[ 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):
| Monday, May 11, 02:29:35am |
[ 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 ]
|
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09:23:26 07/14/04 Wed
Author: Nhteamer
Subject: HELLO FR. BROOKS
I swear to God I'd love to look Fr. Brooks in the eye and have him state that he didn't destroy HC athletics. We were the envy of all in iAA football. UConn was hoping to be able to compete with us in basketball. He sold us out completely to the whiners in the Ivy League who threatened not to play us if we didn't downgrade.
Now, again, those same FRIENDS have blown us off; FOR QUINNIPIAC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fr. Brooks you made many great decisions for HC. You probably are all set for a great afterlife, but please admit it; YOUR DECISIONS WHEN IT CAME TO HC ATHLETICS WERE A DISASTER AND YOU WERE NOTHING SHORT OF A FOOL TO TRUST THE IVY LEAGUE.
I would like to preempt those who say "enough talk about Fr. Brooks; that is in the past." No it's not; his naivite (sp?) hurts us every day!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- 4purple, 10:23:23 07/14/04 Wed
So true.
Some of the posts today are celebrating the tentative rumored place of runner-up for HC in this process. Indeed, of we are the 13th team that is great. But, as 'teamer points out, how can we be runner-up to QU after all the cowtowing to the Ivy League? How important was the lofty academic piece of the puzzle after all? Would we not even have been in the running if we didn't have some bosom buddies in the Ivy League? Our past administrations have been like the kid who desperately wants to be popular with the cool kid. Our capitulation to the Ivy League, our complete surrender on their terms is the equivalent to "I'll give you a dollar if you will be my friend."
Our "friends" chose QUINNIPIAC (that's QUINNIPIAC!) over us.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
HELLO FR. BROOKS - NEVER A COMMITMENT -- purplehaze, 11:08:19 07/14/04 Wed
it all comes down to a commitment to athletics in the ivy/patriot tradition - it has never been there at hc since we (brooks) made the decision to realign with 'like' schools. the difference makers are facilities and full-time coaches. we are still behind (i'd say the worst) among all ivy/patriot schools in facilities, and just now beefing up our full-time coaches on campus.
the ecac fears giving us the 'invite', and then seeing us do nothing with the hart hockey rink and do a half-baked job of div.1 women's program. they have looked at our athletic program and have rightfully seen that we are div. i on paper only, with very little pro-active moves in the last decade to improve. who wants to invite a school with a 'losing atmosphere' in most sports.
hey, the administration has every right to make the decisions they do, but it seems to me a lot of people have observed the mediocrity of the past years that permeates our campus.
we're lucky to have coach pearl and bill bellerose who pushed for canadian recruits 5 years ago, and this has clearly made the big difference in our hockey program.
we'll probably get into the ecac when all is said and done but i personally hope they get a commitment from us for improvements at hart rink, as well as the immediate move to get the women's program on the div. i track quickly.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
On facilities, Fordham is the true cellar dwellar -- DamnRam, 17:50:48 07/18/04 Sun
For basketball you've got the Hart Center, whereas Fordham has the very old Rose Hill Gym. Haven't seen your lockerrooms but I'm guessing they're much better than ours, which are in the basement of RHG.
For football, you've got the 23,000 seat horseshoe stadium of Fitton Field, whereas Fordham has the 7,000 seat risers (all on one side) of Coffey Field. Again, haven't seen your lockerrooms but I'm sure they're better than ours. We will be getting a new FieldTurfed field though for both the practice grid and the playing grid.
For baseball, you've got a dedicated baseball diamond on Fitton, whereas Fordham's baseball team has a diamond on one corner of Coffey Field, with the football grid making up the left and center field area. The FieldTurfing of Coffey should help us in this respect.
We have only an intramural hockey team (they're decent for an intramural team, from what I've heard) and no hockey rink of our own. I would love for us to have even the small capacity rink that HC has.
