DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 12, 2005 9:04:29 GMT -5
"I never want a kid who we're recruiting to feel like he is getting something less because our locker room or weight room isn't as nice as another school's," Roberts said. "When recruits walk through this building they will see that the school has a real commitment to the program. They will see they're going to be surrounded by nice things." www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/story/318223p-272175c.html
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 12, 2005 10:36:16 GMT -5
"I never want a kid who we're recruiting to feel like he is getting something less because our locker room or weight room isn't as nice as another school's," Roberts said. "When recruits walk through this building they will see that the school has a real commitment to the program. They will see they're going to be surrounded by nice things." www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/story/318223p-272175c.htmlI respect and agree with your issues about facilities and getting a new arena. But I think you and the author of that article are going a little overboard about why recruits play for different schools. We will see the difference 10 years from now between what Roberts has accomplished and JTIII has accomplished. I guarantee you JTIII will win by a landslide. There are a lot of schools with great facilities and great arenas that don't win, don't recruit kids, and don't have succesful programs. Kids do not come (with regard to basketball) to college because of facilities. Recruits come because of the coach and the tradition of the schools. Look at our recruiting class this year and the following year after that. It all starts with the Head Coach. And we have a great one.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 12, 2005 12:13:49 GMT -5
Amen, way. A lot of the so-called arguments in favor of the on-campus arena remind me of Little Leaguers shopping for baseball bats. Newsflash: Baseball bats do not make people get hits. Baseball players get hits with or without top of the line baseball bats.
The same applies here. If you throw some of our teams and coaches from three years prior into an on-campus gym, the result would have been exactly the same. New basketball hoops, new cushioned chairs on the bench, and more spacious locker rooms were not going to save us. A 200 pound weight from 15 years ago is the same thing as a 200 pound weight that we bought yesterday.
In terms of recruiting, this remains to be seen, but I'll take our current facilities if it means we can get players like Summers and Rivers and lead for Vernon Macklin. That's a top 5 or top 10 recruiting class right there. On the other hand, the RAC will never be able to save Rutgers, for example, because the head coach is VERY WEAK.
All of this said, I am very supportive of building a new arena. I think it would represent a huge upgrade for the program and fans. I just disagree with some of the arguments that are offered in favor of it. Some of them are exaggerations and are not very strong IMO when you examine them in daylight.
|
|
rccoleon
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 448
|
Post by rccoleon on Jun 12, 2005 12:37:50 GMT -5
while i agree with your sentiments i do think that when a recruit walks into a state of the art facility he is going to be impressed. the player is going to realize that whatever he needs to be a better player are going to be there for him. i think our facilities need to be improved. i dont necissarily believe that that means an on campus arena. i believe we can have stellar facilities and still play at MCI. i think with better facilities we will make better impressions with players. JT III is certainly doing a hell of a job right now and i hope he continues this stellar recruiting, but we eventually want to be able to move up to recruit the all american players in the top 20.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 12, 2005 12:53:14 GMT -5
while i agree with your sentiments i do think that when a recruit walks into a state of the art facility he is going to be impressed. the player is going to realize that whatever he needs to be a better player are going to be there for him. i think our facilities need to be improved. i dont necissarily believe that that means an on campus arena. i believe we can have stellar facilities and still play at MCI. i think with better facilities we will make better impressions with players. JT III is certainly doing a hell of a job right now and i hope he continues this stellar recruiting, but we eventually want to be able to move up to recruit the all american players in the top 20. Again, you fail to realize top 20 basketball players don't come because of facilities. Its the head coach, the player's relationship with that head coach, and the belief that you will become a better basketball player. Good head coaches recruit the best players through talent evaluation, not polls or rankings that are a lot of times, off the mark. A coach,your ability to work hard, and having the ability to improve will make you a better player, not facilities.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jun 12, 2005 12:59:50 GMT -5
Way and Jersey, to me you guys are missing a larger point to some extent. Getting a new arena helps in a variety of ways- not the least of which is that it makes it easier to afford a coach like 3 because we're not paying through the nose for MCI.
