"The Knight Commission has little credibility in my estimation."...Rambacker. If you don't mean what you write, don't write it. -- FORDHAM RAMS FOOTBALL FORUM

>

[ 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):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: "The Knight Commission has little credibility in my estimation."...Rambacker. If you don't mean what you write, don't write it.

Author:
Ramadama
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 15:37:12 11/16/04 Tue
In reply to: Rambacker 's message, "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." on 13:05:03 11/16/04 Tue

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

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

They may well and as soon as we tart hearing the demand for it, it might be the way to go. Right now we have a hug gap to fill to get where we want to go and there are more important things to focus on. A new AD is going to have to reverse 50 years of lack of direction and inept management. He's going to have more than enough to do without propping up a program that has little internal or external support. Until I see the mandate for it, I can't agree. (NT) -- Ramadama, 08:01:15 11/20/04 Sat

No one has even begun to sell it the students and alums. When that happens, there will be overwhelming support. Improvements in our Athletic program should be a PART of building the future Fordham, not separate from it. The strategy of viewing athletics as a separate(and low-priority entity has been used in the past and is a major reason why we have struggled. (NT) -- Rambacker, 09:31:30 11/20/04 Sat

I don't think we can do everything you want at one time and do it all the right way. You have to get basketball straightened out, build an athletic facility and a recreation center. Get those done, see if we can build a market for basketball and then look at football. (NT) -- Ramadama, 12:17:10 11/20/04 Sat

I agree we should prioritize, but in some cases efficiencies are found in planning capital/administrative programs as a single entity, not separately. Eg., we could save a lot of $ by tearing down McGinley/Lombardi/Rose Hill Gym, then replacing them with one interconnected complex to include a state of the art Campus Center/Convocations Center/Recreation Complex. That way we get 3 major benefits instead of 2, all as part of the same plan/construction project. If we connect luxury boxes in the Convocations Center with the football facility, we take care of football at the same time. (NT) -- Rambacker, 12:34:12 11/20/04 Sat

That's fine, I'm not an engineer or a campus planner. If it makes sense to do it that way, great. Then we have to revive basketball and make sure there is a market for it that justifies upgrading football. I look at it as a 3-4 step process. I can't see commiting the resources otherwise. Too many other things to be done. Show we can get some some priorities addressed on the one side and then take a next step. Too easy to make a bad choice and you can't go back once it is done. (NT) -- Ramadama, 13:52:24 11/20/04 Sat

I think basketball is on it's way to being competitive, possibly very competitive. I agree that this must be done in stages and that there are several priorities that should be addressed before athletics. But the student experience must be enhanced at Fordham to enhance our ranking, and soon. A new Campus Center, Recreation Complex and Convocations Center will take us a long way toward that end. We have renovated much of the Rose Hill campus and built and renovated all the dorms. It's time. (NT) -- Rambacker, 10:24:41 11/21/04 Sun