|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 21, 2017 16:21:05 GMT -5
Yet another loss, and we are 1-6, possibly with no other wins on the horizon.
I don't understand why Georgetown has football at all, aside from historical or emotional reasons. FCS football is largely ignored nationwide, but there are still segments of FCS football that get plenty of attention. There is little to no chance Georgetown will ever get that attention.
We are now playing in a scholarship league where we refuse to provide scholarships (the right decision, in my mind).
From what I gather, the non-scholarship alternative conferences to the Patriot League are not that appealing for a variety of reasons, including the idea that somehow we would no longer be among our peers (certainly not true if we are only looking at football).
Our facilities are garbage. I realize the Cooper donation of $50 million might help in this respect, but given that the field is used for other sports, there's no reason to keep football because of that donation.
Interest beyond the players, their friends and families, and a handful of aging alumni is minimal.
Most importantly, in my mind, we are spending money on a sport where being competitive is not even remotely possible given that we offer no scholarships. And frankly, the cost of scholarships would be so high, that I think it would be a complete waste of money for a university that isn't flush with cash, and for a program that has shown virtually no signs of life in the last several years.
Add in all the concussion-related and other injuries faced in football, is it really worth it? I fully understand there is some value for the student athletes - being part of a team, etc., but Georgetown offers tons of sports, and quite frankly, the overall negatives outweigh any benefit for a few students.
With a Division I-A/FCS team being impossible, I think it's time to call it a day on football. It's just not worth it anymore, and I think any small benefit derived from the program isn't worth the expense.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 21, 2017 16:29:52 GMT -5
I wonder what you would have said about basketball's future in 1972: Georgetown ranked dead last in the nation in I-A independents over a 25 year run.
Well, they fixed it, didn't they?
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 21, 2017 16:50:02 GMT -5
I wonder what you would have said about basketball's future in 1972: Georgetown ranked dead last in the nation in I-A independents over a 25 year run. Well, they fixed it, didn't they? The two scenarios really aren't comparable: (1) You surely know this better than I, but the costs of a low-level basketball program would seem to be lower than football, and there are more conferences where one can be competitive. Even if you give basketball scholarships, it's only 13 versus a lot more in football. A low level basketball program would be playing all its games at McDonough and incurring no rent charges from Verizon. And we wouldn't be paying a head coach anything remotely resembling what JT3 or Ewing are making. My point: you can do basketball on the cheap and be competitive at some basic level (winning your conference, occasional NCAA appearances as an autobid, etc.). Georgetown does not do that, but it's certainly possible. One good example is Wagner. They spend $5 million on all of their sports, and their average head coach makes $47,000. I am sure their basketball coach makes more, but probably not significantly more. So, even if John Thompson never came along, Georgetown could have maintained basketball in a competitive conference without ridiculous expenditures. There's no reason an alternative-universe Georgetown couldn't have been competitive in a conference like the NEC while spending relatively little on basketball. (2) To some degree, Georgetown hit lightning in a bottle with John Thompson Jr. Obviously, his success in the first 15-20 years was massive. But it's not just that John Thompson was a good coach for the time. He also happened to be around when sports on TV was beginning to blow up, the Big East began, etc., and Georgetown got launched to a prominence that was unlikely a decade before. There is little to no chance that FCS or Division I-AA football will ever be a high-revenue sport like college basketball became in the decades after 1970. As it is, football is seeing outside pressures at the highest levels. My personal feeling is that in 50 years, the odds are way higher than football will decline, if anything. (3) Correct me if I am wrong, but John Thompson Jr. didn't face a systemic problem, in that he had scholarships to offer. The more apt example would be a Division 2 or 3 basketball team (not offering scholarships) trying to compete with the Big East or other major conferences. It's impossible. John Thompson Jr. was a great coach, and did improbable things at Georgetown, but he did it playing in a system that at it's most basic core allowed him to be competitive. Had John Thompson Jr. taken over a Division 3 school in 1972 instead, HoyaTalk probably wouldn't exist now. Georgetown could get the best football coach ever, and it wouldn't matter. (4) Lastly, my point isn't that Georgetown football is bad, so let's call it a day. My argument is that we have zero chance to be competitive because we are playing in a scholarship league without scholarships. While I do not support scholarships for Division I-AA/FCS teams, at least if they did offer them, you could argue we could put together a competitive program like Villanova's. But right now, that's impossible no matter what we do. The whole thing just feels futile. What makes you think this situation is fixable?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Oct 21, 2017 23:20:15 GMT -5
