Archive for Lafayette Sports Fan Forum This forum is not affiliated in any way with Lafayette College, Lafayette College Athletics, The Maroon Club or any other official organization. Please be respectful of other posters as well as the athletes, coaches and administrators.
 


       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> All Other Sports
The Maroon

2015-2016 Final Scorecard (Draft).

This is a DRAFT - there will be a final version with more commentary for the banner on this page. There MIGHT BE ERRORS as I did this in a hurry. In the past I adjusted our soccer totals slightly upwards for ties - but I'll leave that to Scott Morse. We stunk - and it's time we play the same game the Leopard marketers do.

Andy

33-120  
Heads will roll.....
Lafalum

Andy wrote:
33-120  
Heads will roll.....


You think??

In the sports that had to actually qualify for the PL tournament only one sport made it. In addition we lost our athletic fundraiser. A guy that raised record amounts of money. How effective is the new guy going to be in an atmosphere like this. What a year!!!

How many sports actually improved from the previous year and looking backward how many sports are below their 10 year winning percentage?? This is after scholarships,  rehabs of 5 major venues and locker facilities both at Kirby and Metzger..
.I was talking to a BOT member the other day who opined we are bad because we are small. Last time I looked there are still 11 members on the field at the same time in football and no rule change in the other sports and we are spending a comparable amount of money.
pardfan

Lafalum wrote:
Andy wrote:
33-120  
Heads will roll.....


You think??

In the sports that had to actually qualify for the PL tournament only one sport made it. In addition we lost our athletic fundraiser. A guy that raised record amounts of money. How effective is the new guy going to be in an atmosphere like this. What a year!!!

How many sports actually improved from the previous year and looking backward how many sports are below their 10 year winning percentage?? This is after scholarships,  rehabs of 5 major venues and locker facilities both at Kirby and Metzger..
.I was talking to a BOT member the other day who opined we are bad because we are small. Last time I looked there are still 11 members on the field at the same time in football and no rule change in the other sports and we are spending a comparable about of money.


 With #150 and March Madness last yr, my mini-poodle could raise money.  He got out while the gettin' was good.  Dan W. playbook.
pards123

Very funny but sad highlights section
The Maroon

To me this is a failure of leadership at the highest level. Seenalot has pointed out that Bruce is an administrator and not a leader. While I agree with the spirit of what he is saying - I would argue that even a good administrator wouldn't allow things to fall to this level.  This is atrocious.  

And while I'm not nearly as dialed in to things as Lafalum, the few sources I do have indicate that Joe Giaimo's loss is a big one.

The Phillies were the worst team in baseball - a sport not known for being overly concerned about parity - at 63-99.  

We need a bus to catch that winning percentage.

We are the Phillies, Sixers, and Browns of the Patriot League all rolled into one.  The Loveable losers...that's us. It got so bad this year that B137 was actually trying to talk us off the cliff at times.

On a more level-headed note - I'll assume this was the perfect storm of disaster and I am all but certain we'll see a bit of a bump next season.

The discussion can't be about individual coaches anymore. I'll let the parents of the kids that play those sports worry about them - the word needs to go out that were' stinking up the joint in every program.

My lasting memory of this year will be watching the "If you can play" video and completely missing the message. I honestly thought they were saying "Hey...if you're in the dorm and want to come down and join the team, come on down! If you're in high school and want to try playing NCAA sports...we'll take you. " I swear to God - that's what I thought when I first saw it!
BPard

Man. That is a depressing picture. I am surprised we have one team that attained a 50% W/L record though

Have to laugh at the highlights if only to keep from getting too sad & angry at the rest of it.

While I agree with increasing school size for sustainability reasons, I don't see why our size limits the talent level we attract - on and off the field, especially since our spend is comparable.
adcs2

Hey, "If you can't play you can't play" (but you can play for us!)
The Maroon

One thing I know: This chart finds it's way around! It's been, um, politely asked of me to take it down (that was the mid-year version, the one that is currently the banner for this site.)

On one hand I feel like I should. I hate the idea that a prospective athlete can come to this board and be greeted by such a dismal picture. While I doubt we're losing many recruiting battles over it - even one is probably too many.

