|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 24, 2020 5:19:28 GMT -5
I originally posted this on the hockey subforum, but I forgot one of his priorities. Ergo, a new thread, and an added priority. Entirely my guess as to relative priority.
From the webimar,
> Hiring additional trainers and strength and conditioning staff. Feels there are too few. (High priority).
> Higher salaries for the successful coaches to retain them. (High priority).
> More scollies for those sports that are not at the NCAA cap. Only four sports currently at the scollie cap: football (league cap), M/W basketball, M ice hockey (league cap). I believe W ice hockey will be at NCAA cap in the future. Not going to be competitive in the conference or OOC without more scollies. (Medium-high priority).
> Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority).
> More and better amenities / fan experience at the venues. (Medium priority.)
For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant.
_______________
From an email that Marcus sent out following the webimar
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 24, 2020 7:49:12 GMT -5
I > Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority). .) For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant. _______________ I see this as window dressing. Because of Title IX, I would assume that if men's basketball CAF pulls in $100 K more than the women's fund, that the athletic department will slide $50K from the men's budget to the women's budget to make them equal. We feel good about directed giving, but from a practical standpoint all the money goes into the general athletics fund. Unless a given sport's directed giving exceeds the planned budget, the planned spending for that sport can be reduced by the directed giving and the school can do whatever it wants. I'm curious what they're planning to do to Luth that wasn't part of the original project |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Apr 24, 2020 8:26:51 GMT -5
 click on image to enlarge |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 24, 2020 8:27:13 GMT -5
I > Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority). .) For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant. _______________ I see this as window dressing. Because of Title IX, I would assume that if men's basketball CAF pulls in $100 K more than the women's fund, that the athletic department will slide $50K from the men's budget to the women's budget to make them equal. We feel good about directed giving, but from a practical standpoint all the money goes into the general athletics fund. Unless a given sport's directed giving exceeds the planned budget, the planned spending for that sport can be reduced by the directed giving and the school can do whatever it wants. I'm curious what they're planning to do to Luth that wasn't part of the original project Heather Palmer told me that if I gave $ to a M's sport, it would be nice if I also gave to a W's sport. The reason for doing so was that ADNP had to allocate monies from the general portion of the CAF to women's sports to offset gifts exclusively directed to a men's sport. And this was done because of Title IX. She told me this early in ADNP's tenure, and I don't know what the policy was under DR, who started the CAF. ADNP would have been sensitive to such an issue because he inherited the Title IX complaint filed by the women's softball team. As for the Luth, nothing specific. He said the facility was helping recruiting in a big way (paraphrasing) and that HC had to keep investing in this asset. Perhaps he was talking about video boards,. They have used it for an indoor field event (competitive pole vault?) for track and field, perhaps several other events? And maybe expanding the rink? The college's long term debt in June 2013 was $151 million, After constructing Joyce, and Luth, and with construction underway on The Jo and the performing arts center, the long term debt in June 2019 was $160 million. For comparison, BC's long term debt in June 2019 was $1.062 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 24, 2020 8:40:38 GMT -5
Well, if HC Is going to borrow to get anything done, the current situation with such very low rates would seem to be the time to get the long term debt to do what needs to be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 24, 2020 9:07:46 GMT -5
All revenue is general revenue
|
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Apr 24, 2020 9:21:33 GMT -5
When the CAF was extended beyond what was the football only "Gridiron Club," you could designate and give to a men's or women's team sport. Then a few years later (in the Nate Pine regime IIRC), they lumped in "basketball" and other sports that had both men and women teams together. I was told specifically that it was "required" by Title IX (was going to throw the B.S. flag). It meant if you gave $100 to basketball, $50 would go to men and $50 to women.
If, like me, football is more important to you than basketball, the issue is obviated and all goes to football.
