|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 17, 2018 8:59:58 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. Yes!!!___________________________ For fiscal 2016-17, for all 123 schools in FCS, the median generated revenue by source in ranked order: Cash contributions from alumni and others: $1,055,000 NCAA and conference contributions $842,000 Guarantees and options $642,000 Ticket sales $468,000Royalties, advertising, sponsorship, $318,000 Endowment investment income $30,000 Added to the generated revenue is the institution's subsidy of the athletic program. the median value of which is $12,550,000Total median value for revenue from all sources is $17,409,000. (HC's total expenses are much higher.) In FCS, median generated revenue / expense by sport (number of schools) Football (123) $1,000,000 / $3,572,000# M Basketball (123) $526,000 / $1,527,000 W Basketball (121) $108,000 / $1,169,000 M Ice hockey (13) $551,000 / $1,285,000## W Ice hockey (13) $75,000 / $766,000## Baseball (101) $112,000 / $804,000 M Lacrosse (30) $165,000 / $797,000 W Lacrosse (48) $40,000 / $684,000 M Soccer (60) $71,000 / $667,000 W Soccer (113) $34,000 / $641,000 All other men's sport have expenses under $500,000 Two other sports M's golf (98) $44,000 / $215,000 W's track and field (123) $22,000 / $583,000 # Median value of football expenses is understated because several conferences and Georgetown include no scollie aid for football ## Median value of expenses for M/W ice hockey is understated because six of the 13 men's schools include no scollie aid, and seven (HC added) of the women's schools offer no scollie aid. Source: www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2017RES_D1-RevExp_Entire_2017_Final_20180123.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 17, 2018 9:07:19 GMT -5
No question that over the many years, Holy Cross has generally been more successful in basketball with 2 national championships (NCAA & NIT) vs one D-IAA via national poll in football. Playing one Orange Bowl and losing isn't close to a national championship.
That said, while I have had season tickets for both football and men's basketball, my first love and support went to football. Secondarily was basketball.
I suppose we could do a study on how many alums return for fall Homecoming, which is football-oriented vs. winter Homecoming, which is basketball-oriented. That might be a little unfair as more people are weather-averse to winter travel than fall travel. My gut tells me it is not close and many more come up for fall regardless of who the opponent is at Fitton.
Also, no question that we can get the name of Holy Cross out easier with basketball as we can play with the top teams and while not winning, at least not be humiliated. With a 12 +/- roster, travel and equipment expenses are lots less than football.
I do believe, without looking it up, that football gets a lot more of the CAF funds raised than basketball. In large part because there are so many former football players than basketball players and the perception that basketball is well-funded and doesn't need to have additional dollars as much as football does.
I think the odds of football, under Chesney, winning a PL championship are the same as basketball, under Carmody.
Bottom line: I think football and basketball need to both be priorities, and are, for different reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 17, 2018 9:42:05 GMT -5
A gauge of alumni interest by sport is to look at giving to the CAF.
Donors to the CAF by sport in 2016-17 Football 569 M/W lacrosse 471 M/W track & field 392 M/W crew 359 M/W ice hockey 355 Baseball 296 M/W basketball 240 M/W soccer 233 M/W swimming & diving 230 (all other sports are below 200) Crusader Athletic Fund 1323 4437 total donors (not clear whether this is the number of unique donors, or whether total includes duplicates if an individual donor gave to more than one sport.)
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 17, 2018 10:32:15 GMT -5
Since for years I gave to both football and basketball, they would have to count me for both or would be undercutting whichever sport they didn't count me. I am sure many others have contributed to more than one sport as well.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 17, 2018 10:34:10 GMT -5
Since for years I gave to both football and basketball, they would have to count me for both or would be undercutting whichever sport they didn't count me. I am sure many others have contributed to more than one sport as well. You are correct in the regard. When I give a gift in memoriam, it is typically to a particular team.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Dec 17, 2018 11:07:55 GMT -5
Rest assured if I'm mentioning a specific institution without a designated classification, you can safely assume it's D1.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 17, 2018 11:31:23 GMT -5
While the AD doesn’t have the decision making power to sign off on a new league, dropping sports, etc. the position has significant impact on each of those areas.
To drop sports, it would be up to the AD to put together the proposal, do the impact analysis, etc. and get the ball rolling so that the final decision makers would have all of the right information.