I wonder what you would have said about basketball's future in 1972: Georgetown ranked dead last in the nation in I-A independents over a 25 year run. Well, they fixed it, didn't they? This is a rote and terrible response. Just intellectually lazy. But the poster above me has covered it well enough. Unless we can get out of the PL and manage a cohesive Ivy-Lite schedule, it's not worth it to have football at the school. The marginal gains are not worth the financial and physical costs.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 22, 2017 9:19:13 GMT -5
This is a rote and terrible response. Just intellectually lazy. If you don't understand the context, your response is, well, intellectually lazy. I was responding to the comment originally made that "I think it would be a complete waste of money for a university that isn't flush with cash, and for a program that has shown virtually no signs of life in the last several years." This same argument could have (and likely was) been made to a Georgetown men's basketball program that, from 1948 through 1972, was 296-303 (.497), last among the 32 Catholic independents playing major college basketball at this time and 31st among the 32 in overall win percentage. (The 32nd school, Loyola-New Orleans, dropped the sport in 1972.) For 30 years, men's basketball followed three trends at Georgetown: 1. It focused on recruiting white Catholic high school players in the NY/NJ area, owing in part to de facto segregation in the College; 2. It scheduled local schools and like-minded programs in the Northeast with limited community interest; and 3. It consistently underpaid its staff and set low expectations for performance as a result. Why was this? Well, I wasn't around in that era, nor were many of us--we see it in hindsight. There were many factors but one common cause: the lack of a plan on how to approach success versus accept failure. Inertia is a powerful force at Georgetown, and not always because someone wants it that way, but that the present never looks beyond what to expect in the future. Does football need a plan? Yes. At a distance, we're still running the program approach Bob Benson brought over in 1993. But it's 2017. It's not enough to say Georgetown can't do something when the real culprit is that it fundamentally doesn't know how to go about doing any different. And that's the larger discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Oct 22, 2017 10:55:07 GMT -5
This is a rote and terrible response. Just intellectually lazy. If you don't understand the context, your response is, well, intellectually lazy. I was responding to the comment originally made that "I think it would be a complete waste of money for a university that isn't flush with cash, and for a program that has shown virtually no signs of life in the last several years." This same argument could have (and likely was) been made to a Georgetown men's basketball program that, from 1948 through 1972, was 296-303 (.497), last among the 32 Catholic independents playing major college basketball at this time and 31st among the 32 in overall win percentage. (The 32nd school, Loyola-New Orleans, dropped the sport in 1972.) For 30 years, men's basketball followed three trends at Georgetown: 1. It focused on recruiting white Catholic high school players in the NY/NJ area, owing in part to de facto segregation in the College; 2. It scheduled local schools and like-minded programs in the Northeast with limited community interest; and 3. It consistently underpaid its staff and set low expectations for performance as a result. Why was this? Well, I wasn't around in that era, nor were many of us--we see it in hindsight. There were many factors but one common cause: the lack of a plan on how to approach success versus accept failure. Inertia is a powerful force at Georgetown, and not always because someone wants it that way, but that the present never looks beyond what to expect in the future. Does football need a plan? Yes. At a distance, we're still running the program approach Bob Benson brought over in 1993. But it's 2017. It's not enough to say Georgetown can't do something when the real culprit is that it fundamentally doesn't know how to go about doing any different. And that's the larger discussion. If anyone is ignoring context, it has to be you. Football and basketball are two entirely different animals, financially, physically, structurally. None of your three trends are applicable to relevant changes that need to be made with regard to the football program.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 22, 2017 12:58:00 GMT -5
If anyone is ignoring context, it has to be you. Football and basketball are two entirely different animals, financially, physically, structurally. None of your three trends are applicable to relevant changes that need to be made with regard to the football program. Let's try this again. I was not comparing football and basketball, but noting that a lack of planning leads to inertia and a lack of direction.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 22, 2017 13:00:57 GMT -5