I have always had a strong suspicion that if a particular team did well in obtaining specific financial support that HC would simply reduce the general funds to that sport to "balance" it all out.
|
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Apr 24, 2020 9:23:36 GMT -5
I originally posted this on the hockey subforum, but I forgot one of his priorities. Ergo, a new thread, and an added priority. Entirely my guess as to relative priority. From the webimar, > Hiring additional trainers and strength and conditioning staff. Feels there are too few. (High priority). > Higher salaries for the successful coaches to retain them. (High priority).> More scollies for those sports that are not at the NCAA cap. Only four sports currently at the scollie cap: football (league cap), M/W basketball, M ice hockey (league cap). I believe W ice hockey will be at NCAA cap in the future. Not going to be competitive in the conference or OOC without more scollies. (Medium-high priority). > Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority). > More and better amenities / fan experience at the venues. (Medium priority.) For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant. _______________ From an email that Marcus sent out following the webimar Am I missing something on this one? Where are these "successful coaches" hiding up on Mt. St. James? (obviously excluding Chesney) |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 24, 2020 9:48:34 GMT -5
I originally posted this on the hockey subforum, but I forgot one of his priorities. Ergo, a new thread, and an added priority. Entirely my guess as to relative priority. From the webimar, > Hiring additional trainers and strength and conditioning staff. Feels there are too few. (High priority). > Higher salaries for the successful coaches to retain them. (High priority).> More scollies for those sports that are not at the NCAA cap. Only four sports currently at the scollie cap: football (league cap), M/W basketball, M ice hockey (league cap). I believe W ice hockey will be at NCAA cap in the future. Not going to be competitive in the conference or OOC without more scollies. (Medium-high priority). > Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority). > More and better amenities / fan experience at the venues. (Medium priority.) For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant. _______________ From an email that Marcus sent out following the webimar Am I missing something on this one? Where are these "successful coaches" hiding up on Mt. St. James? (obviously excluding Chesney) In ADMB's own words, he evaluates coaches' performance relative to the resources given them, i.e., someone who boxes above their weight. He is a harder grader of performance for football, M/W basketball, and men's ice hockey because coaches for these teams have the full compliment of scollies. A coach who is in the bottom tier of resources relative to other PL schools' teams for a sport, yet who consistently places near the top of the W-L rankings, would, in his view, be a successful coach. He or she does more with less. He or she gets a bump in compensation. ADMB said he expects the football team to have a better year than last year. Perhaps if it does, Chesney gets a bump in salary. |
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Apr 24, 2020 12:10:44 GMT -5
Am I missing something on this one? Where are these "successful coaches" hiding up on Mt. St. James? (obviously excluding Chesney) In ADMB's own words, he evaluates coaches' performance relative to the resources given them, i.e., someone who boxes above their weight. He is a harder grader of performance for football, M/W basketball, and men's ice hockey because coaches for these teams have the full compliment of scollies. A coach who is in the bottom tier of resources relative to other PL schools' teams for a sport, yet who consistently places near the top of the W-L rankings, would, in his view, be a successful coach. He or she does more with less. He or she gets a bump in compensation.
ADMB said he expects the football team to have a better year than last year. Perhaps if it does, Chesney gets a bump in salary. I heard him talking about his coach grading philosophy, but we haven't had a coach who fits your description underlined above in a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Apr 27, 2020 21:17:34 GMT -5
I see this as window dressing. Because of Title IX, I would assume that if men's basketball CAF pulls in $100 K more than the women's fund, that the athletic department will slide $50K from the men's budget to the women's budget to make them equal. We feel good about directed giving, but from a practical standpoint all the money goes into the general athletics fund. Unless a given sport's directed giving exceeds the planned budget, the planned spending for that sport can be reduced by the directed giving and the school can do whatever it wants. I'm curious what they're planning to do to Luth that wasn't part of the original project Heather Palmer told me that if I gave $ to a M's sport, it would be nice if I also gave to a W's sport. The reason for doing so was that ADNP had to allocate monies from the general portion of the CAF to women's sports to offset gifts exclusively directed to a men's sport. And this was done because of Title IX. She told me this early in ADNP's tenure, and I don't know what the policy was under DR, who started the CAF. ADNP would have been sensitive to such an issue because he inherited the Title IX complaint filed by the women's softball team. As for the Luth, nothing specific. He said the facility was helping recruiting in a big way (paraphrasing) and that HC had to keep investing in this asset. Perhaps he was talking about video boards,. They have used it for an indoor field event (competitive pole vault?) for track and field, perhaps several other events? And maybe expanding the rink? The college's long term debt in June 2013 was $151 million, After constructing Joyce, and Luth, and with construction underway on The Jo and the performing arts center, the long term debt in June 2019 was $160 million. For comparison, BC's long term debt in June 2019 was $1.062 billion. Why the comparison of long-term debt with BC ? BC is nearly 5x HC’s size. A comparison with Colgate would be much more relevant, right? |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 27, 2020 21:31:51 GMT -5
