|
Post by bigfan on Apr 4, 2020 10:17:30 GMT -5
Maybe the new coach will put us on their schedule. Hopefully Nelson will get in touch with the new coach.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Apr 4, 2020 15:59:49 GMT -5
Fordham, another Jesuit run school with dysfunctional sports programs. I guess it's just something about the Jesuits. You have a theory on this?
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 4, 2020 16:24:36 GMT -5
Not really...unless you are able to change the past. Apportioning blame is a futile game which solves little. In Creighton's book, The Rising Son, there is a line in which a Japanese man says to an American detective: "In Japan we seek to fix the problems. In America you seek only to fix the blame." I don't see that as universally true, but, sadly, many do try so hard to fix blame that little actually gets solved. "exposed"? What do you mean by that? Were the reasons for past hirings kept as some dark secret? Top of the House decisions at HC being "some dark secret".......I'm shocked.......shocked. One doesn't look at the past in order to "change" the past. Rather, to LEARN from the past. I would have thought this is a pretty non-controversial assertion.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 4, 2020 16:33:04 GMT -5
Fordham, another Jesuit run school with dysfunctional sports programs. I guess it's just something about the Jesuits. You have a theory on this? Scientist look for patterns among the facts, then propose theories to explain the patterns. Then the theory is tested. So, to answer your question, I see a pattern, but I don't yet have a theory. Nonetheless, if one takes a 35,000ft perspective and breaks down all organization along the spectrum from Bottom-Up to Top-Down, the Jesuits, in my view, are closer to the Top-Down end than to the Bottom-Up end. In other words, they tend to be militaristic as opposed to collegial.
|
|
|
Post by hcgrad94 on Apr 4, 2020 17:52:10 GMT -5
Fascinating and groundbreaking. 27 Jesuit schools. See the same at Gonzaga? Loyola Il? Santa Clara?
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Apr 4, 2020 21:18:31 GMT -5
Fordham should've had the foresight to create this head coahing opening the day the remainder of the A10 tournament was cancelled. Instead they do it NOW.
Oh well. They can live vicariously through Iona.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Apr 4, 2020 21:21:31 GMT -5
You have a theory on this? Scientist look for patterns among the facts, then propose theories a hypotheses to explain the patterns. Then the theory hypothesis is tested. So, to answer your question, I see a pattern, but I don't yet have a theory. Nonetheless, if one takes a 35,000ft perspective and breaks down all organization along the spectrum from Bottom-Up to Top-Down, the Jesuits, in my view, are closer to the Top-Down end than to the Bottom-Up end. In other words, they tend to be militaristic as opposed to collegial. For a man who believes in science, you miss the mark on the scientific process a bit but that's a nit to pick. But for someone who relies on scientific method to find patterns you are either - ignoring some easily observed patterns and clearly known facts in favor of clinging to old observations that vanished decades ago in order to fit a narrative you believe to be true
or
2. not very good at identifying patterns based on facts
"The Jesuits" ceased running Holy Cross over 50 years ago. FACT Rev. John E. Brooks, SJ, who could be as command and control as you could get, ceased being president 27 years ago and the closest person to hold the office of president since and take anything resembling a strong a top down management style is the one person who has held that position in an acting capacity and was not a Jesuit. Have you ever had a discussion with Fr. Boroughs, who has been President for over 8 years now? He is all about collaboration and collegiality, probably to a fault. OBSERVATION Holy Cross (and perhaps Fordham) have quite obvious policies and procedures in place that make sustained athletic success difficult (as do all the PL schools). FACT We have not hired coaches who have the full range of skills needed to succeed - possibly because of a combination of the funding issues below, and our ADs ability to consistently identify complete coaching candidates. As examples of exceptions to that rule, look how long it took Chesney and Willard to start seeing success despite some the aforementioned obstacles. This is based on OBSERVATION of those coaches and the FACT that few of our coaches move on to the next level as head coaches. Holy Cross' Catholic affiliation is not the advantage it once was. In fact in the last 25 - 30 years that advantage has eroded significantly (and may now be seen as a detriment) as prospective students and their parents put far less emphasis on religion in general and religious affiliation in higher education in particular. FACT. Therefore attracting the top Catholic athletes to the school is not as easy as it was in 1960s, 70s, or even the 80s. Holy Cross has not funded athletics to the same extent as most of our PL peers do. We're closer today than 15 years ago, but still middle of the pack at best - with the exception of basketball. Why? Because the Board of Trustees determines the priorities (and subsequently the budgets) for the College based on collaboratively developed strategic plans. Until the recent investments in athletic facilities those priorities have not funded athletic budgets to the level of our peers. FACT So, how about you use those facts & observations to identify a pattern and develop a hypothesis that is actually testable rather than some deep dark conspiracy of a puppeteer Jesuit provincial & his minion as president running Holy Cross and the sycophant BOT.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 4, 2020 22:58:43 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Question: If the Luths' hadn't donated their very large contributions, would HC have spent the $$ needed to build the Luth complex and the new wellness facility? (Not a rhetorical question.) Also, if HC had not built the two new facilitates and only rehabed the Hart arena, where would HC's athletic spend have ranked in the PL?
