MSF - It's Critical, What's Next?

[eb59]

Is there anyone that we can work with progressively at the school (AD, Univ and FB / LAX Programs) to get some type of updated vision and time-line for the completion of the MSF?

Honestly, everyone knows it's critical and after 10 years of waiting all we as a community want is a plan or at the very least a status update.

Can the GridIron Club and Lax equivalent lead this for us?

If not, does anyone have a suggestion about who can?

[thebin]

Am I imagining things, or did DFW recently say (I think before the Yale game) that a discussion (possibly on Third Rail) specifically about MSF and next steps was imminent? Now I'm not sure I didn't make this up....

[hoyaparents]

The University of Nebraska today announced it was increasing its seating capacity from 81,067 to 90,000. The expansion and improvements will cost $ 56 million.

Nebraska AD Tom Osborne called the expansion, "modest."

Come on Georgetown Administration, put someone in charge who can get MSF done. No more excuses, no more delays, get it done, now!!!!

[DanMcQ]

Oct 9, 2010 9:57:11 GMT -5 hoyaparents said:

The University of Nebraska today announced it was increasing its seating capacity from 81,067 to 90,000. The expansion and improvements will cost $ 56 million.

Nebraska AD Tom Osborne called the expansion, "modest."

Come on Georgetown Administration, put someone in charge who can get MSF done. No more excuses, no more delays, get it done, now!!!!

While I agree completely with the sentiment to 'get MSF done', using football at the University of Nebraska as a comparable example for football at Georgetown is like comparing apples and haggis.

[hoyaparents]

DanMcQ, I'm not comparing the two programs, you know that.

Were does MSF stand? How about the basketball and training facility upgrades? Who is in charge?

The fact is, noboby seems to know. Clearly, the upgrade of the athletic facilities is not a front burner issue. If that's not the case, only the Manhattan Project was a bigger kept secret.

We hear many rumors, but little in the way of tangible results.

I suggest that the new AD step before the microphones and give his "State of the Union" address. What is the mission? What are our goals and objectives? What is the timetable?

This effort needs leadership and direction, not silence and excuses.

[DanMcQ]

hoyaparents - I know that, but the equation that gets a project of that magnitude, even one called "modest," done in Nebraska has no parallel with what will happen at Georgetown.

Multiple sources have said that development is working with an interested major lead donor. Given the way Georgetown usually approaches these things I would not expect to hear anything definitive until it happens.

[hoyaparents]

DanMcQ, so let me get this straight.

I have heard the same reports about an "interested potential" major lead donor for the past year or so.

So the future of Hoya athletic facility improvements is focused on this one "interested potential" major lead donor.

Thousands of high profile, successful GU alums, and we're down to one "interested potential" major lead donor.

No leadership, no public commitment to get it done, just one "interested potential" major lead donor.

Sounds like a plan.

[DanMcQ]

hoyaparents: it's not my plan (if indeed that's what the plan is). My only point here is that holding up a huge state school in an area where college football is the only game of any importance as an example is not going to move things off the dime for the MSF.

Don't get me wrong, things do need to be moved off the dime.

To your point, here are two recent board threads discussing the topic:

hoyatalk2.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=22537&page=1

hoyatalk2.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=22442&page=1

[hoyaparents]

DanMcQ, I have followed the threads.

The constant, no plan, no timetable.

We both agree, its time to move off the dime.

But our real problem is no real alumni support. Assuming 30 football recruits a year, over 50 years, that's 1,500 football alumni. How many follow or contribute to the GU football? How does that compare with other comparable programs?

Yesterday's game thread, a total of just 16 were on line following the game. The quality of the radio broadcasts is unacceptable.

Until such time that an effort is made to reconnect with the alumni base,
and change the culture, we are p*ssing into the wind.

I'm not giving up, it's a call to action.

[DanMcQ]

hoyaparents: I fully agree with your intent.

In the absence of a scheduled press conference by someone in the University, I suggest you and others who are similarly interested contact people in the Athletics Development Office. The horse's mouth, as it were.

As a disclaimer, despite my lowly (exalted?) post as a moderator here, I am simply an interested alumnus and athletic program supporter who has no special 'inside' knowledge on the subject.

[hoyaparents]

DanMcQ, been there, done that.

Not even the courtsey of a response.

[strummer8526]

I bet that if someone drafted a letter to the AD and CC'ed DeGioia, Olson, Porterfield, etc., a lot of us here would be willing to "sign" it. Granted, b/c it's electronic, it would just be a list of typed names, but I think that might send a message: 20+ active alums/friends of the school jointly speaking on an issue. I think that if we were going to do something like that, though, it should address the football fan experience, generally, not just the MSF.

One reason to be hopeful: after 2007, a lot of things improved w/ our basketball fan experience (e.g., open practices, Midnight Madness, a successful gray out last season, etc.). I just think the AD needs to seize the opportunity now to take a few small steps forward w/ football and build on some success/increased fan interest while we can.

