|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 19, 2024 7:22:43 GMT -5
I agree that any administration will come in with its own priorities, biases, and frameworks and make adjustments accordingly. Why wouldn't they?
The real question is how much you can effect performance moving around available resources. There's a couple issues. First, you have to abide by Title IX. So, if you want to reallocate away from a women's sport, it better be to another women's sport. Second, we don't spend very much at all on a number of what you would deem underperforming sports. Field hockey. Softball. Crew. Tennis. Golf. You can't really reallocate away from them without eliminating them entirely. And the money you would then be able to reallocate elsewhere likely wouldn't move the needle much toward national relevancy. So, then, you need to ask whether it's really worth eliminating a sport in order to not gain much in terms of competitiveness elsewhere.
And football of course exemplifies the challenge the most.
Third, you have targeted endowments supporting some sports. It's not impossible to reallocate those (money is fungible), but it's hard if a sport's only scholarship support is through fundraising.
I believe we give out approximately 130 scholarships per year across all sports.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 19, 2024 10:49:21 GMT -5
Simple example: Take women's crew vs VB. With 10 + full scholarships Gtwn women's crew could certainly be a top 10-20 program at a min (I think VB has 9 and women's crew might have a 1-3). I suspect that crew could be periodically in contention for a title with right staff and a little luck. VB is nowhere close to that. Reallocating money like this is definitely doable--just need some leadership--that was an easy example--could make many others. VB was a title 9 add when women's crew was not an NCAA sport--given Gtwn's profile allocating a ton of money to VB vs Crew makes no sense whatsoever as the respective sports landscapes have changed.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,861
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 19, 2024 12:14:44 GMT -5
Simple example: Take women's crew vs VB. With 10 + full scholarships Gtwn women's crew could certainly be a top 10-20 program at a min (I think VB has 9 and women's crew might have a 1-3). I suspect that crew could be periodically in contention for a title with right staff and a little luck. VB is nowhere close to that. Reallocating money like this is definitely doable--just need some leadership--that was an easy example--could make many others. VB was a title 9 add when women's crew was not an NCAA sport--given Gtwn's profile allocating a ton of money to VB vs Crew makes no sense whatsoever as the respective sports landscapes have changed. This is a good example of some of the strategies that athletic directors must deal with--especially at Georgetown, where the growth in athletic scholarships are limited and there are numerous competing interests. Volleyball has never been a major sport at Georgetown and its base of philanthropic support is not as strong as other women's sports, Traditionally, rowing at Georgetown gets more alumni support but their rosters are also three times what they are in volleyball. At a distance, it's easier to say "move the money" but two constraints get in the way: 1) University priorities and 2) Big East priorities. Going back to its origins at Georgetown, rowing was always looked upon in the Oxford-Cambridge tradition of scholar-athletes, though UK schools do offer grants now. The egalitarian nature of rowing appealed to Tim Healy and those who built the program in the 1970s. Much like football, the University is resistant to moving rowing out of that stylized view. Perhaps the larger constraint are Big East priorities. There are definitely priorities in Big East sponsored sports-- basketball is at the head of the table, but also soccer, baseball, etc. Volleyball may be higher up on the list than rowing, and the conference expects a certain level of funding from its member schools in sports it is prioritizing. Conversely, the University can get by with field hockey being underfunded because the Big East relies on associate members to fill out its schedule. To further complicate matters: the NCAA is opening the floodgates to allow many, many more scholarships in certain sports to appease P3/P4 schools. It used to be that 10 rowing scholarships could make a school a national contender. Not much longer... www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/archives/archive0724.htm
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 19, 2024 13:07:04 GMT -5
Simple example: Take women's crew vs VB. With 10 + full scholarships Gtwn women's crew could certainly be a top 10-20 program at a min (I think VB has 9 and women's crew might have a 1-3). I suspect that crew could be periodically in contention for a title with right staff and a little luck. VB is nowhere close to that. Reallocating money like this is definitely doable--just need some leadership--that was an easy example--could make many others. VB was a title 9 add when women's crew was not an NCAA sport--given Gtwn's profile allocating a ton of money to VB vs Crew makes no sense whatsoever as the respective sports landscapes have changed. DFW's Big East expectations are a real thing (or at least they used to be in the old BE...maybe that's changed). But I agree in principle. You could move things around between women's sports or between men's sports so long as you aren't breaking any endowment rules.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 19, 2024 15:12:39 GMT -5