But as far as recruiting goes, you have to understand, we compete against the UConns and Syracuses and even Dukes of the world. You walk into a school where they have their own gym, decorated with their banners, their way, and you know the seats will be filled- it makes an automatic good impression. It would give our coach a huge leg up to be able to have that- and, by the way, he has said as much. A lot harder to recruit players, coaches, and administrators if you have a 1940s unrenovated glorified HS gym to work with.
Keep in mind, 3 could recruit anywhere, with anything. But wouldn't it be nice to give him a full range of tools instead of forcing him to recruit with one hand tied behind his back?
And then, who's to say that, without investment in the program and its facilities, we will even be able to keep 3 for very long?
This is too important to be lost in relativism. He wants it, we want it, the Ath Dept wants it- we HAVE to keep pushing this.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 12, 2005 13:30:42 GMT -5
Way and Jersey, to me you guys are missing a larger point to some extent. Getting a new arena helps in a variety of ways- not the least of which is that it makes it easier to afford a coach like 3 because we're not paying through the nose for MCI. But as far as recruiting goes, you have to understand, we compete against the UConns and Syracuses and even Dukes of the world. You walk into a school where they have their own gym, decorated with their banners, their way, and you know the seats will be filled- it makes an automatic good impression. It would give our coach a huge leg up to be able to have that- and, by the way, he has said as much. A lot harder to recruit players, coaches, and administrators if you have a 1940s unrenovated glorified HS gym to work with. Keep in mind, 3 could recruit anywhere, with anything. But wouldn't it be nice to give him a full range of tools instead of forcing him to recruit with one hand tied behind his back? And then, who's to say that, without investment in the program and its facilities, we will even be able to keep 3 for very long? This is too important to be lost in relativism. He wants it, we want it, the Ath Dept wants it- we HAVE to keep pushing this. YB, I think your arguments are among the strongest I've heard on this matter, and, as you know, I am favorable to building a new on-campus arena. In terms of recruiting, I am willing to concede some ground, but I still view facilities as secondary to coaching in terms of recruiting, like way does. You throw one of our former coaches into a new on-campus arena, and the recruiting was not going to improve much, if at all. BTW, it might not be good to mention UCONN, as they were hot on Summers' trail and may have indeed offered him a scholarship. The point on coach retention is very important, and I could not agree more. In the end, my hope is that we will be able to draw 15000-20000 per night at MCI, which I think we can do. If we're a top 15 team, which I think we will be during the coming years, people turn out for that, even in Washington. If that turns out to be the case, we should play very few games in McD. Having games in MCI gives us greater opportunity for tv exposure and publicity because, even if we renovate McD, the parking lot is very small in terms of being able to service tv trucks/equipment in addition to other important parking needs. Additionally, some more lazy journalists will probably avoid making a trip in rush hour traffic across the city to cover a game in McD. MCI, on the other hand, is one of the most accessible places in the city. Anyway, it will be interesting to hear what AD Muir has to say because I am sure he'll get the "McDonough renovations" question at some point during his honeymoon tour or during local meet and greets.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 12, 2005 13:33:15 GMT -5
