Date Posted:22:49:37 03/18/04 Thu Author: trimster Subject: Re: What's wrong with HC athletics In reply to:
JRGNYR
's message, "What's wrong with HC athletics" on 20:38:26 03/17/04 Wed
I have never been a big fan of the PL, (I've come to accept it as I don't see any change on the horizon), but I think some have gone overboard with their bashing of the league in the last few weeks. All of this handwringing over the PL's effect on HC hoops wouldn't be happening if we could have mastered one of the basics of the game, shooting free throws. Last year's team hardly dominated PL games but instead, won many close games. One of the reasons for that was they were quite good at shooting free throws. This year's team probably would have won close to 20 games and perhaps another PL title were it not for abysmal foul shooting. It was an embarrasment and one that can't be blamed on the low level of play in the PL. I realize there were other issues such as the lack of an inside game but the glaring weakness of this team was its inability to shoot the ball, particularly from the foul line. The result is instead of being part of March Madness, we're on the outside looking in and it doesn't feel good.
Why all the ridiculous chest thumping about whether Colgate or HC or some other school is "better" academically or athletically? Why? Because of our collective adolescent inferiority complex, that's why. Gate Raider, among several others, needs to grow up. Whether we are alums of HC, Colgate or Fordham, we all went to fine institutions and received a top-notch education. Besides, Colgate is not "ranked" so far above HC that it really matters anyway. Anyone that puts much stock in a magazine ranking as a measure of their self-worth is in serious need of therapy. Yes, Gate Raider, people like you (I presume); you are a caring nurturer (I presume).
Father McFarland and the rest of the cabal who run HC or recently ran HC (Brooks, et al) are also in need of an attitude adjustment. A small school (like HC or Colgate or Fordham or St. Joe's)can be competitive, perhaps not every year, perhaps not in every sport, in national collegiate sports like hockey, basketball, and baseball (football, because of its exponentially different financial factor, is a greater challenge) without compromising the essential nature or mission of the college. Believe it or not, there are kids out there who are national prospects in hockey, for example, who would like to go to HC, for example, that go elsewhere because they get a full ride (Colgate, for example). While I believe that I understand the reasoning behind the Jesuits' emphasis on intellectual pursuits, why is it that such achievement can seemingly only come at the expense of competitive athletics? What value in a Top 20 "ranking?" McFarland seems to have the same obsession as Gate Raider. And for what benefit? Will a Top 20 "ranking," as opposed to the current ranking, make HC more financially stable? I suspect not.
As a former HC hockey player, I enjoyed the challenge of playing the very best Div. 1 had to offer. I am better for that experience. I hope that the college pursues the ECAC opportunity with the dedication that it deserves (ie, scholarships like they used to provide to hockey circa pre-1982) and then McFarland and Gate Raider and their equivalents at the Ivies can sip their sherry in each others' company and wallow in their insecurities that bubble just beneath the surface of their obvious intellect.
For everyone else who were enriched by their college education and still enjoy the sense of familial pride of an occasional national tourney appearance, let's all wish the HC hockey team well in its pursuit of excellence.
I'm tired of all the non-athletic posts these days and I would like phase out of the board until the fall. Some things in this post prevent that.
"Adolescent inferiority complex" may affect some who post here, but it is far from pandemic. I believe that I have gone beyond that phase/complex and I think the same of the majority of the alums who post here. As far as the remainder of paragraph 1 goes, I agree.
I also agree that having competitive and even nationally ranked teams in sports, not every sport, some years up, some years down, and maintaining HC's status as a "top-ranked" national liberal arts college are not mutually exclusive. On the "rankings" issue, I have heard Fr. McFarland say on many occasions that these, especially the USNWR rankings, are not that important to HC per se, but are important as they have become important to potential members of the student body. I've heard him comment on the various catergories that contribute to the ratings. He puts little weight on the "reputation" category -it is merely a mutual admiration society and college presidents actually solicit other presidents for support in this category. As I recall, Holy Cross does not do this. To say that Fr.McFarland is "obsessed" with ratings is at total variance with the many conversations I have had with him since he became president.
Rick in this reply and in his reply to me last week, seems to suggest that HC is trying to become an Amherst or Williams or Ivy school when this was something it was never meant to be. Perhaps I misread him. I'm no Ivy-type and I suspect, with no disrespect, that Rick isn't either. HChockeyalum seems to be of the same mindset as I read it.
I can do without the pretention but I like the increased quality of education.
There is no doubt that HC changed tremendously in numerous ways in the 38 years that elapsed between my graduation and that of my son. Academically it is a better school, rankings aside. Athletically it is better from an offerings and participation standpoint but quality is lacking in many sports.
