) among the entering students. Given the time demands of many sports, that level of high school academic performance is likely to be concerning / disconcerting for those coaches being measured by the academic progress of their roster. (HC's AI bands are probably so compressed that the low low band is practically non-existent, because one gets to the AI floor first.) You can drop as many sports as you want...just need to comply with Title IX and stay at or above NCAA minimum. I think everyone realizes FBS is an impossibility...why not be the best at FCS? Why can Colgate function as a competitive athletic institution and Holy Cross can't? The AI has to go. It is just plain stupid. I have never heard one argument that shows its benefits. How in the world did HC function as an academic institution in the 80s without it? Pretty sure the last Academic All-American came from that era. Just another self-inflicted wound.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 16, 2018 20:53:43 GMT -5
1,) You can't drop minor sports. The NCAA doesn't allow it. 2.) There is no going to FBS. There are many posters on this board who criticize UMass for going FBS, and a growing swell of opinion that UConn is miserable because it can't find an acceptable FBS conference. So now suggesting that small enrollment HC go FBS is either inconsistent logic or simply trolling, IMO. 3.) With the exception of Davidson for hoops, there are no strictly liberal arts colleges who are members of higher level conferences. Davidson is non-scollie football. And no ice-hockey. 4.) If one wants out of the PL, and out from the stricture of the AI, then first start with the academic program and rigor of Holy Cross. Move away from the liberal arts into a more broad-based curriculum, and offer less demanding majors, --like kinesiology, or early childhood education, or hospitality management, or the basket-weaving major purportedly offered years ago at the U. A recruit who is in the low low AI band means that recruit's high school academic performance places he/she between 2.5 standard deviations of the school-wide AI to the floor (which, let's assume, is about three standard deviations). For an entering class of 750 students, an AI low low band student would be ranked between #714 (2.5 standard deviations) and #749 (three standard deviations) among the entering students. Given the time demands of many sports, that level of high school academic performance is likely to be concerning / disconcerting for those coaches being measured by the academic progress of their roster. (HC's AI bands are probably so compressed that the low low band is practically non-existent, because one gets to the AI floor first.) Disagree with #1. What sports a school sponsors is an institutional decision. It’s more about Title IX than the NCAA. These days dropping a sport or sports will be litigated. From: www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-are/membership/divisional-differences-and-history-multidivision-classification
|
|
|
Post by joe on Dec 16, 2018 21:01:09 GMT -5
It amuses me that over these many years and decades that so many people have grown so desensitized to the irrational, delusional management of HC athletics that they actually look at our current strategy to field all these under-achieving teams as being some sort of reasonable, fallback agenda. We're a school of 2,800 students playing virtually every varsity D1 sport. Do people realize how nuts that is? Proposing a strategic shift of emphasis on a few sports as a means of actually winning at the D1 level and maybe upgrading conferences at some point pales in comparison on the scales of self-delusion and arrogance. People seem to view HC as a place that would dare not attempt what other similar schools would dare not attempt, yet for decades we have gone against every grain of what a small, selective, liberal arts, Catholic college would consider sane and reasonable when it comes to fielding D1 sports.
Secondly, we absolutely could cut a several sports and continue to be D1, assuming we comply with Title 9. We've gone through this exercise at least 2 or 3 times on this board in the last few years.
6 Men: FB SOC BB IH BB LAX
8 Women: FH SOC BB IH SB LAX (pick two more for Title 9)
Third, I think the posters who regularly frequent these pages are educated enough about college sports to understand that conference re-alignment takes more than a phone call.
The idea is that we focus all energy into succeeding in a handful of sports as a means of being competitive, such that upgrading to more competitive conferences actually become an option which we may or may not choose. And hey, if we did get an offer before this, we take it and run!
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 21:01:54 GMT -5
I’m well aware what the D1 minimums are. This doesn’t say that HC couldn’t drop to 7/7 or 6/8 if it wanted to. Whether they could or not is not something the NCAA would determine but the courts based on potential litigation. Pacific announced a few weeks ago its plans to drop field hockey. The NCAA has no opinion on that. However, it appears there could be legal wrangling. The NCAA isn’t suing Pacific.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 16, 2018 21:40:59 GMT -5
I’m well aware what the D1 minimums are. This doesn’t say that HC couldn’t drop to 7/7 or 6/8 if it wanted to. Whether they could or not is not something the NCAA would determine but the courts based on potential litigation. Pacific announced a few weeks ago its plans to drop field hockey. The NCAA has no opinion on that. However, it appears there could be legal wrangling. The NCAA isn’t suing Pacific. Pacific is Div III, so the only grounds for litigating (assuming the M:F ratio at Pacific is unchanged) is that Pacific is now offering fewer athletic participation opportunities for women. The Federal Department of Education enforces Title IX, and it was the Federal government that required HC add an additional softball coach, among other corrective measures for that sport. (University of Richmond dropped men's soccer so it could add men's lacrosse. BostonU dropped wrestling so it could add men's lacrosse.) AU does the minimum program, but AU doesn't complicate its life with football and ice hockey. _________________________ The problem for a school like HC is that if you go 63 football scollies, you need offsets with scollies for the women. Which means, under the scenarios being proposed, that the other men's sports would be non-competitive because no scollie aid (other than for hoops and ice hockey) was offered. As has been discussed ad nauseum, it costs HC very little at the present time to field teams in M/W tennis, M/W golf, and even M/W swimming. So there are no great 'savings' to be had from discontinuing them to finance upgrades to football / basketball.
