[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07/21/15 6:42:37pm Tue
Author: Raider Archivist
Subject: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League
http://www.patriotleague.org/genrel/072015aaa.html
As an alum from the era of prior to coeducation and the Patriot League, I've developed an appreciation of what the P.L. has added to the Colgate experience. I particularly like how competition in different sports with PL schools can be complemented by different scheduling approaches. Depending on the sport, this schedule filling out can either be o.o.c. "stretch" games or with competition more reflective of Gate's lack of scholly support for the sport.
Keeping in mind that the formation of the PL was as a non-scholly conference built on the Ivy-envy model, it's interesting how the PL ultimately created a relevant niche within Div. I sports while staying true to its original values. it seems being an independent for a school like Colgate would be an overwhelming challenge. I think the PL model is a great fit. I'm curious if others have a different perspective.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
PL with schoolies: Great Balance for Differentiation -- Patriot Pragmatist, 07/21/15 9:09:19pm Tue
The evolution towards schollies, I believe, started with Holy Cross insisting on basketball scholarships and gradually evolved as each institution chose how they wanted to allocate different amounts of financial support to athletics. Ultimately, the decision in recent years to introduce football schollies gave the league its differentiating characteristic. The PL now represents a distinct choice in Div. I for prospective college student-athletes relative to the other niches: the I.L., the anomalies in the Power 5 Conferences ( Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc. ), the Service Academies and some others. The experiment starting with the football conference 29 years ago to play the Ivies seems like its been around longer than it has.
Without scholarships
>
>href="http://www.patriotleague.org/genrel/072015aaa.htm
>l">http://www.patriotleague.org/genrel/072015aaa.html
>a>
>
>As an alum from the era of prior to coeducation and
>the Patriot League, I've developed an appreciation of
>what the P.L. has added to the Colgate experience. I
>particularly like how competition in different sports
>with PL schools can be complemented by different
>scheduling approaches. Depending on the sport, this
>schedule filling out can either be o.o.c. "stretch"
>games or with competition more reflective of Gate's
>lack of scholly support for the sport.
>
>Keeping in mind that the formation of the PL was as a
>non-scholly conference built on the Ivy-envy model,
>it's interesting how the PL ultimately created a
>relevant niche within Div. I sports while staying true
>to its original values. it seems being an independent
>for a school like Colgate would be an overwhelming
>challenge. I think the PL model is a great fit. I'm
>curious if others have a different perspective.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- gate, 07/22/15 12:33:40am Wed
It was obvious that the League would not grow and that lesser-known leagues would surpass us if scholarships were not introduced. It seems like only yesterday that schools like Lafayette were insistent on not having them.
To say that scholarships must not compromise academic integrity for our schools is an understatement. My hope is that it will continue to do the opposite and attract only the nation's best.
Now more than ever, the League seems to appreciate playing a broader schedule with quality opponents rather than high-profile academic institutions only, like the Ivy League. If the Patriot League continues to create a winning, brand name for itself, our athletic and academic integrity will speak volumes and continue to gain accolades on and off the field. For too long it seems we relied on an association with the Ivy League to give ourselves an identity. As we continue to improve with scholarships, the Ivies may find themselves in the rear view mirror. Though we will always play them, it will no longer be out of necessity but more out of loyalty. Until now, those roles were reversed.
The expansion of the League to include BostonU and Loyola will only help our exposure, but I am still not sold on BU. IMO the Terriers have a tremendous advantage due to their global name, location, and number of applicants/size. Although they add to the competitiveness of the League, they have proven that their programs can win championships in their inaugural season while the founding members of the Colonial/Patriot League may find it even harder to rise to the top of the mountain. I wouldn't be surprised if BU lax won the title next year in only its 3rd season; Colgate's storied program only just won its second.
Time will tell what the future will hold for Georgetown and its membership in football.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- Go...'gate, 07/22/15 1:04:23am Wed
>It was obvious that the League would not grow and that
>lesser-known leagues would surpass us if scholarships
>were not introduced. It seems like only yesterday
>that schools like Lafayette were insistent on not
>having them.
