|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Jun 27, 2014 8:43:44 GMT -5
Folks here have already touched on a lot of this, but it bears calling out and underlining: Georgetown is attempting to navigate an uncharted path in the college athletics world.To some degree, Villanova also tries to follows this path, spending a little more money on football and proportionately less on sports like rowing and sailing and without the academic cache that Georgetown has earned over the last 35 years. But the point is still valid. Some have held that Georgetown wants to be Penn in most sports and Penn State in some others. An exaggeration, perhaps, but it speaks to the tightrope the school wants to tread. FWIW, I would like to think that Georgetown's primary identity is "Catholic", because a "Jesuit identity" can become code words to some that this is somehow at odds with the Church as a whole. C'mon DFW! I love ya man, but fearing that a Jesuit identity is less than fully Catholic/at odds with the Church is pandering to the miniscule minority of the most bat-poop crazy Catholic "traditionalists." Since the founding of their order, the Jesuits have constituted the intellectual leaders/powerhouses of the Church as well as some of its most fervent and devoted missionaries and martyrs (more recently see El Salvador, November 1989). There might not BE a Church today if it wasn't for Ignatius and his original followers.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 27, 2014 10:32:18 GMT -5
Folks here have already touched on a lot of this, but it bears calling out and underlining: Georgetown is attempting to navigate an uncharted path in the college athletics world.To some degree, Villanova also tries to follows this path, spending a little more money on football and proportionately less on sports like rowing and sailing and without the same academic stature that Georgetown has earned over the last 35 years. But the point is still valid. Some have held that Georgetown wants to be Penn in most sports and Penn State in some others. An exaggeration, perhaps, but it speaks to the tightrope the school wants to tread. Yea, from an athletics perspective, Nova is probably our closest cousin. At the same time, Nova is nowhere near us in academic status or institutional size/endowment. I have to think that their model is something like Marquette and Fordham. FWIW, I would like to think that Georgetown's primary identity is "Catholic", because a "Jesuit identity" can become code words to some that this is somehow at odds with the Church as a whole. I'm a heathen, so feel free to disregard my opinion, but at a time when there is a Jesuit Pope, I think this is less of a concern. More concretely, Georgetown's institutional relationship with Jesuit high schools does have a specific impact on its student body makeup.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 28, 2014 8:53:51 GMT -5
Most posts above have done a good job of describing the status quo. The real question I think is does the current approach make sense and can we do better with comparable resource allocations.
If you take a couple of sports as examples, e.g., women's volleyball + rowing, I think we have something like 9 full scholarships for volleyball and none for rowing. Neither program is nationally competitive. If we invested the 9 scholarships in women's rowing instead of volleyball, we'd be contending for a rowing national championship, sending kids to the Olympics, competing with other schools that are our peers in a sport with a lower academic cost probably. We continue to support volleyball I guess because it was one of the women's sports that was around when title 9 came into existence and women's rowing was not. We support volleyball despite no alumni support and we starve other sports where we could be good I think because its easier to maintain the status quo. I'm not trying to beat up volleyball, but it seems like a pretty obvious and easy example.
Schools like a Northwestern, Vandy, Duke etc all with more resources than us, but not unlimited like Stanford, all look at investing in the sports where they can be good and weigh the financial + academic costs that are required to compete at the highest level in each sport. Off the top of my head I think the a lot of sports at Gtwn bear reexamination regarding whether we are over/under invested, e.g., baseball & softball(maybe over because I don't think we can be nationally competitive at a reasonable academic cost, but maybe I'm wrong. Possibly we're under invested in tennis (recent article in NYT re Columbia's tennis team's success) + golf. I think the main point here is simply that we should look at the sports we invest in more strategically than we currently do. I think the 29 sport mantra(which I'm pretty sure is under review by Gtwn's BOD) is a relic of the time when walk ons populated those sports. The minor sports are so competitive today that all the sports require recruited athletes to compete.
