| Subject |
Author |
Date |
| Agreed. I’m curious to know if the move of Fordham football from the club level to Div. III in 1970 was faced with alumni opposition. How about the move from Div. III to Div. I-AA in 1989? If so, are they the same alums who now are opposed to a move from a need-based aid program to a scholarship program? (NT) | ramMan | 10:15:46 11/11/04 Thu |
- ramMan, I played and coached at Fordham when we were DIII. When we made the move up, one reason was because the NCAA was about to change the rules. Back then, you could be a DI school and play DIII football. Also, when it was originally presented, the PL was modeled after the Ivy League. It was going to be a 1AA non-schol league of very academically competitive, private schools. It has pretty much remained that way and that is why I favor staying here. I don't see the advantage of moving to a league comprised mainly of huge state universities that we have nothing in common with. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 11:04:09 11/11/04 Thu
- Fair enough, but if Villanova chooses to stay in the A-10 after the split, I think Fordham should at least explore the idea of moving up. I’ve gone on record many times on this board as favoring scholarships over need-based aid. There are two high school coaches in my family and both favor sending their star athletes to scholarship programs (Villanova, Hofstra, UMass, W&M, etc.) over need-based programs. (cont. below) (NT) -- ramMan, 11:47:24 11/11/04 Thu
- In fact, in the 30+ years my uncle has been a head coach, he’s never sent a star athlete to Fordham. He has nothing against Fordham, the university… he’d just rather see his kids get unconditional athletic scholarships. (Need-based aid can vary from year to year depending on a kid’s family financial situation. E.g., if a kid’s mom gets a job, aid can be cut… the same if dad gets a raise, promotion, higher-paying job, etc.) If Villanova and Fordham are recruiting one of my uncle’s athletes, he’s going to recommend the scholarship program to the kid and his parents. (NT) -- ramMan, 11:49:13 11/11/04 Thu
- (More) We can agree the need-based aid model was a total failure re Fordham men’s basketball. I fear it may not work for Fordham football unless the coach is a master recruiter (e.g., Clawson). Coach Foley did an excellent job in keeping Coach Clawson’s last recruiting class intact. Let’s hope he continues to have recruiting successes. (NT) -- ramMan, 12:29:51 11/11/04 Thu
- The PL was supposed to be a different animal though. It was set up so that the entire conference is on an even playing field. The goal, like the Ivy League is to recruit student athletes who fit a higher academic profile that these schools are supposed to have. I prefer this model. Once you go to scholarships, you have to recruit different kids. Not saying you won't get the brighter ones, I'm saying you have to make a lot of compromises on who you are bringing in. It is a different game. Not saying it's worse, it is different. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 12:38:54 11/11/04 Thu
- Thats the way it goes with recruiting. Some guys are great, others aren't. Penn, Princeton, Harvard, Lehigh and Colgate always seem to have coaches who can recruit without scholarships. I think our success over that past four years shows we can do it too. I don't think need based aid is a failure at all. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 12:43:26 11/11/04 Thu
- It's much easier to recruit without scholarships at Penn, Princeton, Harvard, etc. because those coaches can use the "panache" and name of those elite schools to sell. Fordham can't. It's a very, very difficult recruit for our coaches. We've had one football coach in 18 years that recruited well without scholarships and the verdict is still out on our current coach. It'll be an uneven ride if we stay in the PL - not a good thing. (NT) -- Rambacker, 13:59:56 11/11/04 Thu
- I also want to add that high schoolers want to brag about earning a “scholarship”. (At least that’s what the two high school football coaches in my family tell me.) There’s nothing “sexy” about getting a “need-based grant”. Grants are a tough sell to recruits. (NT) -- ramMan, 14:54:28 11/11/04 Thu
- I like to think it is a pretty good thing to say "I played football at Fordham". Maybe it's just me but I was always proud of that and I like to think that the Fordham degree I worked my rear end off for has served me pretty well, whether or not I was a scholarship athlete (which I wasn't). If someone could convince me it is better for Fordham to do this, I would love to agree. I think it is a great and special place that can stand on its own, with or without 1AA football or D1 athletics at all. NYU and Columbia didn't become world class institutions because they played in the A10. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 17:37:31 11/11/04 Thu
- If you're Harvard, Yale, Colgate or Lehigh you don't need sports to sell your school. If you're Fordham, you do. (NT) -- Rambacker, 22:16:09 11/11/04 Thu
