Puzzled? -- CROSSPORTS: Holy Cross Crusaders Sports Message Board

[ 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):

Saturday, April 11, 07:19:25pm [ 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: 12:05:10 07/18/04 Sun
Author: Vingt Cinq
Subject: Puzzled?

Can't go to Big East or A-10 because it would sacrifice school's principles but don't have/won't spend the money to go to the ECAC in hockey because the revenue isn't there from other sports like it would be in the Big East (per Fr. McFarland's letter to a local alumni club)? Can't allow a booster club because it may detract from the HC Fund or Lift High the Cross campaign but can creatively "manage" annual giving percentages and other salient data? Land of Oz anyone?
Admire your passion hchockeyalum and agree that voices must be heard. Unfortunately, no real change will come until one or more Trustees with clout/athletic understanding steps up. Unlikely to happen since the Board is selected to avoid members with those credentials and/or a differing view than the presidential view since the late '70s.
Many have said that this board is ineffective in promoting change. Undoubtedly true. However, at the least, it has shown that, as Rick said in the mid-'80s re football, there are many more alums not part of the lunatic fringe who do not share the admin's views despite admins's protestations to the contrary.
This is simply a power issue. An oligarchy (IMHO not representative of the majority view of alums, students,
supporters on HC athletics) has control. Until that situation is changed we will see more mind-boggling decisions/lack of decisions.
As has been mentioned in the past, the successes of Bill Gibbons and Paul Pearl without scholarships are truly outstanding. Unfortunately, they may be the worst thing that could happen to HC athletics in the long run because
the admin uses those successes to bolster their support for the athletic status quo while not focusing on structural changes in league affiliation, scholarships/financial aid, coaches and facilities that would be more likely to ensure long-term stability and success.

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

Replies:

[> Re: Here are the '03-'04 Trustees. -- NTKHC64, 12:14:20 07/18/04 Sun

Which strike you as having "clout/athletic understanding"?

http://www.holycross.edu/catalog/trustees.pdf

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Identifiable Jocks? Can't find any -- sader1970, 15:19:44 07/18/04 Sun

Up until a year or so ago, the chairman of the board of trustees for Holy Cross was Jack Lentz, star quarterback of the football team and someone who played for the Denver Broncos for a few seasons as safety after graduating. Jack engineered when of the last upsets of BC in football in 1966.

I thought Stan Grayson was on the board and he played on the basketball team while at HC but obviously is not on the board now.

Though I understand that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas tried out for the football team, he doesn't qualify as someone with knowledge of sports at HC anymore than I do.

The board seems to be made up of captains of industry and education. Not bad for a board, but certainly folks that will probably make tough, unemotional, financial decisions and not prone to spend money without getting a good returnon investment.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: Identifiable Jocks? -to sader1970 -- NTKHC64, 09:43:17 07/19/04 Mon

Your last paragraph: Exactly why I posted the names. You are correct in your assessment. With all due respect, I'd say with a reasonable degree of probability that even the Holy Cross alumni/ae on the Board have seen few if any athletic contests in recent years.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re:Scholarships -- HCGrad, 10:09:46 07/19/04 Mon

As a former athlete at HC, I understand the desire of many for scholarships and increased spending. However, I do not think scholarships will change much and will in fact hurt the overall community at HC. HC can in no way afford scholarships for much more than the basketball team. Additionally, in giving scholarships we are already lowering the bar for entrance to the school for these athletes. Being a small liberal arts school, HC cannot afford to create divisions within the community by favoring athletics to the point where athletes seem favored and money is diverted from academic improvements.
HC can still get good athletes. We are not competing for the same players BC is, nor should we. HC can be sold on its merrits as long as the athletic department puts its best foot forward to get energetic coaches in place who can sell the school. And it is not always the case that Dick Regan and company care about much other than basketball.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re:Scholarships -- HC1843, 10:23:04 07/19/04 Mon

Many would argue that when the Cross had scholarships for fball that the quality of the student-athlete fball player was actually higher. Also, as seen in the experience of scholarship-offering schools, winning and even mediocre winning programs help the school to attract a better, smarter student body. See BC, Gtown, ND, even Maryland and UofFlorida. Further, a well-run scholarship program generates revenue to offset the financial loss of scholarship money, and the general student-body throws its weight and support behind the scholarshipped teams. Sure, some kids might pout that the money should go to the kids with 1600 SATs but ask the majority of GTown, BC, and ND fans if they are angry about fball and/or bball scholarships and they will supoort them and a few will even say they heard of and decided to go to school X in part because of its athletic tradition. Other than wannabe academic illuminati, most students at the Cross would love to see more winning and nationally exposed sports teams, not less. I can't think of one alum that I know who complained after Kansas, Kentucky or Marquette that scholarships created a divided campus, in fact, bball and sports in general unite a campus, not divide it.

Done correctly, a well-run sports program can subsidize academic improvements, not hinder them. The folks at the Cross seem to have not figured this out yet. Hockey would have been a great way to do this...especially within the ECAC, and for much less than fball currently costs, with Title IX consids included.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]

[> Re: Puzzled? -- reality check, 10:13:58 07/19/04 Mon

"hurt the overall community at HC" -- baloney -- if anything the sad athletic program has hurt the "overall community" at HC -- not to mention the distancing of the alums

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]