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):
| Thursday, April 09, 01:26:08pm | [ 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 ] |
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: ECAC Hockey ..more -- NTKHC64, 09:02:02 07/19/04 Mon
Holy Cross committed to bring the women's program into parity with the men's but let it be known that it would take several years to do so. The gross dollar amount necessary was one which would not be available in time for admission at present. Other needs took a higher priority (ies.) Exactly how and by whom the decision(s) on priorities were made I don't know. Admission to the ECAC is still a goal and steps are being taken to make us a more viable candidate within the next few years.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: ECAC Hockey ..more -- pitt65, 09:13:07 07/19/04 Mon
Wish I could be as optimistic as you NJK, but I can't. ECAC was ready to act now - we can't guarantee whether they'll still want to expand in a few years/ or whether HC will be coming off such a good hockey season as now / or whether other schools will supplant us as viable candidates by then. Another blown athletic opportunity!
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: ECAC Hockey ..more -- kesiwick, 09:28:08 07/19/04 Mon
now is the time to move to a top-notch league -- we blew it -- the next shoe to drop will likely be Coach Pearl moving on and the program will fall back into obscurity -- nice work on the Hill -- perhaps an enterprising reporter will someday do a long piece on how Holy Cross got flanked by BC to get the "Duke of New England" moniker -- pathetic
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: to pitt65 -- NTKHC64, 09:32:58 07/19/04 Mon
People have their views and we'll see what develops. As I see it, those who made the judgment felt that the $500,000 needed would yield a better return when spent other than for hockey. Interestingly, despite the many exhortations to contact Development, inter alia, that office has received no calls on this issue as of 10 minutes ago.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: to pitt65 -- utter embarassment, 09:39:12 07/19/04 Mon
they probably haven't heard from anyone because no one outside of this board gives a damn about HC athletics -- they used to but not anymore -- and the HC admin makes little effort to keep people informed -- no one knows about the "matching" program where one can give to general fund and a specific sport let alone what's going on with our admissions' statistics
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
NTK...development question -- HC1843, 10:08:17 07/19/04 Mon
have you in your conversation(s) w/development inquired at all to the two year below 50% contribution level and their thoughts on that? Obviously, development has tinkered to make it still look like we are hitting the number, but are they not concerned by this trend and what looks to be a drop off, even if slight, in young alumni giving?
As to the comment on the $500k being better spent elsewhere, do you know if there were/are specific areas they were/are thinking about? To what degree did the decision-makers contemplate a medium- to long-term ROI that would compensate for the short-term loss? To what degree did the decision-makers contemplate the affect of increased national exposure in bringing in a more diverse (in any sense of the term) student body, or purely increasing apps to get them to the sub-40% acceptance target that has been discussed on this board? In your opinion, outside of basketball and/or football does anyone care or have a vision? If this were a soccer decision, would Regan have fought harder for a sport that he publicly acknowledges his unabashed love for...would the monetary equation have changed?
Obviously many more questions than you have answers to, but I can't help but tp come to the conclusion that our admin screwed up b/c of short-sightedness/lack of vision, and, as others have pointed out, the concept that our name will carry the day. However, our inability to commit to sports success outside of bball and fball is actually the connotation that our name now carries. The ECAC decision has only cemented that image for those outside of the inward looking Cross admin.
Cheers.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: NTK...development answer(s) to 1843 -- NTKHC64, 10:25:16 07/19/04 Mon
I have discussed or been privy to discussions with more than one person in Development. I haven't asked why they feel the response is under 50%. Personally, I doubt they could do more than speculate without some sort of polling of the alumni base. As to your noting of the change in the number of alumni, I have been told that it is a common (and allowable) practice in development to adjust the base by removing deceased alumni/ae, individuals who become "lost" (i.e., no mailable address), and individuals who asked to be removed from the mailing lists. If an individual can't be solicited for any of the above three reasons, this person can be removed from the base. Development may have had more adjustments this year, although the base, in fact, increased. If this happened, it was probably because in hiring a company to help reach individuals who have never made a gift since graduation, Development obtained information that led to the removal of names from the base for one of the above three mentioned reasons.