If you don't understand the context, your response is, well, intellectually lazy. I was responding to the comment originally made that "I think it would be a complete waste of money for a university that isn't flush with cash, and for a program that has shown virtually no signs of life in the last several years." This same argument could have (and likely was) been made to a Georgetown men's basketball program that, from 1948 through 1972, was 296-303 (.497), last among the 32 Catholic independents playing major college basketball at this time and 31st among the 32 in overall win percentage. (The 32nd school, Loyola-New Orleans, dropped the sport in 1972.) For 30 years, men's basketball followed three trends at Georgetown: 1. It focused on recruiting white Catholic high school players in the NY/NJ area, owing in part to de facto segregation in the College; 2. It scheduled local schools and like-minded programs in the Northeast with limited community interest; and 3. It consistently underpaid its staff and set low expectations for performance as a result. Why was this? Well, I wasn't around in that era, nor were many of us--we see it in hindsight. There were many factors but one common cause: the lack of a plan on how to approach success versus accept failure. Inertia is a powerful force at Georgetown, and not always because someone wants it that way, but that the present never looks beyond what to expect in the future. Does football need a plan? Yes. At a distance, we're still running the program approach Bob Benson brought over in 1993. But it's 2017. It's not enough to say Georgetown can't do something when the real culprit is that it fundamentally doesn't know how to go about doing any different. And that's the larger discussion. Your main point seems to be that Georgetown doesn't have a plan - it doesn't know how to go about things differently with football. You continually cite the basketball program from the mid 20th century as an analogy, but the problem is that it's not analogous for the reasons I noted in my last email. From 1940 to 1970, there were no high revenue college sports teams - in any sport - at least to the scale of what exists today. What exactly is Georgetown supposed to do differently with football? It's possible for (a) Georgetown to be clueless about what to do, and (b) for no good options to exist at the same time. Yes, we got lucky with basketball to some extent in the 1970s and beyond, but you cannot rely on luck in every instance to get you where you want to go - most of the time we are no so fortunate to land in such a good place through good luck and circumstance. Let's go through a few options right now: (1) Move Football to the Big Time: FBS/Division I-A football is basically not a realistic option at Georgetown. This isn't a matter of not having a vision, it's mostly economics and resources. We would have to offer a full battery of scholarships, we would need a stadium (RFK is an embarrassment and not a solution, as the tiny attendance against Harvard showed), and most importantly, we would have to invest a LOT of money. This simply is not happening. Connecticut is one of the best examples of a team that moved to FBS/Division I, and that's been a drain on the university ever since. And, Connecticut likely has better funding, a state-based fan base (which Georgetown doesn't have), and they were better situated than us to try, and yet they lose millions every year. Georgetown would be even worse positioned. (2) Try to improve within FCS/Division I-AA. Very simply, without offering scholarships, this cannot happen. Much of FCS, including the Patriot League, has moved to a model involving scholarships or at least partial scholarships. We don't offer any, and DeGioia has said we won't. Offering scholarships would be difficult given the cost involved for a large football team. Now, if there was a real institutional commitment (including donors/boosters), it might be feasible, but that just doesn't exist. (3) Stay the course. This means staying in the Patriot league. To me, this is a really bad option. How do you recruit players to play in a league when you're handicapped before you even get on the field because you're not on equal footing? To me, the current situation is really bad both from an optics perspective and also for those involved. (4) Find a different FCS/Division I-AA home that doesn't require scholarships. This is where I yield to others with better knowledge, but my understanding is there simply aren't a ton of good options here. But really, I think virtually any non-scholarship conference would be better because at least we could be on an equal footing. (5) Disband the program because it costs money, there are no real viable options, and there's no institutional interest or commitment to the program from the administration, alumni, or students. These really are the basic options out there. And we cannot compare this to basketball or Georgetown's lack of vision in the area in years past. Basketball in 1940 or 1970 had a lot of potential even if everyone didn't know it at the time (though college basketball was quite big in the late 1940s until scandal), which resulted from increased interest, the creation of the NCAA tournament, and most of all, TV interest. It's hard to make that argument for second-tier college football. Big time college football already exists, so to the extent football remains popular the SEC, Big 10, Big 12, etc. will reign supreme as they have for decadeds. There's basically no potential for FCS football to break through. The closer analog is major league and minor league baseball. Division I-A/FBS is basically MLB, and Division I-AA/FCS is basically the minor leagues. No matter what the minor leagues do, they'll never come close to the major leagues in exposure, revenue potential, etc. No amount of vision or planning will change that. [Finally, I would note that I originally placed this in the "future of football" thread to allow a continued discussion; it had more to do with that than Fordham, yet my initial post was moved here. I realize the other thread had to do with safety, but it fit there better than here. I would suggest a thread on the topic since it's a serious topic, and not one that really fits in with the Fordham thread, which had absolutely no posts aside from game updates until mine.]
