|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 21, 2014 17:34:22 GMT -5
1) "The status quo will not be acceptable if we sit pat. It's easy to say that the administration doesn't care about football, but ten consecutive 1-10 seasons would create some issues." I don't really think it would create any problems. The administration still wouldn't care at that point. I don't think there's a big difference between that and regularly going between 2 and 4 win seasons to 95% of our alumni and current students. 2) "What if football raised $5M over a decade and there were simply a new $5M raised every decade? In thirty years, you've got $15M raised (in today's dollars) and roughly $500K more to spend every year on buy-outs. Again, we're not hoisting the I-AA trophy with that, but it's significant." This is some really back of the napkin math but: 1) I'm skeptical that $5M could be raised every decade solely for football financial aid, 2) $30M in thirty years is not covering $500k annually in buy outs, nor would $500k annually in 30 years be much more than a drop in the bucket, I mean we're talking like 5-7 full scholarships. [/quote] As for (1), we may well find out. And as for (2), it used to be that the endowment paid 3% annually of any corpus, so that would be $450K if the corpus were $15M. Maybe it's lower -- even significantly lower -- in today's investment environment. In any event, I don't disagree that even that amount doesn't get us too far toward the current I-AA limit.
|
|
|
Post by indianhoop on Nov 21, 2014 17:56:58 GMT -5
I think there is something to the "football culture" and apathy toward the program in general.
I've mentioned this here in the past, but there are very, very few living GTown alumni who remember GTown playing football at the highest level. Not to denigrate Club or D3 (or even MAAC) football, but it's not an event to really rally the campus or alums. Basically, football as a rallying point for GTown alums/students, didn't exist for about a half century from 1950-2000.
Contrast that to Holy Cross who while hanging on at the FBS/1-A level in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and then having success at the FCS level in the 1980s, football remained a very big part of the student/alumni experience. I mention this, not so much to gloat over HC's superior support but how HC's football support from alums/students/subway alumni in CMass has waned dramitically since HC joined the Patriot League. The non-scholarship era (1992-2012) just about killed HC football in terms of support/interest.
The big question out there now is: will a full scholarship team and games against the likes of BC and Syracuse revive interest in HC football???
We have had high-powered alums in the past who were very involved in the football program such as Edward Bennett Williams but it remains to be seen if there are other HC alums who will ever get involved like that again in 2014 and moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 21, 2014 18:58:57 GMT -5
[quote author=" aleutianhoya" source="/post/605394/thread" timestamp="1416609262" As for (1), we may well find out. And as for (2), it used to be that the endowment paid 3% annually of any corpus, so that would be $450K if the corpus were $15M. Maybe it's lower -- even significantly lower -- in today's investment environment. In any event, I don't disagree that even that amount doesn't get us too far toward the current I-AA limit. [/quote] Well on #1, we basically saw this already with the entirety of Kevin Kelly's first contract. The school didn't even think about replacing him despite the team being miserable. That's pretty obvious apathy.
|
|
|
Post by puppydog100 on Nov 21, 2014 20:22:02 GMT -5
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Nov 21, 2014 22:49:32 GMT -5
Some great posts on this thread which is good to see since there wasn't much interest or posts all season. If you look through the game day post numbers through the years they are steadily declining which I think is an indicator of the interest in the program.
I think good points all around on the topic though many that have been discussed for many years. Does seem like a good time to bring up again with the Lee Reed interview.
I still struggle to understand why we can't do what other PL schools are doing to keep up in football. I've posted before on this and people shoot it down but there needs to be some deeper research as to why we don't have resources that Patriot League Schools have for this sport. This football board has become circular in the arguments as to why we can't do many things without challenging what is different about us versus others.