while i agree with your sentiments i do think that when a recruit walks into a state of the art facility he is going to be impressed. the player is going to realize that whatever he needs to be a better player are going to be there for him. i think our facilities need to be improved. i dont necissarily believe that that means an on campus arena. i believe we can have stellar facilities and still play at MCI. i think with better facilities we will make better impressions with players. JT III is certainly doing a hell of a job right now and i hope he continues this stellar recruiting, but we eventually want to be able to move up to recruit the all american players in the top 20. Again, you fail to realize top 20 basketball players don't come because of facilities. Its the head coach, the player's relationship with that head coach, and the belief that you will become a better basketball player. Good head coaches recruit the best players through talent evaluation, not polls or rankings that are a lot of times, off the mark. A coach,your ability to work hard, and having the ability to improve will make you a better player, not facilities. Just because it is not always the defining aspect, doesn't mean that it has no effect at all. Nothing is 100% effective. Does that mean we should do nothing?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 12, 2005 13:34:09 GMT -5
Way and Jersey, to me you guys are missing a larger point to some extent. Getting a new arena helps in a variety of ways- not the least of which is that it makes it easier to afford a coach like 3 because we're not paying through the nose for MCI. But as far as recruiting goes, you have to understand, we compete against the UConns and Syracuses and even Dukes of the world. You walk into a school where they have their own gym, decorated with their banners, their way, and you know the seats will be filled- it makes an automatic good impression. It would give our coach a huge leg up to be able to have that- and, by the way, he has said as much. A lot harder to recruit players, coaches, and administrators if you have a 1940s unrenovated glorified HS gym to work with. Keep in mind, 3 could recruit anywhere, with anything. But wouldn't it be nice to give him a full range of tools instead of forcing him to recruit with one hand tied behind his back? And then, who's to say that, without investment in the program and its facilities, we will even be able to keep 3 for very long? This is too important to be lost in relativism. He wants it, we want it, the Ath Dept wants it- we HAVE to keep pushing this. YB, I think your arguments are among the strongest I've heard on this matter, and, as you know, I am favorable to building a new on-campus arena. In terms of recruiting, I am willing to concede some ground, but I still view facilities as secondary to coaching in terms of recruiting, like way does. You throw one of our former coaches into a new on-campus arena, and the recruiting was not going to improve much, if at all. BTW, it might not be good to mention UCONN, as they were hot on Summers' trail and may have indeed offered him a scholarship. The point on coach retention is very important, and I could not agree more. Anyway, it will be interesting to hear what AD Muir has to say because I am sure he'll get the "McDonough renovations" question at some point during his honeymoon tour or during local meet and greets. So facilities are secondary. Great. So we shouldn't do anything about them? And if you say we should, was there a real point to your first post?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 12, 2005 13:35:55 GMT -5
YB, I think your arguments are among the strongest I've heard on this matter, and, as you know, I am favorable to building a new on-campus arena. In terms of recruiting, I am willing to concede some ground, but I still view facilities as secondary to coaching in terms of recruiting, like way does. You throw one of our former coaches into a new on-campus arena, and the recruiting was not going to improve much, if at all. BTW, it might not be good to mention UCONN, as they were hot on Summers' trail and may have indeed offered him a scholarship. The point on coach retention is very important, and I could not agree more. Anyway, it will be interesting to hear what AD Muir has to say because I am sure he'll get the "McDonough renovations" question at some point during his honeymoon tour or during local meet and greets. So facilities are secondary. Great. So we shouldn't do anything about them? And if you say we should, was there a real point to your first post? I just disagree with the rhetoric of some posters on this matter and find it dangerous in the long run. Irrationally increasing expectations for the arena could cause problems in the end if the results do not comport with what was originally anticipated.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jun 12, 2005 13:42:13 GMT -5
I just disagree with the rhetoric of some posters on this matter and find it dangerous in the long run. Irrationally increasing expectations for the arena could cause problems in the end if the results do not comport with what was originally anticipated. Can you explain this further?