To join a new conference, it is up to the AD to ensure that our teams are performing at a high level in the current conferences – hiring/developing coaches, assigning budgets, etc. and positioning HC with the potential new conference. For example, while Pine would not have had the final decision on the men’s hockey team joining the Hockey East, he stripped any significant hockey upgrades from the Luth project, hired and then gave a contract extension to a Sean Kearney-esque career assistant, and was totally out-classed in working through the Worcester politics by Cliff Rucker and the Railers, leaving HC very poorly prepared for a potential upgrade in conferences.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 17, 2018 12:11:18 GMT -5
So, in sum, you're sad that Nate is leaving?
|
|
|
Post by hccape on Dec 17, 2018 12:12:30 GMT -5
We just invested in new facilities, I don't think dropping any sport is a good idea. Football program just started funding scholarships so that will take a time, but the new coach has energized the program. Basketball has the best chance of national recognition and HC has put money towards this with practice facilities. I would look at what we invest our money in alumni wise. I was a bit surprised at the Track and Field giving. Lacrosse is the fastest growing sport in the US. How about being in front of that curve.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 17, 2018 12:15:32 GMT -5
bbc, I am unaware of any stripping out of rink upgrades by ADNP as part of the Luth package. The rink was modified to become ADA compliant and the east side pushed out to incorporate space to add women's locker rooms and coaches' offices
The one big design change NP did undertake was to change the field house from a 200 meter track with a practice field inside the track to the 100 yard field, (actually 90 yards and one end zone).
The decision on the rink was made by Fr. McF, who declared that if donors came up with $10-12 million, HC would expand seating at the rink. No one came up with the money, or even signaled an interest in doing so. That expansion would have left the ice surface as is. The cost of moving the ice itself was such that you might as well build an entirely new rink.
^^^^ A similar rewalization came to TPTB when it came to renovating the old field house; the costs of renovation grew so much that they approached the cost of an entirely new building.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 17, 2018 12:20:05 GMT -5
So, in sum, you're sad that Nate is leaving? The only place our next AD has big shoes to fill is in the emojis-per-tweet ratio.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Dec 17, 2018 12:33:05 GMT -5
For example, while Pine would not have had the final decision on the men’s hockey team joining the Hockey East, he stripped any significant hockey upgrades from the Luth project, hired and then gave a contract extension to a Sean Kearney-esque career assistant, and was totally out-classed in working through the Worcester politics by Cliff Rucker and the Railers, leaving HC very poorly prepared for a potential upgrade in conferences. I don't think it's fair to blame Pine for a contract between the city and Cliff Rucker. Mindful of the fact that the Railers deal was in place before Notre Dame announced they were leaving Hockey East, I'm not sure what Pine could have reasonably done to get the first refusal clause out of the Railer's lease. The Railers got a great deal because the city was desperate for a new tenant. The city would have needed some sort of commitment to ease that desperation. HC would have had to put something pretty decent on the table to enable the city bargain with the Railers from a position of strength People can reasonably question not expanding the hockey rink (either expanding the project or cutting back elsewhere). People can reasonably debate a coach's contract extension. It happens every day on sports talk radio. I do not think you can reasonably call out the AD for failure to inject himself in a negotiation between two other parties because someone might drop out of a higher conference and, if so, HC might get invited to fill that spot By the nature of the profession he chose, Nate Pine is a public figure subject to criticism. That criticism sounds more valid if you limit arguments to what reasonably could/should have been done
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 17, 2018 12:35:37 GMT -5
Well put and a reasoned point of view, Tom.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Dec 17, 2018 12:40:19 GMT -5
For example, while Pine would not have had the final decision on the men’s hockey team joining the Hockey East, he stripped any significant hockey upgrades from the Luth project, hired and then gave a contract extension to a Sean Kearney-esque career assistant, and was totally out-classed in working through the Worcester politics by Cliff Rucker and the Railers, leaving HC very poorly prepared for a potential upgrade in conferences. I don't think it's fair to blame Pine for a contract between the city and Cliff Rucker. Mindful of the fact that the Railers deal was in place before Notre Dame announced they were leaving Hockey East, I'm not sure what Pine could have reasonably done to get first refusal clause of the Railer's lease. The Railers got a great deal because the city was desperate for a new tenant. The city would have needed some sort of commitment to ease that desperation. HC would have had to put something pretty decent on the table to enable the city bargain with the Railers from a position of strength People can reasonably question not expanding the hockey rink (either expanding the project or cutting back elsewhere). People can reasonably debate a coach's contract extension. It happens every day on sports talk radio. I do not think you can reasonably call out the AD for failure to inject himself in a negotiation between two other parties because someone might drop out of a higher conference and, if so, HC might get invited to fill that spot By the nature of the profession he chose, Nate Pine is a public subject to criticism. That criticism sounds more valid if you limit arguments to what reasonably could/should have been done If Pine handled himself better with Worcester and Rucker, HC would have been in a position to potentially get something done. Neither wanted to deal with him.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Dec 17, 2018 12:46:46 GMT -5
Some people here know the City Manager, his chief of staff, and the Mayor well. Others do not. Those who don't shouldn't cast judgment on how Nate "handled himself".