|
|
|
Post by teddy16 on Oct 22, 2017 16:49:11 GMT -5
As far as having a competitive program 1) Ivy League is non-scholarship 2) non scholarship means $ is given to student athletes on a "need" as in financial need basis. GU like our Ivy competitors give their student athletes assistance on this model. 3) we can compete. In'11 we were runner up in PL. we have defeated Ivy League schools -Columbia, Princeton ad Brown in last 6 years. 4). A plan and leadership to execute the plan matters in every business. A 1-AA football program is a business 5) as evidence of a successful turnaround- look no further than Columbia. They hired the ex U Penn coach 3 years ago. At the time Columbias program was weakest in Ivy Lesgue. And GU was beating Columbia. Today , Columbia is on top of IvybLeague. They are way ahead of GU now. Leadership matters !!!!!
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Oct 25, 2017 11:36:14 GMT -5
As far as having a competitive program 1) Ivy League is non-scholarship 2) non scholarship means $ is given to student athletes on a "need" as in financial need basis. GU like our Ivy competitors give their student athletes assistance on this model. 3) we can compete. In'11 we were runner up in PL. we have defeated Ivy League schools -Columbia, Princeton ad Brown in last 6 years. 4). A plan and leadership to execute the plan matters in every business. A 1-AA football program is a business 5) as evidence of a successful turnaround- look no further than Columbia. They hired the ex U Penn coach 3 years ago. At the time Columbias program was weakest in Ivy Lesgue. And GU was beating Columbia. Today , Columbia is on top of IvybLeague. They are way ahead of GU now. Leadership matters !!!!! (1) Yes, the Ivy League is non-scholarship. That's totally irrelevant because we are not members of the Ivy League, and we will never be members of the Ivy League. (2) Yes, our non-scholarship players might get need-based aid, but that is a huge disadvantage over a full scholarship school like Fordham, for example. A scholarship is free. Aid varies in form, and it is also based on need. Generally, people do not want to pay if they don't have to. (3) First, the 2011 team is irrelevant because that was before the Patriot League moved to a scholarship model. Second, the fact that we have had one competitive team in nearly two decades of Patriot League membership is problematic. And that will only get worse now that it is a scholarship conference and Georgetown isn't giving scholarships. Thus, the 2011 team does not mean we can compete in the Patriot League. (4) Yes, a plan matters. I agree with having a plan and I outlined what I perceive to be the problems there (i.e., no good options) in my posts above. What is a realistic plan? I have yet to see anybody articulate one. As far as being a business, if Georgetown's Division I-AA/FCS team was a business it would have folded a long time ago. High-revenue college sports are businesses, but that doesn't include FCS football. To my knowledge, the revenue brought in by football is negligible. Nobody is making money here - which is fine - but it's not a business in the traditional sense. (5) Again, Columbia is Ivy League, competes in a non-scholarship conference. Yes, they got better. But, it's easy to see what the plan is there - you can commit to competing in the Ivy League, and there were no structural barriers to prevent Columbia from doing that. Aside from minor differences in resources, Columbia is situated similarly to the other 7 conference members. Georgetown is not in that position because we compete in a scholarship league without scholarships. My challenge - to anyone - is to articulate a plan for Georgetown football that involves competing in a fair, even environment within the realm of realistic possibilities (for example, saying we should join the Ivy League isn't an option, so that cannot be part of any plan). Moreover, saying we need a plan or an administration with a vision is not enough. What is the vision? What is the plan? What would you do to put Georgetown football in a competitive situation - realistically?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Oct 25, 2017 12:41:05 GMT -5
