Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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: My position on the matter Author: DamnRam [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 10:57:56 12/21/04 Tue In reply to: JCC 's message, "Is this a change of thinking on your part? Aren't you the poster who used to tell us that the administration had all sorts of "mission critical" proposals that took priority over athletic and recreational facilities? Didn't you advise us to stop fantasizing about a new basketball arena or football stadium until we consistently have overflow crowds in the current ones? Have you found the faith? Or am I thinking of someone else?" on 20:12:43 12/20/04 Mon I still believe in the critical importance of getting butts in seats in order to show need and support for larger bball and fball facilities, and the fact that a Science Center and building at LC are far more mission-critical. A Science Center would lead immediately and directly to increasing the applications from academic high-achievers. A building at LC would lead immediately and directly to increasing the number of classes and students that can be accomodated at that chronically overwhelmed campus. I just don't see new athletic facilities providing the same kind of direct and immediate benefit that such facilities, or even a new dorm for that matter, would offer. At best they allow you to "keep up with the joneses" and gain some indirect benefit. Unfortunately Fordham is in a triage mode and at this point in time must choose in the short term between core mission academic facilities and amenities like gorgeous student centers and palatial athletic centers. The only thing that has changed is that I now feel we should be discussing a long-term plan for the north side of our campus. Even if we can't or won't get ideal facilities in the short term (which I regard as unrealistic) to compete with BU, at least Fordham will show it is addressing the problem. The "lead" facilities in this discussion (not the construction order per se) should be a new fitness&rec center, followed by a new student activities/classroom/conferences facility, followed by a new basketball arena and football stadium. This context would make the discussion about new facilities more appealing and relevant to the entire university community than would the ongoing talks about "need" to spend even more on our big-budget marquee programs. Also, given St. Joe's accomplishments in basketball last year and the incremental upgrades being made for football this year, claims that lack of huge new facilities are what's mostly holding back our marquee programs will be deemed non-credible by the decision-makers. Unlike my friend Rambacker, I think planning on a ten-year timeframe is simply the most realistic way to proceed. It gives Fordham time to take care of the mission-critical projects. It gives our AD time to professionalize themselves and improve attendance, all of which helps to bolster the economic case for large facilities. It gives Fordham time to plan this right instead of shoehorning something in just for the sake of taking action. It gives Fordham time to talk up the broad-based benefits and get buy-in from students, alumni, community, etc. It gives Fordham time to raise the funds that will be needed. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date St. Joe's is having internal discussions about a new convocations center. That would leave Fordham and LaSalle in the dust. (NT) Rambacker 11:15:48 12/21/04 Tue St. Joe's had capacity and sellout crowds all of last year. Their athletic supporters now have the undeniable credibility to say that they have "earned" and "need" such a facility, that they now have the opportunity to solidify their gains. Our decade-long losing streak and the silence coming from our persistently empty seats in a very small gym, on the other hand, is deafening. Right now leading with basketball's needs is not a winning argument. Better to open the discussion with the fitness/rec center. (NT) -- DamnRam, 11:34:00 12/21/04 Tue On the contrary, that would be detrimental to our athletic program. What if a recreation center were built and not a convocations center? That would be a disaster. Fr. McShane is doing his homework and is becoming aware of the need for and benefits of a multi-purpose convocations center. A convocations center with 10-12 different functions and benefits to the Fordham community is a much easier sell than a recreation complex. It complements a new Campus Center perfectly, but I feel this is all moot as the three facilities will be planned and constructed as a single entity. (NT) -- Rambacker, 18:00:00 12/21/04 Tue RB, I agree that it would be a disaster for athletics to have one part built but not the other two. I do think they should all be planned to be part of one fully integrated entity so in one sense your point about "moot" is correct. Logistically however I don't see any realistic way to construct the entire thing at once without essentially shutting the school down or causing massive inconvenience to the student body (aka the paying customers) over a two year period. A phased approach over a longer period of time is I think the only realistic way to tackle that problem. (NT) -- DamnRam, 18:44:41 12/21/04 Tue I'd hope to do both. As matter of priority though, student's needs hav to come first. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 19:11:24 12/21/04 Tue That would be very detrimental to the program. If e can't spent what is needed to be like the big boys, we shouldn't try to play with them. (NT) -- An Old Coach, 19:14:29 12/21/04 Tue