Post by reformation on Jan 15, 2018 15:43:18 GMT -5
It would be interesting to know whether the recent # of 5th year transfers out of the program are viewed as good or bad for the program/recruiting. Obviously Oregon/Stanford(I think we've had a couple go to Stan too) think highly of our athletes(which is a good thing, maybe decent reflection on the coaches). On the other hand we used to get really top 5th years come here, which seems to only happen occasionally now-kind of indicating we're viewed maybe like a good ivy competitively(conversely not a great vote of confidence in coaches). I have no issue with the athletes leaving, might be good for them both academically and running wise. Just curious whether anyone has any insight re how this trend of people doing their 5th year elsewhere is viewed and will it continue.
Post by reformation on Jan 15, 2018 14:43:25 GMT -5
There must have been enough red flags to make this an easier decision than we might think. I know people who know the kid(and father) very well but probably won't see them for another couple of weeks. It will be interesting to see what they say about him. (Also i have seen him play in person-I think he would have added to our squad but is not a transcendent talent on his own. his value add could have been high or marginal depending on how he meshed with the team. I was hoping he'd come, but usually decisions not to take somebody based on fit concerns are the right ones)
Post by reformation on Jan 1, 2018 15:20:40 GMT -5
This guy looks to be an immediate upgrade and also seems to have some versatility and a much better stroke than anyone we have. I would also think landing a highly ranked recruit would also provide some momentum to the overall recruiting effort. Seems like a no brainer unless based on the avail info.
Post by reformation on Dec 3, 2017 21:40:04 GMT -5
Agree with your post. Would offer the following comments. Agree Security Studies is a high elite program and not surprised that they do regular and rigorous peer assessment. I'd bet that there is a correlation between department quality and the departments that exercise that type of peer assessment as I'm sure that there are others that do it in addition to SSP. My own informal conversations with academics at Gtown is that rigorous peer assessment is not done consistently or very rigorously as there isn't high value placed on lining up the various programs academically with the top institutions(I'm sure its not phrased that way).
Re: the govt department specifically you are certainly right that they have not embraced big data type analysis, though I don't think that is something to be particularly proud of-having a good quant social science program would certainly be useful to the students and avail them of more employment and grad school oppty's. At a univ mgmt "portfolio" kind of perspective this is certainly a big miss, given the high # of students in these disciplines at Gtwn, that would have been spotted should have been acted on if the Univ admin paid attention to peer analysis. A lot of other univ's set up interdisciplinary quant social science programs-not necessarily run by the govt dept alone over the past # of years.
Re the athletic department totally agree that lack of obvious across the board peers is an issue in setting standards and accountability. In some sense it is a microcosm of the academic discussion above(a few elite activities and many average ones with no clear peers/accountability other than those set by individual coaches or academic debts). Maybe 30 years ago Duke, e.g., might have viewed itself in the same situation but decided to emulate Stanford. Obviously we are not in the same resource situation as Duke but I think we'd be better off if we picked some programs to emulate ourselves for each of the sports (i guess academically too) and measure ourselves against them. Obviously the ath dept can use judgment in selecting peers and can adjust as circumstances change.
One further observation: Both managing and communicating what the Univ is doing across a lot of fronts would be easier if it simply picked some peers and measured its performance accordingly. Just saying were totally unique all of the time leads to a lot of bad decisions.
Post by reformation on Nov 27, 2017 22:07:49 GMT -5
Men's lax schedule on guhoyas--pretty awful. Its gotten worse every year as the team has slipped into irrelevance. Somewhat disappointing that the athletic dept lets the coaches severely downgrade the schedule to try to make things look respectable from a w/l perspective-(I know some will use the men's bb analogy this yr but there are material differences between the sports)-don't mind some variation of the sched based on team capabilities but this is ridiculous. Its not like we don't allocate a fair bit of resources to the program
Post by reformation on Nov 23, 2017 22:52:37 GMT -5
Russky, avoiding Editeding off some segment of university constituencies is certainly a factor in decision making at elite univ's but not the only one. The fear of alienating anyone seems to be an excuse to not make real decisions at Gtwn.
I was in an academic meeting at a top univ a couple of weeks ago where the faculty were explicitly comparing their academic program course by course to Princeton's e..g, which they viewed as a leader in a particular field. This is pretty std fare(maybe a little more detailed than usual), but its not the first time I've seen it-and quite frankly its pretty easy to do. My sense is that this type of critical examination does not really go on very often at Gtwn and I think the univ is worse off for it. The only place where I really see an explicitly comparative and critical examination at Gtwn seems to be in admissions: not surprisingly that seems to be an area where Gtown outperforms its peers given relative resources etc.
I'm not advocating dropping football, though I certainly could see that its a legit thing to review periodically along with other sports, especially the ones that habitually struggle. Few universities are exemplars of best managerial practices, but Georgetown despite good intentions of most staff is among the most lethargic in its decision making and lax in real comparative evaluation across the board that I've seen. Most other elite places are a lot more focused on creating centers of excellence and are a lot more aware certainly and adaptive to what their competitors are doing.
Post by reformation on Nov 22, 2017 20:50:09 GMT -5
Any good organization periodically assesses its activities-It seems that Gtwn does not really do this very often or perform self evaluation in a sophisticated way. - Football has a pretty high academic cost in addition to financial. A number of athletic programs are struggling with little prospect of success- all should be evaluated for upgrade/downgrade periodically. The same logic should also be applied to Gtwn's academic programs which really receive very little scrutiny compared to other top univ's. Suspect we'll have to wait for DeGioia's successor to take a real look at everything-
Post by reformation on Nov 20, 2017 13:12:15 GMT -5
Russky's line re ivy aspiration seems right.
