Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 9:05:39 GMT -5
except I don't think fan/base attendance is cured easily by a winning team. Even at our height our attendance was mediocre. In addition, it's very clear 1) the fans we have are very fickle good fan bases stick with their team through thick and thin. 2) No matter how decent our fan base becomes we will always be second fiddle to Maryland in the area and way down the pecking order behind the pro teams. As to academic standards how many of the schools listed in the article have them? Maybe Duke. We know the other schools don't. Would you call a school whose attendance ranked in the top 10 percent of Division I "mediocre"? In fact that was Georgetown from 2006-07 through 2012-13. The fan base issue is a direct result of a generation of alumni and local fans where Georgetown tacitly educated them that there is one (and only one) sport that matters and to ignore the rest. This leads to an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to support. You can't just turn on and off the interest like a spigot. When Georgetown continues to send the message to its fans and the local community that its products are either inferior (football), irrelevant (women's basketball) or not worth their time (lacrosse), then the fan base will rise and fall solely as a result of men's basketball and it will continue to suffer as a result. When GU athletics is only "relevant" four months during the year, you'll get a fan base worth four months a year. Creighton draws great for basketball, win or lose, but it's not unique to basketball. Being a Creighton fan is more than showing up to 15 home games in the winter. Saturday's baseball game with the Hoyas drew 8,258 despite it being broadcast statewide on over the air TV and well as the ESPN radio affiliate. By contrast, GU averages an announced crowd of 222 per baseball home game with zero media whatsoever. Are there more than 222 men, women or children in a metro area of 4.6 million who could support one of just two Division I baseball programs remaining in DC? Well, there ought to be. There is a small minority on this board who will suggest that any money spent on sports other than men's basketball is counterproductive and the more money basketball gets, the better. That's a very short-sighted approach. Does the fact that there aren't many other things to do in Omaha but support Creighton athletics fit into your equation here? You have half a million people in that city with limited entertainment options that has to factor in somewhere imo. Marquette and Creighton always seem to be top 20 teams in attendance and top 2 in our Conference currently fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/m_basketball_RB/Reports/attend/2014.pdfNot many teams in the top 30 of attendance are in large metro areas with Professional Sports. OT a bit maybe but going of the top 10% metric in 2014 the 4th ranked team by attendance was Creighton at 17,025 the 35th ranked team Alabama (10,754) averaged well over 6,000 less people per game that's a pretty sizable difference
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2016 9:59:08 GMT -5
Would you call a school whose attendance ranked in the top 10 percent of Division I "mediocre"? In fact that was Georgetown from 2006-07 through 2012-13. The fan base issue is a direct result of a generation of alumni and local fans where Georgetown tacitly educated them that there is one (and only one) sport that matters and to ignore the rest. This leads to an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to support. You can't just turn on and off the interest like a spigot. When Georgetown continues to send the message to its fans and the local community that its products are either inferior (football), irrelevant (women's basketball) or not worth their time (lacrosse), then the fan base will rise and fall solely as a result of men's basketball and it will continue to suffer as a result. When GU athletics is only "relevant" four months during the year, you'll get a fan base worth four months a year. Creighton draws great for basketball, win or lose, but it's not unique to basketball. Being a Creighton fan is more than showing up to 15 home games in the winter. Saturday's baseball game with the Hoyas drew 8,258 despite it being broadcast statewide on over the air TV and well as the ESPN radio affiliate. By contrast, GU averages an announced crowd of 222 per baseball home game with zero media whatsoever. Are there more than 222 men, women or children in a metro area of 4.6 million who could support one of just two Division I baseball programs remaining in DC? Well, there ought to be. There is a small minority on this board who will suggest that any money spent on sports other than men's basketball is counterproductive and the more money basketball gets, the better. That's a very short-sighted approach. A few thoughts: - I think the concerns over Georgetown's attendance are, to a large degree, overblown because we play at the Verizon Center instead of a smaller on-campus facility. I'm pretty confident that if we played in an 8,000 capacity arena on campus that we'd have sellouts for virtually every Big East game, and very good crowds for the out of conference games too. The difference is that those same