|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 14, 2017 17:29:27 GMT -5
What do you know about the team and program for this year?
|
|
|
Post by hilltophoya on Aug 15, 2017 7:55:04 GMT -5
Graduated two seniors (a MB and a DS/S). Three new players coming in. One is a graduate student MB that was first team all-conference in the Big West last season. Plus two freshman (an OH and a S). Only one defensive player listed on the roster. I'd assume that one of the six OH (or maybe one of the RS) will earn playing time at DS. The class of 2015 that has been the core of the team for the last two years has another year of experience under it's belt, so hopefully they're ready for a breakout year. Speech is pre-season All-Big East.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,546
|
Post by DanMcQ on Aug 15, 2017 8:16:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 15, 2017 8:49:37 GMT -5
Graduated two seniors (a MB and a DS/S). Three new players coming in. One is a graduate student MB that was first team all-conference in the Big West last season. Plus two freshman (an OH and a S). Only one defensive player listed on the roster. I'd assume that one of the six OH (or maybe one of the RS) will earn playing time at DS. The class of 2015 that has been the core of the team for the last two years has another year of experience under it's belt, so hopefully they're ready for a breakout year. Speech is pre-season All-Big East. I went looking for a press release on the three new additions and couldnt find one. Not sure why they havent put anything out around signing day as they have done in the past.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 15, 2017 13:20:13 GMT -5
Have no real view on how they'll do but have noticed that like m & w lax, women's volleyball has substantially downgraded its schedule recently. 5 + years ago they used to play some B10/ACC/SEC teams in addition to Ivies + BE. Now its pretty much local teams + BE. Given that some of the other scholarship sports which have not been performing that well also downgraded their schedule I wonder if its just a coaches or an ath dept thing to go for better record vs lesser competition.
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 15, 2017 15:48:04 GMT -5
Have no real view on how they'll do but have noticed that like m & w lax, women's volleyball has substantially downgraded its schedule recently. 5 + years ago they used to play some B10/ACC/SEC teams in addition to Ivies + BE. Now its pretty much local teams + BE. Given that some of the other scholarship sports which have not been performing that well also downgraded their schedule I wonder if its just a coaches or an ath dept thing to go for better record vs lesser competition. I think the program is caught in a tough spot trying to compete against schools that are fully funded while having some pretty stringent admissions criteria for student-athletes. It would be nice if the school decided to place more emphasis on a sport that is seeing rapid growth amongst young women across the nation. Volleyball is quickly displacing basketball as the preferred sport for young girls as well as high school aged women. It seems that Georgetown doesn't seem to care much about the sport. For that matter, the number of girls high school volleyball participants blow away soccer 436K vs 381K, and lacrosse 436K vs 88K yet Georgetown isn't fully funding the sport at the varsity level. There's no way they can compete nationally, let alone in the Big East if the school doesn't support the program. www.espn.com/espnw/sports/article/18659764/why-young-athletes-flocking-volleyball-not-basketball-record-numberswww.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2015-16_Sports_Participation_Survey.pdf
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 15, 2017 21:15:29 GMT -5
I think they have 9 full scholarships(a lot for gtown) versus NCAA max 12 and are not really competitive. I doubt moving to 12 would make that much of a diff. If we really wanted to compete we'd probably need also a new coach and be willing to recruit foreign collegians, relax academic standards further. Almost none of our peer schools put any emphasis on the sport, don't know why we focus on it other than being a legacy title 9 effort from the 70's before sports like golf and rowing really took off for women at the NCAA level. Hard to see why we'd be elite when almost none of our peers are.
If we moved the volleyball scholarships to golf/tennis/rowing we'd likely be able to compete for a national title in rowing and be top 20 in golf/tennis.