Simple example: Take women's crew vs VB. With 10 + full scholarships Gtwn women's crew could certainly be a top 10-20 program at a min (I think VB has 9 and women's crew might have a 1-3). I suspect that crew could be periodically in contention for a title with right staff and a little luck. VB is nowhere close to that. Reallocating money like this is definitely doable--just need some leadership--that was an easy example--could make many others. VB was a title 9 add when women's crew was not an NCAA sport--given Gtwn's profile allocating a ton of money to VB vs Crew makes no sense whatsoever as the respective sports landscapes have changed. The most glaring issue with this sort of analysis is its reductiveness in holding up wins and trophies as the only measure of value. Athletics programs have many benefits that are either more difficult to quantify directly or are not talked about openly much. The most obvious example of the latter is demographic, which now has even more importance in a post-affirmative action era. Not to put too fine a point on it, but: compare the racial makeup of the football team to that of the student body as a whole, and then you'll understand a key reason why the Ivies, Georgetown, etc. maintain programs - and, along with the programs, the sort of wraparound services and community that facilitate positive outcomes. Volleyball is not quite in the same boat as football, but that is also a consideration there - certainly much more so than women's rowing. We could keep going down the list of considerations if we want to, and every sport has their own unique arrangement (some sports, for example, occasionally get used as vehicles for getting in 'special interest students'). But I think I've gotten my main point across.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 19, 2024 17:52:50 GMT -5
I get that there is more than annual W/L tally that goes into decisions like this. Building a program with worthwhile competitive goals, accountability etc. is part of the learning exp of D1 college athletics. Mediocre efforts tend not to impart a lot of valuable soft skills as you allude to. Also, from a community perspective, alumni are much more engaged in a serious program with meaningful objectives than with an effort that is a glorified and expensive club. There is a virtuous circle of student quality, alum engagement and support that goes along with competitive success.
On the women's rowing front for ex Penn was top 10 last year. If we can't compete with them with let's say 12 full scholarships, we should get a new coach. The top programs get 16, if the univ showed commitment to support the sport rounding out the full allotment in this case would be pretty easy. Btw Penn had a couple of African American kids on its squad.
Obviously, part of being successful as an organization is adapting. The degree of inertia in this regard is surprising.
|
|
|
Post by WilsonBlvdHoya on Sept 19, 2024 18:40:35 GMT -5
I get that there is more than annual W/L tally that goes into decisions like this. Building a program with worthwhile competitive goals, accountability etc. is part of the learning exp of D1 college athletics. Mediocre efforts tend not to impart a lot of valuable soft skills as you allude to. Also, from a community perspective, alumni are much more engaged in a serious program with meaningful objectives than with an effort that is a glorified and expensive club. There is a virtuous circle of student quality, alum engagement and support that goes along with competitive success. On the women's rowing front for ex Penn was top 10 last year. If we can't compete with them with let's say 12 full scholarships, we should get a new coach. The top programs get 16, if the univ showed commitment to support the sport rounding out the full allotment in this case would be pretty easy. Btw Penn had a couple of African American kids on its squad. Obviously, part of being successful as an organization is adapting. The degree of inertia in this regard is surprising. Inertia, thy name is Georgetown....
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 21, 2024 10:26:10 GMT -5
I get that there is more than annual W/L tally that goes into decisions like this. Building a program with worthwhile competitive goals, accountability etc. is part of the learning exp of D1 college athletics. Mediocre efforts tend not to impart a lot of valuable soft skills as you allude to. This is just doubling down on the same reductiveness I called out earlier, and it's even worse. The notion that you don't build "soft skills" if you're not winning a ton (remember, the Oxford definition of "mediocre" is "of only moderate quality; not very good" such that *most* teams are mediocre or worse) is preposterous. There is a lot to be learned from fighting through adversity and sticking with it, even if ultimately you come up short. Most people never even make it to the starting line. This is why NCAA athletes whose teams weren't all that - which, again, is the majority - still donate at far higher rates than non-athletes. You can learn a lot more when you start at first and make it to third than you can as the proverbial person born on third who thinks they hit a triple. The competitive goals and accountability look different in each sport, as do the structural challenges to success. Not having your own field for field hockey is a pretty enormous structural challenge! It naturally limits the level of success you're going to have. That does not mean that those players' time at Georgetown has been a waste, that they haven't learned anything, etc. Nor does it mean that the program should be done away with. Likewise, not