numbers at the Verizon Center make it look empty. - I don't think Georgetown is sending the message that other sports don't matter - I think it's a recognition of the fact that Georgetown plays one high revenue and interest sport in basketball, and that's it. Outside the small Georgetown community and alumni, nobody could care less about lacrosse, football, or any other Georgetown sport. Granted, could more be done among the student body to try to increase interest? Maybe, but we are talking about very small numbers even if improved. - You cannot compare a school like Georgetown to Creighton when it comes to crowds, etc. Even in basketball, part of the reason Creighton draws so well is because there is not much else competing with Creighton basketball for an audience. Georgetown is in a town with other professional sports (including baseball, football, and basketball), too. The reality is that when a town has professional teams, the interest in college teams is often much diminished. - As far football, our program stinks and plays in a conference where it cannot possibly be competitive because it does not offer scholarships. Quite frankly, I don't know why anybody at Georgetown would show much interest in such a program, never mind outsiders. The football program as currently constituted costs a fair amount of money and brings virtually no positives beyond the extremely small number of people and alumni who enjoy it. More generally, outside a few top programs or historically significant ones (the Ivies, for example), nobody cares about FCS football. - I have no problem spending more money on other sports if it makes sense to do so. I think spending more on football is pointless. But, in other programs, it might make sense.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 9, 2016 10:19:19 GMT -5
except I don't think fan/base attendance is cured easily by a winning team. Even at our height our attendance was mediocre. In addition, it's very clear 1) the fans we have are very fickle good fan bases stick with their team through thick and thin. 2) No matter how decent our fan base becomes we will always be second fiddle to Maryland in the area and way down the pecking order behind the pro teams. As to academic standards how many of the schools listed in the article have them? Maybe Duke. We know the other schools don't. Would you call a school whose attendance ranked in the top 10 percent of Division I "mediocre"? In fact that was Georgetown from 2006-07 through 2012-13. The fan base issue is a direct result of a generation of alumni and local fans where Georgetown tacitly educated them that there is one (and only one) sport that matters and to ignore the rest. This leads to an "all or nothing" approach when it comes to support. You can't just turn on and off the interest like a spigot. When Georgetown continues to send the message to its fans and the local community that its products are either inferior (football), irrelevant (women's basketball) or not worth their time (lacrosse), then the fan base will rise and fall solely as a result of men's basketball and it will continue to suffer as a result. When GU athletics is only "relevant" four months during the year, you'll get a fan base worth four months a year. Creighton draws great for basketball, win or lose, but it's not unique to basketball. Being a Creighton fan is more than showing up to 15 home games in the winter. Saturday's baseball game with the Hoyas drew 8,258 despite it being broadcast statewide on over the air TV and well as the ESPN radio affiliate. By contrast, GU averages an announced crowd of 222 per baseball home game with zero media whatsoever. Are there more than 222 men, women or children in a metro area of 4.6 million who could support one of just two Division I baseball programs remaining in DC? Well, there ought to be. There is a small minority on this board who will suggest that any money spent on sports other than men's basketball is counterproductive and the more money basketball gets, the better. That's a very short-sighted approach. Not trying to compare our attendance to all of D1 that's dumb we're comparing our attendance to those of programs that are on our level of success. That's the point if we are trying to hire an established coach away from a program near our level. And in that regards it is mediocre at best. Yes a lot of that is the optics of the Verizon center. We would look a lot better in a 10,000 seat arena but only if we had a waiting list for tickets. The point is if you look just at the quality and prestige of the program we should draw better. We are one of the top 25 programs in the country the team should be supported as such. There are schools that we were ahead of in the rankings of attendance that likely would have out drawn us were they playing in a 20,000 seat arena. A lot of the problem is demographics. We're down the totem poll on the DC sports scene, we have a small undergrad population, and the overall negativity of our intellectual fan base. We don't have a large population of homers who support their team through thick and thin. DC being s very fair weather sports city adds to this The point is our fan base is a negative for attracting a big name coach. It's also a negative for a school like UCLA. Meanwhile it's a major plus at schools like syraucse, Xavier, Creighton who all have equal or worse pedigree than us.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 9, 2016 12:06:33 GMT -5
