[ 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, 02:47:00am |
[ 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: 09:48:47 07/16/04 Fri
Author: HC1843
Subject: Endowment compss with some richer ECAC schools..
Union - $245 million (-200 mil v. HC), another suffering "hockey" school)
RPI - $510 million but over 5,000 undergrads alone...funny how much of a problem this small endowment is...http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=251506&category=CAMPUSCOL&BCCode=&newsdate=7/2/2004
The Q - $110 million with a planned athletic facility worth 1/4 of their endowment. Wouldn't want to see the eventual debt rating there, but still not going broke.
Clarkson - $110 million (2000 data, so lets add another 100 million for good formm thus $210 million). Funny they can afford to be a "hockey: school.
St. Lawrence - $173 million (2003 data). Looks like a trend here.
Fr. McFarland, please explain based on this data how these much richer ECAC schools can do what the Cross cannot. Please help the loyal alumni understand why the Holy Cross is soooo poor that it would allow the hockey dream of a lifetime to pass us by.
Cheers.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Replies:
[>
Can't get real excited about Hockey -- Apparently, neither can the HC Administration, 09:55:27 07/16/04 Fri
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Can't get real excited about Hockey -- Let's concentrate on moving Basketball out of PL, 10:08:05 07/16/04 Fri
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Endowment compss with some richer ECAC schools.. -- sader1970, 10:22:25 07/16/04 Fri
Let's be fair, all of the schools you listed above are basically hockey schools with no division one basketball or football.
I repeat that I would have liked to see HC in the ECAC and we should do whatever we could to make this happen. However, hockey is not a major collegiate sport compared to basketball or football. It just isn't.
I think we should have been able to afford whatever the cost was to upgrade quickly to a division 1 hockey program for the ladies. I don't think we should have needed to immediately expand the Hart. Instead of a "if you build it, they will come" philosophy, I think the tact HC could (and maybe did) use was if the attendance increase warranted a larger facility, we would commit to upgrading.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
I Think You're Missing The Bigger Issue -- Zipp, 11:28:46 07/16/04 Fri
Although obviously this is alrgely about hockey, this issue is essentially not going to the BE or not moving out of the PL or dropping scholarships, all over again. This incident is emblematic (sp?) of the administration's lack of committment to athletics. 30 or so years ago it was about Basketball, 20 or so years ago it was about football, recently its been about basketball and now (ironicly coinciding with hockey's success and rise in prominence) it is hockey. Pick your sport, pick your time frame, they'll get to you eventually.
"I can't promise to try, but I'll promise to try to try."
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: I Think You're Missing The Bigger Issue -- timholycross, 15:03:56 07/16/04 Fri
You are absolutely correct- hockey, IMHO, was a litmus test and HC failed it (again).
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
Something key to remember -- colgate13, 11:48:49 07/16/04 Fri
What is the financial aid program like at these schools as compared to HC? My bet is they are not need blind and they don't meet every students need in full. They most likely "gap" students who are not their top applicants.
Of course, it has already been pointed out that these schools are D-III in everything else. Sure, there are expenses, but not the D-I expenses HC incurs.
A better comparision is, unfortunately, Colgate. We've got a similar sized endowment with similar a athletic situation. That's what makes the head scratching even worse and the reason to not include HC must have been blatant and unavoidable. That's the only thing I can imagine. Looking at the USCHO story, there was support for HC among ECAC ADs but the women's issue was just too much. This is truly unfortunate.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
If is wasn't for Father Brooks' costly mistake -- HC would be big-time D-I in Hoops & Hockey, 12:07:17 07/16/04 Fri
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: If is wasn't for Father Brooks' costly mistake -- cf rivals, 13:14:17 07/16/04 Fri
As long as the words "athletic upgrade" come across to HC administrators as "academic destruction" you will see these events time and time again. Why is HC soo afraid to have successful D1 programs that play in high profile conferences?
How can you go into an opportuninty like the ECAC and not have done your homework and put the best effort forward? Why even play the game?
