Create a New Forum Owner Login Contribute & Create Your Member account VoyUser Login (see contribute) VoyForums Directory/Categories No-ads: Completely remove ads from your forum VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News Help Desk VoyForums Exchange FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions Search VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

• ....And yet what do we do at Fordham? We have our basketball team play in a gym beneath the standards of many high schools, the oldest one in use in Division 1. We wink at atrocious performance in the Athletic Department that would never be tolerated in any academic department. We schedule upcoming football games against teams like Marist College and Albany State, and ignore opportunities to upgrade our schedule, facilities, and league affiliation. It would appear that "small dreams" are seen as "worthy" ones when it comes to athletics. It is time for Fordham to rethink its whole approach to athletics, provide new resources, and formulate strategies that will enable the Athletic Department to be a full partner in the University's drive to become a true national university. (NT) -- Ram'69, Thu April 14, 2005 22:57:38
  • Very well said, I could not agree more. If you have a chance you should send this text to Father McShane via email. (NT) -- CKRAM99, Fri April 15, 2005 08:08:24
  • Right on target, Ram '69. I got that same letter in yesterday's mail along with a solicitation from the Maroon Club, signed by coaches Whittenburg, Foley, Dewey, and Orchard. I wonder if, taken together, the message of these two letters is that athletics are not a valued part of "the new Fordham," and those of us who do value athletics will have to pick up the full tab. I'd hate to think the administration is that short-sighted, but who knows? (NT) -- Tin Cup, Fri April 15, 2005 09:33:54

  ---

• Ram '69, I definitely agree with your take. The only problem is that we really don't have any great athletic achievements to write about. Something could have been written about DW and the basketball program, but to a casual Fordham alum/parent/friend, they are going to see one thing, a losing record. We all know progress is being made, but until we start competing for the A-10 title, it's going to be tough to impress the casual fan. (NT) -- Air Hej '02, Fri April 15, 2005 09:34:53
  • Air Hej, you're right. Other than Whit, there isn't that much to talk about....though it would appear that some of the spring sports are on a roll. It's a chicken/egg situation: Some question the logic of investing in a losing program, while others would argue that--without a serious commitment--we'll never turn things around. In the final analysis, it's all about leadership, and the lack thereof, in the Athletic Department. While I hate to see Frank scape-goated endlessly, change has to start there. After so many years (decades actually) of lethargy and underachievement, we need a total regime-change in the Athletic Department. (NT) -- JCC, Fri April 15, 2005 11:04:04