- I don't think Georgetown is sending the message that other sports don't matter - I think it's a recognition of the fact that Georgetown plays one high revenue and interest sport in basketball, and that's it. Outside the small Georgetown community and alumni, nobody could care less about lacrosse, football, or any other Georgetown sport. Granted, could more be done among the student body to try to increase interest? Maybe, but we are talking about very small numbers even if improved. Well, what about the city? This "small Georgetown community and alumni" is selling those numbers short--there are 40,000 alumni within an hour of the campus and 180,000 worldwide--but they can't go it alone. Most people have no interest in any sport that can't see or attend and the Hoya sports landscape might as well be behind a wall (pun intended) if you live in Northeast or PG or even Arlington. Georgetown sports have little or no visibility to the casual fan who isn't spending money on Redskins tickets, who isn't going to NBA games, and is familiar with Maryland games because they're on TV or in the Post. When was the last time the women's team played at Verizon Center? They never have. When was the last time the baseball team scheduled a game at Nationals Park? The reality is that when a town has professional teams, the interest in college teams is often much diminished. Doesn't seem to hurt USC. Or Pitt. Or Georgia Tech. Or (at least when they were winning), Boston College. When teams win, people take notice. - As far football, our program stinks and plays in a conference where it cannot possibly be competitive because it does not offer scholarships. Quite frankly, I don't know why anybody at Georgetown would show much interest in such a program, never mind outsiders. The football program as currently constituted costs a fair amount of money and brings virtually no positives beyond the extremely small number of people and alumni who enjoy it. More generally, outside a few top programs or historically significant ones (the Ivies, for example), nobody cares about FCS football. I have no problem spending more money on other sports if it makes sense to do so. I think spending more on football is pointless. But, in other programs, it might make sense. I'm not going to tie up a basketball thread with football numbers, only to say that if the Big East put the same constraints on Georgetown basketball that the Patriot League does to Georgetown football, we'd be asking why we're getting 800 a game in McDonough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 12:25:11 GMT -5
According to the chart USC and BC aren't in the top 100 in Basketball attendance. Tech is 75 and Pitt is 33... Regarding Pit unless they play their games on Sunday they don't really have to compete against the Steelers only Hockey I guess... Personally think those things matter but I'll bow out of this one...
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,775
|
Post by njhoya78 on May 9, 2016 13:46:22 GMT -5
This whole debate about attendance at Georgetown basketball games ignores the fact that, even in the "glory" days of the Patrick Ewing-led Hoyas, attendance was pretty much on a par with what we now have. On the whole, attendance has been slightly better at Verizon/USAir/MCI than at Capital Centre. www.hoyabasketball.com/records/attendance.htmSeems to me that, even with a winning product on the court, there are and will be limitations to what the Hoyas are going to draw at the gate. Based on the historical numbers, I think GU will do well to top off at 12,500 per game.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,605
|
Post by guru on May 9, 2016 14:12:47 GMT -5
- I think the concerns over Georgetown's attendance are, to a large degree, overblown because we play at the Verizon Center instead of a smaller on-campus facility. I'm pretty confident that if we played in an 8,000 capacity arena on campus that we'd have sellouts for virtually every Big East game, and very good crowds for the out of conference games too. The difference is that those same numbers at the Verizon Center make it look empty. This is among the most brain-dead things ever posted on this board. And that's saying something. Guess what? If we played in a 500 seat arena, we might even have a waiting list!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2016 14:25:41 GMT -5