I don't know or care what Fr. Brooks did or didn't do to your athletics program, but for what it's worth remember that it could always be worse. You could be forced to do with much less, as Fordham has, which of course probably adds insult to your "injury" considering how well we've done with those inadequate facilities.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- nhteamer, 11:46:48 07/14/04 Wed
'Haze, we were runners up to Quinnipiac; not Colgate/Bucknell/Davidson/ William and Mary/Richmond--------------------------QUINNIPIAC!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
runner-up to quinnipiac -- purplehaze, 16:40:58 07/14/04 Wed
nht, unfortunately the ecac considered quinnipiac seriously. seems you consider qu such a mediocre school that we have been humiliated to have lost out to them. if they are so mediocre, then i don't think the ecac would have even considered them. it obviously was not the 'college bowl' of academics competition here, and as i said in my post above, they might (rightfully) be skittish about our commitment, and considered qu's commitment more reliable, especially in view of their div.1 women's program which is a very 'politically correct' advantage they enjoy at the present time.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: runner-up to quinnipiac -- nhteamer, 19:56:17 07/14/04 Wed
Stop making excuses for this complete fiasco. It is a humiliation, a slap in the face by our pretend friends, and the culmination of three decades of pathetic, weak kneed, myopic vision.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- purple1, 14:48:42 07/15/04 Thu
We need a strong leader at HC to stand up to the other presidents of the league and convince them. Where was our close (????) friend Colgate in all of this? They should have been at the front line. Alumni from the Ivy are shocked at the news of the past 2 days, which I come into contact with every day. All comments from the business alumni had been very positive toward joining the ECAC and taking in games with them. Why do you add another school which is 8 miles away from Yale and lose the central New England media population, which supports the Worc. IceCats? $80 million dollar endowment can put more $$$ in a program vs. a half-billion endowment? Maybe Q. is going to close their law school or just admit full pay students with all aid going to athletes. Where is our board of trustees on this matter? I am in a state of disbelief.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
hey there, don't blame us -- colgate13, 15:22:27 07/15/04 Thu
Where was Colgate? I'm pretty sure we were one of your big supporters. You've had nothing but support and good words from Colgate fans here. I imagine the decision makers from Colgate were pulling for you as well.
It sounds like in the end your institution was not willing to upgrade their women's program to the D-I level the ECAC wanted. Your men's program sounds like it was a no brainer, but apparently your (lack of a) women's program brought you down. Pointing figures at Colgate, or any Ivy for that matter, is misdirected anger at best.
Face it, the deal was for both men and women. You only wanted to pony up for the men. The ECAC had an athletically competitive school willing to pony up for both. Obviously academics are a secondary concern for an athletic league. What decision would you have made in a reversed situation?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: hey there, don't blame us -- purple passion peter, 14:55:28 07/18/04 Sun
Brooks is to H.C.Athletics what Marvin Miller is to Major League Baseball,namely a Pariah who caused irreperable damage.His legacy should read as such and he should be ostracized forever.His "haughtiness"should be made to realize the gavity of his tyrannical decisions,and how many people were impacted in a negative fashion.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- purple1, 15:47:04 07/15/04 Thu
We are both in the Patriot League, which prides itself on student-athletes. That premise should help in applying to the ECAC, which has 7 schools in the top 50 schools in the country and could have been 8. Tradition, respect for one another, geographical location, and closeness between rival alumni should have outweighed the new women's hockey program at HC. Given 3-5 years, a competitive team would have resulted. Not to mention endowments and national recognition of the schools in question. I would have chosen Colgate over Quinnipiac in a heart beat if reversed.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
but what if -- colgate13, 16:00:54 07/15/04 Thu
(and I'm playing devil's advocate here since I wanted HC in)
Colgate was for some reason not in the PL and there was a chance to get in as a basketball member. Would you want us if we said we only were going to support the men's team? Would you want us if, SUNY Albany, for example had said they'd support both? It's easy to say the you'd go for Colgate, but would that be in the best interest of the league? I don't know the "right" answer, but it's an analogy.
I'm completely guessing here, but I bet the recent actions of Union didn't help your cause. The last thing that ECAC members want is another Union in the league. Maybe the "half committment" scared schools off?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: but what if -- purple1, 18:50:19 07/15/04 Thu
I do not believe a half committment was given. A time frame of 3-5 years was given by a school located in a good area to recruit female hockey players from.
I would still have picked Colgate for basketball if we played in all other sports because of traditional rivalries over the decades. Colgate female basketball would be able to recruit a higher caliber athlete by being the new league. Kudos!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Commitments -- sader1970, 16:57:11 07/15/04 Thu
Let's stop blaming the Ivies or Colgate. Especially not Colgate whose alums have supported our ECAC bid from the beginning. If the rules of engagement was both the men's and women's (and I'm sure we knew that up front) and we weren't willing to do that, then why the heck should the ECAC have taken us?
I can't fathom that we would not commit to upgrading the ladies to D1 and do it quickly. To me, that's a fairness issue as about half of the HC student body is female. This is a no-brainer.