  ---

• Fordham is an academic institution that places a new emphasis on rising to the top tier. Ivy schools and Patriot schools, for example, are great academic institutions that have fine athletic teams. Yes, Fordham can improve athletically (do not fail to note Football, Sailing, Softball & Baseball successes); however, this is a secondary priority. The literature is on target in contrasting our poor (13%) rate with HC, Georgetown, BC, et. al. Sports alone will not do the job, but the belief that a Fordham education is worh it will. Fr. McShane is correct!! (NT) -- ramvet, Fri April 15, 2005 11:40:08
  • What's this guy smoking? You obviously have no clue. You must be Frank or at least related to him. (NT) -- FUbar, Fri April 15, 2005 11:56:38
    • Ramvet deserves better. No one on this board considers athletics inconsequential with institutional advancement , but the lockstep argument that investing heavily in athletics will make a significant dent in raising our reputational profile is debatable at best. Aside from GU basketball and its "impressive" ex-players ("The Answer" is a typical, articulate GU grad, right?), what national athletic success have they garnered? The terribly simplistic notion that sports alone put Georgetown, BC, and others gets far too much substantiation on this board. (NT) -- Mojofunk'75, Fri April 15, 2005 12:42:25
      • I don't totally disagree but it you look at when BC and G'town elevated their stature (early, mid-80's), it coincides w/ their athletic success. IMHO, their athletic success was an important catalyst. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 15, 2005 13:41:00
  • Few Ivy League or PL schools have successful sports programs, especially among the high profile sports. With the excpetion of Princeton and Penn, most Ivy League basketball programs are awful. The same can be said of PL hoops w/ the exception of HC and Bucknell. PL schools are not good models for us b/c they are, generally, small liberal arts colleges. the schools that we should use as models are, to varying degrees: G'town, BC, Nova, Vandy, Wake, Tulane, & Rice. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 15, 2005 12:30:28
    • Stanford is a good model too. (NT) -- Rambacker, Fri April 15, 2005 16:27:32
    • Obviously you do not follow lacrosse, soccer, wrestling, ice hockey or anything other than basketball. (NT) -- Frozen 4, Fri April 15, 2005 16:47:11
      • I follow a bunch of sports but listing wrestling, a sport that few schools compete in, and hockey, which is limited to a relatively few northern schools (some of them non-DI) doesn't make sense. Hoops is and will continue to be our flagship sport followed by football. When it comes to the 2 premier sports, the Ivies and PL are not our role models. (NT) -- bfg, Fri April 15, 2005 22:15:58
        • But it underscores an argument that the Ivies do not care about sports that is bunk. They spend a lot of money on sports, just not some of the ones that are overtly popular such as hoops, but they compete and win in many sports at the highest level. (NT) -- 4, Fri April 15, 2005 22:40:55
          • Where did I say that they did/did not spend money on sports? I said they're not the right models for us and I think your point backs up my thesis. We're not going to have a great wrestling team or hocket team (sorry, '85) anytime soon. Our premier sport is hoops and we want to have good teams in other sports like football, baseball, and soccer (not to mention women's teams). Thus, I look to other schools, not the Ivies. (NT) -- bfg, Sat April 16, 2005 12:12:44
            • The thread is related to $$, didn't say that you made that reference. However, let's not sell the Ivies short. They excel on a national level in many sports, maybe not the sexy ones, but they do excel. Its a problem for us across the board. We basically don't win in anything with the exception of softball. Hockey is a money loser for most schools which is why the lower tier D-I teams ( Villanova, Iona, Fairfield ) all scrapped their programs. Fordham needs to stop comparing and trying to draw parallels to other schools. Fordham has its own unique identity. There is no excuse for such abject failure in sports. The example of Jim lewis is perfect. There is NO reason he still should have a job, none. (NT) -- 4, Sat April 16, 2005 13:30:28
              • The reason Jim Lewis still has a job is the same reason that Fordham has been so bad in so many sports for so long: namely Frank McLaughlin. The Rip Van Winkle of Rose Hill, Frank has been asleep now for four decades. The real question then is why does Frank still have a job? Did The Board of Trustees, Fr. O'Hare, and now Fr. McShane all catch Frank's "sleeping sickness?" (NT) -- BS'65, Sat April 16, 2005 15:40:37
                • Has it occurred to you that Frank may be exactly what Fordham trustees and administrators want? He's a good-natured guy who gets along well with a number of the old grads (albeit not too many on this board) and who never presses the higher-ups for much in the way of budgets and facilities. Frank's job is an exercise in minimalism--maintaining just enough of an athletic program so that alums don't get totally ticked off, walk away in anger, and forever end their financial contributions to the university. Check out the lengthy thread below under "Fordham Scoreboard Week 33." (NT) -- JT'66, Sat April 16, 2005 16:46:15
                  • Of course it has occurred to us. However, if we had a BOT with a spine, they would demand Frank's ouster. They have no spine. Denzel used to be on the BOT and Denzel has no spine. (NT) -- Joe Arachnid, Sat April 16, 2005 17:29:45
                  • JT, the Board of Trustees may not want to spend money on new facilites (new basketball arena, new or expanded football stadium etc.); you may be right on that. However, our athletic budgets are already among the highest in the A-10 (there were posts on this, some months back). Since we are already spending respectable amounts of money on athletics--with little to show for it--it would seem that the Trustees should be demanding "more bang for the buck" from Frank. The Athletic Department has virtually become a fiefdom for him. It seems that he can do (or not do) whatever he likes-- with no accountabilty and no oversight. JA, I don't know any of the Trustees personally, so I won't comment on them (and I don't think it advances our cause to say things like "they have no spine." But I would agree that they should start paying some more attention to the Athletic Department. Looking into the possibilities of getting a new A.D. would be a good place to start. (NT) -- BLT, Sat April 16, 2005 18:11:49
                    • When the day comes (hopefully soon) to replace Frank, we wouldn't have to go far to interview a top prospect....just a few miles to the west. Manhattan College AD Bob Byrnes would be my choice--he's young, smart, hungry, a great administrator with a can-do attitude, and he really wants his teams to win. (Does he sound a little different from our lethargic AD?) As "Jasper Green" posts above (see "Gonzo Shopping Again?" thread), "Just think of Fordham's athletic program with him [Byrnes] there." (NT) -- FC'78, Sat April 16, 2005 23:32:45
                      • How old is he? (NT) -- Rambacker, Tue April 19, 2005 16:42:50
                        • I think Byrnes graduated from Manhattan in 1968 (NT) -- Veal Cutlet, Tue April 19, 2005 22:35:44
                          • That would make him 58 or so. (NT) -- Rambacker, Wed April 20, 2005 09:45:28
    • One of Fordham's biggest problems as it pertains to sports is that our large student body is spread out over three campuses in three counties, which makes it much harder to muster the kind of critical mass at sporting events that those larger schools can. And because we have a PL-level AD and facilities, with an ambiguous mandate as it pertains to the role of Athletics in the University's identity, we are unable to meet the quite sizeable marketing challenge that such dispersal presents. This means that for sports purposes Fordham is effectively no bigger than it's RH campus, and roughly on par with those smallish liberal arts colleges. (NT) -- DamnRam, Fri April 15, 2005 17:39:56