- I think the concerns over Georgetown's attendance are, to a large degree, overblown because we play at the Verizon Center instead of a smaller on-campus facility. I'm pretty confident that if we played in an 8,000 capacity arena on campus that we'd have sellouts for virtually every Big East game, and very good crowds for the out of conference games too. The difference is that those same numbers at the Verizon Center make it look empty. This is among the most brain-dead things ever posted on this board. And that's saying something. Guess what? If we played in a 500 seat arena, we might even have a waiting list! Never miss a chance to throw an insult at me. Perhaps if you didn't take it out of context, you would have understood the point better. Obviously, the smaller arena, the easier it is to sell out. That wasn't the point. The bigger point is that sometimes people assume our attendance stinks because even at an "average" attendance of 10,000, Verizon Center is half full (or half empty, depending on your viewpoint). In the 2015 season, there were only 44 programs with attendance better than ours. These are average number of fans in attendance by rank: 1: 23,854 (Syracuse) 5: 17,279 (Wisconsin) 10: 15,569 (Nebraska) 15: 14,652 (Illinois) 20: 14,101 (Michigan St.) 25: 12,695 (Maryland) 30: 12,101 (Utah) 35: 11,120 (Oklahoma) 40: 10,177 (Alabama) 45: 9,630 (Georgetown) I mean, how much attendance is good enough for you? Most of the schools above Georgetown are public or large private schools, or schools in the middle of nowhere or smaller cities with no other big sports. And, if you look at the size of the student bodies, nearly all of them are bigger than Georgetown's. Our biggest average attendance EVER was 12,827 in 2009. For 2015 that would have ranked us at #24. I would argue that's probably about as good as it's going to get, barring the winning of some national championships. JT3 and the team had a ton of buzz at the beginning of his tenure, made the Sweet 16 quickly, and the Final Four, and we still only peaked at 12,827. Should we aim for better attendance? Of course, and I think having home games with Syracuse, Maryland, and Connecticut (and similar opponents) will help in the long run. I would love to see something in the 11,000 range on average, but I am also realistic. ADDED NOTE ON EDIT: Don't forget that the change in the Big East was a huge hit too. We no longer have the fan bases from Pittsburgh, Connecticut, WVU, etc. coming to Verizon and filling seats anymore. That accounted for much of our attendance in years past, and it's why attendance fell so much when the Big East reconstituted. Unfortunately, I am not sure there's much we can do about that. The Big East schools simply don't draw as much as away teams as the old Big East teams did.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 9, 2016 14:35:51 GMT -5
Well, what about the city? This "small Georgetown community and alumni" is selling those numbers short--there are 40,000 alumni within an hour of the campus and 180,000 worldwide--but they can't go it alone. Most people have no interest in any sport that can't see or attend and the Hoya sports landscape might as well be behind a wall (pun intended) if you live in Northeast or PG or even Arlington. Georgetown sports have little or no visibility to the casual fan who isn't spending money on Redskins tickets, who isn't going to NBA games, and is familiar with Maryland games because they're on TV or in the Post. When was the last time the women's team played at Verizon Center? They never have. When was the last time the baseball team scheduled a game at Nationals Park? I agree that people have no interest in what they cannot see or attend. Perhaps there should be measures to make some of the non-revenue sports made more visible online, etc. But, I think that's generally true in college sports. Outside of football, basketball, and a few of the schools that are big on baseball (like LSU), most people generally don't care about the other sports at any university. Granted, Georgetown's attendance numbers for non-revenue sports may be very low, and as I said, perhaps measures can be taken to improve that. I have no problem with that. The the baseball team doesn't play at Nationals Park is because there is so little interest it wouldn't be warranted. Combining a woman's game and men's game on the same ticket at the Verizon Center on a Saturday would be a good idea. As Yaboy noted, many of these programs have lower attendance than ours, so I am not sure what the point is here. I do completely agree that winning is the biggest boost we could get for basketball attendance. I totally agree that the Patriot League's rules are a major problem for the program, I just don't know that there's any other feasible path, but I'll leave that to the football discussion some other time.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 9, 2016 14:45:43 GMT -5
This whole debate about attendance at Georgetown basketball games ignores the fact that, even in the "glory" days of the Patrick Ewing-led Hoyas, attendance was pretty much on a par with what we now have. On the whole, attendance has been slightly better at Verizon/USAir/MCI than at Capital Centre. www.hoyabasketball.com/records/attendance.htmSeems to me that, even with a winning product on the court, there are and will be limitations to what the Hoyas are going to draw at the gate. Based on the historical numbers, I think GU will do well to top off at 12,500 per game. This. And the point is it doesn't matter that there are reasonable explanations why that's the case. The point is the fan base is a negative if we were trying to attract an A + hire. Why would Archie Miller leave the support he has at Dayton or Mack at Xavier or Marshall at Wichita St, to deal with our fan base which besides the numbers issue and fair weather nature is just not as rabid and supportive as most other fanbases. It's not just the quantity of fans but the quality of fans. Not saying everyone sucks, the stone walls do a great job, there are still some passionate students, most people here are passionate about the team(in some way or another), but on a whole our fan base's attitude wise is apathetic, and frankly pathetic. The posters who are the most negative like to act like their persecuted but if you read any other schools message board no matter their record it's more positive and full of more homers than what you see here. Our fans are much more reserved and not very fanatical at all.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on May 9, 2016 22:43:32 GMT -5
