|
Post by bfoley82 on Aug 12, 2021 21:10:13 GMT -5
Patriot League Softball has only 7 teams. If one team is removed, will there be enough for the automatic bid? As a charter member of the Patriot League, can Holy Cross drop a sport? Loyalty is a wonderful thing. Our co-founder schools are a good distance away but I have grown to admire them over the years. They are all fighting the same good fight as Holy Cross is. What a contrast to the Power Conference schools who leave their conference partners in a lurch at the drop of a hat and disputes are settled in court. I like the concept of the Worcester City Championship meet in swimming, a similar tournament could be held for softball to help increase local games and if HC gets smoked by WPI or WSU it could be the best thing to happen to the program because it could initiate needed improvements. Doesn't help with both tennis programs and men's basketball programs getting smoked by D-3 schools.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 12, 2021 23:21:47 GMT -5
ADMB has paraphrased the Kennedys by judging the various HC sports with a "To whom much is given much is expected" yardstick. But if teams are getting smoked by D-3 opponents he has to address that lack of competitiveness. Athletics are the front door to a college and systemic losing in sports can brand an institution as low quality in the public's mind.
Fortunately for us, Football gets ten times the notice as minor sports. Unfortunately basketball does, too.😟
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Aug 13, 2021 2:48:35 GMT -5
ADMB has paraphrased the Kennedys by judging the various HC sports with a "To whom much is given much is expected" yardstick. But if teams are getting smoked by D-3 opponents he has to address that lack of competitiveness. Athletics are the front door to a college and systemic losing in sports can brand an institution as low quality in the public's mind. Fortunately for us, Football gets ten times the notice as minor sports. Unfortunately basketball does, too.😟 Men's tennis won a single point in all seven of their matches combined in 2020-2021. In 2019-2020, they lost to MIT 5-2. In 2018-2019, they lost to Babson 8-1 and D-2 Franklin Pierce 6-1.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 13, 2021 5:07:04 GMT -5
But they saved on gas.
|
|
|
Post by BeatBC on Aug 13, 2021 8:06:45 GMT -5
Of course, I prefer our teams winning...but a poor W-L record is not a good reason to drop a program. As long as students are interested in participating on a team and find value in the attendant intangibles offered by such participation, I think we should continue to offer that opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 13, 2021 8:48:12 GMT -5
Welcome, BeatBC. I like the way you think.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 13, 2021 8:49:04 GMT -5
I'm all for reducing some sports at Holy Cross but if you close down softball, you really have to close down baseball. No expert but as I understand it, Title IX is more than just dollars, it's people and scholarships. Having a football program with the extremely large numbers of players and scholarships with no analogous women's sport already puts us in a precarious Title IX position I would think. So, no cancelling any women's sport without a similar cancellation of a men's sport.
I can't imagine that softball couldn't become as successful at Holy Cross as baseball (not that the bar here is really high) with the right coach, financial support and improved facilities.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 13, 2021 8:55:12 GMT -5
So you don’t care that we are a D.1 school in name only when it comes to many of our minor sports - what a fraud ! Not able to beat D.3 teams and that’s ok ? these teams are glorified intramural squads - I call that embarrassing and you don’t. Does it have to be this way ?
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 13, 2021 9:56:52 GMT -5
Haze, suggest re-reading my post. S-l-o-w-l-y.😊
Not suggesting it should be a losing program at all. Only getting rid of it would create title IX issues so just fix it with new coach, more financial support and better facilities. Early returns indicate they will plan to do at least 2 of those 3 things if not all 3.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 13, 2021 10:47:40 GMT -5
sader1970, I was reacting to posts by 'beatbc' and 'rgs' who have no problem with those wearing the HC uniform in D.1 competition with zero chance of winning - they're ok with simple 'participation' as the standard - amazing !
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Aug 13, 2021 11:03:42 GMT -5
Haze, Thank you for trying to speak for me and to explain my attitude. You are wrong, but don't let that deter you. I do not like the "participation" standard and never have. If HC is going to field a team they should feel obligated to provide what that team needs to compete on a level playing field. I believe that no Holy Cross team has a "zero chance of winning." After all, accidents do happen. I support all those wearing an HC uniform. If they choose to be on a team that will always be a decided underdog, I believe that is a choice they can make. You appear to feel that an HC student should not have such a choice. Why is that? However, if the college is willing to settle for simply putting a team out there with little or no support they need to be called out for such an attitude. The school seems to be looking at the overall sports program now (long overdue) and is making changes - better facilities, better coaches, more scholarship assistance, etc. Also, coaches are being held to account if they show they are unable to help the team improve...minor sports coaches are no longer certain of a lifetime appointment.
|
|
|
Post by coacht on Aug 13, 2021 11:52:23 GMT -5
Cutting softball isn't the answer. There are two systemic issues at play here --
First, the school needs to commit resources at a competitive level. Facilities, scholarships, coach compensation, recruiting travel budgets, etc. Facilities appear to be in the works. Time to pony up the scholarships and pay what it takes to get a good staff and let them travel.
