|
Post by reformation on Jun 26, 2010 19:53:45 GMT -5
Emily Jones I believe also makes the US JR team with a second in the 5k--
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 26, 2010 19:00:09 GMT -5
Rachel Schneider makes the world jr team in the 1500 with a close second place finish to Jordan Hasay of Oregon. Huge improvement/yr for Rachel(a freshman)
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 25, 2010 20:40:23 GMT -5
Even though they did not move on it was a good showing + experience for Whalen/Tomlin. I wonder if Whalen will continue to run post collegiately. She is 2-3 seconds away from being competitive as a pro, which is a lot though not totally out of reach considering how much she has improved in the last year. Tomlin has become more consistent and improved a bit this year too, xeperience at the pro level like this should give her final season a big boost.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 23, 2010 13:51:11 GMT -5
It will be interesting to see what soph Emily Infeld can do running against the pro's
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 23, 2010 13:49:44 GMT -5
Pretty tough heat for the gtwn runners to advance
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 12, 2010 15:54:59 GMT -5
I guess anecdotal evidence from GU administrators, faculty etc re the academic quality of recruited athletes. (plus my own direct experience from teaching at two Ivies)
The avg academic credentials of elite lax, track, probably baseball too are below the avg for the the university. That's the same story for many different types of special admits too-developmental, diversity etc. DFW, maintaining that recruited athletes at Gtwn have the same incoming credentials as the genl student population is pure fantasy. That's not to say that there aren't athletes who are great students, add diversity, or perform well in the classroom. Some sports require big acdemic exceptions to compete, others require fewer --"all" sports require some if they expect to compete at--Gtwn is not worse than the ivies in this regard, but making believe that it hold uniquely high standards is a joke too.
One of my friends is a professor at one of the ivies who told me that the worst student in her entire career was a recruited rower--that school won the natl championship with that rower and probably would not have won the championship without the elite international recruit. I have no issue with that ivy making the tradeoff to let the recruit in which gave the team a shot at the natl championship.
Btw--DFW where does 3.2 put a GU student in a class rank prespective--is it top 50%? Not sure how big a deal that really is-not saying its a bad statistic, just seems to say that a good % of the football team actually performs around the avg academically.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 12, 2010 15:02:15 GMT -5
Congrats to Bumby! Hopefully he will keep running post collegiately.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 12, 2010 14:39:24 GMT -5
Competing at a high level in athletics basically involves a tradeoff of excellence in academics for excellence in athletics. Yeah, Stanford and Duke wouldn't be such crap academic schools if they just gave up excellence in athletics... Sure letting in athletes does not wreck the overall academic enterprise as a whole at Stanford or Duke--Just as playing real D1 football at Gtwn would not sink the overall academic enterprise here either. In Fball we'd just be replacing existing athletes who are somewhat below avg academically with a similar number of athletes who are further below avg academically but more elite athletically. I'd actually have no issue recruiting more elite athletes to GU if they were truly elite acdemically across a bunch of sports. However; on a sport by sport basis that is there is certainly a tradeoff "at the margin" between academic excellence and athletics--Sometimes it probably makes sense to make the tradeoff, other times it does not! I am absolutely sure in fact that Stanford uses a cost benefit analysis including academic cost re: the investments that they make in athletics. Furthermore, both schools value the athletics schollies they dole out and expect their athletic programs to all function at an elite level--Neither Stan, Duke, Nwestern etc would let marginal athletic programs(or academic programs for that matter) languish the way GU does. Obviusly we have fewer options because of our limited financial resources, but that still does not mean that we shouldn't approach our investments in athletics in sophisticated way.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Jun 12, 2010 8:58:45 GMT -5
Competing at a high level in athletics basically involves a tradeoff of excellence in academics for excellence in athletics. The real question is what kind of tradeoffs do we think make sense for the university in the various sports and for the athletic program/university overall.
I would think that most people think that the tradeoffs we make in recruiting basketball players make sense because we compete at the highest level of the sport in basketball, bring notoriety to the university, raise school spirit, probably bring in some revenue etc..
For other sports the amount of academic tradeoff varies as we may make less of a reach academically, but in many cases we also do not get athletes competing at an elite level either--it obviously varies by sport. I think the tradeoff for some sports at Gtwn is well worth it, for others it seems to make no sense.
I guess if we really thought we could compete for a BCS bid on a regular basis then trying to have a real D1 fball program would make sense. Since most people would think that we could not compete at an elite level in fball for a host of reasons it probably is not worth the risk to try something with little chance of success.
