|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 21, 2019 14:44:29 GMT -5
Perhaps with 2 FBS games per season by 2021-one from each group that might look something like this Army, Navy, Air Force, BC(every other year) Rice, Northwestern, UMass, UConn, Rutgers, MAC I guess if we are guided by the notion that the kids love ‘em, the program is helped, and we need the cash ...might as well go for two. Do I hear a three? 😁 Sure, and have our ace bandages delivered by box car down at the rail road freight yard on Southbridge St.😁 Actually, there is another subtle advantage. For fifty years or more HC players can remark: "Those Syracuse backs were extremely elusive, but I still made six tackles." Substitute Bryant for Syracuse and it doesn't sound the same.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Dec 21, 2019 14:45:59 GMT -5
The idea that we would play a game that there is virtually no chance of us winning for the sake of a financial payoff is reprehensible. Football is a violent game. Every time our players play, they are risking their immediate health, their sports careers and even their health for the rest of their lives. The idea that we make them do so in order for Holy Cross to make some money is disgusting. As I said many times as regards BG's ridiculous obsession about playing UConn Women Bball, such an event is not a game. It is an EXHIBITION. Please stop trying to sugar coat it. It's even worse when you know that UConn Women Bball season ticketholders pay a significant amount of money for their tickets. Games are played only to win. Fans are cheated otherwise. My opinion does not apply to games where we have a reasonable chance of winning. As has been posted ad nauseum, there is ZERO correlation between playing better teams and increasing injury risk. We are just as likely to walk out of a game against Georgetown with major injuries as we are to finish a game against BC with major injuries. If anything, there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Dec 21, 2019 14:51:05 GMT -5
Pak - Dartmouth plays PL's Lehigh and Colgate in 2023; Fordham in 2024. There are plenty of openings on Dartmouth's schedules in the out years. Both Dartmouth & HC have been in their same respective leagues with the same limitations for the last 30+ years that they regularly have faced each other. Our relationship with Dartmouth spans more than 100 years. Other PL's but no HC on the Dartmouth schedule. Why? LoveHC I recall a mini brawl of sorts in Hanover that was especially disconcerting for TG because he had coached there and had good relationships. I thought that was all resolved and would not think it effected scheduling. I also recall someone saying Dartmouth was seeking to buttress their national visibility by scheduling games in far corners of the country that playing HC from nearby MA. doesn't accomplish.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Dec 21, 2019 14:58:18 GMT -5
Pak - Dartmouth plays PL's Lehigh and Colgate in 2023; Fordham in 2024. There are plenty of openings on Dartmouth's schedules in the out years. Both Dartmouth & HC have been in their same respective leagues with the same limitations for the last 30+ years that they regularly have faced each other. Our relationship with Dartmouth spans more than 100 years. Other PL's but no HC on the Dartmouth schedule. Why? LoveHC I recall a mini brawl of sorts in Hanover that was especially disconcerting for TG because he had coached there and had good relationships. I thought that was all resolved and would not think it effected scheduling. I also recall someone saying Dartmouth was seeking to buttress their national visibility by scheduling games in far corners of the country that playing HC from nearby MA. doesn't accomplish. The said brawl occurred in 2006 and has nothing to do with why Dartmouth fell off the schedule. Dartmouth had some very bad teams around that time and their OOC schedule for years was UNH, Colgate, HC. Around 2010, they dropped UNH and 'Gate in favor of playing some easier games. More recently, we dropped off and they've added UNH back to the mix here and there. Im definitely of the opinion that we should try to keep Dartmouth on the schedule as often as possible.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Dec 21, 2019 15:00:01 GMT -5
The idea that we would play a game that there is virtually no chance of us winning
Challenge yourself. Play the games. Get better.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 15:09:45 GMT -5
I did not play college football but it is clearly evident that you didn't either. I agree that there are risks in playing a football game. There are risks of players getting injured just in practice. The players understand these risks and are willing to take them and enjoy playing the game. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, that's what it is, an opinion. That's what Crossports is all about afterall.
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Dec 21, 2019 15:20:36 GMT -5
No need for 2, save maybe for 12 game regular seasons ( next is 2024) imo....1 a year should be the standard for HC.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 15:23:39 GMT -5
No, I meant FBS games in general, not specifically Syracuse or BC.
As for dropping football, there have been general discussions about increasing expenses and ways to reduce expenses. Nothing specific to football but that is by far the most expensive program both directly and indirectly because of the title IX need to have women athletics roughly equivalent beneficiaries. 63 +/- men's scholarships is expensive along with multiple coaches' salaries, travel for recruiting and games. If any objective person is looking for away to cut expenses, the biggest target is football. I will tell you that HC like all schools, maybe excluding the Ivies, are always looking to reduce expenses if for no other reason than the criticism they get for rising tuition expenses.
I would not want to even broach the subject to TPTB. When/if we hear about such a thing as dropping football from the Administration, it'll be too late to stop it.