Or Lafayette.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 27, 2020 22:05:46 GMT -5
I see this as window dressing. Because of Title IX, I would assume that if men's basketball CAF pulls in $100 K more than the women's fund, that the athletic department will slide $50K from the men's budget to the women's budget to make them equal. We feel good about directed giving, but from a practical standpoint all the money goes into the general athletics fund. Unless a given sport's directed giving exceeds the planned budget, the planned spending for that sport can be reduced by the directed giving and the school can do whatever it wants. I'm curious what they're planning to do to Luth that wasn't part of the original project Heather Palmer told me that if I gave $ to a M's sport, it would be nice if I also gave to a W's sport. The reason for doing so was that ADNP had to allocate monies from the general portion of the CAF to women's sports to offset gifts exclusively directed to a men's sport. And this was done because of Title IX. She told me this early in ADNP's tenure, and I don't know what the policy was under DR, who started the CAF. ADNP would have been sensitive to such an issue because he inherited the Title IX complaint filed by the women's softball team. As for the Luth, nothing specific. He said the facility was helping recruiting in a big way (paraphrasing) and that HC had to keep investing in this asset. Perhaps he was talking about video boards,. They have used it for an indoor field event (competitive pole vault?) for track and field, perhaps several other events? And maybe expanding the rink? The college's long term debt in June 2013 was $151 million, After constructing Joyce, and Luth, and with construction underway on The Jo and the performing arts center, the long term debt in June 2019 was $160 million. For comparison, BC's long term debt in June 2019 was $1.062 billion. The long term debt was approximately 20% of the endowment. Now after Covid, it's perhaps around 25%. It is similar to investing the endowment on margin - HC benefits from the leverage in up markets, but is harmed by the leverage in down markets. |
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Apr 27, 2020 22:34:16 GMT -5
I originally posted this on the hockey subforum, but I forgot one of his priorities. Ergo, a new thread, and an added priority. Entirely my guess as to relative priority. From the webimar, > Hiring additional trainers and strength and conditioning staff. Feels there are too few. (High priority). > Higher salaries for the successful coaches to retain them. (High priority). > More scollies for those sports that are not at the NCAA cap. Only four sports currently at the scollie cap: football (league cap), M/W basketball, M ice hockey (league cap). I believe W ice hockey will be at NCAA cap in the future. Not going to be competitive in the conference or OOC without more scollies. (Medium-high priority). > Continued investment in improvements / enhancements of Luth. Luth is viewed as an important asset. (Medium priority). > More and better amenities / fan experience at the venues. (Medium priority.) For the CAF, he is studying whether to divide the directed funding for paired M/W sports, e.g., M/W basketball, into a separate pool for each gender, i.e., a donor could direct the donation be used only for M's basketball. ADNP paired the M/W sports with respect to giving because of Title IX concerns, and such concerns may still be relevant. _______________ From an email that Marcus sent out following the webimar The head trainer just left so they have eight on staff now (at least usually nine) for 25 sports....I think that is plenty. At least 12 teams (Men's and Women's Rowing, Men's and Women's Golf, Men's and Women's Cross Country and Track, Men's and Women's Swimming and Diving, and Men's and Women's Tennis) won't have a trainer traveling with them often at many schools. |
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Apr 28, 2020 3:47:37 GMT -5
I wonder if ADMB has ever been asked about our disgraceful de facto "two-tier" sports program, where it has been accepted by HC that our minor sport teams have had deplorable records in the PL for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 28, 2020 6:54:20 GMT -5