|
|
|
Pine out?
Dec 16, 2018 21:49:48 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 16, 2018 21:49:48 GMT -5
I’m well aware what the D1 minimums are. This doesn’t say that HC couldn’t drop to 7/7 or 6/8 if it wanted to. Whether they could or not is not something the NCAA would determine but the courts based on potential litigation. Pacific announced a few weeks ago its plans to drop field hockey. The NCAA has no opinion on that. However, it appears there could be legal wrangling. The NCAA isn’t suing Pacific. Pacific is Div III, so the only grounds for litigating (assuming the M:F ratio at Pacific is unchanged) is that Pacific is now offering fewer athletic participation opportunities for women. The Federal Department of Education enforces Title IX, and it was the Federal government that required HC add an additional softball coach, among other corrective measures for that sport. (University of Richmond dropped men's soccer so it could add men's lacrosse. BostonU dropped wrestling so it could add men's lacrosse.) AU does the minimum program, but AU doesn't complicate its life with football and ice hockey. _________________________ The problem for a school like HC is that if you go 63 football scollies, you need offsets with scollies for the women. Which means, under the scenarios being proposed, that the other men's sports would be non-competitive because no scollie aid (other than for hoops and ice hockey) was offered. As has been discussed ad nauseum, it costs HC very little at the present time to field teams in M/W tennis, M/W golf, and even M/W swimming. So there are no great 'savings' to be had from discontinuing them to finance upgrades to football / basketball. Might want to check that again. Pacific is a full member of the West Coast Conference - D1. Affiliate in the America East for FH.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Dec 16, 2018 21:50:59 GMT -5
It costs very little to field recruiting, coaches, facilities, equipment, media, and travel for men’s and women’s D1 swimming and diving, rowing, tennis, and golf teams? No.
Plus you are pulling administrative time away from other people in the athletic department that laymen like us can’t quantify in dollars and cents (ie. you can’t Google it), and time, as we all know, is money.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Dec 16, 2018 23:05:21 GMT -5
Speaking to Pacific: University of the Pacific in Cali is D1. Pacific University in Oregon is D3.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 17, 2018 1:56:05 GMT -5
The risk/reward ratio for TPTB may work against dropping any sports. The President has taken a vow of poverty and the Trustees receive no pay, so why would they voluntarily ignite a firestorm unless it is absolutely necessary? The major customers that pay for Athletics, in addition to student tuition and fees, are probably not the fans, but the donors who funded the Luth and give annually to Athletics fundraising. Those donations must dwarf ticket sales and many donors, like Mr. Luth himself have ties to minor sports. People who gave to the Luth were told it will support all of the sports at HC, so it could be dicey to drop any sports shortly after the facility opened.
|
|
|
Post by wheeler5 on Dec 17, 2018 7:45:55 GMT -5
As I typed in another thread, while it's not out of the question that HC could attract an alum to be a lifer in the AD spot, if you look at what's happened with AD positions recently in the PL you'll see what the trend is. These positions attract rising administrators who will likely move on to a bigger, better job several years down the road. That's not a bad thing. Army and Navy could be viewed as "destination jobs," while the others by nature are going to attract a more transient pool of candidates. Whomever is the right fit for the position, whether it's an HC alum or not, will largely be based on what the President and BOT signal as the most important tasks they want the next AD to tackle. Now that Luth is done, what is/are the next big ticket item(s) to address? Win!!!