- Fordham needs sports to sell itself? That is the dumbest thing you've ever wriiten and makes all of your over the top, pro Fordham, ranting totally hypoctritical. 150+ years of Fordham history and we need sports to sell this University? May as well put the "For Sale" sign up. (NT) -- Ramadama, 18:54:46 11/12/04 Fri
- Unfortunately we do. I wish we didn't need it, but it's true. We took a huge step back academically in the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's. If Georgetown used sports successfully, why shouldn't we? If we run a clean program, which we will, it's all positive. (NT) -- Rambacker, 22:14:04 11/12/04 Fri
- Georgetown rose to prominence because, among other things, world renowned international affairs program, a top ten law school, being the pre-eminent University in DC, hospital/Lombardi cancer center, tremendous marketing and they wrapped it all up with a great run during the Ewing years. You think we're going to reach that level with a 1-AA football program? Wow, thank god you're not in charge. (NT) -- Ramadama, 10:56:46 11/13/04 Sat
- It's unfortunate you can't see the big picture. Fordham needs to use every element of a strong national marketing plan that they can to reach our stated goal. A small regional non-scholarship football league that's one step above Div. 3 doesn't cut it for us. We need to use our sports program to market the school in as many regions as we can, while building a consistent winning program. Glad you're not running a business or a university - both would be in big trouble if that were the case. (NT) -- Rambacker, 22:38:18 11/13/04 Sat
- You refuse to recognize what noted authorities including the Knight commission say about college sports. They said again last summer in a report that athletics play only a small role, if any, in sustained fundraising or enrollment success. How do you conveniently ignore this each time it is brought up? Georgetown is thought of as a great school because of their excellent academic programs, endowment and distinguished faculty. They haven't even been good in hoops for 10 years. That is how you build a great university, not on 1AA football. (NT) -- Ramadama, 08:00:32 11/14/04 Sun
- The Knight Commission has little credibility in my estimation. Having commissioned many surveys in my career, I know the results can be skewed in any direction one wants. But here's the key: if you don't think Georgetown's incredible jump in academic standing wasn't helped immensely by their great basketball teams of the late 70's and 80's, then I can't do much for you. Burying your head in the sand just begs for our administration to regress to a total lack of support for our athletic program. Is that good for Fordham? I don't think so. (NT) -- Rambacker, 11:55:52 11/14/04 Sun
- Of course you don't think they have credibility. They don't agree with you. What else is new? Keep living in your little Rambacker world. (NT) -- Ramadama, 19:26:41 11/14/04 Sun
- It's small thinkers like you that have held Fordham back for many decades. Thankfully you're now outnumbered by alums who live in the real world and know what Fordham needs to do to reach our goals. Let me guess - you teach high school and never played on a sports team in your life. (NT) -- Rambacker, 22:19:22 11/14/04 Sun
- A very mature response. To be expected. (NT) -- Ramadama, 12:08:38 11/15/04 Mon
- Please refer to your prior post for a "mature" response. When the arguments run out, the drivel begins. (NT) -- Rambacker, 15:00:13 11/15/04 Mon
- I've never speculated on your choice of career or any athletic involvement you may or may not have. I leave that wallowing in the mud to you. Let me know when you want a mature debate. (NT) -- Ramadama, 15:14:15 11/15/04 Mon
- We've already had a debate and you ran out of arguments, then resorted to immature comments. The debate ended when you did that. Next time try to come up with some better arguments. (NT) -- Rambacker, 22:15:16 11/15/04 Mon
- As usual, you have nothing. The debate ended when you make promouncements like the Knight Commission has no credibility. University presidents have seem to think it has credibility, but not the all knowing Rambacker. Amazing. (NT) -- Ramadama, 08:24:58 11/16/04 Tue
- It's time for you to do some homework and then move into the realm of reality. Many of those on the Knight Commission are also members of the NCAA Board of Directors. A conflict of interest? Of course it is. They've recommended some good things, but if you think the Knight Commission is the be all and end all for college athletic reform, your naivete is showing. (NT) -- Rambacker, 10:02:05 11/16/04 Tue
- As I said, the University president's seem to think it has credibility. Right now, that is the mechanism we have. Who are you to say it has no credibility...Oh that's right, you're Rambacker, all knowing, all seeing, voice of Fordham Athletics! (NT) -- Ramadama, 10:18:53 11/16/04 Tue