I have nothing against volleyball specifically, ironically my brother was a pro beach player. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to run as a mostly fully funded program at gtown and not be competitive while we could use the money to fund other programs that could be high elite. If simply moving from 9 to 12 scholarships allowed us to compete for a national title I'd be all for it, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we'd still be mediocre. I do agree however, that the status quo makes no sense from a university resource perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 15, 2017 23:39:40 GMT -5
I think they have 9 full scholarships(a lot for gtown) versus NCAA max 12 and are not really competitive. I doubt moving to 12 would make that much of a diff. If we really wanted to compete we'd probably need also a new coach and be willing to recruit foreign collegians, relax academic standards further. Almost none of our peer schools put any emphasis on the sport, don't know why we focus on it other than being a legacy title 9 effort from the 70's before sports like golf and rowing really took off for women at the NCAA level. Hard to see why we'd be elite when almost none of our peers are. If we moved the volleyball scholarships to golf/tennis/rowing we'd likely be able to compete for a national title in rowing and be top 20 in golf/tennis. I have nothing against volleyball specifically, ironically my brother was a pro beach player. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to run as a mostly fully funded program at gtown and not be competitive while we could use the money to fund other programs that could be high elite. If simply moving from 9 to 12 scholarships allowed us to compete for a national title I'd be all for it, but I think the evidence is pretty clear that we'd still be mediocre. I do agree however, that the status quo makes no sense from a university resource perspective. Shut down football and you will have more than enough money to support all other sports fully. I don't know who you are referring to as peer schools but Creighton competes nationally every year in volleyball and is ranked in the top ten this year. Marquette is also a nationally competitive program. Both schools are fully funded. At only 9 scholarships you don't even have a second string of players on scholarship. 6 starters in volleyball it's impossible to compete asking kids to walk on at Gtown paying $66k a year when other schools are offering fulls. Foreign players are not necessary, no idea where you came up with that.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,748
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 16, 2017 5:58:09 GMT -5
Shut down football and you will have more than enough money to support all other sports fully. Not a persuasive argument, nor one grounded in reality. Football accounts for less than 5% of the athletic budget. And for further discussion, the operating cost per player by men's sport: Rowing: $1,509 Track: $2,614 Swimming: $4,193 Tennis: $4,263 Lacrosse: $3,934 Football: $5,352 Golf: $5,939 Soccer: $7,856 Baseball: $11,958 Basketball: $235,108
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 16, 2017 7:14:34 GMT -5
Shut down football and you will have more than enough money to support all other sports fully. Not a persuasive argument, nor one grounded in reality. Football accounts for less than 5% of the athletic budget. And for further discussion, the operating cost per player by men's sport: Rowing: $1,509 Track: $2,614 Swimming: $4,193 Tennis: $4,263 Lacrosse: $3,934 Football: $5,352 Golf: $5,939 Soccer: $7,856 Baseball: $11,958 Basketball: $235,108 No idea where these numbers came from but assuming they are correct a per player operating cost is irrelevant. Football as 92 players on their roster which equates to roughly $500k in operating costs. Far more costly than any other sport besides basketball. Theres no way that $500k covers salaries for the program as well as travel, equipment, facilities etc...playing at the FCS level. Whats the point of having a team when it sucks up such a large financial commitment when those resources could be used elsewhere in sports that Gtown competes at the highest levels of Ncaa competition.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 16, 2017 7:23:56 GMT -5
Womens tennis, golf and rowing are more competitive than volleyball with something like 1 scholarship each and generally compete versus schools we care about-also our peer schools do very well in those sports, get elite recruits etc. Brown has won the women's rowing champs and I think Northwestern was first or second at golf this year. Volleyball dominated by Stanford, west coast and a few big midwestern state schools.
Creighton and marquette are decent, a stretch to consider them peer schools and really no threat to compete for a natl champ. None of the ivies focus on the sport. Also isn't a priority for Duke, Northwestern, i.e., our admissions peers. I watched some of the NCAA champs on ESPN this year and there seemed to be a heavy population of foreign players. Maybe if you gave the extra scholarships, got some type of big name coach and changed admissions standards we'd be good-don't see any of this happening and from an investment perspective, and assuming funds are constrained, it shouldn't.
9 full scholarships at gtwn for a non competitive program with virtually no alumni support, plays no schools we really care about is probably a massive over investment, not a good justification for more funding-and very hard to justify as is. To make us competitive at a level that would justify a fully funded program I think we'd need a coach/program geared with a credible plan to make a deep NCAA run with some frequency, play against power 5 in non cons etc. Just adding few more scholarships in the absence of some big overall push would be wasting more $ than we already do.