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 12, 2005 13:48:16 GMT -5
Way and Jersey, to me you guys are missing a larger point to some extent. Getting a new arena helps in a variety of ways- not the least of which is that it makes it easier to afford a coach like 3 because we're not paying through the nose for MCI. But as far as recruiting goes, you have to understand, we compete against the UConns and Syracuses and even Dukes of the world. You walk into a school where they have their own gym, decorated with their banners, their way, and you know the seats will be filled- it makes an automatic good impression. It would give our coach a huge leg up to be able to have that- and, by the way, he has said as much. A lot harder to recruit players, coaches, and administrators if you have a 1940s unrenovated glorified HS gym to work with. Keep in mind, 3 could recruit anywhere, with anything. But wouldn't it be nice to give him a full range of tools instead of forcing him to recruit with one hand tied behind his back? And then, who's to say that, without investment in the program and its facilities, we will even be able to keep 3 for very long? This is too important to be lost in relativism. He wants it, we want it, the Ath Dept wants it- we HAVE to keep pushing this. We are not missing the larger point. I am talking about recruiting. What you are missing is the understanding of the college basketball landscape and what REALLY goes on in recruiting. Facilities are far from a recruit's mind when choosing a school. Its like so many people have so many complaints on this board about what we DON'T have, its like begging for the ultimate gloom. I get tired of it. Everybody knows what should happen for this basketball program and they expound and pontificate until the cows come home about what "should happen" and "what we are not doing", but they do nothing about it. Everytime something good happens for this program recently (new coach hire, new AD hire, a winning season, 2 good recruiting classes,etc.) there are always some people who still want to harp on old and tired sentiments of not having a new arena, woe is us, we aren't Duke, we aren't Syracuse, we aren't UCONN. It gets really old. Again, it starts with the Head Coach. That is the reason recruits come and why the team wins. JTIII is a smart man and a smart coach, and he is going to get the job done and has been getting it done a lot faster than a lot of "non-believers" ever thought. If JTIII wins the title next year (unlikely, but I wouldn't mind), then some of you on this board will say, "well if we had better facilities and a new arena, he would have won 2 titles by now" or "well, Coach K has 3 titles and Calhoun has 2 and Boheim has 1, winning one is nothing to be excited about since we are competing against the likes of those teams. Recruits will look at that and not come to our school." Unbelievable!
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jun 12, 2005 13:54:12 GMT -5
I don't think it's a matter of increasing expectations as increasing pressure. We can reasonably expect that with a groundswell of support and while things are going well, we should get more support for the arena. It is important that the pressue be continuously applied for that- the admin responds to pressure. They need to know why this is important.
I mean, I never found the expectations argument effective. Why do anything well? Why hire 3? Why try to win? It only increases expectations.
It's an Esherickian argument.
It's a matter of MAKING something happen that NEEDS to happen. And the sooner, the better.
I also would not say it's "secondary"- it's just that we got darn lucky with our coach THIS TIME and he's working around it. But even he admits that this is a tough post to recruit for because of the bad facilities situation. And while he won't use it as a crutch or excuse, that should not lull us into thinking it's any less important.
Bottom line: we want sustained success, we want to hire and keep good coaches like 3, we need the investment in the program. And in the medium run, that means the arena.
Pure and simple.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jun 12, 2005 13:56:50 GMT -5
The below thought is ridiculous on its face and bears no thought nor reply.
"We are not missing the larger point. I am talking about recruiting. What you are missing is the understanding of the college basketball landscape and what REALLY goes on in recruiting. Facilities are far from a recruit's mind when choosing a school. Its like so many people have so many complaints on this board about what we DON'T have, its like begging for the ultimate gloom. I get tired of it. Everybody knows what should happen for this basketball program and they expound and pontificate until the cows come home about what "should happen" and "what we are not doing", but they do nothing about it. Everytime something good happens for this program recently (new coach hire, new AD hire, a winning season, 2 good recruiting classes,etc.) there are always some people who still want to harp on old and tired sentiments of not having a new arena, woe is us, we aren't Duke, we aren't Syracuse, we aren't UCONN. It gets really old.