>
>To say that scholarships must not compromise academic
>integrity for our schools is an understatement. My
>hope is that it will continue to do the opposite and
>attract only the nation's best.
>
>Now more than ever, the League seems to appreciate
>playing a broader schedule with quality opponents
>rather than high-profile academic institutions only,
>like the Ivy League. If the Patriot League continues
>to create a winning, brand name for itself, our
>athletic and academic integrity will speak volumes and
>continue to gain accolades on and off the field. For
>too long it seems we relied on an association with the
>Ivy League to give ourselves an identity. As we
>continue to improve with scholarships, the Ivies may
>find themselves in the rear view mirror. Though we
>will always play them, it will no longer be out of
>necessity but more out of loyalty. Until now, those
>roles were reversed.
>
>The expansion of the League to include BostonU and
>Loyola will only help our exposure, but I am still not
>sold on BU. IMO the Terriers have a tremendous
>advantage due to their global name, location, and
>number of applicants/size. Although they add to the
>competitiveness of the League, they have proven that
>their programs can win championships in their
>inaugural season while the founding members of the
>Colonial/Patriot League may find it even harder to
>rise to the top of the mountain. I wouldn't be
>surprised if BU lax won the title next year in only
>its 3rd season; Colgate's storied program only just
>won its second.
>
>Time will tell what the future will hold for
>Georgetown and its membership in football.
I think the Patriot League was and remains a great idea, though I believe admitting Loyola was unnecessary and watered down the conference's academic reputation somewhat. I actually was very happy to see BU, a long-time Colgate opponent in many sports, join the league. I also believe BU is a far stronger school academically (in percerption and reality), than Loyola.
I am very happy to have Georgetown in the conference for football but their scholarship situation (or lack thereof) is a problem.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- bison137, 07/22/15 7:32:09am Wed
Boston U is good academically, but is a very poor fit in other ways. It is 4-5 times larger than most other PL schools and spends far more on most sports than do other PL schools. Very hard for PL schools to compete with them in many sports.
Also fwiw they have a lot of programs/majors that allow them to attract athletes. At Boston U, you can major in athletic training, criminal justice, occupational therapy, etc. Nothing wrong with those majors, but it certainly is not a fit with other PL schools. Also they have Metropolitan College, which specializes in things like online classes and night school. In the past a number of their basketball players were enrolled in Metropolitan, but it looks like the Academic Index may be changing that.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- 60'salum, 07/23/15 9:17:05am Thu
>Boston U is good academically, but is a very poor fit
>in other ways. It is 4-5 times larger than most
>other PL schools and spends far more on most sports
>than do other PL schools. Very hard for PL schools to
>compete with them in many sports.
>
> Also fwiw they have a lot of programs/majors that
>allow them to attract athletes. At Boston U, you can
>major in athletic training, criminal justice,
>occupational therapy, etc. Nothing wrong with those
>majors, but it certainly is not a fit with other PL
>schools. Also they have Metropolitan College, which
>specializes in things like online classes and night
>school. In the past a number of their basketball
>players were enrolled in Metropolitan, but it looks
>like the Academic Index may be changing that.
I remind posters that it's "BU" for the univ in Boston, and "Bucknell" for that school in PA.....(yuk-yuk).
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- gate, 07/23/15 11:33:12am Thu
With conference defections and realignments happening, I guess the PL should feel grateful that schools like BostonU and Loyola wanted to join. But the former in particular came from an inferior league IMO and had everything to gain. The Terriers are now a big fish in a little pond and have won conference titles in each of their first two years. I expect them to continue to succeed in women's soccer, field hockey...and just wait until m/w lax hits their stride...the men almost have in just two seasons.
The fact that neither school has football is bittersweet. The road to winning the PL championship is more attainable for the rest of the league but they did nothing to bolster the league in its premier sport.
