|
Post by puppydog100 on Nov 20, 2014 11:20:06 GMT -5
thebin, I would support your approach.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 20, 2014 11:31:20 GMT -5
"This is the only option besides staying in the PL and getting our doors blown off. Nothing else will work." Right now we lose most of our games playing 6 PL games, 3 Ivies and a 1-2 Pioneer games per season. Solution? Preemptively surrender by withdrawing from the PL immediately! So we can.....play 4-5 PL games, 3-4 Ivies, and a 1-2 Pioneer games per season. In the process of loudly declaring the PL is too tough for us before rushing to fill our schedule with PL non-conference games and maybe adding an additional Ivy non-conference game or two...what exactly will have changed to make winning easier? Trading in a PL game or two a year for another Ivy game or two? Right now the Ivy league is still the better football league on avaerage...that actually makes winning less likely. And by the way even though PL is about to get better, we will always have one small (not always exploitable) advantage in the PL in that we are clearly the academic class of the league. We don't have that advantage at all- to the contrary- in the Ivy league which we want to pretend to be members of while not actually being in. To what end then is FCS independence if we intend to keep almost identical schedules? Just to make those likely PL losses marginally less painful by taking the league importance out of them? Where is the upside? Of course when/if we improve those PL wins will also mean marginally less too. Half a dozen in one.... Why not then just stay in the PL in that case, continue to play PLs and Ivies and try to get better through incremental improvements like facilities and increased equivalencies? Don't get me wrong, I know that's not a bold plan...but please share with me the wisdom of doing the same thing but adding the dramatic pre-emptive self-inflicted gunshot wound of withdrawing from a league we worked hard to earn membership in? If you want to quit the PL to play much easier schedule- then Pioneer league here we come. If you don't want to be in the Pioneer league (a total non-starter in my opinion) than it is either stay the course and bear down or drop the program. There is no way to get out of the PL, still play northeastern schools we care about, and still play a much easier schedule. That's the reality of FCS football in 2014. You are playing PLs and Ivies or pretend IAA Pioneer/old MAAC. You can't try to play Pioneer/MAAC level opponents who also have Ivy league stature. Wait...doesn't University of Chicago play DIII fb? Now that's the ticket. Barring the PL kicking us out, I think the short term plan is exactly what you describe: (1) stay in the PL; (2) continue to schedule an Ivy or two a year; and (3) try to schedule two or three games each year we feel we should win. Essentially trade an Ivy or two for one or two more winnable games, since the PL games will become increasingly difficult to win. That tweak makes an 0-11 or 1-10 season far less likely, keeps our foot in the door with the Ivys, and keeps most of our games against recognizable peer opponents. And in a good year in the short-term, a 5-5 or 6-4 type record is far from impossible. There's nothing else that's even conceivable in the short term, unless you go to the Pioneer, which we all view as a bad option (or independent, which doesn't do much good). The mid-term plan is to: (1) set out a reachable goal to make the MSF respectable and fundraise toward its completion; and (2) begin fundraising toward scholarship funding, one at a time (and it may be that funding these requires also requiring fundraising toward women's equivalencies for equity reasons). The long-term goal is to complete scholarship funding through fundraising and fundraise toward an even nicer MSF (more akin, though not identical to, the original plan). Separating the two steps of the MSF project is vital in my mind, because if you complete step one quickly, you'll be able to point towards momentum and a consistent vision. Even getting a handful of equivalencies would help a good deal in the mid-term. In neither the short or mid-term are we going to challenge for a PL crown (it's delusional to think otherwise), but we can be respectable in the short term and competitive in the mid-term (consistently around .500). Obviously, the long-term goal would be a long ways off!
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,624
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 20, 2014 11:59:54 GMT -5
(2) begin fundraising toward scholarship funding, one at a time (and it may be that funding these requires also requiring fundraising toward women's equivalencies for equity reasons). The Patriot League's rules regarding scholarships are "all-or-nothing." You either offer football scholarships, in which case all other financial aid for football players is off-limits, or you don't. So - we don't. "One at a time" is not a possibility. The long-term goal is to complete scholarship funding through fundraising and fundraise toward an even nicer MSF (more akin, though not identical to, the original plan). It's really not. There is no - I repeat, no - plan to make Georgetown football a scholarship sport. There is absolutely no institutional appetite for this. It will. not. happen. Not in the short term, not in the medium term, not in the long term. You can take that to the bank.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 20, 2014 12:06:32 GMT -5
"The Patriot League's rules regarding scholarships are "all-or-nothing." You either offer football scholarships, in which case all other financial aid for football players is off-limits, or you don't. So - we don't. "One at a time" is not a possibility."