The ECAC didn't want to reject HC, HC just didn't want to meet the basic criteria. I believe HC was the 1st choice, but thier usual arrogance and refusal to add scholarships and upgrade facilities was not a good fit. Didn't Regan say in an earlier interview that HC would be adding scholarships to a 2nd sport?? Why not hockey!!
We have seen this in BB for years, a golden opportunity missed and like BB, you quickly fade into obscurity.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[>
To: 1970 -- Rick, 12:59:08 07/16/04 Fri
I hear and appreciate what you're saying....
I think it's long past due for the Trustee's and McFarland to come to grips with our athletic programs as a whole. As I screamed in another thread.....
'IF YOU CAN'T OR REFUSE TO COMPETE EQUALLY IN ATHLETIC FUNDING WITH THE PATRIOT LEAGUE - OR - THE ECAC, THAN GET OUT OF THE DANG BIZ OF D-1 SPORTS AND GO WHERE YOU BELONG OR PROBABLY WANT TO BE ANYWAY....WITH WILLIAMS, BOWDOIN AND AMHURST - IF THEY'LL EVEN HAVE YOU !!!'
Tempering that a bit and with the following quotes via Dick Regan in 2002 in mind....
" We are a small liberal arts college and he realizes that we cannot do some of the things that other schools do. "
" We simply cannot admit some of the student-athletes that other schools do. "
" Fr. McFarland and the Board of Trustees are supportive of the Athletic Program. They want a competitive program however they made it clear to me that we need to get this done with our existing resources. "
" Simply put, they expect me to do the best I can with the resources we currently have allocated to athletics. "
" The economic reality is that football is an extremely expensive sport compared to anything else we do. We spend a lot more on football than we do on men's and women's basketball combined. Somehow we need to find a
way of controlling the cost of football, particularly given the needs of our other twenty-six sports. "
" The other challenge I should mention concerns football. Lehigh and Colgate are spending dramatically more on financial aid than we are in this sport. Right now, we are spending as much as the College's budget can handle. We are going to need to find some way of bridging the gap if those schools keep up with their current level of spending. "
Sponsoring 26 sports is way too much for a school with 2800 undergrads ( and McFarland is on record as wishing to DECREASE enrollment in the coming years ) IMO. We know the athletic program loses over $7 MILLION ANNUALLY. We know football loses over $2.4 MILLION ANNUALLY and rising. We know that HC is the only Patriot school that DOES NOT have a booster club. We know that ALL the Ivy schools each have dozens of booster clubs and other financial resources for imaginative and aggressive student-athlete aid funding that we never EVER will be able to compete with. We also know that all of the above isn't static and our woeful position is only going to worsen unless proactive action is taken immediately. Lastly, we also know that HC has a handsome endowment for a school of it's size of about $400 MILLION.
If the Trustees and McFarland are adamant in 'staying the course' in athletic budgeting and funding, something has got to give. We simply cannot go on like this with no plan of remedial action.
* Option #1 - Drop Football and jettison the $2.4 million in red ink and reallocate say 60% of the 'need-based' football aid budget to other sports.
* Option #2 - Drop Football and also jettison several varsity sports - baseball, m/w golf, m/w rowing, men's tennis - and retain any as desired as club level sports. Enhance women's softball program/facilities and women's hockey program ( Div-1 ).
I won't even get into leaving the Patriot League or junking the dismal failure that need-based aid has been and bringing back athletic scholarships under a re-born football program. It's painfully obvious to me now that either of those fronts is much too complex a subject that would tax the limited brain resources of HC's hierarchy to the point of collective spontaneous drooling and convultions.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
To: Rick, aren't you basically saying, that -- in the long run, Gilmore has no chance of success?, 14:35:03 07/16/04 Fri
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Re: Gilmore/success -- Rick, 14:48:09 07/16/04 Fri
What I say doesn't matter....it's what's above in print what Regan has said that matters....as well as what he HASN'T said since the day Gilmore was hired.
After perusing the quotes and facts, how would you rate Gilmore's - or anyone else's - chances for consistant success in HC football ?
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Gilmore/success -- Slim, and non!, 15:27:08 07/16/04 Fri
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]