having a full complement of FCS scholarships is a pretty enormous structural challenge. That doesn't mean it's time to throw in the towel On the women's rowing front for ex Penn was top 10 last year. If we can't compete with them with let's say 12 full scholarships, we should get a new coach. The top programs get 16, if the univ showed commitment to support the sport rounding out the full allotment in this case would be pretty easy. Btw Penn had a couple of African American kids on its squad. As I'm sure you're aware, Penn does not offer athletic scholarships, so any comparison in that regard is very difficult. Depending on the family finances of their rowers, they could be giving the equivalent of 0 scholarships in a year or the equivalent of 48+ scholarships (the proposed number in the House settlement) or anywhere in between. You can bet that their coaches aim to use their financial aid policies to their maximum competitive advantage. I also assume you're aware that the rowing scholarship cap is 20, not 16, and there are a number of programs at the cap. Obviously, part of being successful as an organization is adapting. The degree of inertia in this regard is surprising. There is plenty of inertia within the AD and Georgetown generally. But 'we should get rid of any sport that isn't winning enough for my liking' is not an example of successful adaptation, it's the sort of thing that people on message boards say.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 21, 2024 16:40:02 GMT -5
Few Thoughts: 1)Soft skills can be developed in all kinds of club's orgs etc--one doesn't need a D1 team to do that. Mediocre D1 NCAA sports efforts are generally a misallocation of resources for Gtwn. 2)On the Rowing vs VB example--Having 9 Full's for a sport were uncompetitive at in any meaningful way seems like a very inefficient way to develop soft skills for students. Rather see the money go to non-academic aid, sport where we can be competitive, research etc. 3)Gtwn & Penn a comparable in terms of general student attractiveness. With rowing Gtwn could easily attract a several jr national/international team level recruits with full scholarship--even half scholarship offers. Add a top coach and it would be easy to compete at least at the Penn level, probably higher. There are other sport pairs one could make similar arguments, but this seemed glaringly obvious.
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,817
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Sept 27, 2024 21:08:34 GMT -5
Few Thoughts: 1)Soft skills can be developed in all kinds of club's orgs etc--one doesn't need a D1 team to do that. Mediocre D1 NCAA sports efforts are generally a misallocation of resources for Gtwn. 2)On the Rowing vs VB example--Having 9 Full's for a sport were uncompetitive at in any meaningful way seems like a very inefficient way to develop soft skills for students. Rather see the money go to non-academic aid, sport where we can be competitive, research etc. 3)Gtwn & Penn a comparable in terms of general student attractiveness. With rowing Gtwn could easily attract a several jr national/international team level recruits with full scholarship--even half scholarship offers. Add a top coach and it would be easy to compete at least at the Penn level, probably higher. There are other sport pairs one could make similar arguments, but this seemed glaringly obvious. Georgetown and Penn are definitely not comparable in terms of attractiveness *to a rower* - which is the salient comparison. Compare the decades long Georgetown boathouse saga and the conditions in Thompson with the Burk-Bergman Boathouse. As for the rest... I'm sorry, but this comes off like Business School Professor Who Writes Self Help Books speak about how 'if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing excellently.' Or maybe it's better captured by our favorite Red Lobster Fornicator and St. John's Head Basketball Coach, who would tell you that "Success is a Choice." This genre omits so many relevant variables I'm surprised it doesn't feature a frictionless plane. Again, most programs/teams are mediocre or worse, which we can define as below the 75th percentile. Does that mean 75% of programs should close up shop? No, of course not. Army and Navy football are never going to be in a CFB playoff game, but they're going to keep doing their thing.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Sept 28, 2024 8:41:04 GMT -5
Your first point is not accurate re relative attractiveness of Penn vs GTWN for a rower as least as it refers to a boathouse. I'm involved in one of the comparable Ivy programs on an official basis so am up the curve re the actual reality of recruiting. As far as Penn vs Gtwn for women specifically Penn's main advantages would be Wharton + coaching. Boathouse would not be a big deal for most people. As far as Gtwn having major scholarship support, which it does not currently have, and some coaching additions yes, we would win more often than lose vs Penn except with people very focused on Wharton Undergrad. Columbia, for ex, rows out of the back of an office park in NJ--rowers have to go back and forth across the GW bridge to row. Columbia wins vs Penn recruiting except where kids are obsessed with Wharton on the squads where it has better coaches. On the individual squads where the coaching comp is more neutral the recruiting battle is closer.
For you second point it's about allocating resources intelligently and using judgment in periodically reevaluating what one is doing as an organization. The Army Navy FB game is not a serious comparison for what we are talking about-quite silly actually.
|
|