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 17, 2018 7:59:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alum on Dec 17, 2018 8:03:44 GMT -5
Football should be the priority of the athletic department. Drives fundraising for the year and brings in the most money. Sets the tone for the year. There are a dozen different conversations going on here so I think I'll just participate in this one. I completely disagree with the premise that football should be the priority of the athletic department. I think of HC athletically as a basketball school. Football is a distant second place. I think most agree with me, but I really don't know if I am right about that. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by hcbball on Dec 17, 2018 8:12:30 GMT -5
Football should be the priority of the athletic department. Drives fundraising for the year and brings in the most money. Sets the tone for the year. There are a dozen different conversations going on here so I think I'll just participate in this one. I completely disagree with the premise that football should be the priority of the athletic department. I think of HC athletically as a basketball school. Football is a distant second place. I think most agree with me, but I really don't know if I am right about that. Thoughts? Football is where the money is. Look at UCONN, their basketball program has taken a hit, because they focus on football and the potential revenue generation. I drew the comparison because, I agree, they are both basketball schools by reputation, but enamored with the lore of football
|
|
|
Post by gks on Dec 17, 2018 8:17:31 GMT -5
There are a dozen different conversations going on here so I think I'll just participate in this one. I completely disagree with the premise that football should be the priority of the athletic department. I think of HC athletically as a basketball school. Football is a distant second place. I think most agree with me, but I really don't know if I am right about that. Thoughts? Football is where the money is. Look at UCONN, their basketball program has taken a hit, because they focus on football and the potential revenue generation. I drew the comparison because, I agree, they are both basketball schools by reputation, but enamored with the lore of football My point was that fundraising is probably job 1, 2 and 3 of an athletic director now. Football is the table setter. It's where the most alums come back and connect with their alma mater. If my memory serves me correctly when HC does there fundraising to specific sports basketball is nearly at the bottom or is at the least way down the list.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Dec 17, 2018 8:22:10 GMT -5
The risk/reward ratio for TPTB may work against dropping any sports. The President has taken a vow of poverty and the Trustees receive no pay, so why would they voluntarily ignite a firestorm unless it is absolutely necessary? The major customers that pay for Athletics, in addition to student tuition and fees, are probably not the fans, but the donors who funded the Luth and give annually to Athletics fundraising. Those donations must dwarf ticket sales and many donors, like Mr. Luth himself have ties to minor sports. People who gave to the Luth were told it will support all of the sports at HC, so it could be dicey to drop any sports shortly after the facility opened.
This is a very good point and, if true, underscores just how mixed up things have gotten. Again, the most ludicrous of the possible paths forward is the one we're currently on, and have been on for 25-30 years. Whether or not, as longsuffering suggests, this has been galvanized as "THE PLAN" without exception, simply as a function of the enormous generosity and wishes of the Luth family, no one knows. Part of why I'd like to see someone with HC ties become the AD is that I'm not exactly sure one get a true sense of the madness without having lived it all these years, as dedicated player, fan, alumnus, donor, mentor, etc.
I really would not want to see HC change from being a small, selective, liberal arts, Jesuit, undergraduate school, under any circumstances. Doing so would destroy what makes the college special, and I trust that TPTB would never consider such a move. However, the college needs to be bold here and be willing to makes some aggressive moves and concessions, shift paradigms, and perhaps do what never has been done before for a small college to make this work, then give it 5-10 years, and if it fails really re-assess whether it still wants to play D1 sports. The NCAA is the NCAA and it is not going to change its policies any time soon, but there is still a creative solution out there in the ether if HC is willing, as Tommy Heinsohn says, to bend its knees a little and put in some effort (and thought).
Oh and I think HC historically is both a football and basketball school. In the present day, until one or the other actually makes some noise nationally, it's really 50/50. Hockey is waiting in the wings for a day which may never come it seems.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 17, 2018 8:34:43 GMT -5
I have seen enough from athletes who play in the so-called minor sports about how much they enjoy playing the sport at a D-1 level that I would not want to see those sports dropped to club level. The furor at Rutgers when they changed some sports (including their long-time, and successful, rowing team to a club was huge...and it clearly did not help their sad football program all that much). If the athletes are working to improve their team and enjoy the experience, go with it. The cost is minimal.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Dec 17, 2018 8:42:15 GMT -5
I have seen enough from athletes who play in the so-called minor sports about how much they enjoy playing the sport at a D-1 level that I would not want to see those sports dropped to club level. The furor at Rutgers when they changed some sports (including their long-time, and successful, rowing team to a club was huge...and it clearly did not help their sad football program all that much). If the athletes are working to improve their team and enjoy the experience, go with it. The cost is minimal.
True but the school is just too small for all these D1 sports. Plus, with the Luth, you can still have students play all these sports at the club level, and with wonderful facilities. Hate to get hung up on this topic, important as it may be, as this is just one of many things that are screwy with the overall philosophy at HC. Hey - if we were actually successful in these sports, folks wouldn't suggest dropping them. I just don't see D1 for the sake of D1. This is a D3 way of thinking. You simply can't have it all. At some point there needs to be someone who is disappointed.
|
|