|
Post by joe on Feb 10, 2017 10:11:26 GMT -5
The prospects of (1) winning championships and (2) playing in an exciting environment are the keys. Academics and practice facilities are not unimportant but ultimately meaningless without 1 and 2.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Feb 10, 2017 11:05:35 GMT -5
To win championships you have to attract good players and I believe the Luth will do that and has done that for football with 3* and multiple 2* recruits. I am sure any of our senior basketball players wish the Luth was up and running for them.
We'll be fine, relatively speaking in coming years. We are not going to be A-10 quality in basketball but will do well in the PL and we will be vying for football championships soon, 2-3 years out.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Feb 10, 2017 11:15:39 GMT -5
I hope so....hopefully this is one of those "darkest before the dawn" eras.....
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Feb 10, 2017 11:27:07 GMT -5
Although my background is Class of '69, and I remember the "Glory Days" of yore, I remain interested and continue to support Holy Cross athletics. I think that for me, the reasons are both simple and more complicated. Simple, in that Holy Cross is my alma mater, and this is a way to stay connected. The more complicated reason is that our little college is trying to do something that is hard to do, as we thread the needle of small size, high academics and sports achievement. There are very few colleges the size of Holy Cross that participate in Div 1 athletics across such a large variety and number of teams.
|
|
|
Post by bikeman on Feb 10, 2017 13:51:38 GMT -5
Attendance for BBALL would immediately triple, due to season ticket sales alone, with a league upgrade. I know this for a fact. I work for one of HC'S biggest sponsors.HC would be Worcester Counties team again.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Feb 10, 2017 21:33:32 GMT -5
Ky---IMO, our "major" sports (interest, tradition, recruiting $, overall program expenditures, etc.) are football, men's and women's basketball, hockey and baseball. I see the improvements to the Luth/Hart Center as having a positive impact on football recruiting (we may have seen some evidence of this already on 2/1)but almost no impact on recruiting for the other 4 "major" sports. There will likely be some positive impact on recruiting in the other 20 sports we currently sponsor. How much is tough to judge. I am struggling to understand how we will get the competitive "bang for the $95MM bucks" that we will invest. However, as PP has pointed out on several occasions, TPTB have "crossed the Rubicon" on the direction of the athletic program with the Luth/Hart Center improvements, choosing to continue to sponsor more varsity sports than any other PL football or basketball member other than G'town (which has 25 or 26) with seemingly limited regard for the collective success of the programs. Currently, of the 12 men's programs, 1 has a winning record, 9 have/had a losing record with 2 just starting their seasons. Of the 13 women's programs, 2 have/had winning records, 9 have/had losing records with 2 just starting their seasons.
TPTB are invested in a D-3 model athletically for a D-1 school. By offering 25 varsity sports, they hope to attract a significant number of full pay students who were HS athletes who want to continue to pursue their given sport at the D-1 level (at least nominally) but are not sufficiently talented to garner a D-1 scholarship. These students help to "subsidize" the College's need blind admissions policy.
If TPTB chose the route more likely to produce athletic success across the board in terms of Ws and Ls (i.e. reducing the number of sponsored sports to 14 or 15, trying to position the College to move to a multi-NCAA bid conference [e.g. NBE or A-10], investing more $ per sport than is currently the case [basically the Providence or Xavier approach]), then overall net expenditures on athletics would go up (unless the College achieved Villanova-like success in men's hoops) while the number of full pay varsity student athletes would likely go down. How likely do any of you think TPTB would be willing to go down that road? PP, for one, doesn't seem to think it's very likely at all, hence the "crossing the Rubicon" comment.
And, if we continue to trod the current path, how likely is it that the number of winning seasons (particularly in the 5 major sports) is likely to in increase dramatically? IMO, not very.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Feb 10, 2017 22:17:17 GMT -5
Great breakdown, xmass.
Regarding your breakdown of "major sports," I agree with the group that you identified, but MBB and Football separate themselves above the rest. For that reason, I am dumbfounded as to how we spent $95M on athletics, and got so little out of it for MBB. The practice gym will be nice for helping with practice times, but it will have minimal impact on recruiting when coupled with how far behind we've left the actual "arena."
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Feb 10, 2017 23:04:02 GMT -5
Guess the men's basketball teams won't be using the new mens basketball locker rooms, men's basketball lounge, varsity weight room, team meeting room and sports medicine rooms being built.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Feb 10, 2017 23:24:19 GMT -5
Guess the men's basketball teams won't be using the new mens basketball locker rooms, men's basketball lounge, varsity weight room, team meeting room and sports medicine rooms being built. 1) Are there any photos of these things that you list? I don't think I've seen any, and my instincts tell me that if we had real game-changers in the works, we'd have seen the plans. I hope that I am wrong. 2) Any impact is diminished with how little was done to the "arena."
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 10, 2017 23:37:55 GMT -5
"My instincts tell me". Really?
"Any impact is diminished....." Really?
Careful, your agenda is showing yet again.......
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Feb 11, 2017 0:03:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Feb 11, 2017 0:27:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Feb 11, 2017 8:31:53 GMT -5
CHC8485---I have no doubt that $ has been/will be spent to improve the men's basketball locker room, meeting room, etc. These improvements will undoubtedly bring the Luth/Hart Center into the top 1/3 (?) or 1/2 (?) of men's basketball facilities in the PL. However, I believe that the single most important factors in men's hoop recruiting are the league in which the school plays, the current success of the program (last 4-6 yrs.), the coaching staff and style of play and the program's historical traditions. If all of those factors are relatively equal, a prospective recruit may make a decision based on the comparative quality of facilities but I believe that unless a school's facilities are substantially below par, the recruits don't pay much attention to them. Look no further than the on campus facilities for some NBE and A-10 schools (e.g. Seton Hall, St.John's, Providence, St. Bona) which probably don't match up to the Luth/Hart Center in quality and then compare the differences in the recruits vis-a-vis PL schools, including HC.
In short, IMO, the improvements may help us marginally within the PL in men's hoop recruiting but I'm not sure that it will be a major difference.
|
|
|
Post by cmo on Feb 12, 2017 9:44:54 GMT -5
Was in Providence yesterday. There was such a buzz in the air for their game vs #22 Butler. Bars around arena were packed. Many wearing PC gear.
Fun environment.
|
|