The additions of these schools provided some stability and breathing room. The pros must obviously outweigh the cons. It is nice to see Colgate's banners in their arenas.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- Truth Ferret, 07/23/15 2:04:20pm Thu
The PL had to grow its membership beyond the core small "liberal arts" schools that created it. There's simply a handful of "cookie-cutter" schools to choose from for expansion of similar sixed schools with strong academic reputations in Div. I. ( Count them on one,..maybe both hands ). Hence, American, BU and Loyola.
I don't think BU's advantages are that extreme or Loyola's academic reputation that destructive to the PL's reputation.. And the geographical diversity these schools brings Gate to significant urban media markets. Playoff and regular competition among 10 teams in many sports is extremely healthy.The formation of healthy Leagues requires compromise of some "nice-to-haves." It's art, not science. It doesn't appear the PL has compromised on its core values. It appears to get stronger every year, and continues to be a very good fit for Gate. Independence is not a choice, Period.
>With conference defections and realignments happening,
>I guess the PL should feel grateful that schools like
>BostonU and Loyola wanted to join. But the former in
>particular came from an inferior league IMO and had
>everything to gain. The Terriers are now a big fish
>in a little pond and have won conference titles in
>each of their first two years. I expect them to
>continue to succeed in women's soccer, field
>hockey...and just wait until m/w lax hits their
>stride...the men almost have in just two seasons.
>
>The fact that neither school has football is
>bittersweet. The road to winning the PL championship
>is more attainable for the rest of the league but they
>did nothing to bolster the league in its premier sport.
>
>The additions of these schools provided some stability
>and breathing room. The pros must obviously outweigh
>the cons. It is nice to see Colgate's banners in
>their arenas.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: 25 Year Anniversary: Is 'Gate content with the Patriot League -- DFW HOYA, 07/25/15 9:49:28am Sat
>It doesn't appear the PL has compromised on its core
>values. It appears to get stronger every year, and
>continues to be a very good fit for Gate. Independence
>is not a choice, Period.
I'm not sure you could make that argument in football. The PL is not as strong as it was ten years ago.
Is Lehigh stronger now than then? No. Lafayette? No.
Holy Cross? Probably not. Fordham improved because it had a three year head start on scholarships and Bucknell if only temporarily.
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Forgive me for skipping the Silver Anniversary Gala -- 'gate80, 07/24/15 12:45:44pm Fri
I agree with posters that evolution of the PL, in large part due to decisions forced upon Colgate by other members, has put Colgate athletics in a good position today looking forward. However this thread is a retrospective looking back over 25 years. The PL, AS ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED AND IMPLEMENTED, was an unmitigated disaster for Colgate, in ways that might be difficult to understand for those not old enough to have lived through the before and after. It totally gutted our proud fb program, nearly (but fortunately not quite) irreparably damaging it. It changed the perception of who our peer schools were, harming our academic reputation for 2 decades (we thankfully are now recovering from this). Finally it changed forever Colgate's unique brand and character, something that had defined the school for 75 years.
The start of the PL (actually Colonial League at the time) was a poorly-planned fiasco. The league became a laughingstock when teams kept coming and going and it wasn't clear they'd be enough schools for a league, and was forced by the CAA to change its name. W&M was an initial member, but bailed when they realized the whole point of the PL was to downgrade fb. They were replaced by Davidson, who was willing to have emasculating restrictions for fb, but when they realized they would also apply to bb and other sports said sayonara. They were replaced by Fordham, who bailed in all sports except fb after a few years, then fb as well over the schollie issue until the league followed suit. Towson State took advantage of the PL to improve its athletic and academic image, then discarded us like a used dishrag when it got what it wanted. Absolutely thrilling schedules Dunlap had painstakingly built up over a decade, including the likes of Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Northwestern, were continuously scrambled to include lusterless schools who couldn't decide whether or not they wanted to be in the PL.
The effect of the PL on the fb program (and the PL was a fb only league initially) cannot be debated. In the span of a few years Colgate, quite literally, went from being one of the very strongest I-AA programs (which included at the time Boise St, Marshall, Nevada, N Ill, Idaho, and others) to one of the very weakest. When the PL was conceived in the early 80s we had beaten HC 9 out of the prior 10 years; we would not beat them again until 1997. During the first decade of PL play we went 3-6-1 against LC, a school Colgate had lost to only once since 1907 prior to this.