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 16, 2017 8:13:24 GMT -5
Womens tennis, golf and rowing are more competitive than volleyball with something like 1 scholarship each and generally compete versus schools we care about-also our peer schools do very well in those sports, get elite recruits etc. Brown has won the women's rowing champs and I think Northwestern was first or second at golf this year. Volleyball dominated by Stanford, west coast and a few big midwestern state schools. Creighton and marquette are decent, a stretch to consider them peer schools and really no threat to compete for a natl champ. None of the ivies focus on the sport. Also isn't a priority for Duke, Northwestern, i.e., our admissions peers. I watched some of the NCAA champs on ESPN this year and there seemed to be a heavy population of foreign players. Maybe if you gave the extra scholarships, got some type of big name coach and changed admissions standards we'd be good-don't see any of this happening and from an investment perspective, and assuming funds are constrained, it shouldn't. 9 full scholarships at gtwn for a non competitive program with virtually no alumni support, plays no schools we really care about is probably a massive over investment, not a good justification for more funding-and very hard to justify as is. To make us competitive at a level that would justify a fully funded program I think we'd need a coach/program geared with a credible plan to make a deep NCAA run with some frequency, play against power 5 in non cons etc. Just adding few more scholarships in the absence of some big overall push would be wasting more $ than we already do. Its clear you dont understand. Nationally, nobody cares about rowing, golf and tennis at the NCAA level. Nobody. Volleyball is the second most attended womens sport behind basketball in attendance every year. Volleyball has more participants in high school than basketball. Its a HUGELY popular sport amongst women at all levels. If you want to shut down every sport thats not competitive on a national level at Gtown then you can start with football and after that there are plenty to choose from. You never did indicate who are "peers" are.
|
|
|
Post by hilltophoya on Aug 16, 2017 8:51:42 GMT -5
Shut down football and you will have more than enough money to support all other sports fully. Not a persuasive argument, nor one grounded in reality. Football accounts for less than 5% of the athletic budget. And for further discussion, the operating cost per player by men's sport: Rowing: $1,509 Track: $2,614 Swimming: $4,193 Tennis: $4,263 Lacrosse: $3,934 Football: $5,352 Golf: $5,939 Soccer: $7,856 Baseball: $11,958 Basketball: $235,108 I'm curious where these numbers come from and what is included in "operating cost." I'd also be curious to see the same figures for the women's sports. I ask because I've seen Georgetown's basketball budget listed at more than $11 million. Obviously, that includes recruiting and a whole host of other costs that probably aren't included in the figure above. What would be included in the numbers you provided?
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 16, 2017 14:34:56 GMT -5
This year's NFHS high school participation stats have just been released for 2016/2017 Ten Most Popular Girls Programs 1. Track & Field - Outdoor - 494,477 2. Volleyball - 444,779 3. Basketball - 430,368 4. Soccer - 388,339 5. Softball - 367,405 6. Cross Country - 226,039 7. Tennis - 187,519 8. Swimming - 170,797 9. Cheerleading/Pom/Dance - 144,243 10. Lacrosse - 93,473 Volleyball is the second fastest growing sport for girls just behind track with and additional 8,470 new participants this year vs last. Track had 8,508 new girls participate this year. Volleyball is the #1 TEAM sport by participation as well as the fastest growing TEAM sport. Clearly, anyone running an athletic department doesnt cut funding in a sport that is wildly popular amongst girls and if the department is on the ball they would be wise to invest in the program and fully fund it. It has become the sport of choice for girls, more so than basketball. Times have changed and the Gtown athletic department should change with it. Where's rowing and golf? www.nfhs.org/articles/high-school-sports-participation-increases-for-28th-straight-year-nears-8-million-mark/
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,748
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Aug 16, 2017 18:53:40 GMT -5
I'm curious where these numbers come from and what is included in "operating cost." I'd also be curious to see the same figures for the women's sports. I ask because I've seen Georgetown's basketball budget listed at more than $11 million. Obviously, that includes recruiting and a whole host of other costs that probably aren't included in the figure above. What would be included in the numbers you provided? The numbers below come from the United States Department of Education, which defines operating costs as "all expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests," but which does not count coaches salaries, appearance guarantees, or scholarships, for example. Men's Rowing: $1,509 per student-athlete Men's Track: $2,614 Women's Rowing: $2,631 Women's Track: $2,743 Field Hockey: $4,075 Men's Swimming: $4,193 Women's Swimming: $4,193 Men's Tennis: $4,263 Women's Tennis: $4,441 Women's Lacrosse: $4,537 Men's Lacrosse: $3,934 Women's Golf: $5,033 Football: $5,352 Men's Golf: $5,939 Women's Soccer: $6,742 Men's Soccer: $7,856 Softball: $9,682 Volleyball: $9,474 Baseball: $11,958 Women's Basketball: $42,191 Men's Basketball: $235,108
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 17, 2017 17:00:58 GMT -5
I would count our peers for this discussion as academically elite institutions which also field d1 sports teams. I guess that would be the Ivies, Northwestern, Duke, ND, Vandy, Stanford, maybe UVA. Obviously we have significantly less resources overall than all of these schools, though in terms of money allocated to sports and not playing D1 football we are probably pretty close to the Ivies.