The school needs to get their act together athletically is the bottom line. I think DFW's point is well taken and something I've been saying for years. You can't hold yourself out in this one sport which most of you only care about and I get that. But then we continually fail at that (Go ahead and dial up the regular season records and seeds that only fell on their face - doesn't work and at any university investing as we do would lead to change) and you all stand there and make thousands of excuses and treat those that hold it accountable for its performance as the problem. I think you speak out of all sides of your mouths when those who seem to dominate this board speak. Common excuses "we are an "academic" school that isn't interested in stooping to what Duke and Kentucky and others do to be successful in basketball, we run the program the right way, etc. We are wasting our time and I'd rather see us spend our budget to be competitive across the board in more sports. You can't have it both ways. Put all the eggs in this underperforming program then take the criticism. I'm an alum like I think most of you are but the performance has been embarrassing for many years and more embarrassing is our acting like we are somehow not underperforming. Villanova not only just won an NC they are generally better than us at every other sport. So get off your horses.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 10, 2016 10:47:07 GMT -5
The school needs to get their act together athletically is the bottom line. I think DFW's point is well taken and something I've been saying for years. You can't hold yourself out in this one sport which most of you only care about and I get that. But then we continually fail at that (Go ahead and dial up the regular season records and seeds that only fell on their face - doesn't work and at any university investing as we do would lead to change) and you all stand there and make thousands of excuses and treat those that hold it accountable for its performance as the problem. I think you speak out of all sides of your mouths when those who seem to dominate this board speak. Common excuses "we are an "academic" school that isn't interested in stooping to what Duke and Kentucky and others do to be successful in basketball, we run the program the right way, etc. We are wasting our time and I'd rather see us spend our budget to be competitive across the board in more sports. You can't have it both ways. Put all the eggs in this underperforming program then take the criticism. I'm an alum like I think most of you are but the performance has been embarrassing for many years and more embarrassing is our acting like we are somehow not underperforming. Villanova not only just won an NC they are generally better than us at every other sport. So get off your horses. Villanova is not better than us at every other sport. Not even close. Where do you get this crazy ideas from? Nova has good basketball and cross country and that's it. We're much much better in men's and women's soccer for instance.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on May 10, 2016 11:18:12 GMT -5
The school needs to get their act together athletically is the bottom line. I think DFW's point is well taken and something I've been saying for years. You can't hold yourself out in this one sport which most of you only care about and I get that. But then we continually fail at that (Go ahead and dial up the regular season records and seeds that only fell on their face - doesn't work and at any university investing as we do would lead to change) and you all stand there and make thousands of excuses and treat those that hold it accountable for its performance as the problem. I think you speak out of all sides of your mouths when those who seem to dominate this board speak. Common excuses "we are an "academic" school that isn't interested in stooping to what Duke and Kentucky and others do to be successful in basketball, we run the program the right way, etc. We are wasting our time and I'd rather see us spend our budget to be competitive across the board in more sports. You can't have it both ways. Put all the eggs in this underperforming program then take the criticism. I'm an alum like I think most of you are but the performance has been embarrassing for many years and more embarrassing is our acting like we are somehow not underperforming. Villanova not only just won an NC they are generally better than us at every other sport. So get off your horses. Villanova is not better than us at every other sport. Not even close. Where do you get this crazy ideas from? Nova has good basketball and cross country and that's it. We're much much better in men's and women's soccer for instance. How about football and lacrosse for instance?