As to paragraph 2, I can only provide faculty compensation as one of the alternatives and I know of no others. As for the soccer stadium, I was led to believe that there would be word on this early July but it hasn't been forthcoming and I don't know what that means. Obviously I can't read the minds of the decision-makers. I try to give you the facts as they are made known to me but I do not profess to know everything...far from it. As for my opinion about "vision" I'd need to spend a lot of time on the Hill to be able to give you an answer. I hope this helps.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for the reply NTK. -- HC1843, 10:28:40 07/19/04 Mon
Cheers.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Just Spoke to Development/ Pat McCarthy -- kesiwick, 11:09:01 07/19/04 Mon
"He also said that NO ONE else has contacted him to voice any displeasure." Of course they haven't because the school does zero to keep alums informed --how would anyone know about it unless they're on this board or caught the tiny ariticle in the Telegram, etc. - most alums live outside the central Mass. area -- so long Coach Pearl -- I'm sorry you passed over that prep job to bounced around by our sad little administration --
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Just Spoke to Development/ Pat McCarthy -- TimMcG, 21:21:53 07/19/04 Mon
Just sent my message to Pat McCarthy and copied Dick Regan.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: School's Athletic Board -- pitt65, 13:13:41 07/20/04 Tue
As a follow-up to kes' statment, I've e-mailed the athletic media office to inquire as to why the factual result of our ECAC bid has not appeared on our athletic board so that the alums who do not have access to the Telegram or who do not follow Crossports can be informed of this important development.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: School's Athletic Board-Summer Hiatus? -- NTKHC64, 14:11:01 07/20/04 Tue
Other than stories about three new coaches, there is nothing "new" on the HC board. There is plenty of old: the hockey game with North Dakota, Bigda drafted and a bunch of scores that are months old. I realize that the sports info staff is short handed now, but the sports activity is nil so why don't they get rid of the stale items? Compare with the Colgate sites, its own and paid, and see how much more FUTURE info is there.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Parliament...Big Ben...Parliament...Big Ben... -- HC1843, 14:41:01 07/20/04 Tue
Ever get the feeling like we've been here before. NTK, the fact of the matter is that unless or until Dick Regan connects the state of the Athletics website with yearly raises, the motivation levels to do anything even mediocre with the site will be one that would have made the Soviet's proud.
Quite honestly, what is in it for anyone in the athletic department to care about the embarassing state of the website when it appears that Dick Regan could not give a hoot. Until DR cares, no one will care. Why Mr. Regan allows such a poor reflection of the schools athletic department, and thus himself, to continue is beyond me...oh wait, "budget constraints". Nevermind, I forgot about that excuse.
Cheers.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Answer from HC !! -- pitt65, 15:55:48 07/20/04 Tue
The reason I tried the athletic dept. on the HC board [despite the summer hiatus] was that I saw some mid-July releases about assistant coaches. I got an e-mail back from Larry Napolitano which reads as follows:
"I have forwarded your message onto our athletic director. As far as I am aware no official decision has been made by the ECAC regarding possible expansion. We have applied but they have not denied or accepted our application as of yet. Anything you have heard regarding Quinnipiac or anyone else being accepted is not accurate. To my knowledge, there has not been any formal invitations extended to join the conference."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Answer from HC !! -- kesiwick, 16:05:11 07/20/04 Tue
they should demand a retraction from the Telegram for their erroneous headline last week !
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What the T&G Stated -- NTKHC64, 16:15:15 07/20/04 Tue
"The ECAC athletic directors committee has recommended Quinnipiac as it 12th member institution to replace Vermont...The recommendation will now go before the ECAC's policy committee which will have ultimate approval, and a final decision is expected later this month. There is a chance the policy committee could go in a different direction, but that is not likely."
The headline in the online edition was "ECAC says no to HC."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Answer from HC !! -- NTKHC64, 16:10:32 07/20/04 Tue
The majority of the ECAC ADs recommended Quinnipiac as its top choice. The ECAC Policy Committee could reject the suggestion so technically the reply is correct.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Answer from HC !! -- pitt65, 16:27:16 07/20/04 Tue
NTK: Any more info - eg. Was the AD decision by a large or bare majority? Will our Administration be given a chance to go before the ECAC policy committee? -etc.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]