You seem to be arguing that since volleyball has some general popularity at a high school level for girls in the US therefore we should allocate a lot of resources to it. That really doesn't seem to make sense as I don't think we are well positioned to field an elite program. Having a slightly better but still mediocre program would seem to be a waste of marginal incremental resources. Most top educational institutions focus on areas where they can exhibit excellence, whether it be in teaching, research, or athletics. Volleyball, which gets substantial support already has not evidenced any ability to compete at an elite level. If I look at the ivies, e.g., a lot of them have elite hockey programs. I would not recommend that Gtwn build a hockey program just because some of our peers do so because I think there is little prospect that we could build a top program at any kind of reasonable cost. Similarly if I took an academic example, not a lot of HS students study Arabic. However, Gtwn fields a top program because its part of an elite intl affairs offering which can be provided at a reasonable cost due to location philanthropic support, student demand etc. Gtwn is probably not as distinguished relatively speaking at some of the more popular languages.
The other sports that I mentioned as examples, e.g., rowing, golf and tennis have all shown at least a periodic ability to either produce elite individual competitors(olympic medals for rowing), or significant team accomplishments, i.e., ncaa appearances for women's golf this year etc with very limited resources. All of these sports, rowing particularly have much stronger alumni support vs volleyball and we can easily point to success stories for our peer schools. Therefore if I'm going to reallocate resources among sports I would tend to give the extra fund to programs where either we/our peers have shown some success.
|
|
|
Post by Toby2 on Aug 17, 2017 19:03:10 GMT -5
I would count our peers for this discussion as academically elite institutions which also field d1 sports teams. I guess that would be the Ivies, Northwestern, Duke, ND, Vandy, Stanford, maybe UVA. Obviously we have significantly less resources overall than all of these schools, though in terms of money allocated to sports and not playing D1 football we are probably pretty close to the Ivies. You seem to be arguing that since volleyball has some general popularity at a high school level for girls in the US therefore we should allocate a lot of resources to it. That really doesn't seem to make sense as I don't think we are well positioned to field an elite program. Having a slightly better but still mediocre program would seem to be a waste of marginal incremental resources. Most top educational institutions focus on areas where they can exhibit excellence, whether it be in teaching, research, or athletics. Volleyball, which gets substantial support already has not evidenced any ability to compete at an elite level. If I look at the ivies, e.g., a lot of them have elite hockey programs. I would not recommend that Gtwn build a hockey program just because some of our peers do so because I think there is little prospect that we could build a top program at any kind of reasonable cost. Similarly if I took an academic example, not a lot of HS students study Arabic. However, Gtwn fields a top program because its part of an elite intl affairs offering which can be provided at a reasonable cost due to location philanthropic support, student demand etc. Gtwn is probably not as distinguished relatively speaking at some of the more popular languages. The other sports that I mentioned as examples, e.g., rowing, golf and tennis have all shown at least a periodic ability to either produce elite individual competitors(olympic medals for rowing), or significant team accomplishments, i.e., ncaa appearances for women's golf this year etc with very limited resources. All of these sports, rowing particularly have much stronger alumni support vs volleyball and we can easily point to success stories for our peer schools. Therefore if I'm going to reallocate resources among sports I would tend to give the extra fund to programs where either we/our peers have shown some success. Rowing? Seriously? Rowing? The sport is so malnourished of talent they have to scour athletes from other sports to row. Rowing coaches are recruiting volleyball players that arent good enough to play in college. The Ivies dont offer athletic scholarships, Gtown does, thats a huge difference. The Ivies are not Gtown peers wherever they offer athletic scholarships.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 17, 2017 21:52:08 GMT -5
You're right that rowing coaches seek volleyball players for talent. The reason is that height and explosive leg drive are success factors common to both sports--just like volleyball takes some players from basketball. My brother played on the AVP tour, I doubt very much he could have made the US rowing team because he lacks the elite aerobic capacity required(similar to that of a world class track and field star.) My brother was an elite athlete i.e., run a high 21 sec 200m high jump 6'10 and is 6'4'. No way he makes olympic rowing team-also he played D1 basketball. There have been a few examples of track team members at gtown trying rowing, None were true stars at rowing though. I think we could all agree that most of the gtown track team members are elite athletes.