The justification re giving student athletes an extracurricular oppty doesn't really make sense for any sport now a days as almost all of the team members are recruited athletes--the extracurricular argument would only make sense if the team was mostly comprised of walk ons
Post by reformation on Nov 18, 2017 23:57:14 GMT -5
Ask the coach. The coaches submit those type of press releases to the ath dept. Probably too busy with finishing the season, maybe she is embarrassed by results and wants to keep a low profile. Think they usually did something on the new recruits in the past.
Post by reformation on Nov 11, 2017 17:38:05 GMT -5
If we really lose the chance to host home games because of lack of lights that must be addressed. No excuse now. I think its an easy cost benefit tradeoff. We should fully support the programs that are really good.
interesting tool which shows the trend in enrollment in all majors at Harvard over the past several years--no surprise that enrollment in majors like comp science have expanded while comp lit e.g. has cratered--would love to see similar #'s for Gtwn
Post by reformation on Oct 28, 2017 20:10:35 GMT -5
The "bar" you defined above is really pretty meaningless, i.e., way too vague (I assume you are really highlighting the univ view, not necessarily your own btw so no disrespect intended) That's part of the reason we never seem to advance other than randomly getting great coach for a particular sport like men's soccer.
My take is that Gtwn should rethink what sports it can be good at an focus on them--add extra resources, change coaches who don't perform etc and perhaps reallocate resources from sports where there are structural impediments to success for Gtown. To see what sports we can be good at just take a look at our academic/admissions peers that actually play D1 sports-throw in a few sports where Gtwn has some history and that's a good starting point. Gtown will be competitive in sports where recruits view their sport as a way too get into a top academic college, where that is not the case we will struggle for top recruits. Men's Ball is an exception due to our history and willingness to make a substantial resource allocation to it.
Sports where we could be elite (have had success with the right resources including scholarships and top coaches include I would think M/W Lax M/W Soccer M/W Track Rowing Sailing maybe Field hockey if they played on campus. Sports that could be nationally competitive top 25 recruiting classes and perf go a couple of rounds in NCAA tournament with a few high elite individual would include tennis and golf. Of these probably coaching plays a big role in M/W Lax's issues + scholarships & coaching for women's hvwt rowing. Track Mens rowing m/w soccer perform at or above expectations(M/W soccer.)
Sports that face a lot of structural impediments include volleyball, baseball, softball, swimming. We can pour more resources into these but have little prospect of success due to demographic of recruits resource constraints etc.
For football specifically there are a lot of unique considerations--new structural impediments due to fin aid boost at ivies and scholarships at PL. Considerations Russky mentioned re a potential source of school spirit--Very high academic costs due to size and turnover of team--I guess I'd actually want to see the real cost benefit analysis and actual alternative uses for the resources both academic and financial before taking a view on whether to either upgrade or eliminate the program-of course I will never see them since its never going to be my call.
I do suspect that whoever takes over after DeGioia will take a hard look at this.
Post by reformation on Oct 28, 2017 9:36:43 GMT -5
Couple of observations: Georgetown does not seem to have any serious objective competitive benchmarks regarding its athletic programs no matter how they are classified. This leads to no accountability and makes it hard to correct things when they are not going well. Georgetown complains that alums do not support their programs like other schools--part of this stems from the fact that univ does not impose any benchmarks/accountability on its programs-the amount of support for programs with limited objectives is going to be less than it otherwise would be for programs with meaningful competitive objectives.
The ivies have it easier than georgetown in setting their athletic strategies because their academic peers are also their main athletic competitors for the most part. Georgetown's struggles with aligning its academic peers and athletic competitors.
Taking the Columbia football example, Columbia has tried to improve many times in the past with new coaching regimes--it just didn't work. Now the combo of new coaching, increased relative attractiveness of the school and its financial aid have changed the situation--things change--people adapt--Gtwn is generally glacially slow to adapt to change--football is just an ex of this
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.
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 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.
Post by reformation on Sept 24, 2017 19:56:28 GMT -5
Seems a bit far fetched to think that a few extra spots would bring us from a very mediocre program to an elite program, ie. beating top 10 programs. --the staff has shown no ability to recruit impact players over the last decade, doubt it would change that much with a few extra sports. take a look at the top 20 recruiting classes from this past year: volleyballmag.com/2017-top-recruiting-classes/. Hard to see Gtwn in that mix.
By way of comparison men's tennis with worse facilities and no schoolies pulled in a top 30 recruit this yr and has to recruit against all of our natural compeitors with better facilities , scholarships better league, history etc. Looking at the schools which generate top recruiting classes Duke, Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, Vandy, Har, Nwester, Stan etc.I would think we could compete for top recruits more consistently if we had scholarships--that's just one example of a program that at least has shown some promise with limited resources--i'd much rather invest in a program that has shown some good things with no resources versus one that has little to show for a decent resource investment over a long period of time.
Even if we didn't increase funding for another sport, I think we'd be better off investing in better coaches for sports that underperform like LAX to take one ex, than making a marginal improvement in VB. I'm sure VB would improve with the extra 3 schoolies, just hard to see that the improvement would be so dramatic as to justify the investment when we could probably get much better results by allocating marginal funds elsewhere.