It was said that one of the advantages of the PL would be that we would be guaranteed to play 3 Ivy teams each year. But Colgate at the time did not have any problem scheduling Ivy teams. Despite our geographic isolation, we played Ivy teams far more than any other PL school. The year before PL play began we played 5 Ivies. We then had to share our Ivy games with Bucknell and Fordham. Within a few years the IL backed out of this commitment. By this time our fb program and support had imploded, and we were now just another PL school, and Ivies found it easier to schedule schools closer by like HC and LC. To this day Colgate plays fewer Ivy teams than other PL schools, a few as 1 a couple of years ago.
Colgate in the late 70s had demonstrably more competitive admissions than Cornell and Penn, and (based on my NY prep school observations) I think Columbia as well. We were far more competitive than any PL school, and they were Colgate safety schools (they were mine). Younger alums will scoff, but many thought Colgate was in the IL, and even those who knew would say we were an unofficial member (Howard Cosell would say we were the 9th unofficial member). This changed when we joined an Ivy reject league. Cornell and Dartmouth were no longer our peer schools, but HC and LC. We dropped in admissions selectivity, rankings, and perception against virtually everybody (if you doubt this name a school we gained ground on the first 20 years of the PL). Ivies left us in the dust, as did most NESCAC members, and PL school gained on us (eg - Bucknell to near parity).
Colgate in the PL was led by the nose by schools we had dominated athletically for a century. HC demanded fb schollies continue for several years, and we kowtowed to them, and lost to them every year for a decade and a half. They then announced they would give bb schollies, and dared us to do anything about it (we didn't for several years). Fordham had no business being in what was supposedly Ivy league Jr, and did what it wanted in terms of athletic policies. However Fordham looked like Harvard compared to some of the schools that have been in and out of the PL over the years, including Towson State, Ursinus, Loyola, Fairfield, Hobart, American, and others, and this further affected the perception of who our peer schools were. Of course some of the pressure from other schools helped our athletics (schollies, fb playoff participation), as many of our "leaders" wanted to downgrade our athletics before moving on to the NESCAC or a big city.
This is not about being independent, The PL initially could have been a strong I-AA fb league. W&M was our only academic peer initially, and when they bailed it ought to have given people pause. If we kept W&M, Richmond would have followed suit, Davidson may have stayed, Villanova would have joined when they reinstituted fb, Army and Navy would have joined for all sports sooner (maybe even fb for a strong I-AA league - they were terrible at the time). We would have been a true east coast league with some of the strongest I-AA fb teams, not just a league of isolated northeast schools with an Ivy inferiority complex. Pollyannas who like to say Colgate has never done anything wrong will attack this, but those who have been around long enough know that the PL as conceived and implemented harmed us in many ways. We can be thankful we are finally recovering from the damage.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Forgive me for skipping the Silver Anniversary Gala -- Maven, 07/24/15 1:28:42pm Fri
>I agree with posters that evolution of the PL, in
>large part due to decisions forced upon Colgate by
>other members, has put Colgate athletics in a good
>position today looking forward. However this thread is
>a retrospective looking back over 25 years. The PL, AS
>ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED AND IMPLEMENTED, was an
>unmitigated disaster for Colgate, in ways that might
>be difficult to understand for those not old enough to
>have lived through the before and after. It totally
>gutted our proud fb program, nearly (but fortunately
>not quite) irreparably damaging it. It changed the
>perception of who our peer schools were, harming our
>academic reputation for 2 decades (we thankfully are
>now recovering from this). Finally it changed forever
>Colgate's unique brand and character, something that
>had defined the school for 75 years.