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on May 10, 2016 11:21:24 GMT -5
You said "every other sport" eagle. You have to own it man.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on May 10, 2016 11:58:10 GMT -5
You said "every other sport" eagle. You have to own it man. But owning it doesn't work when the facts don't fit the narrative. GU WLax has been far superior to Villanova. Can't really say who has been better between GU MLax and Villanova MLax over the past several years. I mean, no one would be illogical enough to argue superiority based on one year, would they? Guess it comes down to football then! LOL.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on May 10, 2016 15:46:19 GMT -5
The school needs to get their act together athletically is the bottom line. I think DFW's point is well taken and something I've been saying for years. You can't hold yourself out in this one sport which most of you only care about and I get that. But then we continually fail at that (Go ahead and dial up the regular season records and seeds that only fell on their face - doesn't work and at any university investing as we do would lead to change) and you all stand there and make thousands of excuses and treat those that hold it accountable for its performance as the problem. I think you speak out of all sides of your mouths when those who seem to dominate this board speak. Common excuses "we are an "academic" school that isn't interested in stooping to what Duke and Kentucky and others do to be successful in basketball, we run the program the right way, etc. We are wasting our time and I'd rather see us spend our budget to be competitive across the board in more sports. You can't have it both ways. Put all the eggs in this underperforming program then take the criticism. I'm an alum like I think most of you are but the performance has been embarrassing for many years and more embarrassing is our acting like we are somehow not underperforming. Villanova not only just won an NC they are generally better than us at every other sport. So get off your horses. eagle54, I sincerely want to avoid going over ground we've covered already in other threads, but I'll say: - It's ironic that you say or imply we should not put all of our eggs in one basket, yet your assertions of failure are based entirely on your perception of our basketball failures. - You judge the basketball program by March and dismiss any arguments to the contrary. Fair enough, if March is all that matters to you, then I guess I see where you're coming from. Still, I think saying we have been "embarassing for many years" is a bit of an exaggeration. Embarrassing for many years is DePaul or Rutgers. Have we had embarassing losses in March? Of course. Again, if you want to say we are "embarrassing for many years" based only on a few games in March, then I see where you're coming from (but I disagree). - As far as the other sports are concerned, others know more than me about them so I'll yield to them. However, I will say that this came up in the past, and I have not heard any concrete suggestions for what we can do to improve other sports. Obviously, the MSF and facilities were a huge problem, but once the improvements are made to "Cooper Field" and the practice facility is in place, I think things will be substantially improved in a lot of ways. This is a real question: beyond that, what more can we realistically do to help other sports? Other than scholarships in football (which the administration has explicitly rejected), I am not sure what expenditure of money will significantly raise the profile of other sports. Again, I don't know much about the other sports, so I'll let others speak to this. As DFW has pointed out before, Georgetown has a lot more varsity sports than a lot of other colleges, too. So, that alone probably means we are already spending more money than a lot of similarly situated universities. I just think there's a difference between focusing on one sport to the detriment of others, versus having one sport that is a high profile/high revenue sport, and then everything else. To some degree, the fact that we have big time basketball is a historical fortune (no hiring of Thompson Jr., and this message board might not even be here), and our lack of FBS football is at least in part due to the historical factors that got rid of it in the mid 20th century. It's actually pretty easily to think of an alternative history where we have a Division I-A FBS football program and a middling basketball program. The reason I say this is that decisions made 50+ years ago often have huge impacts on the present day. - I am partially with you on the "academic" thing. I actually don't fully buy the "academic," "we do things right," line as much as some do. I