Heather Palmer told me that if I gave $ to a M's sport, it would be nice if I also gave to a W's sport. The reason for doing so was that ADNP had to allocate monies from the general portion of the CAF to women's sports to offset gifts exclusively directed to a men's sport. And this was done because of Title IX. She told me this early in ADNP's tenure, and I don't know what the policy was under DR, who started the CAF. ADNP would have been sensitive to such an issue because he inherited the Title IX complaint filed by the women's softball team. As for the Luth, nothing specific. He said the facility was helping recruiting in a big way (paraphrasing) and that HC had to keep investing in this asset. Perhaps he was talking about video boards,. They have used it for an indoor field event (competitive pole vault?) for track and field, perhaps several other events? And maybe expanding the rink? The college's long term debt in June 2013 was $151 million, After constructing Joyce, and Luth, and with construction underway on The Jo and the performing arts center, the long term debt in June 2019 was $160 million. For comparison, BC's long term debt in June 2019 was $1.062 billion. Why the comparison of long-term debt with BC ? BC is nearly 5x HC’s size. A comparison with Colgate would be much more relevant, right? No, not for the purposes of the analogy I was drawing. In 2019, BC's long term debt of $1.06 billion was 43 percent of BC's endowment value of $2.47 billion. In 2019, HC's long term debt of $160 million was 20 percent of the endowment value of $786 million. But since it was asked, Colgate is at 36%, Lafayette 32.7%, and, another comparison, Bowdoin is at 19.7%. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 7:48:13 GMT -5
Shouldn't the priority be to "max out" scholarships for all sports in order to make teams more competitive in the PL and out-of-conference? What is the cost in real dollars for adding scholarships? Most of the Olympic sports split full scholarships amongst the rosters. You are bringing in quality student-athletes who are partially paying for the privilege to attend and represent HC. Instead of paying salaries for extra trainers, funds can be stretched further by adding scholarships. There are plenty of beds on campus to house kids and it costs nothing to add a few more students into already existing classes. So, the cost in actual dollars may only arise from additional students under meal plans. What would be an argument for not maxing out NCAA scholarship limits for each sport?
|
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 28, 2020 7:56:09 GMT -5
First, welcome hcsportsfan to Crossports.
As a former high school AD, I made this case a few years back. The biggest issue ii that each scholarship athlete takes away a spot from those students paying tuition. That can add up quickly...and HC seems reluctant to expand the student body.
|
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Apr 28, 2020 8:06:56 GMT -5
There is no reason to ramp up scholarships in minor / non revenue sports - I think we probably give enough right now and need to do a better job on the playing fields
The enrollment has been inching up over the last decade with freshman classes well over 800. Total students now about 3100.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 8:07:15 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome rgs318. As the proud father of an HC Class of 2018 student-athlete, I have been following the board since my son was being recruited back in 2013. No matter the sport, I have become a big HC fan. While victories in athletic contests weren't as plentiful during my son's years at HC, his academic experiences and generosity received from HC alums since graduation have been top notch. HC is truly a special place, and I can see why most of the "posters" on this board are so passionate about this small college on a hill. Count me in as a supporter for years to come!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 8:22:19 GMT -5
There is no reason to ramp up scholarships in minor / non revenue sports - I think we probably give enough right now and need to do a better job on the playing fields The enrollment has been inching up over the last decade with freshman classes well over 800. Total students now about 3100. No disrespect Purplehaze, I am just a newbie here. But, if other PL schools have more scholarships available per sport, doesn't it make HC's road to competitiveness more difficult? It seems that by leveling scholarships across the PL, you are in a sense leveling the playing fields for HC athletes. Talented coaches can only carry a program so far. |
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 28, 2020 9:05:35 GMT -5
There is no reason to ramp up scholarships in minor / non revenue sports - I think we probably give enough right now and need to do a better job on the playing fields The enrollment has been inching up over the last decade with freshman classes well over 800. Total students now about 3100. No disrespect Purplehaze, I am just a newbie here. But, if other PL schools have more scholarships available per sport, doesn't it make HC's road to competitiveness more difficult? It seems that by leveling scholarships across the PL, you are in a sense leveling the playing fields for HC athletes. Talented coaches can only carry a program so far. I think it is difficult to lump the various schools in the PL together. Think about this: 1. The academies obviously have a great advantage in that everyone is on scholarship. Look at the results in track and swimming in which they dominate in both men's and women's competitions. This is true to a lesser degree in other sports. 2. BU does not offer football or baseball and has 18,000 undergraduates. They only offer 9 relatively inexpensive sports with minimal travel for men allowing them to concentrate their funds on those and dividing the cost among a student body six times the size of HC. Their women's sports lineup is more closely aligned to the other schools. 3. Loyola also doesn't offer football, baseball, or from what matters to HC, hockey and has 6000 undergraduates in which to divide the much smaller cost of its athletic program. 