Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,427
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on May 15, 2023 14:15:18 GMT -5
In the regional rankings the men move up one spot to #9 and the women remain at #8. In the national rankings the men dropped 14 places to #66, while the women leaped up one place to #66, so equality for the teams.
The men are 6th in the conference, which is where they placed in the meet, and the women are 4th, which is one place higher than their meet performance.
The men dropped two places in the 1500m squad event to #4, and went up 21 places to #21 in the 800m. The women dropped one place in the 1500m to #6, moved up 10 places in the 5000m to #7, and moved up seven places to #20 in the 800m.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 15, 2023 14:50:47 GMT -5
Yeah...this is a good example of legacy McDonough/Georgetown non-transparency. Is there a long-term vision for how the university intends to address or resolve this? Are we just to assume that after they rebuild Yates on top of Shaw Field, they will build a regulation track and field space in the current Yates footprint? Is that even still the plan? What is the timeline for that - 2030? 2035? At Georgetown, vision does not equal priority. Some thoughts: 1. Had Yates been built ten years earlier (when they tried but failed to raise funds for a pool/workout area on the McDonough parking lot, it was going to be this design: Holt Arena at Idaho State, because that was the so-called cutting edge of the day. Instead, it took the design of BC's Rec-Plex ten years later and dug it into the ground. (BC razed the Rec-Plex four years ago.) What are the needs for recreation in the 2040s, given that it's not in the current plans through at least 2037? They don't know, and aren't willing to consider it, so absent a nine figure gift it's kicking the can and hoping that there is some sort of consensus in 10 or 12 years which leads it to an optimum design or; playing devil's advocate, it abandons the concept of communal recreation and forms smaller workout facilities across campus along the lines of what they have at the Law Center. 2. There is no guarantee soccer keeps a field. Yes, it's a golden age for the sport today, but the next administration could just as easily shoehorn soccer into Cooper Field so it can build a School of Health or a medical research building on Shaw Field. (" But good programs do not play on FieldTurf!" goes nowhere when a pharma company puts up the money to build adjacent to the Med School.). Sadly, the same applies to Yates. The building is not a dotted line ownership from Athletics but from Student Affairs. There is a tacit understanding on facilities that once a department has one, they go to the end of the line. The Library has needs (and has the land behind it), but because it's just 50 or so years old, they wait, and wait. The SFS has no so quietly made the case that the ICC is functionally obsolete and it got no support in the current campaign. Athletics got the Thompson Center (which apparently wasn't fully funded by philanthropy) and Cooper Field limped to the finish 10 years late with half of what was originally promised. But absent some major donors ready to put their money as well as their collective foot down, the staff is not going to fight these battles--see how nobody raises the issues of McDonough Gym as approaches 75 years. And then there's ( shhh...) the boathouse. I'm reminded of Ron Helmer speaking at an athletic banquet 10 years ago when has casually remarked about facilities when he said, and I paraphrase, "maybe if we [track and field} weren't as good, you'd take us more seriously."
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,598
|
Post by RusskyHoya on May 18, 2023 20:49:02 GMT -5
At Georgetown, vision does not equal priority. Some thoughts: 1. Had Yates been built ten years earlier (when they tried but failed to raise funds for a pool/workout area on the McDonough parking lot, it was going to be this design: Holt Arena at Idaho State, because that was the so-called cutting edge of the day. Instead, it took the design of BC's Rec-Plex ten years later and dug it into the ground. (BC razed the Rec-Plex four years ago.) What are the needs for recreation in the 2040s, given that it's not in the current plans through at least 2037? They don't know, and aren't willing to consider it, so absent a nine figure gift it's kicking the can and hoping that there is some sort of consensus in 10 or 12 years which leads it to an optimum design or; playing devil's advocate, it abandons the concept of communal recreation and forms smaller workout facilities across campus along the lines of what they have at the Law Center. There is no such thing as a consensus, lasting optimum facility design any longer - tastes and technology and various other things change too fast. The emphasis moving forward is more and more on flexible spaces that can be more readily reconfigured to change with the times. The campus is sufficiently small that a single building can provide the "smaller workout facilities" of various kinds that is desired. Some amenities, of course, have stood the test of time - a swimming pool is not easily flexable, but they've been around for millenia and don't seem likely to vanish anytime soon. Ditto strength training. 