>
>The start of the PL (actually Colonial League at the
>time) was a poorly-planned fiasco. The league became a
>laughingstock when teams kept coming and going and it
>wasn't clear they'd be enough schools for a league,
>and was forced by the CAA to change its name. W&M was
>an initial member, but bailed when they realized the
>whole point of the PL was to downgrade fb. They were
>replaced by Davidson, who was willing to have
>emasculating restrictions for fb, but when they
>realized they would also apply to bb and other sports
>said sayonara. They were replaced by Fordham, who
>bailed in all sports except fb after a few years, then
>fb as well over the schollie issue until the league
>followed suit. Towson State took advantage of the PL
>to improve its athletic and academic image, then
>discarded us like a used dishrag when it got what it
>wanted. Absolutely thrilling schedules Dunlap had
>painstakingly built up over a decade, including the
>likes of Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Northwestern,
>were continuously scrambled to include lusterless
>schools who couldn't decide whether or not they wanted
>to be in the PL.
>
>The effect of the PL on the fb program (and the PL was
>a fb only league initially) cannot be debated. In the
>span of a few years Colgate, quite literally, went
>from being one of the very strongest I-AA programs
>(which included at the time Boise St, Marshall,
>Nevada, N Ill, Idaho, and others) to one of the very
>weakest. When the PL was conceived in the early 80s we
>had beaten HC 9 out of the prior 10 years; we would
>not beat them again until 1997. During the first
>decade of PL play we went 3-6-1 against LC, a school
>Colgate had lost to only once since 1907 prior to this.
>
>It was said that one of the advantages of the PL would
>be that we would be guaranteed to play 3 Ivy teams
>each year. But Colgate at the time did not have any
>problem scheduling Ivy teams. Despite our geographic
>isolation, we played Ivy teams far more than any other
>PL school. The year before PL play began we played 5
>Ivies. We then had to share our Ivy games with
>Bucknell and Fordham. Within a few years the IL backed
>out of this commitment. By this time our fb program
>and support had imploded, and we were now just another
>PL school, and Ivies found it easier to schedule
>schools closer by like HC and LC. To this day Colgate
>plays fewer Ivy teams than other PL schools, a few as
>1 a couple of years ago.
>
>Colgate in the late 70s had demonstrably more
>competitive admissions than Cornell and Penn, and
>(based on my NY prep school observations) I think
>Columbia as well. We were far more competitive than
>any PL school, and they were Colgate safety schools
>(they were mine). Younger alums will scoff, but many
>thought Colgate was in the IL, and even those who knew
>would say we were an unofficial member (Howard Cosell
>would say we were the 9th unofficial member). This
>changed when we joined an Ivy reject league. Cornell
>and Dartmouth were no longer our peer schools, but HC
>and LC. We dropped in admissions selectivity,
>rankings, and perception against virtually everybody
>(if you doubt this name a school we gained ground on
>the first 20 years of the PL). Ivies left us in the
>dust, as did most NESCAC members, and PL school gained
>on us (eg - Bucknell to near parity).
>
>Colgate in the PL was led by the nose by schools we
>had dominated athletically for a century. HC demanded
>fb schollies continue for several years, and we
>kowtowed to them, and lost to them every year for a
>decade and a half. They then announced they would give
>bb schollies, and dared us to do anything about it (we
>didn't for several years). Fordham had no business
>being in what was supposedly Ivy league Jr, and did
>what it wanted in terms of athletic policies. However
>Fordham looked like Harvard compared to some of the
>schools that have been in and out of the PL over the
>years, including Towson State, Ursinus, Loyola,
>Fairfield, Hobart, American, and others, and this
>further affected the perception of who our peer
>schools were. Of course some of the pressure from
>other schools helped our athletics (schollies, fb
>playoff participation), as many of our "leaders"
>wanted to downgrade our athletics before moving on to
>the NESCAC or a big city.
>
>This is not about being independent, The PL initially
>could have been a strong I-AA fb league. W&M was our
>only academic peer initially, and when they bailed it
>ought to have given people pause. If we kept W&M,
>Richmond would have followed suit, Davidson may have
>stayed, Villanova would have joined when they
>reinstituted fb, Army and Navy would have joined for
>all sports sooner (maybe even fb for a strong I-AA
>league - they were terrible at the time). We would
>have been a true east coast league with some of the
>strongest I-AA fb teams, not just a league of isolated
>northeast schools with an Ivy inferiority complex.