The Gridiron Club/Crusader Athletic Fund has helped to keep football going. So do these pay games. It sure isn't the fannies at Fitton.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 21, 2019 15:25:34 GMT -5
The idea that we would play a game that there is virtually no chance of us winning for the sake of a financial payoff is reprehensible. Football is a violent game. Every time our players play, they are risking their immediate health, their sports careers and even their health for the rest of their lives. The idea that we make them do so in order for Holy Cross to make some money is disgusting. As I said many times as regards BG's ridiculous obsession about playing UConn Women Bball, such an event is not a game. It is an EXHIBITION. Please stop trying to sugar coat it. It's even worse when you know that UConn Women Bball season ticketholders pay a significant amount of money for their tickets. Games are played only to win. Fans are cheated otherwise. My opinion does not apply to games where we have a reasonable chance of winning. As has been posted ad nauseum, there is ZERO correlation between playing better teams and increasing injury risk. We are just as likely to walk out of a game against Georgetown with major injuries as we are to finish a game against BC with major injuries. If anything, there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc. yes, football players do risk injury every time they step on the field. but they should NOT be put at risk in a farce that is not a game where you should play to win, not simply survive. there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc.i guess you must have missed the late hit/targeting call on a syracuse player late in our game this year when the outcome was already settled. most football players are coached and play to avod penalties that hurt the team. that is the extent of the "cleaner game".
|
|
|
Post by hc87 on Dec 21, 2019 15:35:14 GMT -5
The Citadel, who didn't make the playoffs, beat (an admittedly down) Georgia Tech this year.
Point being, we shouldn't avoid BC or Cuse due to their ACC affiliation.
Navy was easily the best team we played this year, not Syracuse.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 21, 2019 15:38:19 GMT -5
No, I meant FBS games in general, not specifically Syracuse or BC. As for dropping football, there have been general discussions about increasing expenses and ways to reduce expenses. Nothing specific to football but that is by far the most expensive program both directly and indirectly because of the title IX need to have women athletics roughly equivalent beneficiaries. 63 +/- men's scholarships is expensive along with multiple coaches' salaries, travel for recruiting and games. If any objective person is looking for away to cut expenses, the biggest target is football. I will tell you that HC like all schools, maybe excluding the Ivies, are always looking to reduce expenses if for no other reason than the criticism they get for rising tuition expenses. I would not want to even broach the subject to TPTB. When/if we hear about such a thing as dropping football from the Administration, it'll be too late to stop it. The Gridiron Club/Crusader Athletic Fund has helped to keep football going. So do these pay games. It sure isn't the fannies at Fitton. if memory serves me, one of the first things Fr Brooks did after becoming college president in 1970 was to drop all NCAA athletic grants. That decision lasted a few months and was reversed before it took effect but later he got his way. it seems that the administration is one player in the decision process.
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Dec 21, 2019 15:42:23 GMT -5
As has been posted ad nauseum, there is ZERO correlation between playing better teams and increasing injury risk. We are just as likely to walk out of a game against Georgetown with major injuries as we are to finish a game against BC with major injuries. If anything, there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc. yes, football players do risk injury every time they step on the field. but they should NOT be put at risk in a farce that is not a game where you should play to win, not simply survive. there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc.i guess you must have missed the late hit/targeting call on a syracuse player late in our game this year when the outcome was already settled. most football players are coached and play to avod penalties that hurt the team. that is the extent of the "cleaner game". The targeting call against Syracuse could've just as easily happened had we replaced them on the schedule with Catholic University. But anyway I get your point. Given that football in itself is such a violent sport complete with real injury risk, perhaps we shouldn't "waste" one of our 11 games against an opponent we have very little shot to beat. I disagree but I see your point. Question: had we been matched up with JMU or North Dakota State in the FCS playoffs, should we have forfeited or played the games? By your logic, the injury risk would be too great to risk sending the guys out to play a game with an extremely low win probability.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 15:47:12 GMT -5
Would you agree that "the administration" is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla? Unless you are Edward Bennett Williams (R.I.P.), Park Smith or maybe the Luth's, the alums, students and faculty won't be making these kinds of decisions.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 21, 2019 16:13:34 GMT -5
Would you agree that "the administration" is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla? Unless you are Edward Bennett Williams (R.I.P.), Park Smith or maybe the Luth's, the alums, students and faculty won't be making these kinds of decisions. so i guess that Fr. Brooks, RIP, got cold feet? i do not remember him as a shrinking violet.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Dec 21, 2019 16:25:57 GMT -5
Indeed he was not a shrinking violet Perhaps that is his legacy, albeit not the one he wanted
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 16:27:26 GMT -5
I never heard the story that he wanted to eliminate scholarships and then backed off. I only was aware he wanted to eliminate them and did.
Any documentation of this stutter step?
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Dec 21, 2019 16:30:10 GMT -5
One of his first decisions but got immediate push back from the board and contributors
The second bite of the apple he had a board more of his liking and design
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 16:30:23 GMT -5
BTW, NDSU beating Montana State 42-14. Montana should just forfeit at this point, right?