As far as having a competitive program 1) Ivy League is non-scholarship 2) non scholarship means $ is given to student athletes on a "need" as in financial need basis. GU like our Ivy competitors give their student athletes assistance on this model. 3) we can compete. In'11 we were runner up in PL. we have defeated Ivy League schools -Columbia, Princeton ad Brown in last 6 years. 4). A plan and leadership to execute the plan matters in every business. A 1-AA football program is a business 5) as evidence of a successful turnaround- look no further than Columbia. They hired the ex U Penn coach 3 years ago. At the time Columbias program was weakest in Ivy Lesgue. And GU was beating Columbia. Today , Columbia is on top of IvybLeague. They are way ahead of GU now. Leadership matters !!!!! (1) Yes, the Ivy League is non-scholarship. That's totally irrelevant because we are not members of the Ivy League, and we will never be members of the Ivy League. (2) Yes, our non-scholarship players might get need-based aid, but that is a huge disadvantage over a full scholarship school like Fordham, for example. A scholarship is free. Aid varies in form, and it is also based on need. Generally, people do not want to pay if they don't have to. (3) First, the 2011 team is irrelevant because that was before the Patriot League moved to a scholarship model. Second, the fact that we have had one competitive team in nearly two decades of Patriot League membership is problematic. And that will only get worse now that it is a scholarship conference and Georgetown isn't giving scholarships. Thus, the 2011 team does not mean we can compete in the Patriot League. (4) Yes, a plan matters. I agree with having a plan and I outlined what I perceive to be the problems there (i.e., no good options) in my posts above. What is a realistic plan? I have yet to see anybody articulate one. As far as being a business, if Georgetown's Division I-AA/FCS team was a business it would have folded a long time ago. High-revenue college sports are businesses, but that doesn't include FCS football. To my knowledge, the revenue brought in by football is negligible. Nobody is making money here - which is fine - but it's not a business in the traditional sense. (5) Again, Columbia is Ivy League, competes in a non-scholarship conference. Yes, they got better. But, it's easy to see what the plan is there - you can commit to competing in the Ivy League, and there were no structural barriers to prevent Columbia from doing that. Aside from minor differences in resources, Columbia is situated similarly to the other 7 conference members. Georgetown is not in that position because we compete in a scholarship league without scholarships. My challenge - to anyone - is to articulate a plan for Georgetown football that involves competing in a fair, even environment within the realm of realistic possibilities (for example, saying we should join the Ivy League isn't an option, so that cannot be part of any plan). Moreover, saying we need a plan or an administration with a vision is not enough. What is the vision? What is the plan? What would you do to put Georgetown football in a competitive situation - realistically? I'll bite: (1) Elevate the stadium situation to one of institutional importance. Recognize that as things currently stand, the field is an eyesore in the very center of an otherwise attractive campus, so it is not merely a football issue or an athletics issue. There have obviously been recent hints toward movement, and proclamations of seeming sources of funding. But hints and proclamations do not a stadium build. So...complete something modest. It need not have much in the way of bells and whistles. All I'm looking for at this stage is some sort of wall around the entire complex (so it looks contained), permanent looking bleachers (even if that means something as simple as papering over what's there), a functional press box, a functional scoreboard, some decent restrooms, decent on-site team rooms (not even necessarily full locker rooms), and an enclosed concession and ticketing area. You do that (which requires minimal concrete let alone digging), and you have something that at least looks respectable. Moreover, you preserve the ability to add on in the future as appropriate. Finally, while things are always far more expensive than they should be, the financing should already be in place to do this largely or entirely without any additional cost. Who knows how many past, present, and future recruits didn't or won't come to Georgetown for this reason? Even if it's one a year, that's a big difference. (2) Schedule very conservatively in the short term. Recognize that in the current Patriot League set-up, you're unlikely to win more than a game or two annually. So, your other games should be games which you feel you can absolutely win. No one wants to watch a 1-10 team; few want to play for a program that is 4-40 over the previous four years. In the short-term, make a better than .500 record a goal and schedule appropriately to achieve it. If things improve, improve the schedule accordingly. (3) Continually Canvass Peer Schools. Our goal is to be able to play non-scholarship football in a competitive environment. Preferably against peer-type academic schools, but at this point, there simply aren't enough of them around that want us in a league. So, let's start with the non-scholarship