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Apr 5, 2020 9:47:02 GMT -5
Can anyone provide me with a link to the Fordham message board? Please and thank you.
|
|
|
Post by timholycross on Apr 5, 2020 9:59:57 GMT -5
I think something we can all agree on with 20-20 hindsight is if HC wasn't given the Luth gift when it was given, we may still be at the drawing board (or worse) stage. It's good for the school that the major projects are done or nearing completion.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Apr 5, 2020 10:08:19 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Question: If the Luths' hadn't donated their very large contributions, would HC have spent the $$ needed to build the Luth complex and the new wellness facility? (Not a rhetorical question.) Also, if HC had not built the two new facilitates and only rehabed the Hart arena, where would HC's athletic spend have ranked in the PL? Answer to your first question, YES. And here's evidence to support that, a link to the firm that developed the athletic facilities master plan in 2007. While the plan changed drastically, it shows what the college set as priorities for the capital plan currently underway. And yes the specific plans changed, the functions identified in 2007 are those being addressed by the Luth Athletic Center and the "Jo" Recreation center. So in my view the conceptual plan and priorities came before the donor and the specific plan. www.sportsplanstudio.com/expertise/specialties/arena/the-college-of-the-holy-cross-athletic-facilities-master-plan.htmlAs to question 2, Phreek can answer better, I believe he has reported that spending across all sports is up in constant dollars over the last 7-10 years. Here's a link to the Equity in Athletics website that allows you to compare multiple schools from the most recent reporting year. Select the Patriot League in the last selection list and then select the schools you want to compare. Don't think construction costs are included in the revenue and expense tab, but operating costs may be. Again, Phreek can provide a lot more detail to enlighten the values. ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/searchAnd none of this is new. All of the above have been posted on this board multiple times - generally every year - over the last 12 years and leads many of us to conclude, as I did above, that you choose to ignore it because it does not fit your preconceived notion of how the college operates.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 5, 2020 10:09:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 5, 2020 10:31:33 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Question: If the Luths' hadn't donated their very large contributions, would HC have spent the $$ needed to build the Luth complex and the new wellness facility? (Not a rhetorical question.) Also, if HC had not built the two new facilitates and only rehabed the Hart arena, where would HC's athletic spend have ranked in the PL? Answer to your first question, YES. And here's evidence to support that, a link to the firm that developed the athletic facilities master plan in 2007. While the plan changed drastically, it shows what the college set as priorities for the capital plan currently underway. And yes the specific plans changed, the functions identified in 2007 are those being addressed by the Luth Athletic Center and the "Jo" Recreation center. So in my view the conceptual plan and priorities came before the donor and the specific plan. www.sportsplanstudio.com/expertise/specialties/arena/the-college-of-the-holy-cross-athletic-facilities-master-plan.htmlAs to question 2, Phreek can answer better, I believe he has reported that spending across all sports is up in constant dollars over the last 7-10 years. Here's a link to the Equity in Athletics website that allows you to compare multiple schools from the most recent reporting year. Select the Patriot League in the last selection list and then select the schools you want to compare. Don't think construction costs are included in the revenue and expense tab, but operating costs may be. Again, Phreek can provide a lot more detail to enlighten the values. ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/searchAnd none of this is new. All of the above have been posted on this board multiple times - generally every year - over the last 12 years and leads many of us to conclude, as I did above, that you choose to ignore it because it does not fit your preconceived notion of how the college operates. I am aware of past posts on these matters. Please note that there is a difference between a PLAN and a DONATION. As I recall, HC even announced that large projects would NOT be undertaken unless and until funding via donations became available. Actually, that policy contains the answer to my question, i.e., the two big projects would NOT have been undertaken had the Luths not stepped up. Also, the fact that it took roughly 12 years for the Plan to lead to groundbreaking supports my contention that no-donation-no-building.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 5, 2020 10:34:57 GMT -5