Second, I coach a high academic 18u travel ball team in SoCal and can tell you this coaching duo doesn't get out here very often. In fact, you never saw the head coach, only the assistant. Their predecessors weren't much better. Going to Head First is a good start, but when you're short on schollies, you have to grind that much harder. Look everywhere for that rare kid whose family values an HC education and can afford to pay the freight. Build a network of parochial high school coaches, consistently touch base and recruit their best players. Players whose parents are accustomed to paying tuition. You can't follow the Ivy League coaches around and take their left-overs (a stated strategy of the HC coaching staff a few years ago).
It will be the rare coach that can pull off .500 PL results consistently without the school's support. But they are out there, mostly at the D3 level, and they're at every showcase we play in. And if the school doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, we'd lose that coaching staff too.
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 13, 2021 14:07:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 13, 2021 15:40:48 GMT -5
Cutting softball isn't the answer. There are two systemic issues at play here -- First, the school needs to commit resources at a competitive level. Facilities, scholarships, coach compensation, recruiting travel budgets, etc. Facilities appear to be in the works. Time to pony up the scholarships and pay what it takes to get a good staff and let them travel. Second, I coach a high academic 18u travel ball team in SoCal and can tell you this coaching duo doesn't get out here very often. In fact, you never saw the head coach, only the assistant. Their predecessors weren't much better. Going to Head First is a good start, but when you're short on schollies, you have to grind that much harder. Look everywhere for that rare kid whose family values an HC education and can afford to pay the freight. Build a network of parochial high school coaches, consistently touch base and recruit their best players. Players whose parents are accustomed to paying tuition. You can't follow the Ivy League coaches around and take their left-overs (a stated strategy of the HC coaching staff a few years ago). It will be the rare coach that can pull off .500 PL results consistently without the school's support. But they are out there, mostly at the D3 level, and they're at every showcase we play in. And if the school doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, we'd lose that coaching staff too. I like your thought about the D-3 level coaches for two reasons. First, if you are repping a program with 23 consecutive losing seasons, you can counter that with your own personal record of coaching winning teams in D-3 as the head coach. If you have previously been a D-1 assistant only you can't do that. Secondly. Successful D-3 coaches are experienced in non-scholarship recruiting which is what's needed to fill out a deep quality squad at HC.
|
|
|
Post by coacht on Aug 13, 2021 15:56:14 GMT -5
Of course. I would never assume anything I say on this topic is revolutionary, but it would appear the prior coaching staffs haven't figured it out. The math is simple (and well known). 99% of PL success if recruiting, and 90% of that is recruiting pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Aug 13, 2021 16:14:51 GMT -5
Cutting softball isn't the answer. There are two systemic issues at play here -- First, the school needs to commit resources at a competitive level. Facilities, scholarships, coach compensation, recruiting travel budgets, etc. Facilities appear to be in the works. Time to pony up the scholarships and pay what it takes to get a good staff and let them travel. Second, I coach a high academic 18u travel ball team in SoCal and can tell you this coaching duo doesn't get out here very often. In fact, you never saw the head coach, only the assistant. Their predecessors weren't much better. Going to Head First is a good start, but when you're short on schollies, you have to grind that much harder. Look everywhere for that rare kid whose family values an HC education and can afford to pay the freight. Build a network of parochial high school coaches, consistently touch base and recruit their best players. Players whose parents are accustomed to paying tuition. You can't follow the Ivy League coaches around and take their left-overs (a stated strategy of the HC coaching staff a few years ago). It will be the rare coach that can pull off .500 PL results consistently without the school's support. But they are out there, mostly at the D3 level, and they're at every showcase we play in. And if the school doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, we'd lose that coaching staff too. I like your thought about the D-3 level coaches for two reasons. First, if you are repping a program with 23 consecutive losing seasons, you can counter that with your own personal record of coaching winning teams in D-3 as the head coach. If you have previously been a D-1 assistant only you can't do that. Secondly. Successful D-3 coaches are experienced in non-scholarship recruiting which is what's needed to fill out a deep quality squad at HC. The WPI and MIT softball head coaches both got out there and were able to use their nationally recognized educational programs to turn their programs into strong D-3 programs. They are now at Dartmouth and URI as head coaches. Dartmouth this season only played four or five games (so take the roster for what is listed) and have two northern kids total on their 2022 roster from New York and Indiana. The rest of the team was from around the country including four kids from California. dartmouthsports.com/sports/softball/rosterWPI on the other hand had three kids from California and two from Arizona athletics.wpi.edu/sports/sball/2020-21/roster?sort=hometown
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2021 14:29:18 GMT -5
"Lapicki has served as the Crusaders' head coach for the last five years, leading the team to an overall record of 49-127."
Just imagine if a men's coach had a record like that? Resigned? She would have been fired in year 2.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Aug 15, 2021 15:50:27 GMT -5
Hmmm, 49-127 = 27.8% winning percentage over 5 years.