Maybe this whole conference realignment thing will prompt the university to reevaluate the overall athletic program with an eye towards rationalizing the investments or lack thereof for our various sports. Gtwn tends to rationalize poor performace, lack of accountability for coaches and programs by saying its all about the student experience-that might have a bigger element of truth about it if the recruited athletes in the various sports were just avg students: as Russky Hoya pointed out that's not really true for Gtwn or really any other significant athletic program--including the ivies.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 29, 2010 9:50:48 GMT -5
Looks like Lauren gregory will advance on time to the NCAA with a 10:24 steeple. Nice effort by her.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 29, 2010 8:56:26 GMT -5
Dylan Sorensen finished 8th in his heat in 8:58 and will not advance. He may have peaked a few weeks too early: as he had a big PR in the 1500 a couple of weeks ago but was unable to improve much on his earlier steeple efforts.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 27, 2010 19:51:05 GMT -5
Two more men's recruits:Matt Howard + George Matais Both are from Virginia. They could possibly contribute in a couple of years, more or less Mid-high 1:50's 800m, 4:20 ish mile, 9:30 range 2mile pr's for them.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 27, 2010 19:44:32 GMT -5
From the prelims: Advance to next round Toby Ulm + London Finley (400H) advance Christine Whalen (800) Rachel Schneider + Lauren Borduin(1500) Good runs by both Deidra Sanders(400) probably pr for her Kenny Mitchell(100) 10.39--fast time for him
Not Advancing Alex Bean(1500)--very poor time, not sure what happened Theon O'Connor(800)-not his best time, very competitive field Avril O'Grodnick(1500) not her best time Abigail Johnson(Injury) Amanda Kimbers!(100) Fast time, edged out by < .01 sec
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 18, 2010 19:16:00 GMT -5
Men add elite recruit Tyler Anyan 4:10 1600/8:52 3200.
Note: unlike our other men's recruits he is having a big senior outdoor campaign, steadily improving. He has improved incredibly over his last couple of hs years which is a great sign--though he does not have any fast 800 times, which is slightly concerning re his upside, though it seems like he just doesn't run the event--lets keep our fingers crossed that he stays on his current steeply improving trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 16, 2010 13:22:14 GMT -5
The B-school has a new ad that plays in the back seats of NYC taxi's. Not sure what to make of that.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 2, 2010 18:16:16 GMT -5
Three questions: 1. Why has Georgetown fallen off in outdoor track? Middle and long distance seems to be there, but sprints and field events seem not to be as competitive. 2. What are Georgetown's recruiitng needs going forward? 3. Next season marks 15 years since the Kehoe track was abandoned. Do track alumni have any initiatives to secure a track facility, on or off campus? DFW, I think you have gotten it backwards-- The sprints have actually improved a lot--while the middle distances for the men have definitely taken a hit and may take a bigger hit after graduation this year- The women actually seem to be on the upswing pretty much across the board. Just speculating re: why the men have taken a step backward--I also think the decline is more on a natl level than on a Big east level 1) Weak recruiting in several recent years 2) Several of the big time recruits we did get have not panned out 3)Team is not good at peaking for big meets--not sure if this is coaching or athletes Re: recruiting needs the men need a big class of elite 400-1500 guys this year and next. Other than one recruit Ledder(son of track alum), the other men we know about so far have not posted elite times, but they are repotedly getting close to full schollies which is unusual for track for anyone but the most elite athletes like the Infelds or Bumbalough. For the men we seem to be in the hunt for the top guys but do not get them--the women seem to be doing much better recruiting since Chris Miltenburg became coach. They seem to get a fair share of athletes that are highly recruited. Hard to say whether the relative(we still get some elites) lack of recent recruiting success for the men is random, or if the men's coaches are not doing a good job recruiting. Its certainly possible that the lack of good facilities + kind of mediocre results from a lot of our mid distance guys has turned off recruits recently. I also guess that where we used to turn out a great corps of 800-1500 guys, the coaches and recent mens recruits have been more distance oriented. It would probably help if we got a big name 400-1500 type coach like we used to have to complement the staff. Competitively also, UVA Oregon + Stanford have beat us out for the very top guys--all of those programs have gone through a resurgence which has hurt us. Also a lot of the ivies have been getting better and have actually beat us out for a # of the next level recruits. Its also hard to say what to do about the ability to "peak" for big meets--would seem to be a coaching/training thing but I have really no direct evidence, just an observation. We don't really compete at the field events anymore. Personally I would like to see the team focus on being nationally relevant for a selection of events rather than try to be avg for a whole bunch of events to score more at the BE meet. I think its good to have a balanced + elite team, just having a balanced team doesn't justify the relatively the big $ investment that we have in the sport. Also the men's (down)+ women's(up)programs fortunes seem to be diverging somewhat-not sure what is causing this. The men have so few announced recruits I suspect that they may be getting some tranfers/elite foreigners--not sure if that is a good or bad sign for them.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 2, 2010 16:03:35 GMT -5
Three questions: 1. Why has Georgetown fallen off in outdoor track? Middle and long distance seems to be there, but sprints and field events seem not to be as competitive. 2. What are Georgetown's recruiitng needs going forward? 3. Next season marks 15 years since the Kehoe track was abandoned. Do track alumni have any initiatives to secure a track facility, on or off campus?