But I don't buy into the facility size piece of the argument. And I certainly don't buy into the QU promises to build an arena. Our current arena, though small, is bigger than theirs RIGHT NOW and we did have the Centrum for the expected crush of fans we'd get from surrounding Worcester. Those are physical facts not promises. And, guess what? IMHO, if HC was consistently getting ECAC crowds of 3,000 or 4,000 that caused us to go to the Centrum, don't you think that HC would find it financially expedient to expand Hart at that point?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Colgate certainly can't be happy with this. -- Go...'gate, 17:24:20 07/15/04 Thu
Notwithstanding some of the arguments on this board, we have a long relationship with HC and a lot in common with them from an institutional standpoint. What happend to HC was wrong. Going a step further, it seems clear that HC's administration did not give HC a fair chance to be admitted. I hope your alumni bring this to the attention of the College's Trustees and any other organization that coulad make a difference. In addition, HC needs a sports booster club! Screw the "Lift High the Cross" exclusivity. Having loyal alumni who support athletics with $$$ has never hurt any other team in the PL or Ivy from a financial standpoint.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- timholycross, 15:09:43 07/15/04 Thu
Yes, when you look at the 11 members they have now, there's RPI, St. Lawrence, Union and Clarkson.
Then, you have Harvard, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, Cornell and Colgate.
There isn't much of a relationship between HC and Cornell, but, Jesus Christ, why did we get the shaft from the other ones?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- purple1, 15:18:23 07/15/04 Thu
The RPI president was just at our commencement for 2004. Where was our pres???????
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: HELLO FR. BROOKS -- purple1, 15:21:31 07/15/04 Thu
Go look at Ivy League board! Thanks Big Green and Bengal supporters/alums!!! Where is Colgate stance???
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Listen, I think it's pretty crappy too -- colgate13, 15:26:14 07/15/04 Thu
but do we need to post up and down the 'gate board our displeasure? When we first thought you were in as conditional, we were offering congratulations. Geez...
Listen, I think it's ridiculous that HC got the snub over Q. Does that help the situation any?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Listen, I think it's pretty crappy too -- purple1, 15:30:57 07/15/04 Thu
colgate13- THANKYOU for YOUR support and many other Colgate Alums. Does anyone know if your President and new AD supported HC?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
since our new AD hasn't started work yet... -- colgate13, 16:02:06 07/15/04 Thu
I don't know!
But the hockey folks I talked to wanted HC...
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Re: HELLO FR. McFarland -- Rick, 15:52:25 07/15/04 Thu
Anyone else catch the comment in the other thread that McFarland was not on campus/not around when HC hosted the ECAC on their fact-finding visit ?
Some pressing biz off campus I guess....question of priorities I guess....other things more important I guess....could be a dentist appointment that day I guess....maybe had to get the car washed I guess.
" You handle it Dick "
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Another 'gate fan in favor of HC -- 'gate88, 10:33:45 07/16/04 Fri
I think the importance of a quality on-campus rink has been missed by many posters. The ECAC doesn't have teams that play games in half (three/quarters) empty off-campus rinks. The cost of upgrading the women's team is minimal (unless you want to win). The rink remains the big issue. Is a renovation of Hart that adds 900 seats a possibility?
Good luck.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: HELLO FR. McFarland -- timholycross, 15:16:15 07/16/04 Fri
It's not a very expandable building, both in terms of the hockey and basketball arenas. I always thought they were better off with a smaller version of Conte Forum* than what they built.
*Basketball plays on floor over hockey arena, allowing ice to be used pretty much when there is no basketball game. They have practice court(s) for basketball with a seating capacity of 1000 or less.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Expand Hart -- PatriotFan, 16:42:36 07/16/04 Fri
Blow the building out by 20-25 feet on the far side of the hockey arena. Have the road on the side of Hart go through the new part of the building, under the new expanded stands for the hockey arena. Find a way to put two new locker rooms in there for M/W soccer and lacrosse. Adds 1,000+ seats. ECAC membership application accepted. Students have fun watching Crusaders beat Colgate, Yale, Harvard. Alumni are happy. Team gets better. BC comes to play Crusaders at Centrum. Alumni are really happy. Think the money could be raised for this secnario? Probably by year end. And all this could get done before mighty Quinnipiac plays a single game in the new arena in Hamden CT.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Conte version -- Rick, 16:45:30 07/16/04 Fri
Interesting thought tim....
But I've occasionally wondered how hectic it is to change back and forth from hockey to hoops for both games and practice times for BC's m/w hoops and m/w hockey. Four teams - one combo rink/gym. I think Umass's arena operates the same way.
Where are BC's practice/auxilary courts ? Do they have a 2nd rink for practice too ?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