do think there is a certain academic standard that the university aspires to that's a turn off to a lot of guys - I mean, recruits themselves have said that in the past. I recall a tweet from Agau where he commented on how he did more work at Georgetown in one semester than in his entire time at Louisville. So, it's a reality, and I do think it prevents us from recruiting some players. All that being said, I don't use it as a major excuse - I mean, we aren't a blue blood anyway, so would we be bringing in these guys who don't care about academics at all anyway? Probably not, though I bet it does hurt at the margins. But, is that the reason we have lost in March? No, I don't think so. - Like you, I am alumnus, and I have found our March woes and last season particularly frustrating. I think one of our main differences has been where we see ourselves. Generally, I see Georgetown of the last 4-7 years as a program that has had a fair amount of regular season success, but struggled in March. Based on your posts, you clearly view the last several years much more negatively. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we have in the past. eagle, I sincerely am not trying to get into a board fight with you on this - I recognize our differences in point of view and I'm fine with that. In the end, we both do want a common goal, which is for the basketball program to perform better than it has in the last few years.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on May 10, 2016 16:58:46 GMT -5
Villanova is not better than us at every other sport. Not even close. Where do you get this crazy ideas from? Nova has good basketball and cross country and that's it. We're much much better in men's and women's soccer for instance. How about football and lacrosse for instance? Georgetown is far better than Villanova at lacrosse. This year is our worst year probably ever you can't go on one year. Football they're a different league and level since they offer scholarships so yeah they're better at Football. Finish in the BE Standings this year Baseball: Georgetown 4th Villanova 7th(last place) Basketball Mens: Georgetown 8th Villanova 1stBasketball Women's: Georgetown 5th Villanova 3rdCross Country Men: Georgetown 1st Villanova 2nd Cross Country Women: Georgetown 2nd Villanova 3rd Golf Men's: Georgetown 1st Villanova 9th(last) Golf Women's: Georgetown 2nd Villanova: N/A Field Hockey: Georgetown 6th (last) Villanova 4thLacrosse Men: Georgetown 3 way tie for 4th(also tie for last) Villanova 3rdLacrosse Women: Georgetown 4th Villanova 6th Soccer Men: Georgetown 1st Villanova 7th Soccer Women: Georgetown 2nd Villanova T-9th (also tied for last) Softball: Georgetown 8th (last) Villanova 2ndSwimming Men: Georgetown 2nd Villanova 4th Swimming Women: Georgetown 2nd Villanova 1stTennis Men: Georgetown 4th Villanova 8th (last) Tennis Women: Georgetown 4th Villanova 7th Indoor Track & Field Men: Georgetown 4th Villanova 1stIndoor Track & Field Women: Georgetown 4th Villanova 3rdVolleyball Georgetown T-8th Villanova T-2ndSailing Georgetown is amazing with multiple national titles, Villanova doesn't have a team so that's 2 more wins for Georgetown Rowing Men has a team Villanova doesn't. Both have women's teams: unable to find information to compare the two teams doesn't seem like either is particularly good. Villanova has women's water polo that we don't have so that's a win for them. So that's 13 wins for Georgetown vs. 11 for Villanova giving them football and one tie with Out door track still being played. So no Villanova isn't clearly better at all sports than us. Both have the same number of BE championships this year (3) and Villanova has one more last place finish than Georgetown 4 vs. 3. So over all Georgetown is the better school.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on May 10, 2016 20:06:16 GMT -5
You said "every other sport" eagle. You have to own it man. I'll own it but I think there are sports not many of us follow. I focus on a few sports so there are many I may be underselling. If I oversold that then you have my apologies. The only success I know we had is in Men's soccer a few years back when they played to the finals which I'm sure was against all odds as I know they were never supported all that well from the university. I know our lacrosse team (I'm talking men's) is in a bad place and been sliding for a long time. They were very good in the 90's and early 2000's. I think there was a thought they'd be improved this year but hasn't played out. For football not sure what we are doing as we aren't trying to compete for real and it's unfortunate as I don't think we fit anywhere anymore in that sport which I know has been debated elsewhere. If sailing, golf and others are better than Villanova than I apologize.
