|
Post by mm67 on Mar 27, 2024 7:26:13 GMT -5
Obviously, "youngsters" was not literal but a figurative term of use describing the lack of maturity exhibited in the comment. More than a difference of opinion, the egregious comment was an attack on those who disagreed with the poster. The inartful use of "sycophant" was stupid and an uncalled for insult. Since we're dishing. I found their ignorance about the context of the school, its size & academics at that time and the rationale for the decision appalling! Appreciate your reasonable post. We can agree to respectfully disagree. However, there is no doubt Fr. Brooks made the correct decision. Comparing HC a small high academic college with UConn, a state university which upped its sports profile & spending just doesn't fly. Why, almost 50 years after the fact do some keep resurrecting the decaying bones of this decision? IMO, HC athletics/academics is in a better place than it has been in my 60+ years involvement w/ the school. Disagree if you must but it is long past time to move on. Peace. PS Fr. Brooks was a transformational leader, one who is widely admired. Pres. VR appears to be a transformational leader, too. mm67 said: "However, there is no doubt Fr. Brooks made the correct decision." There is clearly some doubt. Just look at the record prior to 1980 and after 1979 as outlined in my response to Tom's post in this thread. Then look at the fact that those BE entrants in 1979 have not suffered academically since BE entry. One could make a cogent argument that all have flourished. I would argue the opposite of your point. There is little if any doubt that he made the incorrect decision...in baseball parlance went 0 for 2. His decision diminished our athletic profile dramatically, (particularly when compared to historical norms) and did not save us from academic or financial Armageddon. mm67 said: "Comparing Holy Cross, a small high academic college, with UConn, a state university which upped its sports profile & spending, just doesn't fly". First of all, up until 1979, HC was a small high academic college and UConn was a state university and HC dominated UConn in men's hoops (39Ws vs. 16Ws as of 1979). My point in the comparison of the two programs was to show that HC's starting point was much better than UConn's at the time of BE formation. I am not suggesting that HC would have won 5 national titles since 1979 as UConn has done but rather to suggest that BE entry in 1979, with a very good coach and a run of recent success from '74-'75 to '79, would have allowed HC to compete in the BE and eventually do what every initial BE entrant has done at least once (reach the Elite 8). It is much harder to posit a scenario in which HC would have had 25 non-winning seasons in the last 45 years, especially when BE teams can stuff their schedules with many non-conference home games. mm67 said: "Why, almost 50 years after the fact, do some keep resurrecting the decaying bones of this decision?" Please consider that, perhaps, it is because there are some who refuse to acknowledge that it was not a good decision, either at the time or 45 years in the rear view mirror, in effect defending the indefensible. Not only have those who believe that it was the incorrect decision had to live with results of the last 45 years (poorer athletic performance and a diminution of relative academic standing with BE peers) but they have had to listen to those trying to defend it-- a sort of double penalty. Quite frankly, I don't understand why it is so difficult for some to say that Fr. Brooks' overall tenure as president was very successful but that he erred with respect to athletics and the BE. I hold Fr. Brooks in high regard but I simply cannot ignore his decisions on athletics in my overall view. Lastly, I do not intend to engage in a continual back and forth on this topic. My views are clear and I will let this post stand as my response to any who contend that Fr. Brooks' decision was the "correct decision". Peace "he erred..."? Why can't you accept the fact that many if not most believe Brooks made the right decision ? We disagree. Peace
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 27, 2024 11:25:18 GMT -5
This still makes the assumption that HC would have enjoyed similar success. Back in the 70's athletes were still legitimate students. Many might have been on the lower end of the academic bell curve of a school, but they were on the bell curve. Then comes 1981 and a high academic Big East school decided to change the norm and take in a kid who, without his athletic prowess, would have been laughed at for applying. One could reasonably argue that HC could accept athletes that couldn't handle the academic requirements of the school. HC could make special academic programs to get those kids through to keep up with the Joneses and be nationally relevant in hoops. And in so doing raise the academic profile of the school. That doesn't mean that considering that price. too high is a totally unreasonable position. .Personally , I think if HC didn't go all in with an "ends justifies the means" attitude. HC's history in the Big East would probably be a lot closer to Fordham's record in the A-10 than UConn in the Big East I think that we have to acknowledge that GB recruited a number of athletes who had academic issues in the late 70s/early 80s.. No reason to put their full names here, but EF, CB and CG all had to leave the school to get their grades back in order and JC left and never returned. (The three that returned all graduated as far as I know.) I don't know if those athletes shouldn't have been admitted in the first place or if they didn't put the work in once they arrived on campus. To be clear, I knew several basketball players who were very capable students. My point is that HC was already making academic concessions for athletes. Although I don't condemn the BE decision like many because I think that in order to do it succesfully HC would have had to either drop football or keep football and drop several other sports, I don't know that Brooksie was right that we would have had to make any more academic concessions for basketball than we already were. Those guys might have struggled, but at least they were doing the work the general population was doing. There wasn't a need to develop an individualized curriculum. I suppose if you're going to compromise and go extremely to the low end of the bell curve, it's not a huge thing to take it to the next level and admit kids who are no where near the bell curve
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 27, 2024 11:52:45 GMT -5
No one brings up any input into the B.E. decision other than Fr. Brooks. Somewhere sometime on Crossports it was posted that the Jesuits positioned Holy Cross to be their entrant in the undergraduate only liberal arts category. Each school has it's own board of trustees of course, but did TPTB at HC receive any direction from the U S. Jesuits that big time athletics was more appropriate for universities like Georgetown and BC than for Holy Cross? Did/does that type of input occur?