Also, regarding the sports that we do invest in already as national competitors, I doubt that these other schools mentioned above would probably take a much more aggressive view than Gtwn regarding leaving coaches in positions with failing teams-Gtwn basically requires some sort of revolt to institute a coaching change.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 28, 2014 13:25:00 GMT -5
If you take a couple of sports as examples, e.g., women's volleyball + rowing, I think we have something like 9 full scholarships for volleyball and none for rowing. Neither program is nationally competitive. If we invested the 9 scholarships in women's rowing instead of volleyball, we'd be contending for a rowing national championship, sending kids to the Olympics, competing with other schools that are our peers in a sport with a lower academic cost probably. We continue to support volleyball I guess because it was one of the women's sports that was around when title 9 came into existence and women's rowing was not. We support volleyball despite no alumni support and we starve other sports where we could be good I think because its easier to maintain the status quo. I'm not trying to beat up volleyball, but it seems like a pretty obvious and easy example. Except it's not so easy. Prior to the divorce, the Big East approved sport scholarship minimums which forced schools like Georgetown to bump up scholarships in underfunded sports like volleyball, but not in sports like women's rowing. But as you indicated, volleyball scholarships haven't elevated that program because the combination of facilities and coaching salaries leave Georgetown as an middle of the road program. Ironically, Georgetown achieved its highest degree of success under Jolene Nagel when it was only a 1.5 scholarship program, but Duke hired away Nagel and that program has 10 NCAA appearances in the last 12 years. The athletic configuration at Georgetown is so unique that it thoroughly counfounds many newcomers into the program. Some of the poorest sports by record have the strongest fundraising; by contrast, a legacy sport like track is now near the bottom of annual support for men's teams. Every coach at Georgetown must deal with the alchemy around four issues to succeed: admissions, scholarships, facilities, and staff. And ironically, with the right mix, every single team at Georgetown could be nationally prominent, except that the budget won't support everyone getting to that level. For those that have not read it, Michael Callahan's thesis on athletic funding at Georgetown is a must-read. His proposal of moving many underfunded Georgetown sports into the Patriot League is infeasible (the Big East won't allow it, and the PL wasn't exactly interested either) but it's a thoughtful read on issues the coaches struggle through each and every day. repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/557639/Callahan_georgetown_0076M_11562.pdf
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Jun 29, 2014 0:46:49 GMT -5
DFW's uncalled for shot at the Jesuits aside (by the way, I went to a Jesuit high school and probably/most definitely would not have attended Georgetown were it not for that), really good discussion here. I support all Georgetown sports (former board member of Hoya Blue, and can go into more detail as to what my "support" is/has been), but obviously men's basketball most prominently.
I think the overarching question, of which athletics is only a part, and the size of which can be disputed, is... What is Georgetown, and what does Georgetown want to be? In short, we all have our own opinions.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,730
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 29, 2014 6:26:36 GMT -5
Please, a "shot" neither intended not inferred. Jesuit values are Catholic values. Four years at a Jesuit high school and four years at Georgetown taught me that much.
Back to the topic at hand, the recent NACDA Directors Cup finish (66th, highest of any non-Ivy school below I-A) reconfirms that while the Georgetown model may not work for everyone, it works for Georgetown. Of course, Georgetown got zero post-season points from four of its priority sports (men's basketball, women's basketball, men's lacrosse and men's outdoor track) so there's room for improvement.
Rankings for other Big East schools:
1. Georgetown 66 2. Villanova 68 3. Providence 72 4. St. John's 76 5. DePaul 105 6. Marquette 119 7. Creighton 125 8. Butler 143 9. Xavier 221 10. Seton Hall 289
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 29, 2014 10:42:09 GMT -5
Depends how you define "works". It seems like mediocrity to me. None of the schools listed are peers to Gtwn other than in men's BB and catholic affiliation. I don't think that's how we do or should frame our overall sports program. The fact that we are behind Columbia in overall sports perf is not something to be hailed as working by any objective observer. While there are some bright spots, I'm pretty sure the AD for instance does not think we have are athletic program where it can or should be.