  ---

• It amazes me that more alumns don't send in at least $5 to FU in order to get that rate up given that participation rate is one of the influences on ratings. (NT) -- PA Ram, Fri April 15, 2005 12:11:10
  • People are very often anti-giving when it comes to making a donation to their alma mater. Not exactly sure why, but I've frequently heard from FU alums and alums of other schools, "Why should I give, they already got enough of my money!?" (NT) -- Air Hej '02, Fri April 15, 2005 12:38:15
    • Many people don't give because they feel slighted in some way by the university. (War story enclosed; click message). -- JoltinJoe, Fri April 15, 2005 14:15:08
      • Trenton Ram loves telling that story, and it and many others have demonstrated the historical short sightedness, ineptitude, and lack of unified central purpose among the many departments of our beloved Fordham. It is so recognizable that it has it's own Linnaean classification: "F-upus Fordhamensis" (NT) -- Ram '91, Fri April 15, 2005 14:25:35
  • I'm not sure how strongly the school solicits donations from those that have not previously donated (for instance, I got these communications but I'm not sure that other alumni who have not donated got it). (NT) -- CKRAM98, Fri April 15, 2005 12:39:07
    • I received the communication and I have not donated in the past. I will be donating before June 30th this year. (NT) -- AC, Fri April 15, 2005 13:19:51
  • Whenever I received solicitations (whether from Fordham or other institutions) that included a paragraph or sentence that giving a minimal sum like $5-$10 boosts the school's rating in whatever survey, I've felt that they were, in some small way, trying to game the system. I know that's not what they're trying to do, but it in my mind it definitely distracts from the purpose of giving: to financially support an institution important to the donor. "This last is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason". I know, it's stretching big time, but I've always liked that line. (NT) -- Ram '91, Fri April 15, 2005 14:08:03
    • Let me add that to me such a solicitation doesn't really diminish my respect for the institution, but causes me to read those surveys in question with more of a jaundiced eye. Who else is gaming the system that way, and in others? How much distortion in the ratings and rankings does it cause? (NT) -- Ram '91, Fri April 15, 2005 14:17:42

  ---

• Virtually all of us want Fordham to stress academics over athletics. But what the administration--and some posters here--seem to overlook is that the two can be mutually supporting. Obviously, a good basketball team won't turn an inferior commuter school (like St. John's) into an academic powerhouse. But athletics have certainly helped to raise the national profile (and expand the applicant pools) of schools like Duke, BC, ND, and Georgetown. The years when these institutions were on the rise athletically were the same years when they were coming into their own academically. Fordham has a lot of things going for it--outstanding academics, Jesuit traditions, a renowned faculty, three beautiful campuses in the "capital of the world," a growing population of resident students etc. The one piece missing is the athletic one. Is it a coincidence that the era when Fordham's was THE preeminent Catholic university was the same era when our athletics brought us national attention? (NT) -- Ram'69, Fri April 15, 2005 15:03:41
  • For the record, I don't disagree, but if athletics is to take on an elevated role, it must not trump academic and other extracurricular needs. Pursuing the overused term "excellence" in all that we do resonates with all of us; but to do this with the inevitable competition for limited resources makes for more controversial, and realistic, conversation. We all want to succeed across the board, but where should we dedicate precious resources? At the very least, we should expect the most out of current personnel and make the most of our available resources. And, yes, to do more than just dream. (NT) -- Mojofunk'75, Fri April 15, 2005 15:18:16
  • Ram'69: You're right about how athletics can complement and support academic improvement. Just one more point: It's not just a coincidence that the schools with top athletics (like several cited in the Annual Fund letter) often get better financial support from their alumni. Long after people have graduated from a school, following that school's sports programs builds interest and a sense of involvement. Maybe that's not necessary at the Ivies, but we're not at that level yet. In my view, the poor alumni giving at Fordham can be linked to three factors: (1) Our tradition of educating upward-bound city folks rather than well-heeled suburbanites; (2) The fact that Fordham was predominantly a commuter school for many years; and (3) Administrative actions that deemphasized athletic programs and demoralized alums who were interested in them. More attention to athletics would not only attract potential students, but potential donors as well. (NT) -- JCC, Fri April 15, 2005 18:15:47