[RusskyHoya]

Oct 10, 2010 8:55:45 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

I bet that if someone drafted a letter to the AD and CC'ed DeGioia, Olson, Porterfield, etc., a lot of us here would be willing to "sign" it. Granted, b/c it's electronic, it would just be a list of typed names, but I think that might send a message: 20+ active alums/friends of the school jointly speaking on an issue. I think that if we were going to do something like that, though, it should address the football fan experience, generally, not just the MSF.

One reason to be hopeful: after 2007, a lot of things improved w/ our basketball fan experience (e.g., open practices, Midnight Madness, a successful gray out last season, etc.). I just think the AD needs to seize the opportunity now to take a few small steps forward w/ football and build on some success/increased fan interest while we can.

The point about basketball post-2007 is an instructive one. The JTIII-era resurgence of the basketball program, combined with an internal administrative resurgence initiated by Bernard Muir, worked in parallel to produce an overall higher quality product.

Put simply: once it became clear that Hoya basketball was once again a top-tier, national level product, the middling and mediocre ways of doing things that had reigned since the program's slump became unacceptable. Everyone (well, not really, but this post has to generalize in a couple of places, including this one) associated with the program understood that it was time to step up one's game. The spotlight was now on the program, and if what showed up in that light was plainly deficient, bottom-rung, amateurish, etc., it was going to be a public embarrassment. So, rears got into gear. There's still no shortage of things that can and should be improved, starting with the practice facility, but it's not amateur hour anymore.

Now, compare that to football:

Oct 9, 2010 17:04:34 GMT -5 FLHoya said:

I'll just be brief for a change and say having attended the game, it's a perfect example of so many ways--from poor quality of play to the awful way the game is presented at the MSF to utter lack of any atmosphere--why it's just impossible to get anyone interested in Georgetown football. Or for people like me to stay interested despite the better record this year. I peaced out from going to games after Homecoming last year, and I'm on the fence about the rest of this season.

Quality of play on the field is, of course, a hugely important variable, but the others that FL brings up are equally so. Production values at the games are abysmal. The sound system is atrocious, the scoreboard - while no longer chronically malfunctioning, as far as I know - is no better than the one at Georgetown Prep, there are no real pregame traditions or festivities (save for Homecoming and Senior Day), and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

I know there are some plans to address these issues, particularly in terms of facility upgrades. The onus does indeed need to remain there. But I think that the lack of evident momentum on this - or any other - front is as much a symptom as it is a cause; it is a symptom of an attitude reminiscent of what the basketball program was mired in during the 'The Malaise.' Only much worse. The bar is set low, and if it isn't cleared, well, no one cares anyway. There is no public exposure, aside from bitching on HoyaTalk and the occasional article in The Hoya or The Voice that goes largely unread.

The program's psychological infrastructure needs as much rehabilitation as its physical plant.

[jerseyhoya34]

It is also a chicken-egg issue. JT3 was used to a certain way of doing things at Princeton. They have an outstanding AD for a Ivy and are funded incredibly. Nevermind football and basketball with their facilities, note the separate swimming facilities and the like that they have. Their "Olympics" programs are nationally competitive.

Compare to Georgetown. Fundraising is generally not permitted for long-term athletics improvements. Facilities date from the Truman administration. General support from the administration lacking. Circa 2004, McDonough was a haven for underachievement.

JT3 brought many of his PU folks into the basketball administration, and that should say something. I think we've benefited immensely from them.

[DFW HOYA]

Oct 10, 2010 11:26:06 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Compare to Georgetown. Fundraising is generally not permitted for long-term athletics improvements. Facilities date from the Truman administration. General support from the administration lacking. Circa 2004, McDonough was a haven for underachievement.

It's difficult to agree with much of this.

1. Fundraising is sought for every athletics improvement, but it's up to the University to approve it. Between 1994-04, plans were proferred by Athletics for, in no particular order, 1) renovating McDonough, 2) Multi-Sport, 3) Boathouse, 4) a new on-campus track/soccer complex, 5) a new on-campus softball field, 6) finding an off-campus home to save baseball, 7) securing a home course for men's and women's golf, and 8) renovating the Western HS/Ellington track. In some of these cases, the University would not simply not allow Athletics to proceed on these, in some cases, basically halted fundraising (e.g., MSF) , and in the case of softball, the project was deleted from the SW Quad project. There is no one in Athletics that does not want better facilities and that has not given his all to make it happen.

2. General support is not lacking from the administration; no, in fact, administrative financial support is among the most for any Big East school. A $29 million budget does not run on basketball and five football games at MSF every year. A diverse athletics program truly elevates Georgetown over the failing BE programs who cut to the bone and wonder why they're bleeding all over the place. What is lacking is the institutional will to do more than one capital project at a time. Originally, the MSF and McDonough renovations were supposed to follow the SW Quad, and then there was hesitation and before Athletics knew it, the MSB was at the front of the line and got the green light. Now, it's the unfunded science building that has elbowed its way past all these projects.