Re your post above regarding Big east minimums for scholarships in different sports, you are correct that there were some constraints regarding allocating resources. However; I think a lot of those constraints have been relaxed in the new BE and I suspect that we have a lot more flexibility to get what we want in terms of scholarship minimum rules etc, so now is the time to implement some rational reforms.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jun 29, 2014 16:34:40 GMT -5
Schools like a Northwestern, Vandy, Duke etc all with more resources than us, but not unlimited like Stanford, all look at investing in the sports where they can be good and weigh the financial + academic costs that are required to compete at the highest level in each sport. Off the top of my head I think the a lot of sports at Gtwn bear reexamination regarding whether we are over/under invested, e.g., baseball & softball(maybe over because I don't think we can be nationally competitive at a reasonable academic cost, but maybe I'm wrong. Possibly we're under invested in tennis (recent article in NYT re Columbia's tennis team's success) + golf. I think the main point here is simply that we should look at the sports we invest in more strategically than we currently do. I think the 29 sport mantra(which I'm pretty sure is under review by Gtwn's BOD) is a relic of the time when walk ons populated those sports. The minor sports are so competitive today that all the sports require recruited athletes to compete. Interesting... I had not heard about the review by the Board of Directors. It would be very interesting indeed to read that report, if one is produced. Most likely, it will be kept under wraps and its contents only shared with top donors, but perhaps the takeaways will dribble out. Truthfully, though, I doubt that any such review would recommend anything more than marginal adjustments. Certainly, it is nearly unthinkable to me that it would recommend contracting the varsity offerings. There's a couple of reasons for this. 1. Discontinuing sports programs is extremely embarrassing for a university. It is effectively an admission of failure - and if there is one thing colleges absolutely do not ever want to do, it is to admit failure. For those in the DC area, one need look no further than the savaging UMCP has taken to understand why most schools will take such a step only as a last resort. There's not much of a pro constituency, either, aside from a handful of academic purists who would prefer the abolition of all college athletics. Trimming field hockey or volleyball to buttress men's lacrosse or women's basketball would not satisfy them regardless. Even coaches who stand to benefit from a 'reallocation of resources' are loathe to openly advocate for what would effectively be the unemployment of their colleagues. Coaches on scholarship football programs seem to have less reticence in this regard, but we haven't any of those, do we? In the absence of compelling reasons, institutional inertia tends to rule. 2. For the non-contender teams, the goal isn't to win, but to continue to exist. From an institutional perspective, their raison d'etre is to be able to give an Ivy-aspirational answer to the question "what sports do you offer?" Having received an appropriately impressive answer, few are going to then proceed to look up the final standings of all, some, or any of those 27-ish teams. The 'field lots of teams' model isn't in place because that's considered the most effective distribute of resources from a competitiveness perspective. It's the chosen model because Georgetown aspires to be the kind of university that fields 25, 30, 40 varsity teams. "Fake It 'Til You Make It" is the order of the day - as it has been in other areas (with some success: the alumni interviewing program, the foreign campuses, and the need blind/full-need financial aid promise, to name a few). 3. What, exactly, is the penalty for having a bunch of underwhelming, underperforming teams? They have too few fans and too little prominence to generate much in the way of stakeholder pressure or generalized outrage. Are there any non-recruited athlete prospective students who are sitting around thinking "wow, Georgetown sounds great, but their baseball and volleyball programs are shoddy, so I don't know..."? I'd wager not. At the end of the day, pretty much all of the athletes graduate with a prestigious college degree - one that most of them could never have gotten without the athletics admission slot their participation earned them. They don't want to seem too ungrateful, for the most part. And the alumni professional networks (team-specific, athlete-specific, and otherwise) they enter by virtue of their place on the team are there whether they win the Big East title or go winless.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,408
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 29, 2014 19:51:30 GMT -5
Please, a "shot" neither intended not inferred. Jesuit values are Catholic values. Four years at a Jesuit high school and four years at Georgetown taught me that much. Back to the topic at hand, the recent NACDA Directors Cup finish (66th, highest of any non-Ivy school below I-A) reconfirms that while the Georgetown model may not work for everyone, it works for Georgetown. Of course, Georgetown got zero post-season points from four of its priority sports (men's basketball, women's basketball, men's lacrosse and men's outdoor track) so there's room for improvement. Rankings for other Big East schools: 1. Georgetown 66 2. Villanova 68 3. Providence 72 4. St. John's 76 5. DePaul 105 6. Marquette 119 7. Creighton 125 8. Butler 143 9. Xavier 221 10. Seton Hall 289 Another one of our priority sports, women's track, did not score points this year, although we can close with Rachel Schneider's 9th place finish at the NCAA (1-8 score points). The men and women have one of the best middle distance programs in the nation plus we are Steeple U, but it is hard to score in the top eight at the national meet. We did get 6 or 7 All-Americans (2nd team) by finishing 9-16 in the national meet.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,408
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 29, 2014 19:55:49 GMT -5
The athletic configuration at Georgetown is so unique that it thoroughly counfounds many newcomers into the program. Some of the poorest sports by record have the strongest fundraising; by contrast, a legacy sport like track is now near the bottom of annual support for men's teams. Every coach at Georgetown must deal with the alchemy around four issues to succeed: admissions, scholarships, facilities, and staff. And ironically, with the right mix, every single team at Georgetown could be nationally prominent, except that the budget won't support everyone getting to that level. Actually, men's track ranks 6th of 10 in men's team's support. And if I can help it, it will move up with the final reporting in a couple of days.