So then you just work towards increased equivalencies gradually no? What is the functional difference between a schollie and an equivalency? Non-rhetorical question, I don't have a clue.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 20, 2014 12:12:16 GMT -5
aleutianhoya- What do you see as the completion of the MSF in respectable form vs a final nicer version? I think at a minimum the next step has to include permanent home seating for at least 4K, with concrete foundation and masonry detail. Something that in a later phase if necessary can be added to with a large press box/VIP deck or even actual stadium seating. I'm OK with the visitor's side waiting until a later date too. But I think the minimum is permanent seating in a solid structure (not aluminum bleachers) with basic restroom/vendor facilities underneath the home side. Some arches back there would be nice.
If we wait on the visitor's side maybe time will tell if that should be for 1K or 3K in capacity. Likewise if the money isn't there to start moving dirt now I'm OK with a field-house/locker-room facility and as mentioned the press box/VIP area waiting a bit if it means laying a permanent seating foundation of respectable size now.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 20, 2014 13:01:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 20, 2014 13:12:51 GMT -5
Regarding "scholarships," I was being imprecise in my language. I do not mean grant-in-aids, but rather aggressive need buy-outs funded not by the existing university endowment but through fundraising. As we all know, there are many ways to skin a cat, and aggressive aid (far more aggressive than what we do now), can ultimately be quite attractive to low and mid income recruits. (Sure, a rich recruit may well opt for a full ride elsewhere.) Is it the same as a full ride? Of course not. But we could be competitive with over half of our schedule with just that in the mid-term.
With enough raised toward that effort, though, I could absolutely see moving to a true GIA model at some point. But the key is that by "long term," I really do mean long term. Like multi-generational, no one that currently works at the school still will be working there, long term. With that amount of money, it's improbable to think we could get there in anything other than that. So, respectfully Rusky, although I don't dispute your statement about the institutional appetite, I don't think any of us can predict what the school's stance will be under an entirely different regime. In any event, I find it hard to believe that the institution would look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth and reject funding through philanthropy. Finally, I think it's quite likely that the contours of all of this will have changed by the mid-term and long-term, such that the scholarship rules are completely different, either within the PL or in I-AA writ large. For example, maybe there won't be an all or nothing rule in the future in the PL. More fundamentally, the fact is that the very top of I-AA now looks much more similar to the bottom of I-A than it has at any point in recent memory, particularly when you consider that there are very few teams (only the Ivys, Marist, and us on the east coast) playing "I-AAA" football. I just think some reorganization is inevitable, though I don't know what form it will take. Maybe the "power 5" will break away, the other I-A schools will join with the top of I-AA in a new structure, and everyone else will make up the difference. Dunno. In the meantime, the best we can do is raise money, which can be used fungibly moving forward!
Bin, as to the MSF, I think I share your vision. My goal would be to focus on aesthetics in "phase 1" rather than function. First, put in a basic but nice-looking home-side bleacher with, as you say, concrete and masonry work. No need to dig down at all. Second, put some sort of masonry around the entire complex (including the visitors side). Nothing fancy; it can be a three foot high basic brick wall, but get rid of the fencing. Even that "enclosure" would make it more like a "complex" and not a high school field. Third, some sort of designated entry way as opposed to a hole in a chain-link fence. Again, concrete and masonry, but nothing fancy. Finally (but if necessary, this could wait), a very basic locker room, concessions, and rest room set up, almost akin to what you see at most public parks or the beach. It could look nice enough from the outside (nicer than my beach example) but essentially be a warehouse on the inside. I'll be interested to see what the Shaws have done with the soccer facility after this newest round of improvements; it may provide a template.
