|
Post by inhocsigno on Oct 9, 2017 17:38:58 GMT -5
I'm glad inhocsigno can tell me "F you" because he doesn't agree with me. To a lesser degree he said the argument to drop football is silly, again presumably, because he didn't agree. Now, I do agree about his points stating that the recruiting pool is difficult to find HC's "sweet spot" with the most talented players. To a degree, I think that proves my point. It is harder and harder to find both the right players and the right fans to support the program in the way it needs to be successful. In that last statement, I agree with what hc87 said on this page. The program has to have the commitment from the powers that be to succeed. Is the new athletic complex or practice field or even the lights some people pine for (see what I did there?) the solution? Maybe. But maybe it's just throwing money at the problem rather than thinking "is this best for the school," and "is this the best way to succeed?" It's not a "few" losses that makes me come up with this idea. After "a few losses" everyone coming on the board to rant and spread vitriol... I'm not a part of that crowd. It's precisely the opposite-- systematic losses in ways big and small, on an off the field, conventional and unseen-before, that make me CONSIDER and suggest, rather than protest for a more drastic change. I get it... you played at HC. I was committed in my small part to the program, and as long as we do have a team, I will be a fan. But I don't have to blindly genuflect to the football program as a result of any of those. I can respect your commitment, dedication, and hard work to the team while balancing education and anything else that was on your plate-- you guys are using the words "blood, sweat, and tears" and being in the trenches-- but it is a game. Please don't hoo-rah me and act like you were at Paris Island before being shipped off to Iwo Jima. Let's just respectfully disagree until the day we find that common ground. The F you was not directed at you. It was specifically for the person that said the teams of my era were garbage. That was a slap in the face to the effort of many. Although the comment lacked eloquence, I stand by it. Based on condescending tone and manner above, I happily extend the same to you.
|
|
|
Post by dadominate on Oct 9, 2017 19:08:47 GMT -5
I'm glad inhocsigno can tell me "F you" because he doesn't agree with me. To a lesser degree he said the argument to drop football is silly, again presumably, because he didn't agree. Now, I do agree about his points stating that the recruiting pool is difficult to find HC's "sweet spot" with the most talented players. To a degree, I think that proves my point. It is harder and harder to find both the right players and the right fans to support the program in the way it needs to be successful. In that last statement, I agree with what hc87 said on this page. The program has to have the commitment from the powers that be to succeed. Is the new athletic complex or practice field or even the lights some people pine for (see what I did there?) the solution? Maybe. But maybe it's just throwing money at the problem rather than thinking "is this best for the school," and "is this the best way to succeed?" It's not a "few" losses that makes me come up with this idea. After "a few losses" everyone coming on the board to rant and spread vitriol... I'm not a part of that crowd. It's precisely the opposite-- systematic losses in ways big and small, on an off the field, conventional and unseen-before, that make me CONSIDER and suggest, rather than protest for a more drastic change. I get it... you played at HC. I was committed in my small part to the program, and as long as we do have a team, I will be a fan. But I don't have to blindly genuflect to the football program as a result of any of those. I can respect your commitment, dedication, and hard work to the team while balancing education and anything else that was on your plate-- you guys are using the words "blood, sweat, and tears" and being in the trenches-- but it is a game. Please don't hoo-rah me and act like you were at Paris Island before being shipped off to Iwo Jima. Let's just respectfully disagree until the day we find that common ground. The F you was not directed at you. It was specifically for the person that said the teams of my era were garbage. That was a slap in the face to the effort of many. Although the comment lacked eloquence, I stand by it. Based on condescending tone and manner above, I happily extend the same to you. i agree that there is too much glorification of the "good old days" of the 70's/80's, in both football and basketball, without context of the landscape as a whole that makes it dicordant with reality. just out of curiosity, when did you graduate?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Oct 9, 2017 19:56:55 GMT -5
How about the glory days of the 60s, esp in Football ?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 9, 2017 20:54:56 GMT -5
How about the glory days of the 60s, esp in Football ? A strong schedule in the late 60s, with some BIG wins (Dartmouth and BC come to mind immediately)...but overall not great win/loss records. The big losses to Syracuse come to mind - unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 9, 2017 21:00:08 GMT -5
i agree that there is too much glorification of the "good old days" of the 70's/80's, in both football and basketball, without context of the landscape as a whole that makes it dicordant with reality. It is what it is...fact of the matter is that (within the context of the college football/basketball world of the different eras) we have been sliding steadily downward since the 1940s or 1950s .For every puffing of my chest about how HC was #1 in the FCS polls in 1987, my Dad could counter that with when he was at HC they went to the Orange Bowl...same types of examples in basketball and baseball. The biggest difference between now and say HC basketball in the 1970s and HC football in the 1980s is that we were still fairly well recognized in both sports nationally then unlike today. I don't say that disparagingly towards where we are at today....it's just the truth. Different world obviously....pre ESPN, pre Big East etc but people knew about HC basketball (at the very least in the East) up until 1980 or so. NBC televised games at the Hart, we played in sold out or near sold out games at the Providence Civic Center, Boston Garden etc etc.. Same thing for HC football in the 1980s. Though 1-AA, we were often on network television, the Gordie/Duffner teams were known around the country etc etc Again, I don't want this to come off as "everything is so bad now"...it's just different. As someone who grew up as a HC fan in the 70s and attended in the 80s, I'm just trying to give you some context from that era.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 9, 2017 21:12:37 GMT -5
I graduated mid-80's from the Cross and watched many of the football games while I was there but I never thought of it as particularly important in the scheme of things. Many of the students, even then, weren't enthusiastic about the games. Heck, I never got the whole BC rivalry thing either since those games weren't close - although a few old timers said they once were.