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,438
|
Post by lichoya68 on Jun 29, 2014 20:37:24 GMT -5
it IS about much more than just the bball in MANY ways some great other teams too sailing mens and womens soccer to just name a few and crowss country and track pretty darn good RIGHT VEGAS??? go hoyas ALL student athletes MORE than just the bball but bball pretty darn good and ready to rumble KENNER SOON>
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 29, 2014 20:47:58 GMT -5
Nevada, your other alma mater's annual giving to its track program, i.e., Cornell is 276k, maybe more than 3x Gtwn. Given the amount of resources that Gtwn spends on scholarships, major travel ,etc; the track alumni support financial support(you excluded of course)is very poor.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,408
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 30, 2014 21:14:14 GMT -5
Nevada, your other alma mater's annual giving to its track program, i.e., Cornell is 276k, maybe more than 3x Gtwn. Given the amount of resources that Gtwn spends on scholarships, major travel ,etc; the track alumni support financial support(you excluded of course)is very poor. Good to hear that Cornell's track alumni support is good, but sad to know that GU's alumni support is so low in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jul 1, 2014 14:09:16 GMT -5
Russky, I think if Gtwn announced that it was shifting resource allocations among programs more intelligently, the univ would avoid UMD's PR issues by simply cutting offerings due to overall budget issues.
Who cares about a bunch of poor athletic programs you questioned. I guess you're right, it doesn't matter if you don't care about wasting resources on a bunch of marginal programs--I guess all big organizations waste resources to a greater or lesser degree, so obviously Gtwn is ok with it. Strategically, it seems to make more sense to develop additional signature sports rather than tolerate marginal efforts-I would think that most constituencies could get behind that approach until the day comes when we have resources to be excellent across the board.
You are correct that the sports that probably should argue for a bigger piece of the resource pie don't really effectively lobby the univ now and are not likely to in the future: I agree that a change from our 29 sport approach would have to come from the top, i.e., BOD + President/Exec Staff.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 2, 2014 14:30:56 GMT -5
Russky, I think if Gtwn announced that it was shifting resource allocations among programs more intelligently, the univ would avoid UMD's PR issues by simply cutting offerings due to overall budget issues. Who cares about a bunch of poor athletic programs you questioned. I guess you're right, it doesn't matter if you don't care about wasting resources on a bunch of marginal programs--I guess all big organizations waste resources to a greater or lesser degree, so obviously Gtwn is ok with it. Strategically, it seems to make more sense to develop additional signature sports rather than tolerate marginal efforts-I would think that most constituencies could get behind that approach until the day comes when we have resources to be excellent across the board. You are correct that the sports that probably should argue for a bigger piece of the resource pie don't really effectively lobby the univ now and are not likely to in the future: I agree that a change from our 29 sport approach would have to come from the top, i.e., BOD + President/Exec Staff. This is a line of thinking that I haven't run by anyone involved in the Georgetown athletic or budgetary enterprise, so I don't know to what extent it actually is a consideration in people's minds, but it does seem to accord with everything else: As difficult as it is to discontinue a sports program, for reasons discussed earlier, starting a new one may be even more difficult. Money for new or expanded things at Georgetown is a zero sum game that is hotly contested. The status quo has a major advantage: we can continue funding things because we've been funding them for years. To fund new things, though, or to substantially increase funding for an existing program (academic, athletic, or otherwise) entails a great deal of internal lobbying and arguing. Given the increasingly low opinion of the NCAA broadly, and of big-time college athletics on elite campuses more specifically, starting up a new program would be a very tough sell. It would make sense, then, to believe that there's no way to cut a program in the hopes of restarting it later, when we've gotten others up to a high level. The only way to hold out any hope for ever moving a program up is to keep it around, because once it is gone, it's gone for good. The resulting strategy is to keep as many programs as possible, many of them on low simmer resource-wise. As long as there's a program, there's a steady flow of athlete alums and stakeholders who can do some fundraising to sustain the program and keep it around for when more athletic resources come available. Or when the general financial aid budget gets to Ivy levels and we can run many of those teams as competitive non-scholarship programs, since 3/4 of the school is basically on scholarship at that point.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,408
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 2, 2014 19:26:15 GMT -5
Each of the sports is given a goal each year in terms of (alumni and friends) giving. How realistic are these goals, in terms of getting the support needed for each sport? Right now all the sports have a good chance of getting at least 80% of their goal, with several sports having reached their goal already. Are they goals set, so that they can be achieved or goals that go a long way to give the support each sport needs?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jul 3, 2014 8:38:54 GMT -5
Each of the sports is given a goal each year in terms of (alumni and friends) giving. How realistic are these goals, in terms of getting the support needed for each sport? Right now all the sports have a good chance of getting at least 80% of their goal, with several sports having reached their goal already. Are they goals set, so that they can be achieved or goals that go a long way to give the support each sport needs? They're set to be achievable. Some are probably more aggressive than others, but overall, they're set in a way so as not to be dispiriting/embarrassing.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,408
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 3, 2014 12:05:10 GMT -5
Thanks Russky.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,475
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jul 7, 2014 7:58:53 GMT -5
Posts about Hoya Sailing World Championship moved here.
|
|