Also any significant higher expense for the B.E. would be a bigger chunk of HC's overall budget than at GU or BC, and thus a bigger risk to the well being of the institution. I also doubt HC's endowment provided anywhere near the cushion then than it does now. Was it even $100 million at the time of "The Decision?"*
I would have liked HC to have the opportunity to join the B.E., but we have to acknowledge the coach who would have led us into battle with a good tail wind, went 38-48 and done when he did coach in the B.E. so no magic would have been guaranteed just by joining the league.
*royalty sent to Jim Gray and LeBron James.🙂
GB defenders let me have it. I know there were extenuating circumstances, just fuzzy on the details.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Mar 27, 2024 12:11:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 27, 2024 12:16:27 GMT -5
Thanks. Fr. B and TPTB had the weight of the world on their shoulders when considering any new expenses and commitments.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 27, 2024 12:24:27 GMT -5
To put things in perspective, the amount needed to join that league was 50K. Remember this from a book I read about the BC betting scandal that cited that amount, also saying "Bill (Flynn, late great BC AD) wasn't sure if he could get the money" (clearly, he did).
I would say in terms of outside Jesuit influence, it's pretty clear that decisions were made to keep Holy Cross small and BC larger. Perhaps, by definition, that limited HC's athletic options.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Mar 27, 2024 16:49:44 GMT -5
To put things in perspective, the amount needed to join that league was 50K. Remember this from a book I read about the BC betting scandal that cited that amount, also saying "Bill (Flynn, late great BC AD) wasn't sure if he could get the money" (clearly, he did). I would say in terms of outside Jesuit influence, it's pretty clear that decisions were made to keep Holy Cross small and BC larger. Perhaps, by definition, that limited HC's athletic options. If $50K was the ante, I feel quite confident that EBW alone could have sprung for the $. He was the driving force behind the hiring of Rick Carter in the ‘79-‘80 time frame and also the one who “pitched” Fr. Brooks on the BE when we had a second bite at the apple in ‘81 or ‘82.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 27, 2024 17:37:41 GMT -5
To put things in perspective, the amount needed to join that league was 50K. Remember this from a book I read about the BC betting scandal that cited that amount, also saying "Bill (Flynn, late great BC AD) wasn't sure if he could get the money" (clearly, he did). I would say in terms of outside Jesuit influence, it's pretty clear that decisions were made to keep Holy Cross small and BC larger. Perhaps, by definition, that limited HC's athletic options. If $50K was the ante, I feel quite confident that EBW alone could have sprung for the $. He was the driving force behind the hiring of Rick Carter in the ‘79-‘80 time frame and also the one who “pitched” Fr. Brooks on the BE when we had a second bite at the apple in ‘81 or ‘82. No doubt. I put that in there to point out that even though the endowment was poor, the investment in this case was not that great and the ongoing expenses were more or less the same as before. Then again, that's assuming the games were at the Hart Center and not downtown; HC would only have made more money elsewhere if they drew well, may have even sustained losses.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 27, 2024 19:59:36 GMT -5
Seton Hall, arguably deserving to be in the Dance, moves into the NIT semis at Hinkle Field House, easily defeating UNLV, 91-68. They again won tonight’s game at on campus historic Walsh Gymnasium, where the first Big East game was played, This is their first NIT since 1956.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Mar 27, 2024 23:22:47 GMT -5
You had me at historic gym which hosted the first Big East game. I can't believe it only seats 1316. I love these old gyms with idiosyncrasies and character. I'm actually sad that Cotterell Court will be replaced along with the UVM barn. Maybe UVM needs additional capacity, I don't think Colgate does.