Let's make a list of the colleges that undertake major projects without major donations:
1- 2- 3- 4- 5-
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Apr 5, 2020 12:33:59 GMT -5
Answer to your first question, YES. And here's evidence to support that, a link to the firm that developed the athletic facilities master plan in 2007. While the plan changed drastically, it shows what the college set as priorities for the capital plan currently underway. And yes the specific plans changed, the functions identified in 2007 are those being addressed by the Luth Athletic Center and the "Jo" Recreation center. So in my view the conceptual plan and priorities came before the donor and the specific plan. www.sportsplanstudio.com/expertise/specialties/arena/the-college-of-the-holy-cross-athletic-facilities-master-plan.htmlAs to question 2, Phreek can answer better, I believe he has reported that spending across all sports is up in constant dollars over the last 7-10 years. Here's a link to the Equity in Athletics website that allows you to compare multiple schools from the most recent reporting year. Select the Patriot League in the last selection list and then select the schools you want to compare. Don't think construction costs are included in the revenue and expense tab, but operating costs may be. Again, Phreek can provide a lot more detail to enlighten the values. ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/searchAnd none of this is new. All of the above have been posted on this board multiple times - generally every year - over the last 12 years and leads many of us to conclude, as I did above, that you choose to ignore it because it does not fit your preconceived notion of how the college operates. I am aware of past posts on these matters. Please note that there is a difference between a PLAN and a DONATION. As I recall, HC even announced that large projects would NOT be undertaken unless and until funding via donations became available. Actually, that policy contains the answer to my question, i.e., the two big projects would NOT have been undertaken had the Luths not stepped up. Also, the fact that it took roughly 12 years for the Plan to lead to groundbreaking supports my contention that no-donation-no-building.And your post supports your complete lack of understanding of how capital projects are financed in higher education and your inability or unwillingness to use facts that don't support your argument. Holy Cross is ending a 10 year capital campaign this June. That means fund raising efforts for that campaign began in 2010 in the "quiet-phase" of the campaign. Ground was broken on the Luth in 2015. So 8 years, not 12, from concept to groundbreaking and 5 from soliciting donors to ground breaking. And as with all of HC's capital building projects, the Luth was started when 2/3 of the cost was raised. And to support that claim, as part of the same capital campaign, HC received a generous gift of $25 million from Neil Prior for the performing arts center in 2013. Ground was not broken on the PAC until 2019, so 9 years from beginning to solicit donors to groundbreaking and 6 years from lead donor gift to ground breaking. That's how Holy Cross, and I'd guess most other colleges and non-profits, do business. They take a long term view of things and do not finance the majority of the cost of capital projects hoping a donor will eventually come along and foot the bill. And I think most think that's a good thing. So while you are technically correct, the expansion of athletic facilities wouldn't have happened without the Luth's generous gift, but the building was part of a planned campaign to raise funds for that purpose. Which is a bit different than your implication that John Luth came along and said, "Here's $32 million.expand the Hart Center or I won't give it to you." And the college acquiesced saying, "Ahh ... well ... gosh, golly, gee wiz, John. I guess we should expand the Hart Center."
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 5, 2020 13:41:17 GMT -5
Thanks for your corrections as to timings. You and I are not privy to the nuances of the discussions/negotiations between HC and the Luths. We don't know what strings were attached by HC or by the Luths. E.g., supposing the Luths had said they would give $30M+ but only for a facility dedicated 100% for the Classics Dept (which was not in the Plan). What would HC have done? You can speculate, but you don't KNOW. What I'm driving at is this. Some use the new sports facilities as clear evidence of HC's "commitment" to sports. All I'm saying is: "Not necessarily." Put differently: It is clear evidence of only one thing--a big donor's commitment to sports. Put another way, when a donor comes in with a huge pot of $$, the school will acquiesce to whatever the donor wants--within reason.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 9, 2020 20:19:22 GMT -5
Sydney Johnson heading to Colorado Springs with Joe Scott.