|
|
eagle54
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,471
|
Post by eagle54 on May 10, 2016 20:18:12 GMT -5
The school needs to get their act together athletically is the bottom line. I think DFW's point is well taken and something I've been saying for years. You can't hold yourself out in this one sport which most of you only care about and I get that. But then we continually fail at that (Go ahead and dial up the regular season records and seeds that only fell on their face - doesn't work and at any university investing as we do would lead to change) and you all stand there and make thousands of excuses and treat those that hold it accountable for its performance as the problem. I think you speak out of all sides of your mouths when those who seem to dominate this board speak. Common excuses "we are an "academic" school that isn't interested in stooping to what Duke and Kentucky and others do to be successful in basketball, we run the program the right way, etc. We are wasting our time and I'd rather see us spend our budget to be competitive across the board in more sports. You can't have it both ways. Put all the eggs in this underperforming program then take the criticism. I'm an alum like I think most of you are but the performance has been embarrassing for many years and more embarrassing is our acting like we are somehow not underperforming. Villanova not only just won an NC they are generally better than us at every other sport. So get off your horses. eagle54, I sincerely want to avoid going over ground we've covered already in other threads, but I'll say: - It's ironic that you say or imply we should not put all of our eggs in one basket, yet your assertions of failure are based entirely on your perception of our basketball failures. - You judge the basketball program by March and dismiss any arguments to the contrary. Fair enough, if March is all that matters to you, then I guess I see where you're coming from. Still, I think saying we have been "embarassing for many years" is a bit of an exaggeration. Embarrassing for many years is DePaul or Rutgers. Have we had embarassing losses in March? Of course. Again, if you want to say we are "embarrassing for many years" based only on a few games in March, then I see where you're coming from (but I disagree). - As far as the other sports are concerned, others know more than me about them so I'll yield to them. However, I will say that this came up in the past, and I have not heard any concrete suggestions for what we can do to improve other sports. Obviously, the MSF and facilities were a huge problem, but once the improvements are made to "Cooper Field" and the practice facility is in place, I think things will be substantially improved in a lot of ways. This is a real question: beyond that, what more can we realistically do to help other sports? Other than scholarships in football (which the administration has explicitly rejected), I am not sure what expenditure of money will significantly raise the profile of other sports. Again, I don't know much about the other sports, so I'll let others speak to this. As DFW has pointed out before, Georgetown has a lot more varsity sports than a lot of other colleges, too. So, that alone probably means we are already spending more money than a lot of similarly situated universities. I just think there's a difference between focusing on one sport to the detriment of others, versus having one sport that is a high profile/high revenue sport, and then everything else. To some degree, the fact that we have big time basketball is a historical fortune (no hiring of Thompson Jr., and this message board might not even be here), and our lack of FBS football is at least in part due to the historical factors that got rid of it in the mid 20th century. It's actually pretty easily to think of an alternative history where we have a Division I-A FBS football program and a middling basketball program. The reason I say this is that decisions made 50+ years ago often have huge impacts on the present day. - I am partially with you on the "academic" thing. I actually don't fully buy the "academic," "we do things right," line as much as some do. I do think there is a certain academic standard that the university aspires to that's a turn off to a lot of guys - I mean, recruits themselves have said that in the past. I recall a tweet from Agau where he commented on how he did more work at Georgetown in one semester than in his entire time at Louisville. So, it's a reality, and I do think it prevents us from recruiting some players. All that being said, I don't use it as a major excuse - I mean, we aren't a blue blood anyway, so would we be bringing in these guys who don't care about academics at all anyway? Probably not, though I bet it does hurt at the margins. But, is that the reason we have lost in March? No, I don't think so. - Like you, I am alumnus, and I have found our March woes and last season particularly frustrating. I think one of our main differences has been where we see ourselves. Generally, I see Georgetown of the last 4-7 years as a program that has had a fair amount of regular season success, but struggled in March. Based on your posts, you clearly view the last several years much more negatively. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one as we have in the past. eagle, I sincerely am not trying to get into a board fight with you on this - I recognize our differences in point of view and I'm fine with that. In the end, we both do want a common goal, which is for the basketball program to perform better than it has in the last few years. HoyaSaxa, I appreciate the well constructed post. I know we've disagreed on this in the past and we can continue to debate it. I'm fine with regular season success but if continually met with post season failures than I deem the season a failure and I count the NCAA's as post season not the NIT or BE tournament. To me no different than finishing a regular season in any sport with a great record and failing in the playoffs. Those are thought of as failures by most at least from my experience. My point on basketball is simple. It's fairly clear the University has put everything behind this sport and does little to support or care for many of the other teams. I get the reasons why to some extent but I can't understand if we do that how we don't demand better results from it. Same argument but we speak out of both sides of our mouth with that one. We want to be considered a top program that can compete but then many here at least don't want to hear how we aren't getting it done. They just make excuses why we can't compete and what hamstrings this program and why we should just be happy with what we are. Either hold it out there and demand success or back up and reassess what we are trying to accomplish. I'll also say this. I know this board is full of a few of the diehards that live and die with this program. They are protective of it but I don't think they reflect the general sentiment of the alumni base who would be a large portion of our fans. As I talk to them they are fairly dismissive of the program and have lost interest. I think that the general fan is falling into a place of apathy as there's little faith this regime can get it done.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Jun 1, 2016 9:46:28 GMT -5
Looks like coach is shaking up his staff. New blood should be a positive,
|
|