These hugely expensive new on campus palaces used a couple of dozen times a year are inefficient. I like that Seton Hall, like PC uses a facility in the community, the Prudential Center, with a critical mass of events to make it commercially viable and still has an historic gym on campus when needed.
B.U. has 37,000 students and a million people living or working within five miles, yet all they need for M&W BB is the 1800 chair back seats in the Case Gym, a great place to watch a game with the 7200 seat Agganis Arena on campus if they ever need it. If they ever turn into UConn, Boston Garden is down the street.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Mar 28, 2024 7:09:31 GMT -5
Seton Hall, arguably deserving to be in the Dance, moves into the NIT semis at Hinkle Field House, easily defeating UNLV, 91-68. They again won tonight’s game at on campus historic Walsh Gymnasium, where the first Big East game was played, This is their first NIT since 1956. First time in the NIT since '56 or first time getting to the semis? That seems hard to gathom given that the tournament was Metro NY-centric until about 2006 when the NCAA took it over.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Mar 28, 2024 7:18:56 GMT -5
First time in the NIT. Yes, hard to fathom.
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Mar 28, 2024 7:55:19 GMT -5
This still makes the assumption that HC would have enjoyed similar success. Back in the 70's athletes were still legitimate students. Many might have been on the lower end of the academic bell curve of a school, but they were on the bell curve. Then comes 1981 and a high academic Big East school decided to change the norm and take in a kid who, without his athletic prowess, would have been laughed at for applying. One could reasonably argue that HC could accept athletes that couldn't handle the academic requirements of the school. HC could make special academic programs to get those kids through to keep up with the Joneses and be nationally relevant in hoops. And in so doing raise the academic profile of the school. That doesn't mean that considering that price. too high is a totally unreasonable position. .Personally , I think if HC didn't go all in with an "ends justifies the means" attitude. HC's history in the Big East would probably be a lot closer to Fordham's record in the A-10 than UConn in the Big East I think that we have to acknowledge that GB recruited a number of athletes who had academic issues in the late 70s/early 80s.. No reason to put their full names here, but EF, CB and CG all had to leave the school to get their grades back in order and JC left and never returned. (The three that returned all graduated as far as I know.) I don't know if those athletes shouldn't have been admitted in the first place or if they didn't put the work in once they arrived on campus. To be clear, I knew several basketball players who were very capable students. My point is that HC was already making academic concessions for athletes. Although I don't condemn the BE decision like many because I think that in order to do it succesfully HC would have had to either drop football or keep football and drop several other sports, I don't know that Brooksie was right that we would have had to make any more academic concessions for basketball than we already were. To my recollection, from the fall of 1974 through the end of the decade, there was only one HCMBB player who left the School because of his grades - not because he couldn't do the work, but because he didn't do the work. That player returned, did the work, and graduated. I can state, without hesitation, that there were a number of HS players who wanted to come to HC, but GB couldn't get them through the Admissions office. One of those matriculated at "the World's Greatest University" (on the shores of the Charles River), didn't like it there, and transferred to Chestnut Hill CC (from which he graduated) to play for Dr. Tom Davis..
|
|
|
Post by trimster on Mar 28, 2024 8:21:14 GMT -5
JB.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Mar 28, 2024 9:53:02 GMT -5
Iirc the person in question got to Harvard fraudulently. He was not a good citizen at CHCC either. Shocked if he actually got a degree.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Mar 28, 2024 10:34:48 GMT -5
I think that we have to acknowledge that GB recruited a number of athletes who had academic issues in the late 70s/early 80s.. No reason to put their full names here, but EF, CB and CG all had to leave the school to get their grades back in order and JC left and never returned. (The three that returned all graduated as far as I know.) I don't know if those athletes shouldn't have been admitted in the first place or if they didn't put the work in once they arrived on campus. To be clear, I knew several basketball players who were very capable students. My point is that HC was already making academic concessions for athletes. Although I don't condemn the BE decision like many because I think that in order to do it succesfully HC would have had to either drop football or keep football and drop several other sports, I don't know that Brooksie was right that we would have had to make any more academic concessions for basketball than we already were. To my recollection, from the fall of 1974 through the end of the decade, there was only one HCMBB player who left the School because of his grades - not because he couldn't do the work, but because he didn't do the work. That player returned, did the work, and graduated. I can state, without hesitation, that there were a number of HS players who wanted to come to HC, but GB couldn't get them through the Admissions office. One of those matriculated at "the World's Greatest University" (on the shores of the Charles River), didn't like it there, and transferred to Chestnut Hill CC (from which he graduated) to play for Dr. Tom Davis.. Two of the people I posted about were early 80s. The other two overlapped from the late 70s to early 80s. I'll take your word about the prior period. Maybe they gave George some more leeway once he had to compete with the BE. Of course, that would be really silly---don't join the BE for, at least in part, academic reasons, and they ease up on admissions standards.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 28, 2024 13:08:03 GMT -5
Aaaaahhhhh! All this stuff about this & that, student. non-student is too much. I'll put up the current crop of PL. HC true student-athletes against any of these from th "good ole days." Hc is a great school, "sui generis." HC is not Xavier, BC, Villanova, ND, G-Town or like any other college in America - a small national liberal arts Catholic undergraduate only Catholic Jesuit college of the highest academic standards. HC is the flagship of Catholic higher education in America. Can't posters see & understand what we have? And, I don't want to hear any of the foolishness from the bought & paid for USNWR. "Oh, raise thy voice..."
