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 ]

• It is truly the most vexing and in my opinion, divisive , subject that has perplexed all of us for many years. It started with Penders departure, continued with the Patriot League fiasco, included a long history of losing records in nearly every sport and culminated in the Bob Hill nightmare. Its simply unfathomable that the guy still has a job. Its been beaten to death but nobody can really figure out why. I would venture a guess that its the AD's realtionship with a few heavy hitter donors. (NT) -- '85, Mon March 14, 2005 10:51:18

  ---

• After you've been in a job long enough you become an institutional fixture. Through sheer longetivity you build up enough friends and visibility that short of an outright scandal you are able to weather any political storm. Also, if the Administration needs someone to take the fall for their own ambivalence about athletics funding, you get a mutually beneficial co-dependent relationship. The Administration gives Frank job security and let's him get away with chronicly uninspired management of the AD, Frank keeps the AD clean (no St. John's or Syracuse type scandals) and takes the political hits for the Administration on all matters pertaining to athletics. (NT) -- DamnRam, Mon March 14, 2005 10:52:54
  • FU should play the "retirement card." Fire Frank, but make it seem as if he is finally bowing out. (NT) -- Air Hej '02, Mon March 14, 2005 11:10:21
  • I'd say DamnRam has it about right. I think it crucial to understand that there is a systemic ambivalence toward athletics at Fordham that has existed since 1954-the year big-time football was dropped. Frank is only the most recent episode in that long-running story. And note Fr. McShane's theme of "best Catholic college." It's all about wanting to be the Catholic Harvard--a silly goal. (NT) -- Drag-less, Mon March 14, 2005 11:21:21

  ---

• Athletic excellence is not a priority at FU. As long as the overall program is scandal free and the student athletes graduate at a good rate, the academic mission is successful. Athletic excellence is not demanded or I suspect even expected. Therefore given these parameters,the AD is viewed as successful. I don't know if Fr. McShane shares this view of athletics(we will soon find out) but until athletics are included as an integral part of the Univ. overall mission and excellence is demanded, nothing will change. Good coaches will occasionally arrive, succeed and then move on to more high profile programs. If not for the Herculean efforts of some devoted alums, imagine how bad it would really be. It has been this way for the 40 years I have observed the program. (NT) -- RamBam67, Mon March 14, 2005 11:37:10
  • Right on the money, RamBam67. Frank is exactly what Fordham has wanted in an AD. That's why I object to the personal attacks on him. He has been the employee that the admininstration has wanted. There is no mystery at all about it. (NT) -- Drag-less, Mon March 14, 2005 12:34:48
  • Frank has done a horrendous job. If Fordham were shorting the athletic budgets I might agree but the budgets are very competetive. Frank's attitude turns off most decent human beings. You want a fall guy in that job then you could have one that is nice to the alums and treats people with respect. That is not the case here. Frank should be kicked out onto Southern Boulevard for his demeanor alone, notwithsstanding his performance issues. (NT) -- ant hill, Mon March 14, 2005 18:13:28
  • As for "we will soon find out" about Fr. McShane's inclinations, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting to see how athletics fit into the Strategic Plan. I think it's already pretty obvious that Fr. McShane couldn't care less about sports, and doesn't see the athletic program as being in any way critical to the university's institutional progress. A friend of mine who teaches at the University of Scranton said not to expect anything from McShane in this regard. McShane's interest is in seeing Fordham become the intellectual center of American Catholicism, and having scores of undergraduates win prestigious fellowships. Despite his BC connections, he is very much in the tradition of past Fordham presidents who de-emphasized athletics. He is savvy enough not to antagonize alums by any further downgrading of the program, but we can forget about any real upgrades. I suspect that Frank will continue to serve in his dual role as lightning rod and figure-head as long as he wants. (NT) -- JCC, Mon March 14, 2005 21:28:39
    • I disagree with your statements. I happen to know that the strategic plan that is being conducted includes an in-depth look at our athletic program and how it should be positioned to support our future institutional mission. Basketball will be the centerpiece of our athletic program, in my opinion, and will be positioned to compete on a national stage. Our AD's future will fall into place according to his ability to manage a program at that level. You can come to your own conclusions related to that. (NT) -- Rambacker, Mon March 14, 2005 23:00:02
      • I concur, Rambacker. McShane supports sports as part of the Jesuit educational tradition. I have heard as much from his very mouth, though he also acknowledges that it is unlikely for us to reclaim our former glory in football, becase he believes New York is not a huge college sports town (a sentiment I agree with in large part, being from the Midwest and having seen first-hand what "college sports towns" look like). That said, he has indicated a belief that we can and should be competitive in basketball. Above all, though, he said he would like Fordham to find a "niche sport" which is immediately called to mind when our name is mentioned. (ie. Johns Hopkins - Lacrosse). Personally, given our tremendous history (gold medals, World Records, etc) nice location, and financial situation, I think we could and should make Track & Field that niche sport. Yup, just objective reasoning there, no personal feelings at all... (wink wink, nudge nudge) (NT) -- RamRunner12, Tue March 15, 2005 00:44:17
        • Very few people care about Track & Field except the participants and a tiny group of enthusiasts. Rather than upgrade this boring, no-interest sport, I think Fordham should abolish it. Villanova had world-class T & F athletes over a period that lasted several decades, but it was BASKETBALL that ultimately put 'Nova on the map. If Fr. McShane wants a "niche sport," it should be basketball. It's disappointing, though, that he seems indifferent to the progress that our football program has been making over the past few years. Who's to say that NYC couldn't become a good college football town again, as it was back when Fordham and NYU were riding high. Boston College seems to do pretty well attracting fans, despite considerable competition from the Patriots. (NT) -- Track-less, Tue March 15, 2005 21:41:31
      • The only possible difference now is that it has been well established that an outstanding Div. I basketball program raises the number of applications (especially from males) and improves the quality of the undergraduate student body. Basketball is actually a cheap way to improve academics. Look at Duke. It was a good university in the 60s and 70s; now it's an outstanding university. Georgetown is an even better example of the same movement in perceived academic quality. (NT) -- Drag-less, Tue March 15, 2005 06:37:53