Who are really H.C.'s "peer institutions" in 2017 ?

Sarcasm noted, realism (i.e. "savior", no one ever said that about Nate) but at least get a current version of this. Please note:



Granted this is probably more current than what we thought in 1970, 1980, 1990 but it is still almost 5 years old. Do you have an updated version?

To your points sader 1970:

1. The "peer institution overlap" trends don't change much at all year-to-year. I have data sets from another source, published a year ago, that confirm the same patterns for H.C. and the other schools in which posters are likely interested, corroborating the data from 2012 in the link. However, as you surmised, these perceptions do change over the decades. And what you describe as "what we thought in 1970, 1980, 1990" may be providing the lens for many loyal-but crirical posters on this board. Stuff changes!

2. The thread posted originally by hc87, "coming up on 3 years for Nate Pine....our savior?, " created the connection that I "sarcastically" made between "savior" and ADNP. It's not original material: crossports.freeforums.net/thread/849/coming-years-nate-pine-savior. The use of the term by hc87 reinforced my perception that posters here have been unrealistic about what ADNP can accomplish at all, given the hand that he's been dealt, let alone accomplish over short term time frames. "Savior" coming from our resident enlightened high school teacher-coach hc87 further implied that an evaluation of ADNP would only highlight recent performance, discernible to him. We all know that the charge given to ADNP by TPTB is much more comprehensive and meshes fully with the school's mission and aspirations for "best practices" in a wide range of athletic activities and institutional objectives, in addition to improved performance.      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         My point is straightforward. I think posters on this board have consistently ascribed talents to ADNP for improving performance that aren't verified on his resume. By coincidence, I think there's also a disconnect between what posters and the rest of the world think of the general H.C. brand, circa 2017.  What ADNP inherited 3 yeas ago did not allow for much of a shot at quickly matching the artificial composite of the "glory years" that would qualify him as a savior. This is especially obvious given the mess he inherited, the completely different historical context and the breadth of the AD's job today. Yet this fictional composite of the "glory years" is the standard some posters are using for looking over ADNP's shoulder and assessing his progress. Indeed, in many ways, what ADNP inherited had been bereft of any strategy for decades. This, in turn, led to a morbid athletic atmosphere and reputation. During this same period, many of the institutions that posters snub as being out of H.C.'s league let alone ones that were peers or desirable peers were adapting their athletic programs amidst a rapidly changing competitive environment. In contrast to the few clamoring for the "glory years" now, the display of loyalty to, patience with, and aspirations for H.C.by the greater alumni community is admirable and truly reflective of H.C.'s strength as an institution. It's unfortunate then, that not everyone realizes that by letting H.C's athletic program atrophy for decades, it wouldn't be able to suddenly re-emerge on the scene in a blaze of glory. Damage has been done. With everything else, H.C. has a big sales job ahead of it. It'll be awhile before H.C.'s on a level playing field with the peers with whom it would like to be associated. The peer institution data ( above ) sheds light on the fact that the outside world may be more realistic than posters on this board about the regard the H.C-brand-in-general receives circa 2017. I also think outsiders have a more realistic notion that the "glory years" are an inappropriate standard for evaluating ADNP's progress. The "glory years" are a fanciful selective composite of years that distort H.C.'s varied and cyclical athletic performance that's so similar to every other institution. Getting grounded will lend itself to more realistic expectations of how long it might take ADNP to fulfill varied objectives given his broad responsibilities, what he inherited in 2013 and the skill set that he actually brought with him to H.C..

Longest post ever?

Sorry. I could sum it up by noting that there's a collection of sobering posters on this board that acknowledge that ADNP has been charged with igniting a renaissance from a low point in H.C. history. He's juggling an unprecedented number of initiatives while leaping from trapeze to trapeze. Progress on any one front should be judged accordingly.

You must be younger than me. Of course, Brooks was "just" the dean in my day as we had Fr. Swords as president (a personal hero of mine). Georgetown might have been considered a peer, but a stretch and a notch below the Ivies. BC was the HC "safe school" that you went to if you could not get into Holy Cross. Fordham and Villanova? Not even close! Williams and Amherst were considered best in class and Bowdoin a possible peer. 

Frankly, I really don't recall anyone even thinking of what a "peer institution" was in those days. Maybe Notre Dame. We considered our little school a unique college that no one was exactly like. If you were not Catholic, you might consider Colgate as a peer. 

I do too, but, like the Ivies, I've never seen any indication that they want to keep company with Holy Cross; hence my "NESCAC s*ks" comments a few years ago.    And I think HC has nothing in common with any other D3 group, so I'd hate to go down that road.

My only other complaint with NESCAC is that playing 8 football games a season is a joke.    If you're not going to go to the playoffs (which has some merit to it, IMHO), then at least play a goddammn schedule equivalent to a high school.