>Pollyannas who like to say Colgate has never done
>anything wrong will attack this, but those who have
>been around long enough know that the PL as conceived
>and implemented harmed us in many ways. We can be
>thankful we are finally recovering from the damage.
Is the above message really from our Charlotte alum? It doesn't read like his usual style.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Right on, Doc -- The Lone Haranguer, 07/24/15 3:22:44pm Fri
>I agree with posters that evolution of the PL, in
>large part due to decisions forced upon Colgate by
>other members, has put Colgate athletics in a good
>position today looking forward. However this thread is
>a retrospective looking back over 25 years. The PL, AS
>ORIGINALLY CONCEIVED AND IMPLEMENTED, was an
>unmitigated disaster for Colgate, in ways that might
>be difficult to understand for those not old enough to
>have lived through the before and after. It totally
>gutted our proud fb program, nearly (but fortunately
>not quite) irreparably damaging it. It changed the
>perception of who our peer schools were, harming our
>academic reputation for 2 decades (we thankfully are
>now recovering from this). Finally it changed forever
>Colgate's unique brand and character, something that
>had defined the school for 75 years.
>
>The start of the PL (actually Colonial League at the
>time) was a poorly-planned fiasco. The league became a
>laughingstock when teams kept coming and going and it
>wasn't clear they'd be enough schools for a league,
>and was forced by the CAA to change its name. W&M was
>an initial member, but bailed when they realized the
>whole point of the PL was to downgrade fb. They were
>replaced by Davidson, who was willing to have
>emasculating restrictions for fb, but when they
>realized they would also apply to bb and other sports
>said sayonara. They were replaced by Fordham, who
>bailed in all sports except fb after a few years, then
>fb as well over the schollie issue until the league
>followed suit. Towson State took advantage of the PL
>to improve its athletic and academic image, then
>discarded us like a used dishrag when it got what it
>wanted. Absolutely thrilling schedules Dunlap had
>painstakingly built up over a decade, including the
>likes of Duke, Vanderbilt, Rice, and Northwestern,
>were continuously scrambled to include lusterless
>schools who couldn't decide whether or not they wanted
>to be in the PL.
>
>The effect of the PL on the fb program (and the PL was
>a fb only league initially) cannot be debated. In the
>span of a few years Colgate, quite literally, went
>from being one of the very strongest I-AA programs
>(which included at the time Boise St, Marshall,
>Nevada, N Ill, Idaho, and others) to one of the very
>weakest. When the PL was conceived in the early 80s we
>had beaten HC 9 out of the prior 10 years; we would
>not beat them again until 1997. During the first
>decade of PL play we went 3-6-1 against LC, a school
>Colgate had lost to only once since 1907 prior to this.
>
>It was said that one of the advantages of the PL would
>be that we would be guaranteed to play 3 Ivy teams
>each year. But Colgate at the time did not have any
>problem scheduling Ivy teams. Despite our geographic
>isolation, we played Ivy teams far more than any other
>PL school. The year before PL play began we played 5
>Ivies. We then had to share our Ivy games with
>Bucknell and Fordham. Within a few years the IL backed
>out of this commitment. By this time our fb program
>and support had imploded, and we were now just another
>PL school, and Ivies found it easier to schedule
>schools closer by like HC and LC. To this day Colgate
>plays fewer Ivy teams than other PL schools, a few as
>1 a couple of years ago.
>
>Colgate in the late 70s had demonstrably more
>competitive admissions than Cornell and Penn, and
>(based on my NY prep school observations) I think
>Columbia as well. We were far more competitive than
>any PL school, and they were Colgate safety schools
>(they were mine). Younger alums will scoff, but many
>thought Colgate was in the IL, and even those who knew
>would say we were an unofficial member (Howard Cosell
>would say we were the 9th unofficial member). This
>changed when we joined an Ivy reject league. Cornell
>and Dartmouth were no longer our peer schools, but HC
>and LC. We dropped in admissions selectivity,
>rankings, and perception against virtually everybody
>(if you doubt this name a school we gained ground on
>the first 20 years of the PL). Ivies left us in the
>dust, as did most NESCAC members, and PL school gained
>on us (eg - Bucknell to near parity).