part. Georgetown should make it a goal of its athletic administration to continually reach out, lobby, cajole, and encourage FCS schools that might wish to compete in a non-scholarship environment. Get even one to agree and it helps the scheduling situation. Get a bunch? You have a league. It's possible that the Ivies end up in a situation where they don't really have anyone left to play and want to play us -- fine. But let's not wait for that to happen since we have no control over it. (3) Fundraise toward targeted scholarship. I recognize that football, given its roster size and true team element, is not a sport best suited to improvement through incremental scholarship gains. Scholarships are expensive at Georgetown; endowed scholarships even moreso. I get the challenge. And I understand that (3) above posits competing at a non-scholarship level. But Georgetown needs to hedge that bet if it wants to continue to compete. And if it does hedge, every little bit helps. (N.B.: Nomenclature here is irrelevant to me. I don't care if the money is buying out loans, or buying out work-study, or not need-based at all.) Singularly focusing on that issue allows all fundraising resources to go in that direction. What would adding a scholarship every two years do? Not much...until we got ten to fifteen years in. I understand that the alumni base may not be able to support even that at this point. And I know there are Title IX implications. Gains would be in fits and starts. But whatever we can do would help. Ideally, the school would kick in some feeder amount here in a limited means (recognizing the Title IX and financial challenges). That would help too. But, regardless, you have to try to improve. (4) Finally, recognize that (2), (3), and (4) may all fail. Be up front (at least internally). Perhaps the number of non-scholarship FCS programs plummets further (it's already very low), such that scheduling conservatively is impossible; perhaps no scholarship FCS schools have any interest in eliminating their scholarships; and/or perhaps fundraising proves impossible despite best efforts. Even then, there are options. Continue efforting toward improvement; recognize and accept that 1-10 seasons are and will be the norm and that simply having a team is an institutional imperative; and/or petition the NCAA to play Div. III in football. To me, shutting the program down is short-sighted for the simple reason that the NCAA regime is likely to change dramatically in the mid-term. Television revenue is likely to dry up considerably; schools playing at the FBS level may well drop back down to FCS; FCS schools may find it financially unsupportable to continue providing full scholarship support without earning appreciable revenue; and/or there may be some new demarcation in terms of divisions among schools that proves advantageous. Sure, it's also true that football may cease as we know it due to concussion-related societal concerns. There aren't many schools with boxing programs today! But if and when that happens, the change will come to all.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Oct 25, 2017 12:57:53 GMT -5
My challenge - to anyone - is to articulate a plan for Georgetown football that involves competing in a fair, even environment within the realm of realistic possibilities (for example, saying we should join the Ivy League isn't an option, so that cannot be part of any plan). Moreover, saying we need a plan or an administration with a vision is not enough. What is the vision? What is the plan? What would you do to put Georgetown football in a competitive situation - realistically? Working on a web site item on this for next week. Two points: 1. Re: "We are not members of the Ivy League, and we will never be members of the Ivy League," the second premise is actually not set in stone. At this point, the IL is not aiming for associate members in football but Georgetown is waiting patiently at the door should they decide that an extra league opponent shields them from either unnecessary (Pioneer) or untenable opponents going forward. The Ivy had Army and Navy as associate members in track for many years at the Heptagonal Championships. Happening in 2018? No. Should Georgetown keep waiting for them? Better discussion. 2. Re: "Continually Canvass Peer Schools", well...who are they? Academically, half of the GU's top ten academic peers are in the Ivy and another three are in the ACC. A tepid argument can be made that pursuing ACC football, notwithstanding a complete betrayal of all the BE stands for, would fund not only a I-A football program but much of the entire athletic department, but that's wholly unrealistic in the DeGioia administration. So do our peers extend to the Big East (e.e., Butler, Seton Hall) or somewhere else entirely?