Finally, I certainly agree with the last paragraph of HChockeyalum's note.
School rankings are very important to attracting high quality applicants. Schools pay attention to the rankings not because they like them but because they have to. Since the whole point should be education, the goal, especially for the PL, is to attract top students. In turn, they try to attract top students who are also top athletes. What's desired is athletes that are representative of the student body as a whole and who can compete in the classroom as well as in sports. Personally, what I want in the PL are top studnets who are top athletes but put education first. They are not mutually exclusive. Such students are just hard to find and the competition to get them to enroll is intense.
If you read my post carefully, I did not suggest that "chest thumping" and an "adolescent inferiority complex" was pandemic to postings on this site, though it is perhaps epidemic in proportion (I believe there is a distinction there).
I also did not write to downplay the role of academic rankings as a general concept. Indeed, as a competitor, I understand their "relative" importance. I say "relative" because, as I previously tried to note, the colloquy between Colgate interlopers and HC posters over the academic or athletic merits of each institution, besides being tiresome, had redefined the phrase "splitting hairs" to a point that bothered even this attorney hair-splitting writer. We have very similar academic reputations. I suspect that Colgate's athletes are, like those at HC, also academic achievers.
That said, given the nature of HC students, alums, its mission, its rich academic and athletic history, its "relatively" poor athletic present, debates over the course of the college's athletic program is a topic we must discuss, even if it strays from the "what a great game 'fill in the blank' basketball player had last nite" conversations that are popular here.
While no disrespect to the Ivies or other colleges and universities, HC occupies a unique position in higher education that transcends mere rankings. It is what drew me to the school years ago, drew many alums who post on this site and continues to draw others. It is what I believe separates HC from others and lives at the core of an alumni body that is, by my estimation, dispropotionately successful in their given fields. I don't expect others to necessarily understand that. What irks me are those at the school who are more than happy to play off the athletic legacy to promote HC while doing nothing to foster the athletic present because they ultimately don't care or can't accept the challenge to recruit intelligent athletes. The success of the hockey team comes because of Paul Pearl and in spite of the administration, unless things have dramatically changed since I played.
[> [> [>
You asked the question and I answered. -- Gate Raider, 01:16:53 03/23/04 Tue
You asked what the value of a top 20 ranking was and I answered. I don't think I need therapy just because I would like to see HC and Colgate maintain there integrity and go for the student first and athlete second and end up with a very good student-athlete. Frankly, I do believe that HC's academic ranking would suffer if it chooses to compete in the A-10. Those schools just aren't up to the standards I would set. As an example, Fordham recently accepted a football player with an 890 on the SAT. Good luck in the hockey tournament.
[> [> [> [>
Re: You asked the question and I answered. -- HC99, 07:24:52 03/23/04 Tue
Just because a person scores 890 on the SAT does not mean he can't make it, some people just don't test very high but can out-perform other 1300's in the classroom. The SAT is only one item, I saw students with 1400 on their SAT leave school because they could not hack it. Sometimes a person is so thrilled at being accepted with a lower score he will bust his ass in the classroom and do perfectly fine. Everybody cannot get 1300 on their SAT, you have to look at the complete picture.
[> [> [> [>
Re: You asked the question and I answered. -- kesiwick, 09:08:45 03/23/04 Tue
sure there are exceptions but my guess is that Gate Raider is talking about when the exception becomes the rule -- the reality is on balance students with substantially lower SATs struggle to make it and have a higher drop out rate -- at the extreme end, someone with a 950 SAT is 99 times out of a hundred not going to make through MIT while someone with 1200 just may -- also, is fair to admit someone with an 890 with great athletic skills over someone from the same socio-economic background who has a 1200 with fewer athletic gifts?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: You asked the question and I answered. -- Purple71, 09:54:06 03/23/04 Tue
I guess that depends upon your vision of what Holy Cross should be. I would accept that 890 applicant with great athletic skills if his/her grades in high school warranted it. To use the SATs as the be all and end all is to produce a homogeneous student body of test takers rather than a well rounded student body. We are not talking about someone who is going to major in basketweaving, rather a student who didn't, for whatever reason, do well on a particular Satudrday on a standardized test, the validity of which is under serious attack.
I tire of the "academic purity" argument as an excuse for athletic mediocrity. I beleive you can have a good academic reputation (Gtown and BC) and still be competitive in certain sports (Gtown and BC). My goal is not to be another Williams, but rather a Holy Cross with its potential maximized in both academics and athletics.