2. There is no guarantee soccer keeps a field. Yes, it's a golden age for the sport today, but the next administration could just as easily shoehorn soccer into Cooper Field so it can build a School of Health or a medical research building on Shaw Field. (" But good programs do not play on FieldTurf!" goes nowhere when a pharma company puts up the money to build adjacent to the Med School.). Sadly, the same applies to Yates. The building is not a dotted line ownership from Athletics but from Student Affairs. There are very few guarantees in life. Soccer will have to use Cooper Field for some period of time anyway - that's why the east side has been left standless - but the long-term vision for the "Yates Castle Maneuver" has always included recreating the field on the current Yates footprint. Space on Main Campus is the scarcest resource there is - a School of Health or medical research building is much more readily located somewhere else (e.g., Washington Hospital Center). Having a premier spectator sport on campus (which just so happens to be the most popular sport on Earth) has to take priority, and I don't expect 'the next administration' (i.e., Dan Porterfield) to see it any differently. What department owns the facility is irrelevant - all capital projects are governed by Healy 2, which can revise administrative responsibilities at will. There is a tacit understanding on facilities that once a department has one, they go to the end of the line. The Library has needs (and has the land behind it), but because it's just 50 or so years old, they wait, and wait. The SFS has no so quietly made the case that the ICC is functionally obsolete and it got no support in the current campaign. Athletics got the Thompson Center (which apparently wasn't fully funded by philanthropy) and Cooper Field limped to the finish 10 years late with half of what was originally promised. But absent some major donors ready to put their money as well as their collective foot down, the staff is not going to fight these battles--see how nobody raises the issues of McDonough Gym as approaches 75 years. And then there's ( shhh...) the boathouse. That 'tacit understanding' isn't really the case any longer (if it ever was), because there are way too many "departments" on campus, and capital priorities are a highly complex jigsaw puzzle of administrator, faculty, donor, and other stakeholder (Georgetown's neighbors, for instance) priorities. Some entities - GPPI/McCourt, MSB, biomed and the sciences more broadly, Campus Ministry and of course Housing - have received repeat focus over the last X period of time. But of course, it's all a matter of perspective. Does SFS-Q count as the SFS's 'new facility,' such that the ICC had to go back to the line? That's just not how things work. The boathouse, for its part, was killed by lobbying from the Washington Canoe Club and other local residents, who impressed upon the National Park Service the need to limit any new facilities to effectively a single new boathouse right at the base of the Key Bridge. With GW and GU both having competing claims, the result thus far has been stalemate. I'm reminded of Ron Helmer speaking at an athletic banquet 10 years ago when has casually remarked about facilities when he said, and I paraphrase, "maybe if we [track and field} weren't as good, you'd take us more seriously." That's *definitely* not how it works. Baseball had already been a loser for many years when it got exiled off campus to Bethesda. Despite its long history, that program's jigsaw piece simply didn't fit in the complex and dynamic puzzle.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,740
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 18, 2023 22:04:46 GMT -5
There are very few guarantees in life. Soccer will have to use Cooper Field for some period of time anyway - that's why the east side has been left standless - but the long-term vision for the "Yates Castle Maneuver" has always included recreating the field on the current Yates footprint. Space on Main Campus is the scarcest resource there is - a School of Health or medical research building is much more readily located somewhere else (e.g., Washington Hospital Center). Having a premier spectator sport on campus (which just so happens to be the most popular sport on Earth) has to take priority, and I don't expect 'the next administration' (i.e., Dan Porterfield) to see it any differently. It was also suggested that east of Cooper Field will need to be a staging area for some combination of the Regents annex or the Harbin II dorm, of which heavy machinery might not be easily accommodated to maneuver past permanent seating. This doesn't excuse the lack of temporary seating, which will be discussed in a football thread to be named later. That 'tacit understanding' isn't really the case any longer (if it ever was), because there are way too many "departments" on campus, and capital priorities are a highly complex jigsaw puzzle of administrator, faculty, donor, and other stakeholder (Georgetown's neighbors, for instance) priorities. Some entities - GPPI/McCourt, MSB, biomed and the sciences more broadly, Campus Ministry and of course Housing - have received repeat focus over the last X period of time. But of course, it's all a matter of perspective. Does SFS-Q count as the SFS's 'new facility,' such that the ICC had to go back to the line? That's just not how things work. Yes, it's a Rubik's cube of sorts, but there remains a need for a strategic discussion of an off campus "athletics campus" to house baseball, softball, tennis, track, and perhaps a couple of others, plus room for coaches and off-campus S&C.
|
|