|
Post by rgs318 on Jul 2, 2016 10:38:51 GMT -5
How about for: 1. the students on the hockey team 2. students who enjoy watching good hockey 3. the students who would benefit from boost to the overall reputation of Holy Cross 4. alumni - who may be wiling to give more if they see it being used to upgrade what HC does academically and athletically?
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Jul 2, 2016 19:52:09 GMT -5
I go to lots of GU games at Verizon. The school benefits quite a bit by having games downtown attended by a variety of folks in DC who aren't alums. The number of students who attend the games is secondary IMO. Also, we'd be witnessing a dying football program today if TPTB listened to those who argued against schollies.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jul 2, 2016 19:58:38 GMT -5
As I've stated before, my personal belief is college athletics should be for the school's:
1. the current students 2. the students' families 3. the alums 4. the local fans/faculty 5. anyone else who has an interest
In that order and that priority.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Jul 3, 2016 10:19:23 GMT -5
On the old board, some months back, I posted that HC was #3 in the country when it came to percentage of the total institutional budget that was spent on athletics. The only two institutions that spent more were Wofford and, IIRC, Furman, Wofford being in a class by itself.
The percentage was determined by comparing total spending on athletics with total spending as reported in an annual financial statement. Its a relatively simple survey to do, one can't achieve a high rank unless the school is: > undergraduate only > private, relatively low enrollment, > playing Division I (particularly scollie football),
Wofford spent nearly as much on athletics as it did on instruction. Wofford's financial statement (for the year ending June 30, 2014, which is the latest publicly available) reveals actual revenue from athletics was $1,773,000. Wofford spent (2013-14) $14,446,000 on athletics. Who made up the $12.7 million difference? You guessed it.
In 2014-15, Furman spent $25.9 million on athletics; athletic revenue was $3.3 million.
Colgate spends about $10 million more on instruction than does HC. (Not quite an apples to apples comparison, because Jesuit professors are basically uncompensated, but there are not that many Jesuits teaching these days, certainly not enough to explain a $10 million differential.) HC spent about $4 million more than Colgate on athletics.
I expect there are some who would vote for spending $2.5-$3.5 million for HC/ECAC, rather than say, more professors or better paid professors, but I won't start a poll.
|
|
|
Post by Wormtown Railers Fan on Jul 5, 2016 11:27:46 GMT -5
Sell beer at the DCU games and attendance will increase.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jul 5, 2016 12:21:30 GMT -5
Sell beer at the DCU games and attendance will increase. 300,000 beers at $10 per beer = $3,000,000 Problem solved.
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Jul 6, 2016 12:18:39 GMT -5
Sell beer at the DCU games and attendance will increase. +1
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Jul 15, 2016 7:57:50 GMT -5
HC "lobbying hard" for Hockey East. Like schollies for football and major upgrades to our athletic facilities, I'm glad HC is breaking away from the past foolish mindset which drove our athletic program into the ground. From New Haven Register:
There doesn’t appear to be any mutual interest between Hockey East and Quinnipiac. Greg Amodio, the athletic director at Quinnipiac, confirmed as much on Friday. “We’re incredibly happy and pleased with where we are now,” Amodio said. “We’re with the right group of schools with a similar mindset. It’s a great situation for our men’s and women’s hockey programs, who are both well-positioned to compete for national championships. We’ve had zero conversations with Hockey East. Our commitment is with ECAC Hockey.”