[> [> [> [>
Re: You asked the question and I answered. -- HChockeyalum, 10:14:09 03/23/04 Tue
Actually, my "question" as to the value of a top 20 ranking (when a school is in the top 25 or 30) was purely rhetorical in nature. I was answering my own question by asking it. I asked this rhetorical question because I don't suspect that there are many students who consider themselves of "top 30" caliber that would reject HC "solely" on the basis of its rank in USNWR. Students who attend HC, as opposed to other top 30 schools, are somewhat unique, given the nature of the school. They always have been, at least in my experience and understanding. The top 20 ranking would thus seem to matter more to other less differentiated schools. The point being that "pure" academic ranking has never been the sine qua non of HC admissions. HC has traditionally focused, a misnomer of sorts, on the whole person, which I believe is more in keeping with Jesuit philosophy. If the administration will "refocus" on this point I believe that the school will reclaim its stature, otherwise its "fate" will be the a top 20 ranking and the homogenization that inevitably comes with that status. In other words, be careful for what you wish for, you may get it.
On a separate point, has anyone heard about Harvard's proposed financial aid policy of granting full "grant-in-aid" scholarships to students who come from families that earn less than $40,000 and the same or somewhat less to those that earn less than $80,000? Besides the work that such a policy will provide lawyers and financial planners, akin to the practice of senior citizens impoverishing themselves in order to qualify for Medicaid eligibility when entering a nursing home, this will effectively permit Harvard and the other Ivies that follow to better recruit athletes from middle class and lower middle class families that now choose other schools that can offer full rides. Great move by the Ivies to help their athletic programs, but these stealth "athletic scholarships" are certainly inopposite to their previous policies, unless I'm missing something.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: You asked the question and I answered. -- kesiwick, 10:25:51 03/23/04 Tue
" top 20 ranking and the homogenization that inevitably comes with that status" just curious -- why is it "inevitable" -- HC is more competitive now and less homogenous than it was 20 years ago -- if anything, our financial aid policy/resources are our biggest impediment to a more diversified student body -- we often lose students to other top 20 schools/ivy because they offer better aid packages -- but I think we may be reversing this trend a bit with the latest admissions' numbers
[> [> [> [> [> [>
The 890 may not survive at HC. UMass has tutors. -- Gate Raider, 01:42:10 03/24/04 Wed
SAT scores are used to predict how well a student will do on the college level. While an 890 could survive at HC it would be the exception rather than the rule. There is evidence to support this fact and that is why schools use the SAT.. The difficulty stems from the fact the 890 student at schools like HC would probably be in the 1st percentile (if that) and will be in the same classes competing with students with much more academic ability. Subtract the time spent in sport from the time available for study and it gets worse. The student likely would end up on academic probation or flunk out. That harms the student and the school. That would be okay if you want just an average college. But, then you could just go to a large state school that tries to accomodate all students and costs much less. Keep in mind the good students are more challenged at HC. The football teams at the big time football schools have a cadre of tutors that sometimes even travel with the team. UMass has about 15 tutors for its team. Even with the tutors the graduation rate for players is low. I believe Colgate has the one of the highest, if not the highest, graduation rates for Div. I varsity athletes and they don't major in things like Recreation or PE. I'm sure HC has a high grad rate, too. In the end you have to choose if you want a high quality or average academic school.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
One last point. -- Gate Raider, 01:57:53 03/24/04 Wed
If you are comfortable with accepting just average students (or in the case of an 890 student, one who is 110 points below average in the US) then HC will become just one of thousands of colleges in the US with no particular claim to fame and soon all its standards will fall. Seems to me the goal should be to strive to be the best you can, create a challenging academic and sports environment and add value to the tradition and history of HC.
" The football teams at the big time football schools have a cadre of tutors that sometimes even travel with the team. UMass has about 15 tutors for its team. "
http://www.umass.edu/sas/html/staff.html
Doesn't appear that Umass has 15 people on staff let alone 15 dedicated tutors in this program reserved solely for the football team.
Qualified STUDENTS are indeed sought to work as part-time tutors under the supervision of the senior staff in this department. They are NOT permitted to travel with any varsity team on road trips. It is not unusual for a senior staff official to occasionally travel with a varsity team on those rare occasions when a small group of participants have to complete an academic assignment in transit to/from an athletic event.
I didn't say tutors travel with UMass. I said the bif time football schools have them. The point I was making is that schools like Colgate and HC don't have dedicated tutors for athletes. The athletes are expected to hold their own the same as other students. The fact is the majority of football players at big football schools and even in many of the A-10 schools are not the same kind of students as in the PL.