Again, it starts with the Head Coach. That is the reason recruits come and why the team wins. JTIII is a smart man and a smart coach, and he is going to get the job done and has been getting it done a lot faster than a lot of "non-believers" ever thought. If JTIII wins the title next year (unlikely, but I wouldn't mind), then some of you on this board will say, "well if we had better facilities and a new arena, he would have won 2 titles by now" or "well, Coach K has 3 titles and Calhoun has 2 and Boheim has 1, winning one is nothing to be excited about since we are competing against the likes of those teams. Recruits will look at that and not come to our school." Unbelievable! "
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Jun 12, 2005 14:28:23 GMT -5
The below thought is ridiculous on its face and bears no thought nor reply. "We are not missing the larger point. I am talking about recruiting. What you are missing is the understanding of the college basketball landscape and what REALLY goes on in recruiting. Facilities are far from a recruit's mind when choosing a school. Its like so many people have so many complaints on this board about what we DON'T have, its like begging for the ultimate gloom. I get tired of it. Everybody knows what should happen for this basketball program and they expound and pontificate until the cows come home about what "should happen" and "what we are not doing", but they do nothing about it. Everytime something good happens for this program recently (new coach hire, new AD hire, a winning season, 2 good recruiting classes,etc.) there are always some people who still want to harp on old and tired sentiments of not having a new arena, woe is us, we aren't Duke, we aren't Syracuse, we aren't UCONN. It gets really old. Again, it starts with the Head Coach. That is the reason recruits come and why the team wins. JTIII is a smart man and a smart coach, and he is going to get the job done and has been getting it done a lot faster than a lot of "non-believers" ever thought. If JTIII wins the title next year (unlikely, but I wouldn't mind), then some of you on this board will say, "well if we had better facilities and a new arena, he would have won 2 titles by now" or "well, Coach K has 3 titles and Calhoun has 2 and Boheim has 1, winning one is nothing to be excited about since we are competing against the likes of those teams. Recruits will look at that and not come to our school." Unbelievable! " LOL! What a joke! I'll just repeat what I said before about full-time protesters: always criticisms, no solutions.
|
|
YB
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by YB on Jun 12, 2005 15:00:56 GMT -5
JT3 himself has said GU needs better on-campus facilities. We do need them to recruit HIM, or others as good should he leave. You never addressed this point.
You never addressed the financial mess that is our MCI lease.
I said 3 could coach anywhere. But can we keep 3 if we force him to recruit with one hand behind his back? This point you have not addressed.
Finally, let me know when "The Way Rally" takes place so I can see all you are doing for Hoya Hoops.
I have put both my money and my time where my mouth is, and put forth a variety of new ideas in addition to continuing pressure to keep the arena on the admin's to do list (no small task).
Tell me, Mr. Way, great one, what constructive contributions have you made to, umm, anything?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 12, 2005 16:23:57 GMT -5
The reasons that YB stated for a new on-campus arena are all very strong. Even if the point about coaching playing a stronger role in a recruit's mind is conceded it does not mean that we should NOT build on-campus facilities for Georgetown Basketball. Here are some other reasons that I think that we should be looking into McD "rennovations":
1) It shows a committment on the part of the alumni and donor base to support Georgetown Athletics - if we cannot afford to build such an updated McD as a school it speaks volumes about the management of the Athletic Department's fundraising programs and also about ourselves as supporters of Georgetown Athletics.
2) The on-campus arena may not be critical to attracting players but it is critical to attracting COACHES - a coach coming to a school sees the lack of an on-campus arena as a major negative because of both point 1 and because he/she can infer from it that he/she will have to split duties between coaching and fundraising for that arena at some point. It also plays a factor in keeping coaches where they are - the most powerful example being current Kentucky coach, Tubby Smith, who has said candidly that he probably wouldn't have left the University of Tulsa as soon as he did if they had had an on-campus arena (which they do now).
3) The on-camps arena is not just for basketball - it is a tremendous upgrade for all sports that use it - volleyball, women's basketball, etc.
4) The new on-campus arena would not only stop the university from losing money but create new revenue streams for the University because these on-campus arenas like the Patriot Center at GMU are multi-purpose facilities and often host concerts and other events for which the promoters pay a pretty hefty usage fee. The current usage fee for McD is $400.00 - that is rediculous - this is because the AD's office knows that the arena is pretty much unmarketable as a concert or convocation venue outside of university uses.