  ---

• If the posters on this board are interested in seeing something happen to improve our sport facilities they should STOP contributing until the Administration reorganizies the management of the Athletic Department . While we have an AD who is incompetent and who reports to someone even more incompetent we hhave no prayer of ever seeing anything good happen. I have witheld my contributions for the past FIVE years and accumulated them. I will release the money when I feel it will be well spent and yield the anticipated results. None should PAY for such a dysmal record. I will become a " RENEWED RAM" when this happens. (NT) -- Former Ram, Fri April 15, 2005 18:23:56
  • I have contributed to both the university's general fund and to dedicated athletic funds for a number of years, but my contributions have been going down, not up. There are many others like you, though, who simply have stopped giving altogether, out of disgust with what goes on. I don't know how many people, like you, are actually holding the money out with the idea of releasing it when things show signs of improvement. I'd be curious to see how many people on this board think that there would be a surge of donations if there was a change of leadership in the athletic department and if there was a commitment to better facilities and schedules. (NT) -- JC'78, Fri April 15, 2005 20:43:21
    • My personal opinion is that donations would increase dramatically if there was a change in athletic leaderhip and a major upgrade for athletic facilties. There is a huge amount of pent-up frustration and actual anger among many alums who have waited for years to see this happen. It's extraordinary to see how many alums have stopped giving altogether due these unsolved, fermenting problems. Those changes would be like a breath of fresh air for alums. The vast majority would react positively, and in a big way. (NT) -- Rambacker, Sat April 16, 2005 14:13:59

