Presidents Cup Standings - dead last

It would be nice to have other winning programs....but football and men's hoops are really the only 2 sports that really push the needle....it is what it is....

I certainly care. I mainly relate to FB, BB and baseball, sports that I played and understand, but the performance of the other 20+ teams is outrageous.

Although we get no credit in the President's Cup for hockey, I see a positive in the hiring of Dan Curran as the new FB coach. I was concerned that Kit would empty the coffers to get a highly compensated FBS coordinator which would require HC stretching for the salary. That might have restricted our ability to extend and retain Coach Riga. Any coach who can win at Holy Cross or even progress in the league tournament is extremely valuable.

Men's hockey and women's BB are contenders for league championships and FB was co-champion this year. Now it's time to find coaches who can build winning programs in other sports.

We could, but we won't. Hockey oftentimes sees more students in the stands than basketball, which shows interest.

As I've often posted, the audience for Holy Cross athletics can and should be, in priority order:

1. Students
2. Parents and families of students (with higher priority for the players' parents)
3. Alums
4. Faculty/Staff (those who were behind the Crusade ditching drop to the bottom)
5. Local Worcestorites (NAD excepted, he goes to the head of the class, NDgrad is right behind him)
6. All others with an interest (including extended family member of students and alums)

JMO

We cannot possibly be best or even good in every sport without having a reputation as a "jock school." We want to find that sweet spot where we are champs or in frequent contention in most sports. While not being first in the President's Cup, we shouldn't be dead last either. 

I remember those but you must remember we are now celebrating 50 years of co-education at Holy Cross and those bumper stickers might be construed as, well, you know. 

Your proposal makes financial sense. Here's a few other factors: men's hockey came out of nowhere to make the final in the eleven team AHA last season and we appear to have a rare breed under contract: a coach who can win at HC. No HC fall sport even qualified for any league or national post season tournament.

Both M&W hockey have fewer teams to compete against in D-1 than most sports making an unlikely run in the NCAA tournament slightly less unlikely.

Women's hockey plays in the closest thing to a power conference of any HC team. Foley will probably knock that point down.

We have the arena on campus and fully paid for.

Canceling two varsity sports generates far more negative publicity than finishing last in the President's Cup.

Other than those factors, dropping two full scholarship hockey teams makes financial sense but is highly unlikely to happen and if it did the sports would fairly likely be revived after the uproar, returning in damaged condition.

Stanford on moving from the Pacific-12 to the Atlantic Coast Conference, "You've seen one ocean you've seen them all." HC's three conferences, the PL, AHA, HE all have geographic integrity which puts us ahead of the Cardinal in that category. They nose us out in the mascot category but not by much. We have none, they have a tree.

Don't know many people that would consider Colorado Springs and Erie, PA as Atlantic Hockey towns. 

The Turnpike Trophy, while probably well-intentioned and an effort to create a rivalry with our closest Patriot League neighbor, was and will always be seriously flawed. About the only thing we have in common with BU is being based in Massachusetts. 

They are a large secular university and we are small liberal arts Jesuit college. We might as well create a "Crusader-Eagle Trophy". At least they are Jesuit.  As noted above, there are numerous sports that we play and BU doesn't and, without looking it up, they possibly play sports we don't. 

In the sports we have in common and in the same league, are mostly Olympic sports, in which they have a huge advantage both in students and in dollars. 

This is a most one-sided concept, to Holy Cross' detriment, of almost anything I could think of and I would strongly support ending the "competition" and giving the trophy permanently to BU with a good-sportsmanship farewell, "thanks."

We know that hockey and basketball have matching numbers of men's and women's scholarships, so how are the 63 scholarships which match the football ones distributed? I know it isn't track and field because the men and women have one each. Why don't we start by figuring out which HC women's teams are relatively well supported by scholarships and figure out why they aren't doing better.

I come from a Class that included Art Dulong and Art Martin. About 2-5 years before I went to Holy Cross, the Holy Cross track team scored what might have been one of the all time greatest comebacks of all time in the Millrose Games - a big thing in those days. 

From memory, the relay team ran on a Saturday as it was either not on live TV or my father ('42) didn't know it but read in the Sunday NY Times about the great comeback and it was going to be replayed on Sunday.

So, we watched it and not sure if the baton was dropped or just a very slow first leg (bear with me, it was probably 60 years ago). 

What stands out in my memory was that while my father, brother (ex-'68. '69) and I watched, we were absolutely sure that the Times had it wrong as the Crusader anchor leg wasn't even in the same picture with the leaders. Out of nowhere, he pulled it off and the place went bananas. 

I don't usually get excited about track meets, with the exception of relays, but this was fantastic and it's a shame that Holy Cross, which historically had a top reputation in the sport, isn't doing better. 
 

In Pak's past analysis we generally spent less on non-scholarship sports while Central Mass. may have higher cost of living than any of our peer core league members.

Make some dollars and sense out of how budget size does not effect performance for us please. Lower paid coaches work harder? Recruiting closer to home is always better? Actually they both could be true but usually not.