Ivies are better at men's/women's lax despite we fully fund m/w lax programs. Gtown is better at soccer than ivies because of coaching(men) and a few superstars(women) at gtown. Change coaches, not sure we are much better. Ivies better at swimming/tennis/rowing/football maybe golf. I suspect gtwn would be comparable to top ivies in volleyball but certainly not dominate desire its 9 full scholarships. same story for baseball/softball which are partially funded. Track (fully funded) is better at gtown, but not by a lot anymore. We compete with the ivies for recruits across all these sports. Seems like as good a peer group as were going to get.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,600
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Aug 19, 2017 10:10:35 GMT -5
I would count our peers for this discussion as academically elite institutions which also field d1 sports teams. I guess that would be the Ivies, Northwestern, Duke, ND, Vandy, Stanford, maybe UVA. Obviously we have significantly less resources overall than all of these schools, though in terms of money allocated to sports and not playing D1 football we are probably pretty close to the Ivies. You seem to be arguing that since volleyball has some general popularity at a high school level for girls in the US therefore we should allocate a lot of resources to it. That really doesn't seem to make sense as I don't think we are well positioned to field an elite program. Having a slightly better but still mediocre program would seem to be a waste of marginal incremental resources. Most top educational institutions focus on areas where they can exhibit excellence, whether it be in teaching, research, or athletics. Volleyball, which gets substantial support already has not evidenced any ability to compete at an elite level. If I look at the ivies, e.g., a lot of them have elite hockey programs. I would not recommend that Gtwn build a hockey program just because some of our peers do so because I think there is little prospect that we could build a top program at any kind of reasonable cost. Similarly if I took an academic example, not a lot of HS students study Arabic. However, Gtwn fields a top program because its part of an elite intl affairs offering which can be provided at a reasonable cost due to location philanthropic support, student demand etc. Gtwn is probably not as distinguished relatively speaking at some of the more popular languages. The other sports that I mentioned as examples, e.g., rowing, golf and tennis have all shown at least a periodic ability to either produce elite individual competitors(olympic medals for rowing), or significant team accomplishments, i.e., ncaa appearances for women's golf this year etc with very limited resources. All of these sports, rowing particularly have much stronger alumni support vs volleyball and we can easily point to success stories for our peer schools. Therefore if I'm going to reallocate resources among sports I would tend to give the extra fund to programs where either we/our peers have shown some success. Volleyball was more competitive during at least one stretch in the past, judging by the aging banners in McDonough. What changed? I'm guessing the same thing as with many other sports: the college athletics arms race left Georgetown in the dust, particularly with regard to facilities. Let's see how the volleyball team does over the next couple of seasons, now that they are no longer the low (wo)man on the totem pole in their own building, forced to schedule their practices around the basketball teams and give up their lockers at the end of every season to make room for other sports. That kind of stuff does have a real impact on recruiting. EDIT to add: I suppose I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the key role played by Jolene Nagel, who led the Hoyas program to its greatest success before leaving for Duke and establishing them as a powerhouse. She was clearly a top-flight coach whom the Hoyas were lucky to have for as long as they did... although even in her case, her overall record was only 118-100 - a testament to how difficult it can be to win at Georgetown, in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Aug 20, 2017 7:54:52 GMT -5
Agree with your last point-even looking at the Duke example they are not asked in the top 25(not RV) for this year's poll. Duke women's VB has not made NCAA's in the last couple of years(had some good NCAA success 5 years ago. Good team, better conf, excellent coach, fully funded, arguably equal(being kind to us school, etc. It would be very hard, and expensive to try to compete even at their level. Also we're competing for the most part vs schools that have no academic restrictions(few exceptions).
Compare vs rowing: Yale Prin Brown all top 10. Top 20 includes Syr Duke. Harvard, Penn also in out top 20. Yes, its easier to field a top team in some sports than others but that's the point. No way Duke should be a quantum better than us in rowing but they are because of our scholarship (mis)allocation
In other sports like golf/tennis the ivies pul in a few top 20-30 recruits and many top 50 nowadays--we could easily do the same. same probably goes for field hockey too.
Sometimes it makes sense to focus on path of least resistance-competitive advantage rather than beat one's head against the wall--and more importantly allocating scarce scholarship money where it has no meaningful impact
Getting a full scholarship at gown should be reserved
|
|