After you get those steps done, you can make incremental improvements as fundraising permits. (Press box, videoboard, nicer seating, improvements on the visitors side, nicer locker rooms, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Nov 20, 2014 15:51:43 GMT -5
Interesting you bring up Fairfield's lacrosse stadium. A new MSF would help both programs since both could utilize it during their respective seasons. I know people aren't happy with the lacrosse program and current MSF is only holding it back, many HS stadiums are nicer. There still have to be GU Lacrosse boosters that are willing to give. If you think of it, both programs have multiple times the alumni base that basketball does they should be able to get a quality campaign going.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 20, 2014 18:51:40 GMT -5
I don't know where people imagine this extra funding for equivalencies coming from.
|
|
|
Post by puppydog100 on Nov 21, 2014 8:21:21 GMT -5
Problem of Dog, it's going to come from the alums and other members of the football community, just like it does at the other PL programs. If the base is unwilling to support the program, then shut it down.
|
|
cheer48
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 180
|
Post by cheer48 on Nov 21, 2014 9:42:00 GMT -5
Bin: I too am on your bandwagon for whatever I`m worth.....I have had patience for more than 70 years and I have a generous enough supply left to patiently but honestly increment OUR STATUS. Our current schedule is more than ideal, it is perfect ......for the love of God and GU let us not lose it but work it into a satisfactory response.......Dr DiGioa, HEAR US< WE TOO LOVE THIS GREAT UNIVERSITY.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,624
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 21, 2014 12:23:42 GMT -5
So then you just work towards increased equivalencies gradually no? What is the functional difference between a schollie and an equivalency? Non-rhetorical question, I don't have a clue. www.athleticscholarships.net/sports-scholarships/head-count-versus-equivalency-scholarships.htmwww.ncsasports.org/blog/2009/09/22/athletic-scholarships-head-count-versus-equivalency/Regarding "scholarships," I was being imprecise in my language. I do not mean grant-in-aids, but rather aggressive need buy-outs funded not by the existing university endowment but through fundraising. Ok, that makes more sense. With enough raised toward that effort, though, I could absolutely see moving to a true GIA model at some point. But the key is that by "long term," I really do mean long term. Like multi-generational, no one that currently works at the school still will be working there, long term. With that amount of money, it's improbable to think we could get there in anything other than that. So, respectfully Rusky, although I don't dispute your statement about the institutional appetite, I don't think any of us can predict what the school's stance will be under an entirely different regime. To me, this goes beyond regime and instead to institutional culture, something that transcends particular football coaches, athletic directors, or even presidents and boards of directors. The institutional culture at Georgetown places very, very little priority on football. At the Planning 301 meeting last night (more on that in another thread), football and the MSF did not come up even once. The only person to write a comment about it in the charette was me. Students have countless other priorities, faculty have countless other priorities, staff have countless other priorities, and even the Athletics Department has countless other priorities - all of which are far more in tune with Georgetown's institutional culture than the notion of investing many millions of dollars into even mid-level FCS scholarship football. I think the likelihood that the NCAA will de-certify football as a sport due to its inherent dangerousness (after the power five conferences have split away, of course) is much greater than the likelihood of Georgetown ever moving to a scholarship football model. In any event, I find it hard to believe that the institution would look the proverbial gift horse in the mouth and reject funding through philanthropy. Philanthropy doesn't just happen; it is not simply a gift horse that appears magically at one's doorstep. Instead, it is the result of concerted marketing and development efforts undertaken by the University in support of its institutional priorities. No one is just showing up out of the blue at the front gates with a check for $60 million (conservatively) to take the football program up to Patriot League scholarship competitiveness. To fundraise the kind of money necessary to accomplish such a step would require it to be an institutional priority, with the full force of the University's fundraising apparatus behind it. For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football. In the meantime, the best we can do is raise money, which can be used fungibly moving forward! Right. That's the thing, though - because money is fungible, there are many competing priorities for it. Football is nowhere near the top of that list, and I cannot envision it ever moving into a prime position.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 21, 2014 13:14:58 GMT -5
Problem of Dog, it's going to come from the alums and other members of the football community, just like it does at the other PL programs. If the base is unwilling to support the program, then shut it down. Not really. Other PL programs have scholarships funded by the school, which generally aren't endowed. They're not funded year to year by alumni. There's not some major donor out there who is just sitting on a pile of cash waiting to donate it for football equivalencies. Russky nailed it again, even if it isn't what you want to hear and will lead to you demanding more information about a plan that doesn't exist: "Philanthropy doesn't just happen; it is not simply a gift horse that appears magically at one's doorstep. Instead, it is the result of concerted marketing and development efforts undertaken by the University in support of its institutional priorities. No one is just showing up out of the blue at the front gates with a check for $60 million (conservatively) to take the football program up to Patriot League scholarship competitiveness. To fundraise the kind of money necessary to accomplish such a step would require it to be an institutional priority, with the full force of the University's fundraising apparatus behind it. For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football."