I am kind of surprised we've stuck with football over the years given the cost and given the fact that BU and Northeastern gave it up. I guess some/most at the administration/trustee level now think our PL scholarship football participation is worth the dollars and effort in that they believe it adds a certain publicity to the school and grows our 'brand'. As someone who works with prospective students I can say our brand and name recognition could use the bolstering. We are not where we once were in that regard.
I think it is a good thing to constantly reevaluate our scholarship football program to see if the shifting objectives justify the shifting costs. Recalibrations may be in order. Or not. Notwithstanding prickly sensitivities.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 9, 2017 21:34:54 GMT -5
We almost beat BC in both 1980 and 1981....lol, just sayin' By 1986 the games were becoming lopsided (and really had been since 1970 or so with a few exceptions) and I understood the ending of the series....though I maintain we may have beat them in 1987 (they weren't very good that year).
To your larger point, I think we keep football largely for the branding/social connections etc...as a college sport, it's probably still the best one to be a backdrop for things like Homecoming, President's Council Weekend, Parent's Weekend etc. etc. The fact that we also play schools like Harvard and Yale (as well as our PL brothers and others) also probably goes into the thinking that it's better to have a football program and "rub shoulders with them" than not. People don't want to hear (or scoff at) that but I'm willing to bet that the TPTB loved the fact that we secured long-term contracts with the Johnnies and the Eli in football.
|
|
|
Post by realism on Oct 9, 2017 22:09:33 GMT -5
."....People don't want to hear (or scoff at) that but I'm willing to bet that the TPTB loved the fact that we secured long-term contracts with the Johnnies and the Eli in football." And what you're not willing to admit is that TPTB will be satisfied to have the schedule as the only tangible, a P.R. deliverable. This and a clean program producing .500 seasons is their safe threshold. Your detail about the return of the "glory days" is just noise to these responsible people who have to make serious decisions for the institution.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 9, 2017 22:47:40 GMT -5
I'm just guessing, but much like Felix Unger, you're probably a lot of fun at parties realism....no?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 9, 2017 22:51:02 GMT -5
Why would we invest so much $$$ in the Luth if we were not getting serious about football and other programs?
|
|
|
Post by realism on Oct 9, 2017 23:28:41 GMT -5
Why would we invest so much $$$ in the Luth if we were not getting serious about football and other programs? I think the Luth. may contribute something tangible via enhanced performance and recruiting results in 3 or 4 years. Maybe earlier. But, it's not a biggie for next year's performance on the field, imho. It's not likely to provide a tangible deliverable next year relative to other contributing assets that I've identified. If you focus on the shorter term future, you can forecast when the contribution of various assets fit together like building blocks. Regardless of this year's final record, I can identify building blocks that have come together. I try to be specific and find tangibles. By way of example, I just perused H.C.'s two deep. How does the percentage of Seniors currently in the starting lineup impact the first four games of 2018 ? Btw, half of the two deep are Seniors. Regardless of who the coach is, H.C. will be facing 1. @ Colgate, 2. @ BC, 3. Yale and 4. Dartmouth in the first four weeks. ( No PP, no other QB currently getting reps; perhaps no 5th years next year ? ). As this year winds down, I'm asking what assets are in place that will create tangible results in the short term. Those assets also contribute to achieving long term tangible objectives. But, everything doesn't happen at once,... Voila !. But I think that kind of thinking is not negative or contrary to an optimistic outlook about the longer term future. I'd be shocked if TPTB don't look for this kind of accountability rather than getting excited about the return of the "glory years." That's my point about the immediate impact of the schedules ( for all of the reasons cited by HC87 ). The schedules are early sequentially relative to other assets that are being put in place for impact in subsequent years. Overall, I think HC87 is prophettic: "Long story short...climbing back (or approaching where we were in 1991) is probably going to be a lot more difficult than many of us hoped despite all these improvements." True 'dat!