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Dec 21, 2019 16:50:56 GMT -5
BTW, NDSU beating Montana State 42-14. Montana should just forfeit at this point, right? Was tied in the 2nd QTR 7-7 but NDSU is heading to the finals again this year. JMU v Weber State at 6:30.
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 21, 2019 17:08:59 GMT -5
yes, football players do risk injury every time they step on the field. but they should NOT be put at risk in a farce that is not a game where you should play to win, not simply survive. there might be LESS injury risk because a stronger opponent is more likely to play a cleaner game -- not having to resort to cheap hits, horse-collars, holds, cut blocks, facemasks etc.i guess you must have missed the late hit/targeting call on a syracuse player late in our game this year when the outcome was already settled. most football players are coached and play to avod penalties that hurt the team. that is the extent of the "cleaner game". The targeting call against Syracuse could've just as easily happened had we replaced them on the schedule with Catholic University. But anyway I get your point. Given that football in itself is such a violent sport complete with real injury risk, perhaps we shouldn't "waste" one of our 11 games against an opponent we have very little shot to beat. I disagree but I see your point. Question: had we been matched up with JMU or North Dakota State in the FCS playoffs, should we have forfeited or played the games? By your logic, the injury risk would be too great to risk sending the guys out to play a game with an extremely low win probability. Answer: play the game. under your hypo we earned our way into the FCS playoffs. sure we would be the underdog but i don't see JMU(?) or N.D. State in the same class as BC/Syracuse type programs. Sure JMU, N.D. State have played and won v some FBS programs but FBS football is a big tent. The targeting call against Syracuse could've just as easily happened had we replaced them on the schedule with Catholic University. but your argument is that Syracuse would play a cleaner game. do you expect a clean game from Catholic U?
|
|
|
Post by moose1970 on Dec 21, 2019 17:13:50 GMT -5
I never heard the story that he wanted to eliminate scholarships and then backed off. I only was aware he wanted to eliminate them and did. Any documentation of this stutter step? ok, correct me if i'm wrong ( as if i need to say that) i recall spring semester 1970 that all NCAA athletic grants were eliminated for incoming freshmen. that decision was reversed before it could take effect.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Dec 21, 2019 17:21:39 GMT -5
Sometimes when I read these posts It seems almost as though we have been living on different planets. It makes for interesting reading on a quiet Saturday afternoon. Although I have no interest in watching HC play against almost all FBS teams, excluding the service academies, the 2 NE State U's - no need to explain as there truly is no contradiction as some might be tempted to post. TBT I think these FBS games cheapen our program. In the 80's I was at the BC game in Foxboro and watched HC get slaughtered on the field. (Troy Stradford, if I'm not confused?) It was a horror. I vowed I would never attend another one of these games again and I haven't and I will not. However if the good Fathers on the hill have given their blessing to play against FBS opponents, so be it. Enjoy yourselves! To my point. Renewing the Dartmouth series looms much larger on my list of HC football "things to do ." LoveHC I think we can do both with a breakdown as follows PL 6 IVY 3 FBS 2
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Dec 21, 2019 17:30:15 GMT -5
/\ Those UNH games have been great and I'd like to see 2 or 3 CAA games a year. (Those are challenging enough - no need for ACC games)
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Dec 21, 2019 17:49:07 GMT -5
In all relationships, including marriages, precious little is 50-50
So I have no problem with the fact BC means more to us
my son signed to play football for BC after narrowing his choices to BC, HC and Yale- after he alone realized the choice might not be the best, he opted for William and Mary and did not play football
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Dec 21, 2019 18:01:06 GMT -5
mm67, while I would totally agree that HC fans (mostly old alums) appreciate this game against BC more than the Eagles fans, especially the youngins, since I was at the last game on a bus full of both Cross and BC fans (yes, most of them older folks), I can tell you that the old BC fans were as excited about the game as the Crusader alums. It wasn't about who was "up" (BC) and who was "down" (HC), it was about tradition. There was a lot of good-natured banter back and forth both on the way to the game and afterwards. I am sure that many of the younger BC students didn't initially appreciate the value of the game but I can also tell you that there was a certain amount of surprise, shock even, that there were so many Holy Cross fans there and the sea of purple. The BC administrators no doubt appreciated the size of the crowd which others previously noted was much larger than many of their other games, especially against other New England schools. Moose, I am not doubting you, I just honestly don't recall this. You being on a scholarship would have been closer and more attuned to that situation even as we were heading for the exits. I am sure you recall that there were other things that caught our attention like some unpleasantness in Southeast Asia, draft lottery, Kent State, BSU walkouts, etc. In addition, I had some health issues that I didn't realize was so serious until the week after graduation. Anyway, I am not debating the issue. But, as others have intimated, Fr. Brooks was not one to second guess himself on anything. (I'm a Fr. Swords fan, myself ).
|
|