4. American doesn't offer much at all. For men--basketball, soccer, wrestling (not a PL sport) track/XC, and swimming. For women---the same plus lax and volleyball with 8200 students. The rather low spending is divided by a lot of students. 5. It seems to me that the five schools noted above cannot be well compared to HC, the PA schools, and Colgate. The five of us are running radically different programs. Then, think about the fact that Bucknell, Lafayette and Lehigh don't have the expense of hockey. The point is that there are structural problems which prevent HC from offering scholarships and competing in the PL. It shares some of the problems with some of the schools. Our facilities are good with the exception of the fact that we do not have an indoor track. |
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Apr 28, 2020 9:05:48 GMT -5
Why the comparison of long-term debt with BC ? BC is nearly 5x HC’s size. A comparison with Colgate would be much more relevant, right? No, not for the purposes of the analogy I was drawing. In 2019, BC's long term debt of $1.06 billion was 43 percent of BC's endowment value of $2.47 billion. In 2019, HC's long term debt of $160 million was 20 percent of the endowment value of $786 million. But since it was asked, Colgate is at 36%, Lafayette 32.7%, and, another comparison, Bowdoin is at 19.7%. Sorry, you didn’t mention any endowment point of reference in your original post. Do you have Colgate’s long-term debt $$$ number ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2020 9:23:33 GMT -5
No disrespect Purplehaze, I am just a newbie here. But, if other PL schools have more scholarships available per sport, doesn't it make HC's road to competitiveness more difficult? It seems that by leveling scholarships across the PL, you are in a sense leveling the playing fields for HC athletes. Talented coaches can only carry a program so far. I think it is difficult to lump the various schools in the PL together. Think about this: 1. The academies obviously have a great advantage in that everyone is on scholarship. Look at the results in track and swimming in which they dominate in both men's and women's competitions. This is true to a lesser degree in other sports. 2. BU does not offer football or baseball and has 18,000 undergraduates. They only offer 9 relatively inexpensive sports with minimal travel for men allowing them to concentrate their funds on those and dividing the cost among a student body six times the size of HC. Their women's sports lineup is more closely aligned to the other schools. 3. Loyola also doesn't offer football, baseball, or from what matters to HC, hockey and has 6000 undergraduates in which to divide the much smaller cost of its athletic program. 4. American doesn't offer much at all. For men--basketball, soccer, wrestling (not a PL sport) track/XC, and swimming. For women---the same plus lax and volleyball with 8200 students. The rather low spending is divided by a lot of students. 5. It seems to me that the five schools noted above cannot be well compared to HC, the PA schools, and Colgate. The five of us are running radically different programs. Then, think about the fact that Bucknell, Lafayette and Lehigh don't have the expense of hockey. The point is that there are structural problems which prevent HC from offering scholarships and competing in the PL. It shares some of the problems with some of the schools. Our facilities are good with the exception of the fact that we do not have an indoor track. Thanks for the detailed response. I believe that HC uses its large number of sports offerings as an enticement to getting students enrolled, especially considering the lack of financial support for some of the sports programs. Basically, HC uses its large number of sports programs to build its student body each year. I still do not think that increasing scholarships in all sports creates much of a financial hardship. Expenses can be reduced across the board. Limit the number of traveling members and out-of-region travel for competitions. Despite the varying situations at each PL school, increasing athletic scholarships does not necessarily increase the bottom line for institutions. Having a scholarship football program and NCAA D1 hockey squads makes it financially difficult for Olympic sports. There are supposed "revenue" and minor sports at HC, but I highly doubt that there are any sports at HC that annually report revenue that exceeds expenses each year. |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 28, 2020 10:08:09 GMT -5
No, not for the purposes of the analogy I was drawing. In 2019, BC's long term debt of $1.06 billion was 43 percent of BC's endowment value of $2.47 billion. In 2019, HC's long term debt of $160 million was 20 percent of the endowment value of $786 million. But since it was asked, Colgate is at 36%, Lafayette 32.7%, and, another comparison, Bowdoin is at 19.7%. Sorry, you didn’t mention any endowment point of reference in your original post. Do you have Colgate’s long-term debt $$$ number ? $333 million, more than 2x HC's. I can't find a value for the interest expense on Colgate's long term debt: HC's interest expense in 2019 was $6.5M on debt of $160 million. To both, one would add the amount of principal being paid. In 2020, HC will pay off $6.7 million of the debt (assuming no new issuances / refinancing), Colgate will retire $4.1 million of debt. BC"s interest expense in 2019 was $38.9 million, and principal payments for 2020 are $30.5 million. |
|