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Mar 28, 2024 13:20:06 GMT -5
Aaaaahhhhh! All this stuff about this & that, student. non-student is too much. I'll put up the current crop of PL. HC true student-athletes against any of these from th "good ole days." Hc is a great school, "sui generis." HC is not Xavier, BC, Villanova, ND, G-Town or like any other college in America - a small national liberal arts Catholic undergraduate only Catholic Jesuit college of the highest academic standards. HC is the flagship of Catholic higher education in America. Can't posters see & understand what we have? And, I don't want to hear any of the foolishness from the bought & paid for USNWR. "Oh, raise thy voice..." You might be biased.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 28, 2024 13:39:30 GMT -5
...as might any of us.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 28, 2024 13:58:10 GMT -5
Seriously, does anyone believe Xavier, Villanova, BC, even GTown & ND can lay claim to the finest undergraduate only Catholic liberal arts college in America? Mustn't it be dear alma mater, Holy Cross and only Holy Cross?
|
|
|
Post by Ignutz on Mar 29, 2024 9:17:51 GMT -5
Aaaaahhhhh! All this stuff about this & that, student. non-student is too much. I'll put up the current crop of PL. HC true student-athletes against any of these from th "good ole days." Hc is a great school, "sui generis." HC is not Xavier, BC, Villanova, ND, G-Town or like any other college in America - a small national liberal arts Catholic undergraduate only Catholic Jesuit college of the highest academic standards. HC is the flagship of Catholic higher education in America. Can't posters see & understand what we have? And, I don't want to hear any of the foolishness from the bought & paid for USNWR. "Oh, raise thy voice..." The end of your commentary reminds me that no matter how uninspiring a Sunday mass might be (which does occasionally happen), if "Lift High the Cross" was one of the hymns, it was an hour well-spent.
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Mar 29, 2024 9:37:09 GMT -5
Maybe, it's merely age but the whole vibe about HC is so different than in my days on the Hill. At that time it was understood HC was the finest undergraduate Catholic college in America. In my class alone there were students from across the nation and some international students(Ex. The Philippines, The Netherlands, etc.) . Many turned down other more prestigious secular colleges. All wanted to attend the finest Catholic college in America. It appears some younger grads have an entirely different view of the HC they attended. And, sadly this negative view of HC seems to have been reinforced over the years. I guess it really doesn't matter. Sittin' by the dock of the bay watching the tide drift away.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 29, 2024 10:31:05 GMT -5
. Many turned down other more prestigious secular colleges. I have to call you out on the statement above. No one in your class or mine turned down an opportunity to attend a more prestigious college. I know this to be true because there is no college on the planet more prestigious then the College of the Holy Cross
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Mar 29, 2024 12:32:37 GMT -5
. Many turned down other more prestigious secular colleges. I have to call you out on the statement above. No one in your class or mine turned down an opportunity to attend a more prestigious college. I know this to be true because there is no college on the planet more prestigious then the College of the Holy Cross No one? Lets see, I turned down Brown, Yale, and Georgetown to attend HC. Would that do anything to your universal statement? I do see your point that if there are no more prestigious colleges, the statement on which you comment would be false. But I still get asked how could you have turned down _______. ?!
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Mar 29, 2024 13:39:03 GMT -5
I have to call you out on the statement above. No one in your class or mine turned down an opportunity to attend a more prestigious college. I know this to be true because there is no college on the planet more prestigious then the College of the Holy Cross No one? Lets see, I turned down Brown, Yale, and Georgetown to attend HC. Would that do anything to your universal statement? I do see your point that if there are no more prestigious colleges, the statement on which you comment would be false. But I still get asked how could you have turned down _______. ?!Perhaps in this season of Lent, people are asking why you did not engage in self sacrifice by attending one of those less prestigious institutions
|
|