  ---

• All this talk is just a waste of time. FU is still a one-man show, and the President (not donors or even trustees) calls the shots. McShane is going to do exactly what McShane wants to do. He's an elitist, and when he was Dean of FC, he seemed a lot more interested in kids who were up for Fulbright grants than the rest of us peons. He has less interest in sports than O'Hare did. So you might as well all quit blathering on about new leadership, expanded facilities etc. It aint gonna happen! (NT) -- FC'97, Fri April 15, 2005 21:21:32
  • I disagree. I always found Father McShane friendly and approachable. I have no idea what interest (if any) he has in sports. He strikes me as someone who would be open to change if the arguments in favor of it are strong and convincing. (NT) -- Ram'98, Fri April 15, 2005 22:10:48
    • You hit it right on the nose. Fr. McShane is an intellectual, and to convince him to act, one must present a very intelligent, powerful argument. Is athletics at the forefront of his thinking? Of course not. It isn't for any college President in the country, even places like USC, Texas or Notre Dame. But Fr. McShane will listen if the argument is presented well and by many. I believe he has an open mind in general. He is a pragmatist - we must convince him of the benefits in the context of any recommendations. (NT) -- Rambacker, Sat April 16, 2005 14:21:07
  • That is actually not true. The Board of Trustees has much control at Fordham - don't kid yourself. It's a dual power track - that's how decisions are made. (NT) -- Rambacker, Sat April 16, 2005 14:15:44
    • Here's a pertinent quote: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. The important thing is to not stop questioning." Albert Einstein. Don't give up the dream - it can happen if we want to make it happen badly enough. (NT) -- Rambacker, Sat April 16, 2005 15:05:34
    • The Board has been useless as to athletics. How the hell can these self serving bums have thier quarterly meetings and completely overlook the wretched performance by Frank over a 20 year period? The Board of Trustees should be sued for breach of their fiduciary duties. (NT) -- Frank's Brain, Sat April 16, 2005 17:31:51
      • I share your frustration, and think Frank should be retired ASAP. But, as I replied to another poster above, I don't think it helps our cause when we hurl personal insults at the Board of Trustees. They have a lot of other things to deal with, and (as a few people here have posted) some Trustees have confided that they too are frustrated with Frank. In any case, our focus shouldn't be on past mistakes, but rather on how we can improve our future prospects. We should be thinking now of how Frank could be eased out gracefully (perhaps to a position in development, alumni relations, or fund-raising) so that there could be a smooth transition without a lot of recrimination and unpleasantness. (NT) -- BLT, Sat April 16, 2005 23:59:14
        • That's baloney. Hurling insults? How about squandering millions of tuition and donation dollars over a 19 year period? They should be sued as well as insulted. We are not talking about gray areas ( no pun indtended ) or differences of opinion. Its black letter, bottom line abject, emprical data that speaks to this waste. Its not as if the athletics budget is a small ticket item. Its the largest budget in the school!!! (NT) -- Frank's Brain, Sun April 17, 2005 13:29:57
          • If calling people "self-serving bums" isn't hurling insults, I don't know what is. Even if you are totally correct in your assessment that the trustees are inept and should be sued, saying that in a public forum will only serve to lock them into a defensive posture and guarantee that Frank will stay on even longer. Let's not bite off our nose to spite our face. (NT) -- BLT, Sun April 17, 2005 17:08:12
            • BLT. The professional, rational and educated way of doing things has not worked for 2 decades! Over the year's rational, sane, concise, beautifully drafted letters have been penned to the Board and to Fr. O'Hare. The approach we all favor has not worked for 20 years. It is my opinion that a more gutteral, less professional and shock value approach is needed. You make perfect sense but that approach has not worked for 20 years! . We need to come up with a different strategy. FRANK MUST GO tee shirts? We need toget the ear of one BOT member to lobby this cause, one who is not spineless and who truly cares about Fordham and not lining his or her own resume. (NT) -- Frank's Brain, Sun April 17, 2005 18:59:50
              • Yes, but does calling the Trustees things like "spineless" and "self-serving bums" help us to (as you put it) "get the ear of that one BOT member to lobby this cause?" And why do you think that ONE Trustee will be able to singlehandedly push through the needed changes? Like all of us, the Trustees have egos, and--since many are wealthy, important individuals--they generally don't take well to being attacked. Rather than buckle under to such pressure, their tendency would be to "circle the wagons," and not give in. While I would agree with you that a lot of people in authority at Fordham have dropped the ball over a long period of time, I think many of US have as well. The last time I was at M.J. Armstrong's, I spoke with several people who were vehemently complaining about Frank. When I asked them if they had written Fr. McShane or anyone on the BOT, all of them said they had NOT. (NT) -- JCC, Sun April 17, 2005 20:37:01
              • FB, it might be useful for students to organize, have rallies, wear t-shirts calling for change etc., and in fact some students have come on this board looking for advice on how to get their message out. But if alums like most of us did that sort of thing, it would reduce whatever credibility we have. JCC is right. We have a new administration that is feeling its way. Frank is at retirement age right now. If enough alums contacted Fr. McShane and the Trustees directly, we might have more success than you'd imagine. (NT) -- BLT, Sun April 17, 2005 21:07:15
                • Remember this however. As pointed out by several other posters here. This AD went on a public radio show and blasted the infrastructure of his own organization., The now famous "enemies within" comments, et al. So, maybe I come off crude and unprofessional calling people bums and spineless, However, the AD went on a public radio station and made those comments, so where was/is the BOT when those comments were being made? (NT) -- FB, Sun April 17, 2005 23:33:25
              • BLT's point about credibility is on the mark. Most of us on this board are professionals: business people, attorneys, educators, even a few physicians. Let's act as professionals, and use whatever skills of analysis and persuasion we have to advocate for change. And that change won't come easily. Since the 1950's, a culture of "benign neglect" has characterized policy regarding Fordham athletics. Changing that culture of neglect will not be easy. No one person (including the current Athletic Director) created this culture. While new leadership may be needed in the Athletic Department, this is going to be a task that goes way beyond a few personnel changes. Strident language and scape-goating will get us nowhere. It's time to engage the administration and trustees in a real dialogue about the important role that athletics can play in a vibrant academic community. (NT) -- Old Prof, Sun April 17, 2005 23:32:13
                • These are words of reason. How do you suggest that alums and students get started with that dialogue? (NT) -- Rambacker, Mon April 18, 2005 12:56:39
                  • I'd hope all of us would contact the Pres. & the BOT Chairman (Mr. John N. Tognino) directly to express our opinions. Those with experience in sports management , marketing, public relations etc. should make as many specific recommendations as possible--spelling out possible costs & benefits. Secondly, we could ask for some sort of forum/open meeting where the topic will be: "The Future of Fordham Athletics." Preferably such an event would take place at McGinley, on an evening while school is in session so that both students & alums can attend--and before the Strategic Planning Committee has finalized its work. The administration might be reluctant to sponsoring something like this, so perhaps sponsorship could be done by an alumni group or by one or more of the existing supporter clubs. I hope other people on this board (inc. Rambacker, DamnRam and others who have more "real world" experience than the Old Prof) would chip in with their ideas on how to get such a dialogue going. (NT) -- Old Prof, Mon April 18, 2005 14:17:46