3. "Circa 2004, McDonough was a haven for underachievement. " False. Put aside the Esherick pitchforks and torches, and realize that Georgetown's athletic department was ranked as one of the 20 best such athletic departments by US News at this time. That in 2004, despite men's and women's basketball's non-efforts, GU ranked 53rd in the NACDA all-sports ranking, second among all schools below I-A, including a Final Four in women's lacrosse, a quarterfinal in men's lacrosse, and significant finishes in indoor and outdoor track? Coaches like Kim Simons and Ron Helmer never got their due, which is probably why Helmer is coaching at Indiana right now. And all these years later, I think (most) people on this board have since realized that Joe Lang and his successors have zero authority to change the head basketball coach--that was, and remains, Jack's call.

[jerseyhoya34]

As to #1, that's my gripe. The administration would not allow athletics to proceed. It is not a McD problem specifically, although Bernard Muir has been blamed for it in some circles. Since 2004ish, it is undeniable that more money has been sent to our programs, and that is most welcome and has helped to combat the general apathy that was felt among the fanbase around 2004. The lack of institutional support was bemoaned at the time on this site and was often cited as one reason not to seek changes in coaching personnel - that even if we changed coaches, there would not be any progress because of "institutional support" issues.

Some of the teams did well around 2004, but I think changes in McD administration during the Muir years reflect that perhaps team performance was not matched by off-field administration, which is my focus. Ticketing, for example, took a U-Turn due to team performance, no doubt, but also smart hires in the ticketing office in 2005/2006. Compare season ticket sales after our Sweet 16 in 2006 to season ticket sales after the Burton tournament. Recent hires in the SID are also appreciated in some circles, I think. Our website in 2004 compared disfavorably against JUCO's, and the same can no longer be said.

I would also argue that it is not supportive if you cut bait on facilities projects. If I wanted to give $10 online right now to the MSF, I couldn't, and that's a problem, and it ain't fundraising even if someone gave a private imprimatur to it and then someone pulled the strings on actually taking any money. I don't care who is to blame for it. What is undeniable is that the results are subpar as compared to our peers.

Speculation about the basis for criticism of Joe Lang remains exactly that. I think many of his opponents are also relying on his public statements, which raised questions about the direction of our basketball program and goals moving forward. His successors since clarified what our programs are about.

[DFW HOYA]

The legacy of Bernard Muir's tenure has not been finalized. He sought to run McD like a business, but spent more in adding staff than many realized. There was no substantive movement on facilities. Fundraising remains a stiff challenge with fewer public success stories, though the "major prospects" that were around in 2005 still seem to be around in 2010, albeit prospects and not commitments.

Muir's hasty exit has clouded the legacy, however. Georgetown values people that stay connected with the program. Frank Rienzo, for example, has been retired since 1995 and still volunteers his time to raise money for the GSP. Lee Reed isn't looking to make Georgetown a stepping stone for the next job and for those that supported Muir, it was a disappointment to see him jump ship just as facilities and scholarship support were in a lull. It remains to be seen if Delaware can engender a longer commitment.

[eb59]

I am of the opinion that the December vote on FB Scholarships for the Patriot League will have a huge impact on Gtown FB and will likely determine the timeline and plans for the MSF as well. Maybe I am oversimplifying things too much and if I am DFW please feel free to correct me: But let’s assume that the PL decides to go with a scholarship model as I have a feeling that they will. This forces Gtown to make some fairly quick and very impactful decisions:

1. Stay in the PL and increase funding as necessary to meet the new league standards. If this were the decision by Gtown, it would seem to me that we would have little or no ability to further delay the MSF. I mean if the school made a decision to support that type of cost increase for the program, why would you further handcuff recruiting, game day atmosphere and success with the lack of a stadium. This I pray is the option that the school takes, as it allows for us to become a true competitor in the PL and gives the school options for expansion at a later date should they want to follow in the footsteps of schools like Nova.

The other scenarios do not in my opinion bode well for the programs future or the MSF.

2. Drop from the PL and find another lesser I-AA conference or perhaps play as an Independent. If this is the decision, it would likely prolong and need by the school to complete the MSF anytime soon. To me, this would be the first nail in the coffin for the program as they may play-on for a few years as a team - but it would be very clear that there is no support from the school and that FB will never be a focus. Recruiting would stall and essentially we would remain as long as the team was in place at the bottom of the barrel in I-AA. On some level and it kills me to say this, but this almost seems worse to me than just dropping the program. Who wants to be part of something that has no support, funding or chance to be competitive. Sports are about winning, so why play if you are not going to try and win!

3. Decide to drop football immediately, again allowing the MSF to go uncompleted.

Please weigh in, does this seem to be a logical thought process with regard to the future of the program and the MSF?