I think we are getting negative returns in the interest in the sport. I once gave to the program religiously ever year but have stopped. I still give the same to Georgetown but won't give to football or athletics until I see some future that I can believe in. I do feel for the current staff and players as they deserve better.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 22, 2014 2:17:30 GMT -5
I still struggle to understand why we can't do what other PL schools are doing to keep up in football. I've posted before on this and people shoot it down but there needs to be some deeper research as to why we don't have resources that Patriot League Schools have for this sport. This football board has become circular in the arguments as to why we can't do many things without challenging what is different about us versus others. This has been answered a thousand times. Not liking the answer doesn't make it circular.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 22, 2014 2:32:42 GMT -5
I still struggle to understand why we can't do what other PL schools are doing to keep up in football. I've posted before on this and people shoot it down but there needs to be some deeper research as to why we don't have resources that Patriot League Schools have for this sport. This football board has become circular in the arguments as to why we can't do many things without challenging what is different about us versus others. This has been answered a thousand times. Not liking the answer doesn't make it circular. Actually, it hasn't been answered. The issue follows how financial aid is allocated at other PL schools versus Georgetown. At Fordham, it maintained athletic financial aid within the athletic department, so when the decision was made to move from need-based equivalencies to scholarships, it involved no net increase in funding because the money was reallocated on the general ledger. At a school like Bucknell, where some of the funds were in athletics and some in general aid, there was a need for a transfer payment to recognize that additional aid as a scholarship. At Georgetown, all non-grant financial aid comes from the Office of Financial Aid's budget, not Athletics, just as the decision to admit the players still comes from Admissions and not through the fiat of the coaches. The question of moving general use funds into a specific department's cost center is a bigger question than merely one sport and tends to get bogged down in the sheer bureaucracy that runs Georgetown, moreso than that of its peers. Remember, this is the place that has been debating the move to a 4-4 curriculum since 1983 and it still can't implement it.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 22, 2014 14:33:53 GMT -5
This has been answered a thousand times. Not liking the answer doesn't make it circular. Actually, it hasn't been answered. The issue follows how financial aid is allocated at other PL schools versus Georgetown. At Fordham, it maintained athletic financial aid within the athletic department, so when the decision was made to move from need-based equivalencies to scholarships, it involved no net increase in funding because the money was reallocated on the general ledger. At a school like Bucknell, where some of the funds were in athletics and some in general aid, there was a need for a transfer payment to recognize that additional aid as a scholarship. At Georgetown, all non-grant financial aid comes from the Office of Financial Aid's budget, not Athletics, just as the decision to admit the players still comes from Admissions and not through the fiat of the coaches. The question of moving general use funds into a specific department's cost center is a bigger question than merely one sport and tends to get bogged down in the sheer bureaucracy that runs Georgetown, moreso than that of its peers. Remember, this is the place that has been debating the move to a 4-4 curriculum since 1983 and it still can't implement it. That's not the question he was asking.
|
|
cheer48
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 180
|
Post by cheer48 on Nov 22, 2014 15:13:49 GMT -5
Great, great game Hoyas....thanks for this season....you played with a lot of heart....Congrats Coach and staff !
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 22, 2014 17:52:59 GMT -5
Great, great game Hoyas....thanks for this season....you played with a lot of heart....Congrats Coach and staff ! Wrong thread. This is the one where we complain.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Nov 23, 2014 21:17:05 GMT -5
POD, it is the question I asked. Quit hating on everybody.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 23, 2014 21:38:41 GMT -5
Russky- What is your best guess for what Reed meant by "very exciting news" about the MSF? Do you think some sort of a permanent seating structure at $5-10MM is out of the question? Did they not already raise $12mm? I have no idea about the status of the money that was already raised. Presumably it is sitting somewhere, accruing interest. I was struck during the Planning 301 session this week that the MSF was entirely absent from it. That is to say, in presenting their early sketch of what the ~2018-2038 Campus Plan will look like, the MSF is simply not mentioned. What this indicates to me is an assumption by Robin Morey & Co. that the MSF will be in its 'final' state by the time the Plan comes up for submission. What that final state looks like, I have no idea. Aesthetics has emerged as much more of a priority than in decades past, so I do think the final design will be dignified, if nothing else. I think we can all tick off the bare minima: permanent restrooms and concession facilities, permanent stands, a press box that doesn't look like a Nebraska outhouse, landscaping/hardscaping, something other than crushed gravel for the walking surface. That seems like the sort of thing that it doable within budgetary realities. Russky you seem to be in "the in and know" and pretty damned fatalistic about a relatively small increment in planning/funding for something that a whole lot of us would not only enjoy but to which we might even contribute. To whom belongs, and why, the "pig-headed" attitude toward the program of which you seem to be a part and.... with which also seem you to have a penchant to gore us. A simple apology accompanies this note if I am dead wrong in this perspective of things I calls 'em as I sees 'em. More to the point: I think 'we' - by which I mean Georgetown fans - all need to be on the same page as to what the realities are. Only then can 'we' put our collective mental energies (and, in the case of the more fortunate among us, pocketbooks) toward realistic plans for progress. As to the fungibility point, I meant that the money would be fungible within the program or, perhaps, within athletics depending on the donor. It's a tired trope that all funding is fungible. If that were true, university development wouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year researching just what to approach certain