>
>Colgate in the PL was led by the nose by schools we
>had dominated athletically for a century. HC demanded
>fb schollies continue for several years, and we
>kowtowed to them, and lost to them every year for a
>decade and a half. They then announced they would give
>bb schollies, and dared us to do anything about it (we
>didn't for several years). Fordham had no business
>being in what was supposedly Ivy league Jr, and did
>what it wanted in terms of athletic policies. However
>Fordham looked like Harvard compared to some of the
>schools that have been in and out of the PL over the
>years, including Towson State, Ursinus, Loyola,
>Fairfield, Hobart, American, and others, and this
>further affected the perception of who our peer
>schools were. Of course some of the pressure from
>other schools helped our athletics (schollies, fb
>playoff participation), as many of our "leaders"
>wanted to downgrade our athletics before moving on to
>the NESCAC or a big city.
>
>This is not about being independent, The PL initially
>could have been a strong I-AA fb league. W&M was our
>only academic peer initially, and when they bailed it
>ought to have given people pause. If we kept W&M,
>Richmond would have followed suit, Davidson may have
>stayed, Villanova would have joined when they
>reinstituted fb, Army and Navy would have joined for
>all sports sooner (maybe even fb for a strong I-AA
>league - they were terrible at the time). We would
>have been a true east coast league with some of the
>strongest I-AA fb teams, not just a league of isolated
>northeast schools with an Ivy inferiority complex.
>Pollyannas who like to say Colgate has never done
>anything wrong will attack this, but those who have
>been around long enough know that the PL as conceived
>and implemented harmed us in many ways. We can be
>thankful we are finally recovering from the damage.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Forgive me for skipping the Silver Anniversary Gala -- Gate'83, 07/24/15 10:34:57pm Fri
Great recap! I forget context while living day to day life until a historian like '80 reminds me of it. I think the PL is a good place for us now, but agree that the history is sordid. The Lafayette point is a great one for an 83 grad, we considered that game a joke back in the day, not a meeting of equals.
However there's no going back. I'm glad we continue to invest in athletics, and think the new rink project is a huge deal as we define Colgate's athletic future... which will be largely in the Patriot League, regardless of past football glory.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Forgive me for skipping the Silver Anniversary Gala -- Steve, 07/25/15 10:45:18am Sat
...another way to live history- and enjoy yourself at the same time - is to attend the Hall of Honor dinner which will include inductee Dick Biddle.
I hope all the active posters make the trip to Hamilton and have a great weekend.
See you then!
Go 'gate!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
The PL Anniversary is about more than Gate's FCS football -- Raider Archivist, 07/25/15 4:52:25pm Sat
As much as I enjoy gate '80's renditions of the cycles of Raider football, the fact remains that the reputation of the PL and the role of athletics at Gate no longer rests on the fortunes of FCS football. Without diminishing the significance of Gate and the PL's stewardship missteps of FCS football along the way, the Gate's modern athletics era is being bolstered by more than a one-legged stool. The modern era is characterized by a consistently successful women's soccer program playing a big time schedule, recent success in men's lax, the promise of the new athletic facility on its six constituent teams, the adaptation of Starr and the leadership of Vicki in promoting the student-athlete's experience and its contribution to Gate's distinctive character and niche
And one can characterize the PL's prospects for the future on so many more promising attributes beyond the fortunes of FCS football. And for this, we should be grateful.
>...another way to live history- and enjoy yourself at
>the same time - is to attend the Hall of Honor dinner
>which will include inductee Dick Biddle.
>
>I hope all the active posters make the trip to
>Hamilton and have a great weekend.
>
>See you then!
>
>Go 'gate!
[ Edit | View ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