Bentley University announced plans for a new 2,000-seat campus hockey arena. We hear the school has an eye on the ECAC, should something open soon, though it’ll need a women’s program to be considered for membership. Holy Cross, our sources say, is lobbying hard for an invite to Hockey East.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Jul 15, 2016 9:03:47 GMT -5
HC "lobbying hard" for Hockey East. Like schollies for football and major upgrades to our athletic facilities, I'm glad HC is breaking away from the past foolish mindset which drove our athletic program into the ground. From New Haven Register: There doesn’t appear to be any mutual interest between Hockey East and Quinnipiac. Greg Amodio, the athletic director at Quinnipiac, confirmed as much on Friday. “We’re incredibly happy and pleased with where we are now,” Amodio said. “We’re with the right group of schools with a similar mindset. It’s a great situation for our men’s and women’s hockey programs, who are both well-positioned to compete for national championships. We’ve had zero conversations with Hockey East. Our commitment is with ECAC Hockey.” Bentley University announced plans for a new 2,000-seat campus hockey arena. We hear the school has an eye on the ECAC, should something open soon, though it’ll need a women’s program to be considered for membership. Holy Cross, our sources say, is lobbying hard for an invite to Hockey East. Great info - hadn't seen the article yet. One would think that paves the way for HC to get the invite without much to stand in the way except something self-inflicted.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Jul 15, 2016 10:25:36 GMT -5
Does make one wonder how long the ECAC will be "happy" with QU dominating the league if it's the result of QU having lax admissions standards for recruits. Perhaps it is not the case. Either way, the Q has come a long way from where it started.
|
|
|
Post by JRGNYR on Jul 20, 2016 14:51:50 GMT -5
Can't speak on QU's admission standards or any of the allegations or rumors, but they've made a significant commitment to athletics there in general of late, especially facilities as we all know.
|
|
|
Post by cfrivals on Jul 21, 2016 7:51:16 GMT -5
Investment. Plain and simple. Stop blaming other schools for admissions. We are not in the ECAC because our rink is a public skating arena, and our womens program is D3. Fix those, and you would be the Q!
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Jul 21, 2016 8:46:15 GMT -5
Huh, is your post directed at me?? If so, you're misconstruing my point. Completely agree on HC --
|
|
|
Post by cfrivals on Jul 21, 2016 8:57:47 GMT -5
Matanuck, not directed at you. Just listing that admission thing because that is an HC excuse I have heard for years. I can just see that being a sentiment that seems to arise every time HC avoids making a full fledged effort to upgrade!
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Jul 21, 2016 10:35:41 GMT -5
I agree with you both!
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Jul 25, 2016 13:23:22 GMT -5
Haven't been paying attention....
What's taking so long on this ? Any timetable for a choice ?
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Jul 31, 2016 1:46:02 GMT -5
Haven't been paying attention.... What's taking so long on this ? Any timetable for a choice ? Hockey East is planning on going forward with 11 teams, that is what the discussions have been with the schedule for 2017-2018!
|
|
|
Post by crusader12 on Aug 1, 2016 12:09:09 GMT -5
Haven't been paying attention.... What's taking so long on this ? Any timetable for a choice ? Hockey East is planning on going forward with 11 teams, that is what the discussions have been with the schedule for 2017-2018! Disappointing!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Aug 1, 2016 18:42:09 GMT -5
Hockey East is planning on going forward with 11 teams, that is what the discussions have been with the schedule for 2017-2018! Disappointing!!!!!!!
bfoley does not explain this properly 12.
Hockey East is prepared to move forward with an 11 team sked if necessary.
By no means does it confirm an 11 team sked is etched in stone.
|
|
|
Post by realism on Aug 2, 2016 18:20:50 GMT -5
Despite constantly professing "inside knowledge," ACTP is forced to acknowlege that the intentions for H.C.'s hockey programs are not as much of a "no-brainer" as his "sources" or his fantasies have led him to believe. Despite the great strides made by ADNP, we'll be learning that H.C. is not quite as ready to jump into prime time, without the passage of experimental time, adjustments to bumps in the road and a strategic recalibration at reasonable intervals. Such an approach allows "progress" to be assessed. A true renaissance of the H.C. athletic brand calls for more than "throwing caution to the wind" just to compensate for past mistakes. For example, assessing the likelihood of H.C. salvaging .500 football seasons via its ambitious scheduling in the years ahead, might create a little circumspection as additional costly athletic initiatives by TPTB are reviewed. Anything less would be imprudent.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 3, 2016 7:48:13 GMT -5
Why the attack on the credibility of ACTP? He has been a poster with a pretty accurate track record overall. "Salvaging" .500 seasons in football? That comment alone makes it appear that your post is less "prudent" than pessimistic and that may not be very "realistic" given the changes taking place at HC. Did anyone actually say that to compensate for past mistakes we should "throw caution to the winds"...and do nothing else? If not, that takes things out of context and that sort of argument could be said to be "impudent."
|
|