donors about and cultivating their interests. Simply put, someone may well donate $1M to football but not give more than $10K to any other area of the school. Sure, some donors don't give a hoot and I get that some donations to football take away from other sports or other university priorities. But not all of it. I know that from direct experience on both sides of the table. Note that I didn't say "all funding is fungible" or "fundraising money is fungible" - I too have been involved in that line of work on Georgetown's behalf. What I said was "money is fungible" in response to your statement that "In the meantime, the best we can do is raise money, which can be used fungibly moving forward!" Having already explained why I think fundraising specifically for football as an institutional priority is not in the cards, I was addressing what I thought was your point - that in the meantime, Georgetown can keep raising money (which it will) and then allocate those fungible funds toward football (which it won't). This is true even of the truly fungible/minimally-restricted funds that are theoretically open to being allocated to football.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 23, 2014 22:09:55 GMT -5
The issue follows how financial aid is allocated at other PL schools versus Georgetown. At Fordham, it maintained athletic financial aid within the athletic department, so when the decision was made to move from need-based equivalencies to scholarships, it involved no net increase in funding because the money was reallocated on the general ledger. At a school like Bucknell, where some of the funds were in athletics and some in general aid, there was a need for a transfer payment to recognize that additional aid as a scholarship. At Georgetown, all non-grant financial aid comes from the Office of Financial Aid's budget, not Athletics, just as the decision to admit the players still comes from Admissions and not through the fiat of the coaches. The question of moving general use funds into a specific department's cost center is a bigger question than merely one sport and tends to get bogged down in the sheer bureaucracy that runs Georgetown, moreso than that of its peers. Remember, this is the place that has been debating the move to a 4-4 curriculum since 1983 and it still can't implement it. ...I have no idea what you're arguing. Elaborate, please? Specifically: "The question of moving general use funds into a specific department's cost center is a bigger question than merely one sport and tends to get bogged down in the sheer bureaucracy that runs Georgetown, moreso than that of its peers." Huh? Need-based financial aid money all comes out of the general financial aid pool. This is not a fixed amount for the football team, because obviously it changes each year. It changes for each player each year, for that matter. Scholarship equivalency/buyout money lives within the football budget and is transferred from their funds (cost centers were replaced by "work tags" with the rollout of GMS Financials) to the Office of Student Financial Services account to cover charges on a player-by-player basis. This isn't any different than it is for, say, graduate programs, who must transfer money from their accounts to OSFS to make good on graduate scholarships. So, I have no idea what alternate arrangement you're proposing. The process isn't always as smooth as one would like, but the issue here is not things being "bogged down in the sheer bureaucracy that runs Georgetown" - this is how departmental financial aid works, period. Also, I don't recall the 4-4 curriculum being seriously discussed at the undergraduate level since the last academic review. There are 0 plans to implement it.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 24, 2014 0:21:27 GMT -5
POD, it is the question I asked. Quit hating on everybody. Read Russky's reply above. DFW didn't answer anything you were asking.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Nov 26, 2014 22:47:05 GMT -5
I think if you look back to what's been posted, you are the one being circular in the responses. Redirecting constantly to a different post. Fairly common from what I've read from you in the past as I don't know what your overall point or position is about the program.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 27, 2014 1:01:56 GMT -5
I think if you look back to what's been posted, you are the one being circular in the responses. Redirecting constantly to a different post. Fairly common from what I've read from you in the past as I don't know what your overall point or position is about the program. Because I don't feeling like trying to rephrase what Russky is saying. He has had the best and most informed responses on the topic. Just read his answers and you won't have any more questions, unless you're going to keep asking until you get an answer you like.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Nov 29, 2014 21:48:23 GMT -5
Something still not adding up? I feel like we keep giving same answers to the age old questions. We'll never move past this unless we start to challenge what is our current state. If this is what it is then what is the point?
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on Dec 6, 2014 23:29:46 GMT -5
Just checking back in. Apathy for sure in the football program. Just look at the # of posts per game and volume of interest for anything through the years. Football needs a shot in the arm in the form of new investment for stadium, an indication we are willing to compete with the Patriot League, etc. but not sure that is coming.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,596
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Dec 9, 2014 0:13:05 GMT -5
Just checking back in. Apathy for sure in the football program. Just look at the # of posts per game and volume of interest for anything through the years. Football needs a shot in the arm in the form of new investment for stadium, an indication we are willing to compete with the Patriot League, etc. but not sure that is coming. Let me save you the suspense: it's not.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,733
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 9, 2014 6:22:48 GMT -5
Just checking back in. Apathy for sure in the football program. Just look at the # of posts per game and volume of interest for anything through the years. Football needs a shot in the arm in the form of new investment for stadium, an indication we are willing to compete with the Patriot League, etc. but not sure that is coming. Let me save you the suspense: it's not. Like many things at Georgetown, it's not that simple. The issues of program investment and conference commitment are different issues. Remember, Bob Benson spent a lot of human capital to get the MSF going and it failed him; conversely, Kevin Kelly exhibited a hands-off approach and that's why the MSF of 2014 is the same as the MSF of 2006. Coach Sgarlata has to figure out what works for him and make that case to the constituents.
|
|