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Dec 17, 2018 12:54:30 GMT -5
A little strange that the PL site has not picked up the story yet.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Dec 17, 2018 14:50:49 GMT -5
I would give this site no credibility at all. I know it is completely wrong for at least some PL schools. For example, Boston U - which has a 100% fully funded FH program - is said to be only in the "Top 60% in women's field hockey in Division I for avg athletic scholarship." Their numbers are also inaccurate for American, Bucknell and Lafayette. Likely others.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 18, 2018 1:15:35 GMT -5
Cliff Rucker is quite impressive. He made a large amount of money in business elsewhere, is a big hockey fan, and has spent money freely, but wisely to make a positive impact in Worcester. Everybody loves the guy. Where I will give BBC's theme credence is that while HC can't reasonably compete with Cliff Rucker and the Railers, the AD should be able to get on the same wavelength with the City of Worcester and the Railers. Why? Because the City Manager was the Holy Cross Director of Governmental Affairs before becoming City Manager and was torn about leaving HC because he liked the school and the job so much, and Cliff Rucker has become a big Worcester Booster and is co-operating with and boosting the new Worcester Red Sox franchise as well as partnering with Worcester Academy and a couple of colleges in his new two rink hockey facility downtown.
So, approached the right way, I suspect the City and the Railers could be boosters of Holy Cross Hockey where they could and not competitors.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 18, 2018 5:09:24 GMT -5
The big question that no one here seems to know for sure but are speculating is whether or not Rucker thinks Railers/HC hockey is a zero sum game.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Dec 18, 2018 7:05:57 GMT -5
Cliff Rucker is quite impressive. He made a large amount of money in business elsewhere, is a big hockey fan, and has spent money freely, but wisely to make a positive impact in Worcester. Everybody loves the guy. Where I will give BBC's theme credence is that while HC can't reasonably compete with Cliff Rucker and the Railers, the AD should be able to get on the same wavelength with the City of Worcester and the Railers. Why? Because the City Manager was the Holy Cross Director of Governmental Affairs before becoming City Manager and was torn about leaving HC because he liked the school and the job so much, and Cliff Rucker has become a big Worcester Booster and is co-operating with and boosting the new Worcester Red Sox franchise as well as partnering with Worcester Academy and a couple of colleges in his new two rink hockey facility downtown. So, approached the right way, I suspect the City and the Railers could be boosters of Holy Cross Hockey where they could and not competitors. Rucker's two rink site was a candidate site for an indoor track that HC would build with a consortium of Worcester colleges. Once the dual rinks were proposed, I had wondered whether HC considered paying Rucker x million to expand one of the rinks to seat 2500-3000, ________________________________________________ That aside, HC's endowment is likely to take a big hit this fiscal year given that all asset classes are down for the calendar year (for the first time in five? decades), and odds are against a significant recovery in the next six months (when the HC fiscal year ends). Belt-tightening and frugality is in order, --no new major capital projects and no conference upgrades. Santa is delivering a bag of coal to Fenwick . .
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Dec 18, 2018 8:03:57 GMT -5
Don't be so sure
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Dec 18, 2018 8:29:12 GMT -5
While the AD doesn’t have the decision making power to sign off on a new league, dropping sports, etc. the position has significant impact on each of those areas. To drop sports, it would be up to the AD to put together the proposal, do the impact analysis, etc. and get the ball rolling so that the final decision makers would have all of the right information. To join a new conference, it is up to the AD to ensure that our teams are performing at a high level in the current conferences – hiring/developing coaches, assigning budgets, etc. and positioning HC with the potential new conference. For example, while Pine would not have had the final decision on the men’s hockey team joining the Hockey East, he stripped any significant hockey upgrades from the Luth project, hired and then gave a contract extension to a Sean Kearney-esque career assistant, and was totally out-classed in working through the Worcester politics by Cliff Rucker and the Railers, leaving HC very poorly prepared for a potential upgrade in conferences. Agreed, FADNP completely fell on his face with Men's Hockey. Damage will last for decades.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Dec 18, 2018 8:59:34 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.
If it's important to keep these sports then you simply don't worry about winning anything with those teams.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Dec 18, 2018 10:02:01 GMT -5
Or go D3. Hell you can add on a sailing team as well.
So you’re saying focus on the fewest number of sports and win or have every sport and lose. Seems about right.
How about we keep football, basketball, baseball, and hockey, and their female equivalents and for the remainder of the sports just keep the smallest programs like golf, tennis, etc., in order to comply with NCAA regs as cheaply as possible? I’m sure this would be cause an alumni crisis but there just has to be a compromise at some point if a small school wants not only wants to compete, but win, in D1. Sorry the Luth will not make this happen. How long can the college keep banging its head against the wall?
Also it can be argued that a school where 1/4 of the students are athletes can ironically be considered a “jock school,” which seems like the opposite of what HC would want. Plus, if you’re a jock school you really ought to win, and win big, virtually across the board.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Dec 18, 2018 10:18:34 GMT -5
You can't just move some of the teams to D3. It is all or nothing.
|
|