If a coach has a 16.7% winning percentage in 2 years, does he still get 3 more years to get it up to 27.8%? Hopefully that expected turnaround happens a lot quicker than that.
|
|
|
Post by coacht on Aug 15, 2021 18:14:57 GMT -5
Quick improvements are a real challenge. You have three years of returners that contributed to the overall record and a year of talent coming in that the old coach recruited. Plus, the rumor I heard was they were 'done' with their 2022 recruiting class as well. Releasing the 2022 players with verbal commitments at this point has its share of risks too, Lapicki did it when she joined (released a couple of players that her predecessor had verballed), but it hurts your reputation in the travel ball community for a couple of years. The AD needs to get the new coach in quickly so he/she has a shot at some of the 2022's that are still available ideally with a couple of new scholarships (COVID and the "extra year" has wrecked havoc with recruiting and there are still many good 2022s out there to be signed). Those players may have an impact on the 2023 season, but they will be freshmen so more likely they'll impact the 2024 season.
I heard our two seniors that are in the transfer portal are looking for post-grad spots, not to leave HC, so that's a good piece of news. If the new coaching staff can add 20 to 30 points to the team batting average and if Kelly and Megan improve a bit we may be able to squeak out a couple of extra wins, but I wouldn't count on a massive turn-around for at least a couple of years even if they found a way to bring Mike Candrea out of retirement.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Aug 15, 2021 19:00:15 GMT -5
Quick improvements are a real challenge. You have three years of returners that contributed to the overall record and a year of talent coming in that the old coach recruited. Plus, the rumor I heard was they were 'done' with their 2022 recruiting class as well. Releasing the 2022 players with verbal commitments at this point has its share of risks too, Lapicki did it when she joined (released a couple of players that her predecessor had verballed), but it hurts your reputation in the travel ball community for a couple of years. The AD needs to get the new coach in quickly so he/she has a shot at some of the 2022's that are still available ideally with a couple of new scholarships (COVID and the "extra year" has wrecked havoc with recruiting and there are still many good 2022s out there to be signed). Those players may have an impact on the 2023 season, but they will be freshmen so more likely they'll impact the 2024 season. I heard our two seniors that are in the transfer portal are looking for post-grad spots, not to leave HC, so that's a good piece of news. If the new coaching staff can add 20 to 30 points to the team batting average and if Kelly and Megan improve a bit we may be able to squeak out a couple of extra wins, but I wouldn't count on a massive turn-around for at least a couple of years even if they found a way to bring Mike Candrea out of retirement. HC could employ an arbitrage strategy of sorts. Add a couple of scholarships to get a couple of 2022s that wouldn't normally be available to us without the Covid logjam while not guaranteeing (but hopefully) being able to sustain the extra scholarships permanently. Why not take advantage of the temporary inefficient market and postpone some capital improvements for a year to get more bang for the buck in recruiting this year? Once you get the better players fundraise like heck via the CAF to keep the extra scholarships with some improved performance to make your case.
|
|
|
Post by coacht on Aug 15, 2021 19:17:02 GMT -5
I like it! With a couple more scholarships you could get some real talent in the 2022 year. Early Decision is rapidly closing in, whatever they do, they need to get after it quickly.
|
|
|
Post by hcbball on Aug 15, 2021 19:57:38 GMT -5
Hmmm, 49-127 = 27.8% winning percentage over 5 years. If a coach has a 16.7% winning percentage in 2 years, does he still get 3 more years to get it up to 27.8%? Hopefully that expected turnaround happens a lot quicker than that. We’ll see, current baseball coach is 15-30...
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Aug 15, 2021 20:25:59 GMT -5
HC could employ an arbitrage strategy of sorts. Add a couple of scholarships to get a couple of 2022s that wouldn't normally be available to us without the Covid logjam while not guaranteeing (but hopefully) being able to sustain the extra scholarships permanently. Why not take advantage of the temporary inefficient market and postpone some capital improvements for a year to get more bang for the buck in recruiting this year? Once you get the better players fundraise like heck via the CAF to keep the extra scholarships with some improved performance to make your case. What type of players would commit if their scholarship might only be for one year?
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on Aug 15, 2021 20:26:32 GMT -5
Hmmm, 49-127 = 27.8% winning percentage over 5 years. If a coach has a 16.7% winning percentage in 2 years, does he still get 3 more years to get it up to 27.8%? Hopefully that expected turnaround happens a lot quicker than that. We’ll see, current baseball coach is 15-30... The coach before him was considered a "good" coach and he had a career winning percentage of .469. That is the best level since Robert Curran coached the team in 1967-1970.
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Aug 15, 2021 20:54:30 GMT -5
Hmmm, 49-127 = 27.8% winning percentage over 5 years. If a coach has a 16.7% winning percentage in 2 years, does he still get 3 more years to get it up to 27.8%? Hopefully that expected turnaround happens a lot quicker than that. We’ll see, current baseball coach is 15-30... Current MBB coach is 8-40.
|
|