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 21, 2014 13:18:49 GMT -5
Russky- What is your best guess for what Reed meant by "very exciting news" about the MSF? Do you think some sort of a permanent seating structure at $5-10MM is out of the question? Did they not already raise $12mm?
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,785
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Nov 21, 2014 13:35:11 GMT -5
For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football." I've never bought the cultural argument. It's not like someone walked into Fordham or Holy Cross with $60M, either.
|
|
cheer48
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 180
|
Post by cheer48 on Nov 21, 2014 13:44:40 GMT -5
Russky you seem to be in "the in and know" and pretty damned fatalistic about a relatively small increment in planning/funding for something that a whole lot of us would not only enjoy but to which we might even contribute. To whom belongs, and why, the "pig-headed" attitude toward the program of which you seem to be a part and.... with which also seem you to have a penchant to gore us. A simple apology accompanies this note if I am dead wrong in this perspective of things
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Nov 21, 2014 13:48:21 GMT -5
Russky- What is your best guess for what Reed meant by "very exciting news" about the MSF? Do you think some sort of a permanent seating structure at $5-10MM is out of the question? Did they not already raise $12mm? DFW- same question to you. What's your best guess? Do you really think a home side akin to Tenney is out of the question? There isn't a lot of space between the current "temporary bleachers and the very modest but nice Tenney.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 21, 2014 14:17:43 GMT -5
Problem of Dog, it's going to come from the alums and other members of the football community, just like it does at the other PL programs. If the base is unwilling to support the program, then shut it down. Not really. Other PL programs have scholarships funded by the school, which generally aren't endowed. They're not funded year to year by alumni. There's not some major donor out there who is just sitting on a pile of cash waiting to donate it for football equivalencies. Russky nailed it again, even if it isn't what you want to hear and will lead to you demanding more information about a plan that doesn't exist: "Philanthropy doesn't just happen; it is not simply a gift horse that appears magically at one's doorstep. Instead, it is the result of concerted marketing and development efforts undertaken by the University in support of its institutional priorities. No one is just showing up out of the blue at the front gates with a check for $60 million (conservatively) to take the football program up to Patriot League scholarship competitiveness. To fundraise the kind of money necessary to accomplish such a step would require it to be an institutional priority, with the full force of the University's fundraising apparatus behind it. For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football." I don't disagree with either you or Russky that fundraising any serious money requires institutional support, creativity and follow-through. No question. And I concede that no significant additional money is going to come from the administration toward football or athletics generally given the other institutional needs and priorities. We are different from our peer schools in that regard. I'm not demanding more information about a "plan." I'm simply setting forth what I think is the only workable model for this program moving forward. The status quo will not be acceptable if we sit pat. It's easy to say that the administration doesn't care about football, but ten consecutive 1-10 seasons would create some issues. In any event, what I'm talking about is something far more incremental than people seem to appreciate. Let's posit that this "exciting news" results in some sort of "phase 1" of the MSF (that is fully funded) in the next x number of years. There's some excitement about that. Finally some movement for the program! Following that successful effort, would the University object if the athletic department/football program set a goal to raise $1 million to endow some small additional aid buy-out? Of course not, right? Now, that's peanuts on an interest-income basis (which is all that matters), I get it. But it's a start. Would a goal of $5M offend the culture and institutional priorities? What if football raised $5M over a decade and there were simply a new $5M raised every decade? In thirty years, you've got $15M raised (in today's dollars) and roughly $500K more to spend every year on buy-outs. Again, we're not hoisting the I-AA trophy with that, but it's significant. Is even that doable? Heck if I know. But to me, it's the only way to go. And if you don't get there, at least you've raised something and that something will help. And if you don't even raise enough to make any difference? Well, at least you tried. As to the fungibility point, I meant that the money would be fungible within the program or, perhaps, within athletics depending on the donor. It's a tired trope that all funding is fungible. If that were true, university development wouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year researching just what to approach certain donors about and cultivating their interests. Simply put, someone may well donate $1M to football but not give more than $10K to any other area of the school. Sure, some donors don't give a hoot and I get that some donations to football take away from other sports or other university priorities. But not all of it. I know that from direct experience on both sides of the table.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Nov 21, 2014 15:48:41 GMT -5