The PO is alive and well.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 9, 2020 21:13:00 GMT -5
Thanks for your corrections as to timings. You and I are not privy to the nuances of the discussions/negotiations between HC and the Luths. We don't know what strings were attached by HC or by the Luths. E.g., supposing the Luths had said they would give $30M+ but only for a facility dedicated 100% for the Classics Dept (which was not in the Plan). What would HC have done? You can speculate, but you don't KNOW. What I'm driving at is this. Some use the new sports facilities as clear evidence of HC's "commitment" to sports. All I'm saying is: "Not necessarily." Put differently: It is clear evidence of only one thing--a big donor's commitment to sports. Put another way, when a donor comes in with a huge pot of $$, the school will acquiesce to whatever the donor wants--within reason. During the time fundraising for the Luth and the Prior was happening, UConn was planning a new building for state of the art technology that would help UConn be an engine for high growth industries in CT, or so went the pitch. But as far as I could tell reading a couple of articles the pitch was to the legislature to fund most of it and by funding I mean borrowing by way of long term bonds. Now that building is up and the Luth is up. I will grant UConn's building is closer to the core academic mission of a college or university, but now with Coronavirus sparking a huge downturn and students not being able to use either building, Holy Cross is in a much more secure position by financing construction through donations as opposed to borrowing, I don't remember whether the state or UConn is on the hook for the bonds, but realistically they are a burden for either. IMO HC would be foolish to either use endowment funds or borrowing to cover the majority cost of any new building. It is up to graying Crusaders with rusty lances riding steeds ready for the glue factory to provide the funding.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 9, 2020 22:31:08 GMT -5
Thanks for your corrections as to timings. You and I are not privy to the nuances of the discussions/negotiations between HC and the Luths. We don't know what strings were attached by HC or by the Luths. E.g., supposing the Luths had said they would give $30M+ but only for a facility dedicated 100% for the Classics Dept (which was not in the Plan). What would HC have done? You can speculate, but you don't KNOW. What I'm driving at is this. Some use the new sports facilities as clear evidence of HC's "commitment" to sports. All I'm saying is: "Not necessarily." Put differently: It is clear evidence of only one thing--a big donor's commitment to sports. Put another way, when a donor comes in with a huge pot of $$, the school will acquiesce to whatever the donor wants--within reason. During the time fundraising for the Luth and the Prior was happening, UConn was planning a new building for state of the art technology that would help UConn be an engine for high growth industries in CT, or so went the pitch. But as far as I could tell reading a couple of articles the pitch was to the legislature to fund most of it and by funding I mean borrowing by way of long term bonds. Now that building is up and the Luth is up. I will grant UConn's building is closer to the core academic mission of a college or university, but now with Coronavirus sparking a huge downturn and students not being able to use either building, Holy Cross is in a much more secure position by financing construction through donations as opposed to borrowing, I don't remember whether the state or UConn is on the hook for the bonds, but realistically they are a burden for either. IMO HC would be foolish to either use endowment funds or borrowing to cover the majority cost of any new building. It is up to graying Crusaders with rusty lances riding steeds ready for the glue factory to provide the funding.
I never questioned HC's policy of funding major projects through donations as opposed to the endowment. I only questioned whose wishes are reflected in the purposes of the new facilities, e.g., sports vs.academics.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 9, 2020 22:40:16 GMT -5
A good development officer can make a donor think it was his idea to fund and name the critically needed waste treatment plant on campus instead of the Opera House he had planned to endow.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Apr 13, 2020 18:38:55 GMT -5
Metzendorf joining Joe Scott at Air Force.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Apr 20, 2020 13:20:59 GMT -5
NY Post reporting that Fordham will retain Jeff Neubauer for next season which is is the last on his contract - guess the virus saved his job and the usual dysfunction in their athletic dept as their AD (Roach) was shown the door and they just announced an interim AD to stabilize matters.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Apr 20, 2020 13:30:36 GMT -5
Metzendorf joining Joe Scott at Air Force. Just need Joe Kennedy and / or Freddie Owens to round out the staff.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Apr 25, 2020 9:48:59 GMT -5
Wake just blew out Danny Manning.
|
|
|
Post by Xmassader on Apr 25, 2020 12:59:04 GMT -5
Precursor to John Beilein taking the job?
|
|