5) Keeping pace with the rest of the NBE - If the NBE is going to split up in 5-10 years like most of its detractors claim the schools that are committed to their athletics (i.e. have competitive programs AND facilties to sustain them) will be asked to join the group of schools that has the higher revenue earning potential - the question is in 5-10 years will we be able to say that we can compete with Cinci, Louisville, Syracuse, etc. or will we be left trying to create a conference that can accomodate us?
6) The improvements that Way notes are nice, but what are we surrounding them with? If these hiring decisions are surrounded by a business-as-usual attitude from the University, other AD staff, and the donor base - what change will have really taken place other than hiring two new university employees? It is true that we have upgraded the quality of our staff, but like any job if you expect them to work in difficult circumstances or with outdated equipment sooner or later the employees will realize think that their employer does not care about them or that they will have a more supportive atmosphere at another company and leave - and then where are we, 10 years down the line when we have the same facilities and vacancies as we did 13 months ago?
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 12, 2005 17:21:50 GMT -5
Btw, I am spending the weekend with friends who are NCAA D-I atheletes at Texas Christian University. I asked them what they were thinking when they were recruited to run track at TCU - granted this is not basketball and I am assuming that NCAA D-1 atheletes all think similarly regardless of sport - but I do think that atheletes do consider similar things when deciding which university they will go to. The three runners that I talked to said that what they looked at was "how well they would be taken care of at a University" - this included the coaching staff, the facilties, and academic support services provided for atheletes. They considered the facilties if not on a par with coaching a close second to them, given the realization that there was always a chance that a coach could leave a program, however the facilties are always there. I think this is pretty strong evidence that facilities DO matter. One of my friends also watched the NIT Game in McD and said that if he were an athelete considering Georgetown he would be thinking about why Georgetown had not rewarded a program that had brough it so much pride and prestige can play in such a gym.
I would also like to add to this that the fact that we have a good recruiting class this year does not mean that our facilties are not important to recruits it only proves that it is not important to these specific recruits - and we also don't have all of the information on why these specific recruits came to Georgetown ... or any information to assume that the decisions of these players is indicative of college recruits overall.
|
|
HoyaChris
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,408
|
Post by HoyaChris on Jun 12, 2005 18:32:15 GMT -5
JT3 himself has said GU needs better on-campus facilities. We do need them to recruit HIM, or others as good should he leave. You never addressed this point. You never addressed the financial mess that is our MCI lease. I said 3 could coach anywhere. But can we keep 3 if we force him to recruit with one hand behind his back? This point you have not addressed. Finally, let me know when "The Way Rally" takes place so I can see all you are doing for Hoya Hoops. I have put both my money and my time where my mouth is, and put forth a variety of new ideas in addition to continuing pressure to keep the arena on the admin's to do list (no small task). Tell me, Mr. Way, great one, what constructive contributions have you made to, umm, anything? I am strongly in favor of an on-campus arena, but I must ask, what about our MCI lease strikes you as a financial mess?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2005 18:51:00 GMT -5
Oh jesus... not THIS discussion again. Will the admin PLEASE start a new sub-page alongside "Pro Sports" and "Georgetown Sports" for "Facilities Bulls--t"? This is getting tiresome. Everyone has an opinion, and we've heard every single one a bazillion times over. And _way, how many top 20 high school players do you know intimately enough to know their decision process in picking one school over another? You're 100% right... facilities aren't the end all, but I think other people are on the right track: new facilities are needed to give III every advantage possible. I think the heirarchy of "new facilities" for the men's basketball program (some of which will benefit the rest of our athletes) should be as follows:
1) new weightroom, exercise, training facilities - THIS is the one thing that MUST be state of the art in the evolving world of college hoops where the big football schools are rising to prominence 2) new "classrooms," filmrooms, etc. - have to give our athletes every possible advantage in preparing for an opponent 3) new coaching offices - same as #2, but for the coaches 4) new arena
I'd like to address the first two issues before moving onto the McD debate. That, or someone's rich uncle could die and we'd suddenly have $30 million to take care of ALL that crap.
|
|