Not really. Other PL programs have scholarships funded by the school, which generally aren't endowed. They're not funded year to year by alumni. There's not some major donor out there who is just sitting on a pile of cash waiting to donate it for football equivalencies. Russky nailed it again, even if it isn't what you want to hear and will lead to you demanding more information about a plan that doesn't exist: "Philanthropy doesn't just happen; it is not simply a gift horse that appears magically at one's doorstep. Instead, it is the result of concerted marketing and development efforts undertaken by the University in support of its institutional priorities. No one is just showing up out of the blue at the front gates with a check for $60 million (conservatively) to take the football program up to Patriot League scholarship competitiveness. To fundraise the kind of money necessary to accomplish such a step would require it to be an institutional priority, with the full force of the University's fundraising apparatus behind it. For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football." I don't disagree with either you or Russky that fundraising any serious money requires institutional support, creativity and follow-through. No question. And I concede that no significant additional money is going to come from the administration toward football or athletics generally given the other institutional needs and priorities. We are different from our peer schools in that regard. I'm not demanding more information about a "plan." I'm simply setting forth what I think is the only workable model for this program moving forward. The status quo will not be acceptable if we sit pat. It's easy to say that the administration doesn't care about football, but ten consecutive 1-10 seasons would create some issues. In any event, what I'm talking about is something far more incremental than people seem to appreciate. Let's posit that this "exciting news" results in some sort of "phase 1" of the MSF (that is fully funded) in the next x number of years. There's some excitement about that. Finally some movement for the program! Following that successful effort, would the University object if the athletic department/football program set a goal to raise $1 million to endow some small additional aid buy-out? Of course not, right? Now, that's peanuts on an interest-income basis (which is all that matters), I get it. But it's a start. Would a goal of $5M offend the culture and institutional priorities? What if football raised $5M over a decade and there were simply a new $5M raised every decade? In thirty years, you've got $15M raised (in today's dollars) and roughly $500K more to spend every year on buy-outs. Again, we're not hoisting the I-AA trophy with that, but it's significant. Is even that doable? Heck if I know. But to me, it's the only way to go. And if you don't get there, at least you've raised something and that something will help. And if you don't even raise enough to make any difference? Well, at least you tried. As to the fungibility point, I meant that the money would be fungible within the program or, perhaps, within athletics depending on the donor. It's a tired trope that all funding is fungible. If that were true, university development wouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year researching just what to approach certain donors about and cultivating their interests. Simply put, someone may well donate $1M to football but not give more than $10K to any other area of the school. Sure, some donors don't give a hoot and I get that some donations to football take away from other sports or other university priorities. But not all of it. I know that from direct experience on both sides of the table. 1) "The status quo will not be acceptable if we sit pat. It's easy to say that the administration doesn't care about football, but ten consecutive 1-10 seasons would create some issues." I don't really think it would create any problems. The administration still wouldn't care at that point. I don't think there's a big difference between that and regularly going between 2 and 4 win seasons to 95% of our alumni and current students. 2) "What if football raised $5M over a decade and there were simply a new $5M raised every decade? In thirty years, you've got $15M raised (in today's dollars) and roughly $500K more to spend every year on buy-outs. Again, we're not hoisting the I-AA trophy with that, but it's significant." This is some really back of the napkin math but: 1) I'm skeptical that $5M could be raised every decade solely for football financial aid, 2) $30M in thirty years is not covering $500k annually in buy outs, nor would $500k annually in 30 years be much more than a drop in the bucket, I mean we're talking like 5-7 full scholarships.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,624
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 21, 2014 17:33:00 GMT -5
For the cultural reasons discussed above, that is not going to happen with football." I've never bought the cultural argument. It's not like someone walked into Fordham or Holy Cross with $60M, either. Yup. Similarly, no one's ever walked into Fordham or Holy Cross and said "I'm at a Top 25 university!" I'm not saying that to denigrate our friends in Worcester and The Bronx. It's just that the contexts of these places, and the expectations of their respective student bodies, faculties, administrations, and alumni - are very different. No one walked into those places with free, fungible money, nor did they find that money in the president's couch. Those schools had to make fundraising for football an institutional priority. That's what I'm saying - Georgetown's institutional culture is not one that would ever make it a priority. The proof of that, I think, is pretty self-evident, even without doing a deep drive on the various aspects of that culture.
|
|