- You again resort to twisting my statements because you are struggling with the facts. I didn't say they had no credibility, but they are built to favor making the NCAA look good. They've recommended some baby steps that are positive. What makes you think the college presidents support the commission? That's a blanket statement that's untrue. Many college presidents are skeptical about the Knight Commission, at best. Again, facts are what win debates. Stretching the truth doesn't. (NT) -- Rambacker, 13:05:03 11/16/04 Tue
- "The Knight Commission has little credibility in my estimation."...Rambacker. If you don't mean what you write, don't write it. (NT) -- Ramadama, 15:37:12 11/16/04 Tue
- The truth twisting continues. "Little" does not mean "none". Time to bone up on your debate skills. (NT) -- Rambacker, 20:13:08 11/16/04 Tue
- A true Clinton answer. Kind of like trying to define "is". You said they have "little credibility" in your estimation. What exactly does that mean? By "little credibility," do you really mean they'll do a great job? Another point....you might take a look at the names associated with the Knight Commission before you say that many presidents are skeptical. Some of the great names in higher education are on the board. They've been very critical of the NCAA. What presidents do you know first hand who think they are NCAA apologists? (NT) -- Ramadama, 09:46:43 11/17/04 Wed
- Actually I'm glad the Knight Commission exists - at least there's a "watchdog" out there. But some of the members that are also on the NCAA Board have a vested interest in making the NCAA look good. By the way, talk about low blows! Comparing me to Clinton is like saying you thought I went to Iona! Ouch! (NT) -- Rambacker, 11:32:26 11/17/04 Wed
- A little strong. My apologies. You did back track, though. You said you felt they had "little credibility". Knight Commission is made up of pretty big names and very respected. Most "commissions" have dualing priorities and this one is no exception. They have said in a number of reports, and this has been backed up by other college associations, that there is no long term benefit in fundraising or enrollment to schools who have successful programs. They've documented this. Everyone isn't wrong here. (NT) -- Ramadama, 12:20:22 11/17/04 Wed
- One of the goals of the Knight Commission is to try to slow the "arms race" between major universities spending outrageous amounts of money on athletics. That alone puts the report on athletic success and it's correlation to fundraising/academic standing in question. You have a tendency to stretch facts, and I say that honestly and not as an insult. How can you say "everyone isn't wrong"? You and I both know there are many who don't believe the results of that report are accurate. And I'm one. (NT) -- Rambacker, 12:34:01 11/17/04 Wed
- That is a report that hs little to do with the "arms race". There are so many bigger issues. Do you think people like Fr. Hesburgh (sp?) are going to sign on to something that is rigged? Anyway, you avoided my issue. You did say they had "little credibility". They are actually very credible. What presidents do you know who have huge problems with their recommendations? (NT) -- Ramadama, 18:07:45 11/17/04 Wed
- Man, you've got to be kidding. The commission's charged with slowing the athletic "arms race" in colleges. It's on their agenda. That taints any report that relates to the problem. A study on the correlation between athletic success & fundraising/academic standing is directly related to that subject. How could it not be MORE related? Since when is Fr. Hesburgh a saint? Did the Vatican anoint him one? I'm rooting for the Knight Commission to effect positive change as much as anyone. But let's not have a Pollyanna belief that the Knight Commission isn't riddled with politics & competing agendas. (NT) -- Rambacker, 18:28:39 11/17/04 Wed
- Agree with much of what you say. What would there agenda be, to release a report saying that there isn't much connection between winning teams and fundraisiing and enrollment gains. Why would the Assoc. of University Business Officers, CASE and the Chronicle of Higher Ed say similar? A conspiracy? (NT) -- Ramadama, 11:21:26 11/18/04 Thu
- Full time, professional academics are generally at odds with those that support the use of winning athletic programs to enhance a college's stature academically. How many PHD's have you ever heard say "Let's build a powerhouse athletic program to help us sell our university to top students? 1 in a 1000 might say that. So does it not follow logically that any committee made up of professional academics would be predisposed to dismissing athletic success as a means to enhance the academic standing of a university? Absolutely. Hence my skepticism, which is well placed. (NT) -- Rambacker, 12:27:15 11/18/04 Thu
- Great Universities have great academics. Not too many ways to get there and athletics is just a very small avenue. Fordham has many, many unmet needs. In the big picture, i don't see 1AA football as a priority or a realistic way for us to get there. Also, I have addressed this to you beofre. If there is an alumni/student demand for 1AA scholarship football, why aren't people speaking up? (NT) -- Ramadama, 15:51:38 11/18/04 Thu