|
|
|
Post by reformation on May 1, 2010 18:00:49 GMT -5
1)A few thoughts--Lancaster seems very competent, though is already in her mid 60's--would bet that she is gone when she is 70.
2)I suspect that the next leader will be an outsider of a transformative nature--I suspect that many belive that the school could use an academic revamping, but doubt there is any consesnsus now on how to do it.
3)Re: DeGioia's admin I think that he has hired some competent people, though I think he is pretty weak in comparison to President's of other elite universities.
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Apr 25, 2010 16:34:18 GMT -5
lic, from Times piece posted by SS: " But there is a confidence among the nonfootball colleges that they will stay together, probably in an all-Catholic league." Bad idea. Bad. Here's what people don't see when they see this league and say, "great, basketball." A majority of these schools (and I mean specifically, DePaul, Marquette, Providence, St. John's, and Seton Hall) have downgraded their athletic departments to the point where they are treading water at the NCAA minimum and for schools like Georgetown, ND, and Villanova (each of which sponsor 22 or more sports in the Big East, such a league may not even be eligible to sponsor many of their sports. Examples: Baseball: Only five of the eight "Catholic" teams sponsor it--a six team league is a minimum. Track & Field: Seton Hall is dropping indoor and outdoor track this year. Only six of these schools will sponsor track next year. Field Hockey: Three. Women's Golf: Four. Men's Lacrosse: Five. Women's Lacrosse: Three. Women's Crew: Three. Men's Swimming: Five. Women's Swimming: Five. Men's Tennis: Six. The only sports this league could sponsor fully would be basketball and soccer. What would this mean for Georgetown? Lots of sport by sport memberships in conferences like the Northeast, CAA, and the Big South, or going it alone as an independent where there are little or no post-season opportunities. It's turning the school's athletic clock back to 1975, except tuition isn't $4,000 a year. And for those who are wondering, the Patriot League no longer accepts affiliate members except for football, where the PL may adopt 63-scholarship football for that league. (Of course, the Ivy has no affiliate members either.) Agree DFW, the "Catholic" league doesn't work for sports other than Bball. Despite the fact that a lot of schools don't support programs, other than a few track/soccer programs the programs that the schools do support are not very good. We'd actually might be better off going to D3 and saving the money + academic cost of supporting these sports in a non nationally competitive effort. A few of our sports like track and lax are nationally elite programs. Maybe these programs could join the ACC as affiliate members-otherwise I guess they could go independent. Sports like womens crew could be easily upgraded to compete in the ACC- Tennis + golf would require major upgrades---baseball/softball/volleyballwould also require major investments---I guess we'd have to make a decision regarding keeping jettisoning some of the marginally competitive efforts
|
|
|
Post by reformation on Apr 24, 2010 17:33:13 GMT -5
Agree w/ Nevada--no 4 X 800 at Penn is very disappointing. We need a top end mens mid distance class this year and next to replenish the squad which will take big hits from graduation this yr and next. We are obviously already thin at our historical bread and butter (the 800) with maybe one elite 800 guy O' Connor + borrowing 400h guys + 1500-5K guys like Bumby to try to be competitive.
Men only have two recruits that have been mentioned Ledder(elite 800 recruit + son of former hoya track star) + a decent 400 runner from Pa--we'll need a much bigger recruiting class to stay competitive once Bumby leaves. The women have a big class of elite recruits--the lack of info on the men may indicate that they may be getting a group of 5th year guys/ foreigners/ transfers.
|
|