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 10, 2017 5:45:15 GMT -5
Here’s a few random thoughts to chew on from the world of reality:
Correct me if I’m wrong but the 97 million for the Luth was an initiative based on a donation from the Luth family which mandated the money be spent as such. Was HC committed enough to sports to have done this otherwise? None of us know. All I know is that there are still 3 playing venues on campus that are of high school caliber. What type of renovations make the highest impact on recruits, weight rooms or stadia/arenas? Or both? I don’t know; it’s been a long time since I was recruited.
In terms of glorifying the 80s, as a kid in NJ I never heard of HC other than via basketball because I’d watch Seton Hall games with my father. I never heard of Gordie until I met him on a recruiting trip in the little VIP room when we all went to watch a basketball game with our hosts. As we learned of the history, including about the BC rivalry, it created more of a colorful backdrop to us playing at HC, nothing more, really.
With regarding to recruiting then vs now, guys had offers to many other great academic schools but simply got more money to play at HC via various packages, and many tended to connect with players on recruiting trips and were impressed with the scale of the stadium and the recent national championship, and so chose to come to HC.. We saw HC football as being a chance to win games and be champions consistently. We did not see ourselves as being step-down caliber athletes from some bygone era and we certainly weren’t.
Looking back with regard to scheduling, Army at Army on opening day was the exciting game to look forward to, and what we remember most.
With regard to the glory years as they are called, a lot of the 80s glory was HC with the remnants of a more powerful program and with schollie players beating up on weaker teams with de-emphasized football programs, with big losses to BC routinely, but admittedly nice wins over UMass, BU, Nova and other D-1AA teams. We had not a single win in the playoffs, just a loss, and a lot of shoulda coulda woulda about the undefeated year where we didn’t even enter the playoffs. Would we have won a. game? Momentum was huge in those days. HC rolled. I never heard of 25k people coming to games though, except for maybe BC before the rivalry deteriorated.
This board is where the people with purple tinted glasses come to socialize, and our enthusiasm and dedication to the program are exceptions, not the norm.
I tread respectfully when critiquing the program because had I come of age during a scholarship era I doubt I would have been more than a walk-on. Nonetheless HC is my school and I’ve grown tired of watching these heartbreaking losses. This needs to get figured out pronto. Always the bridesmaid, never then bride. Gets old.
Do what you want with the above information.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Oct 10, 2017 7:04:20 GMT -5
Invaluable input--thanks, Joe
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 10, 2017 7:43:42 GMT -5
Why would we invest so much $$$ in the Luth if we were not getting serious about football and other programs? ... By way of example, I just perused H.C.'s two deep. How does the percentage of Seniors currently in the starting lineup impact the first four games of 2018 ? Btw, half of the two deep are Seniors. Regardless of who the coach is, H.C. will be facing 1. @ Colgate, 2. @ BC, 3. Yale and 4. Dartmouth in the first four weeks. ( No PP, no other QB currently getting reps; perhaps no 5th years next year ? ). As this year winds down, I'm asking what assets are in place that will create tangible results in the short term. Those assets also contribute to achieving long term tangible objectives. But, everything doesn't happen at once,... Voila !. I think that is a good reminder that much of this discussion is in a context of expectations following five years of schollies. This may be the most talented and the most experienced team we have seen in years and the team (if the two-deep is any indication) may not be as talented nor as experienced for at least the next couple of years. And some are thinking if these are the results this year ...what will the next few years look like?
(I don't know if this is true for all the PL teams but it very well may be.)
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Oct 10, 2017 7:50:57 GMT -5
I graduated mid-80's from the Cross and watched many of the football games while I was there but I never thought of it as particularly important in the scheme of things. Many of the students, even then, weren't enthusiastic about the games. Heck, I never got the whole BC rivalry thing either since those games weren't close - although a few old timers said they once were. I am kind of surprised we've stuck with football over the years given the cost and given the fact that BU and Northeastern gave it up. I guess some/most at the administration/trustee level now think our PL scholarship football participation is worth the dollars and effort in that they believe it adds a certain publicity to the school and grows our 'brand'. As someone who works with prospective students I can say our brand and name recognition could use the bolstering. We are not where we once were in that regard.