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Oct 25, 2017 13:52:34 GMT -5
1. The stadium should be something of institutional importance. It will not have a measurable effect on the football program. It may not even have one on the lacrosse programs. 2. I honestly think that fewer people want to watch us beat Campbell than want to watch us get smoked by Harvard. It is also entirely transparent when your conference schedule is a bloodbath and you beat schools no one has ever heard of. 3. Who are these peer schools? And why would they then want to slum it with us? Certainly none of the Ivies are interested. Neither are the NESCAC schools. Then you have D1 schools that would certainly have no interest. 4. I have no problem with a targeted fundraising effort. I just think that 1) the interest isn't there, and 2) there's a critical mass of scholarships needed to compete with the other schools that are at 50+ and even with a moderately successful campaign, I don't think we ever get there. Finally, I don't think that's a use of funds that would be supported by the community or even the athletic department writ large.
I think shutting down the program is the most practical proposition, but maybe just the threat of it by the athletic department could spur some grassroots efforts that actually improve the program.
|
|
eb59
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 152
|
Post by eb59 on Oct 26, 2017 11:02:11 GMT -5
Scheduling - It makes no sense to me that we don't schedule the currently available Big East schools on an annual basis, win or lose - to me it just makes sense. (Nova & Butler). In addition to this, as a founding member of the BE - I would think that we could more than likely persuade the BE school(s) that have Club FB currently to make a move up to Non-Scholarship FB with a VISION of establishing a Non-Scholarship Big East FB conference made up of like minded (basketball focused) schools. (Xavier) The same argument could be made for some of the schools in the conference that currently DON'T have FB but did in the past and/or might be interested based on stuff that I've seen on the web by people or groups interested getting FB at these schools: (DePaul, Marquette, St Johns & Creighton). This would obviously take a BOLD VISION - but it could be done in 5 years if Gtown really decided to drive this. In addition to these auto-include BE schools, we could also open this up to others like (Davidson, Dayton). This is BOLD so likely not going to happen, I get that but it ONLY takes 7 Teams to make a Conference. So, if we decide or it is decided for us that Gtown can't play in the Patriot anymore and the IL is not willing to take us as a FB affiliate - why not Independent??? What is the harm, we are not going to make the Playoffs anyway as a Non-Scholarship program and if we do we may win 1 game...... Indy Schedule - We could schedule Butler, Nova any of the 8 IL teams, any of the 6 Patriot schools, any of the Lower Level CAA schools (Maine, Rhode Island) and if we got better in time, we could obviously expand to Bigger Named 1-AA competition. I really don't think that Gtown would have any issue putting together a pretty good schedule of games year after year as an Indy....who would not want to play a team with a Known Name that they will likely beat!!! Stadium - Enough has been said about this, but it DEFINITELY impacts FB Recruiting - our place it a Joke, If I was really on the fence Gtown or Columbia as an example, the feel that they have a Real Stadium and CARE about the program would likely push me to Columbia. VISION & COMMUNICATION - Here is the breakdown, for 20 years now there has been NO VISION & ABSOLUTELY NO COMMUNICATION from the Program, Athletic Dept or School. So while I would love to get people working towards Funding Scholarships and Improving Facilities, Etc - NO FUNDS WILL COME UNTIL THEY HAVE A PLAN & COMMUNICATE UPDATES AND PROGRESS MADE TOWARD THE PLAN ON A REGULAR BASIS - I'm not giving $10k to go into a pot of funds that just evaporates like it did for so many when they started the funding drive for the Stadium 5k days ago! Coaching - We don't seem to be way undersized or slow aside from a RB, so why do we SUCK so very badly - we've had like 10 OC's an they all seem to be the same very ineffective Offense...how can we change things up and put in a scheme that gives us a chance?
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Oct 26, 2017 12:25:46 GMT -5
I would imagine that once DeGioia is gone, the new president, if an outsider, will take a fresh look at things. Otherwise its hard to see any decision being made of any consequence no matter what the logic/costs/benefits are.
|
|
eb59
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 152
|
Post by eb59 on Oct 26, 2017 12:58:32 GMT -5
Are there any rumors / plans of his departure?
He has been at Gtown 16 years as President and is 60 years old - so one could argue that he may be here for another 10 - 15 years assuming his health is good...