- Athletics is a "very small avenue" to promote Fordham as an institution? This is where we disagree. Athletics is actually a huge vehicle to market Fordham as an institution. How many academic symposiums are broadcast on television? Zero. How many college athletic contests are on television? Athletics, if used properly, can be a very powerful and effective means to get the word out about Fordham as an academic instution. Period. (NT) -- Rambacker, 16:54:06 11/18/04 Thu
- Billion dollar endowments, research centers, endowed faculty and chairs, great libraries, prize winning faculty and outstanding student facilities are what make Universities great. We lag in most of these while everyschool that is above Fordham in the rankings excels in all areas. These are the areas that make universities great, not 1-AA football. Those should be the priorities. (NT) -- Ramadama, 07:29:52 11/19/04 Fri
- They are the priorities at Fordham. And always will and should be. But to dismiss a successful, well-promoted athletic program as a vehicle to promote our university is both naive and a dismal mistake. (NT) -- Rambacker, 09:04:59 11/19/04 Fri
- It's good that they are. Since we are so far behind the schools we would like to believe are our peers, you have to have priorities. We don't have a real athletic center or student center, our scholarship endowment isn't great, landlocked campus to name a few. We're obviously making tremendous strides but you can only do so many things. I don't see 1AA football making the impact that a couple of fully endowed faculty chairs would have and one you get the chair, it is paid for forever. Football at that level will never make money and its taking our eye off the bigger needs. (NT) -- Ramadama, 10:25:15 11/19/04 Fri
- Perhaps you missed RamMan's posts showing that the current Fordham Football budget is already at the full scholarship level. We would have very small, incremental costs to go 1-AA full scholarship and the benefits would be considerable. Imagine Fordham playing Navy at Annapolis one year and Army at West Point the next, on a rotating basis. Playing Duke and Wake Forest, Vanderbilt & Tulane.Talk about a rallying point for alums and students! It's the way to go. (NT) -- Rambacker, 12:07:36 11/19/04 Fri
- Rallying points are great. A new student center, named business school and student scholarships are more productive. No evidence at all that alumni/students want that or a proposed schedule that you suggest is feasible. Priorities. (NT) -- Ramadama, 14:46:14 11/19/04 Fri
- The majority of posters on this board have expressed an interest in moving to 1-AA scholarship football. You make it sound like we can't have both an attractive 1-AA scholarship football program and a new student center, named business school and student scholarships. Not even close to the truth. With minimal additional costs to move up in football, it would be an easy move. We can have both, and should. And if you don't realize that we can play Army, Navy and other top academic schools in football if we move to scholarship 1-AA, then you've been out of the loop too long. (NT) -- Rambacker, 15:46:50 11/19/04 Fri
- The number of posters on this board is insignificant compared to the number of alums. We're the zealots. We need a facility and staffing to move up. The costs are more than you think. We need to get basketball on the right footing and get some kind of facility, first. You can't do it all. Currently, we have no relationship with any of the schools you mention. It can be built but it will take time. Navy and Army have relationships with the 1AA schools they play. No reason to think they would drop those just to play us. Finally, there is no student/alum outcry for this move. (NT) -- Ramadama, 17:05:58 11/19/04 Fri
- Agree basketball must be top priority. But I'd suggest we begin planning a capital campaign for athletics that includes ALL sports. The plan would include a convocations center(to be used for hoops, entertainment, symposia, etc), new recreation complex, legit football stadium, 400 meter track, etc. It's way overdue. If students/alums learn we can play Army, Navy, Duke, Tulane in football if we go scholarship, the response will be overwhelmingly positive. I think you know that, but are afraid to admit it. Setting up games with those schools is fairly easy, & a professional AD can get it done. (NT) -- Rambacker, 17:55:38 11/19/04 Fri
- Your description of what our schedule would look like is quite misleading. Here is a sample schedule that is a very realistic possibility if we move up to scholarship 1-AA football: Columbia, William and Mary, Villanova, Delaware, Richmond, URI, UMass, Lehigh/Colgate(rotate one each year), Army/Navy(rotate one each year), UNH, Maine. That is a much more attractive schedule than the one we play now. Fordham alums and students would jump all over it. Let's get it done! (NT) -- Rambacker, 11:50:35 11/11/04 Thu
|
|
|
Feedback: 