I think it is a good thing to constantly reevaluate our scholarship football program to see if the shifting objectives justify the shifting costs. Recalibrations may be in order. Or not. Notwithstanding prickly sensitivities. This is perhaps the most important observation to appear on this thread. It follows occasional earlier rumblings over the academic situation at HC and the school's current appeal to superior high school students. The college's primary obligation is to provide its students a high quality education. Sports...any sport...are secondary to that and, one could argue, should only be supported if they enhance the school's ability to fulfill that primary obligation. I have no idea whether playing football and basketball, PL membership, "rubbing shoulders with the Ivies" (at least athletically), etc. do anything to improve HC's ability to compete for quality students these days or contribute in a meaningful way to a positive educational environment once they reach the Hill. If they do, full speed ahead on the athletic front. If they don't, one might well ask whether spending $5-6 million or so on football and basketball every year makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 10, 2017 7:51:42 GMT -5
Growing up the grandson of a Navy football legend, I remember overhearing similar conversations / debates with regard to the direction that the program should go.
Many discussed disbanding the program, and if not, having them move to 1-AA - I also remember how these sentiments not being well received by the older generation of guys who had played on those legendary teams.
It seemed like they were all very supportive of advancing the program despite the noise coming from the outside - Ultimately, they trudged forward and we can all see where they are today.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 10, 2017 8:33:15 GMT -5
Growing up the grandson of a Navy football legend, I remember overhearing similar conversations / debates with regard to the direction that the program should go. Many discussed disbanding the program, and if not, having them move to 1-AA - I also remember how these sentiments not being well received by the older generation of guys who had played on those legendary teams. It seemed like they were all very supportive of advancing the program despite the noise coming from the outside - Ultimately, they trudged forward and we can all see where they are today. Maybe in this game the old saying is true, if you’re in for a penny, you’re in for a pound. At the risk of losing all credibility, perhaps we should study Navy a little more. Just putting it out there.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Oct 10, 2017 8:46:48 GMT -5
I'm somewhere in the middle on all this. As someone who started following HC football as a kid when Muldoon and Fenerty played and then Wiley and Co., my decision to attend HC over other equally prestigious institutions was significantly influenced by attending so many great football games and seeing the energy and pride those teams brought to the HC community. As a result, I have always viewed any talk of abandoning football to be complete blasphemy. However, while I still don't want to abandon it, I am starting to wonder just a little bit about the costs and benefits. If, in another decade after making the type of commitment we are now making, we are still where we are today as a middle-of-the-pack PL team which might contend for a title once a decade, I could see myself seriously entertaining the idea of putting the resources to use elsewhere. Hopefully, in a decade, it will be obvious to me and everyone else that the football program is a huge net benefit to the College and any talk of walking away from it will be easily dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Oct 10, 2017 9:17:36 GMT -5
As a HC football fan my biggest frustration is the way the league operates. They handcuff themselves for no reason. Almost seem proud to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage....and some member schools go beyond that. I would hate recruiting for a PL school. As someone said earlier the pool is extremely small and for no reason. I always wonder if Duffner had to go to admissions and beg and plead for recruits to get accepted.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 10, 2017 9:36:15 GMT -5
As a HC football fan my biggest frustration is the way the league operates. They handcuff themselves for no reason. Almost seem proud to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage....and some member schools go beyond that. I would hate recruiting for a PL school. As someone said earlier the pool is extremely small and for no reason. I always wonder if Duffner had to go to admissions and beg and plead for recruits to get accepted. I feel the same way -- The Holy Cross Administration, it appears, does not want Holy Cross to be competitive to the point that our Football team would receive any sort of national recognition. It really does seem that they would rather us go 6-5 than 11-0 with a run in the playoffs. Meanwhile, my brother is playing at San Diego, a non-scholarship Pioneer League school who just last year ended up playing North Dakota in the 2nd round of the Playfoffs.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 10, 2017 9:40:31 GMT -5
Appreciate that tit for tat, inhocsigno. I saw no condescension in your earlier post myself dado, I graduated in 2008. Some of the other posters on this page have said more succinctly what I said earlier in a much more long-winded and roundabout way. Things like the Luth may be just a token effort (dollars aside) to give the appearances of making the commitment to the program. I have said for years we have to make the RIGHT commitments to the RIGHT programs. A doctor furiously giving me CPR while I have a deep leg wound won't save my life (I know some doctor would say, 'the deep leg wound would likely cause shock, loss of blood pressure, and a heart attack, necessitating CPR," or something like that, but you get my point). Building training centers or practice fields when the actual stadium or coaches or players or league need serious attention could be curing the wrong disease.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 10, 2017 10:47:16 GMT -5
Interesting point of view and a good analogy to go along with it! Well done, WCHC.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Oct 10, 2017 11:07:18 GMT -5
Ready.......fire.......aim!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 10, 2017 11:10:45 GMT -5
Hey, young people have always wanted to grow up, get married and have kids. All that has changed today is the "order."
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Oct 10, 2017 11:45:19 GMT -5
I'm married and have a kid. Can't say I have grown up. This board is likely the evidence of that!
|
|