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Oct 26, 2017 20:19:38 GMT -5
College presidents at top places generally stay around for 10 years--gtwn is not your typical place in this regard, though as a pure guess i'd say he takes some kind of emeritus post at his 20yr anniversary
|
|
|
Post by dundermifflinhoya on Oct 27, 2017 10:27:54 GMT -5
Part of the problem for Georgetown is defining our peer institutions in football. Certainly not the FBS schools. Is it the Ivy’s, North East conference, Patriot league, Military academies? The Patriot and Northeast offer athletic scholarships. The Academies are free to every student. And now, the Ivy League schools are free to every lower-to-middle class student. www.collegeraptor.com/find-colleges/articles/affordability-college-cost/these-10-expensive-colleges-have-free-tuition-or-full-ride-scholarships-for-middle-class-families/To the above poster, the choice between Columbia and Georgetown isn’t just about Georgetown’s lack of a stadium or institutional support. If you make 60,000 or less, it’s also about a free education. Watching Georgetown over the years, when we have had the talent, we have competed. See 2011 and 2015. But generally, there is a large disparity in talent, most notably in overall team depth, offensive line, QB position, and overall team speed. Last year we started out great, but the team was ravaged by injury. Georgetown cannot simply plug and play. Could a different coaching staff get more out of these players? Maybe, but I believe Sgarlata has done a tremendous job on and off the field. The reality is Georgetown’s has conceded we cannot competitively recruit in the midatlantic and NE because of what the ivy, northeast, and patriot leagues can offer in terms of no cost attendance. Georgetown’s focus is now on recruiting in the southeast and Texas, finding kids who can play at the FCS level, fall low enough on the economic curve that financial aid covers most, if not all the cost, and have the grades and academic ability to maintain in the classroom. Then, kids who may have never heard of Georgetown must be sold on why they should come there. This is no easy task. Our football peers remain the pioneer league teams. Does the following article sound familiar: www.collegesportsmadness.com/article/13356The problem is the institution. Leadership has failed to identify a strategic vision of what the program should be or make any sort of long term commitment. This post is debating issues that were being debated 20 years ago and no clearer picture exists. The President has stated the wish to follow the ivy model, but Ivy League schools have made a commitment to providing the economic ability for all students to attend - Georgetown has not. It’s a little disengenous for him to make that comparison.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,620
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Oct 27, 2017 12:30:17 GMT -5
The problem is the institution. Leadership has failed to identify a strategic vision of what the program should be or make any sort of long term commitment. This post is debating issues that were being debated 20 years ago and no clearer picture exists. The President has stated the wish to follow the ivy model, but Ivy League schools have made a commitment to providing the economic ability for all students to attend - Georgetown has not. It’s a little disengenous for him to make that comparison. I'll weigh in on the broader topic of the thread later, but just to address this last bit right away... Georgetown has committed to meeting full demonstrated student need through a combination of grants and subsidized loans. The definition of need, however, is inherently subjective, as is the formula by which the balance of grants and loans is offered. The Ivies, whose endowments are all multiple times larger than Georgetown's, are able to define need in a much more generous way and to replace subsidized loans with grants entirely. Their ability to do so is a demonstration of their superior financial resources - not that they are somehow more institutionally committed than Georgetown is. If you look at the recent Washington Post article on Princeton's efforts to increase socioeconomic diversity (measured by % of Pell Grant recipients), the data indicate that Georgetown actually does better by this metric than several of the Ivies and is within a percentage point or two of others whose endowments are literally over 1,000% larger. Similarly, of the 35 schools that make up the Consortium on Financing Higher Education and therefore commit "to meeting the full demonstrated financial need of admitted students," you will find variations in available resources as the primary determinant of available aid, rather than variations in commitment.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Oct 27, 2017 13:04:02 GMT -5
I agree with you for the most part that Gtwn's intent in the financial aid realm is as genuine as anybody else. Still begs the question as to whether Gtwn is effectively priced out of competitive recruits for football given the demographics of the recruiting pool and superior resources of its competitors.
I guess the two related questions are is it worth shifting internal financial resources to support more competitive FB recruits or is it just not possible to compete vs the Ivies anymore in this sport. Also would it be cheaper and more effective to invest more money in coaches that could attract better recruits; is that strategy workable or not.
The Ivy funding of middle class kids has changed dramatically since DeGioia made those comments. It seems that the admin is perfectly happy to maintain a bunch of perpetually losing programs as long as the cost is below a certain level-football is not unique in this regard. As mentined above I strongly suspect this debate is a post DeGioia issue.
|
|