At the same time - SOMEONE NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THIS MESS!!! We get nothing.

I can say this with authority: IF a YOUTH TRAVEL soccer club (or probably any sport) had this type of record spread amongts their teams in different age groups STUFF WOULD CHANGE. The board and commissioners would be scrambling to hire a new technical director, there would be pressure on coaches to attend more clinics and get higher licensing (these are VOLUNTEER COACHES mind you) and the parents would want to know there was a plan? Why? Because there are alernatives - and if the club can't prove it has a plan to be competitive the club won't last long.

SO yes, a youth sports club with VOLUNTEER administrators and volunteer coaches would be under fire if they produced a year like this. We're STINKING IT UP WIH PAID COACHES, SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETES AND GOOD TO EXCELLENT FACILITIES AND WE'RE GETTING NOTHING IN THE WAY OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

So, to my friendly correspondent - the chart says nothing that isn't true. Come up with accountability - it comes down. Don't - and it may find it's way into a LOT of conversations. It would suck if every #rollpards was met with a #20percent reply.
Lafalum

So exposing the bad news makes it worse. The only way we get better is to ignore the failure around us. Wow! good job Maroon. I think I will make about 50 copies ....laminate it....and pass it around at reunion!!
The Maroon

Lafalum wrote:
So exposing the bad news makes it worse. The only way we get better is to ignore the failure around us. Wow! good job Maroon. I think I will make about 50 copies ....laminate it....and pass it around at reunion!!


I know you've mentioned that your children played D1. Just wondering if you think that my assertion that a high-level club (I used soccer but the example I think stands for virtually every sport) that had similar results would be under pressure to at least reassure the parents that they knew what they were doing and outline the steps they were taking to improve it?

I'm more familiar with travel soccer than I will ever bore you with My club is mid-level - good soccer but not an academy level program - those programs have paid coaches, are cost prohibitive to many and are supposed to *yet again) make s a world-cup contender.

So we aren't to p level -but we DO have expectations. I lay out goals to my parents at the beginning of the season and I expect them to hold me to them. I emphasize development over winning - but there's an understanding that if we aren't competitive we aren't developing. If a LOT of teams ares struggling we fundraise and bring in consultants. Again  - one final time - we are volunteers. If my team is not progressing (and objective third parties evaluate this - not just disgruntled parents) they look for people to help me out or may ask me to step down

I'm not saying this because I'm doing anything special or my life is hard - I just don't understand why small-time clubs hat operate on a shoestring have standards that dwarf those of a D1 program.

Am I wrong on this? I welcome the opinion of anybody familiar with high-level youth sports (travel soccer, AAU Basketball, Tournament softball, etc...).

No - I posed this chart on my Facebook page - it's public if you want to share it: https://www.facebook.com/aarondavid71 - I'd love to get the word out.
BPard

Maybe I'm wrong, but this forum doesn't exist as boosters for Lafayette athletics. If it was, then I could see the point of taking down the chart. For example, the chart probably doesn't belong on the Maroon Club official website.

All College varsity athletics (not just D1) doesn't give out participation trophies and awards. We do keep score. There are winners and losers. The scoreboard is always fair game.

Even though some (many?) of us are also members of the Maroon Club, that chart is an accurate reflection of the scoreboard. We can't hide from it.

If you're ashamed of what that chart says about Lafayette College, then do something to change the results.
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but this forum doesn't exist as boosters for Lafayette athletics. If it was, then I could see the point of taking down the chart. For example, the chart probably doesn't belong on the Maroon Club official website.

All College varsity athletics (not just D1) doesn't give out participation trophies and awards. We do keep score. There are winners and losers. The scoreboard is always fair game.

Even though some (many?) of us are also members of the Maroon Club, that chart is an accurate reflection of the scoreboard. We can't hide from it.

If you're ashamed of what that chart says about Lafayette College, then do something to change the results.


Amen
Andy

Don't we always come back to the administration identifying having a successful athletics program as a goal and finding a way to get it done? Apparently they hide behind the "too small" excuse and put the responsibility back on alums.

Im my view it's all about funding. Can't hold (as Aaron said) an individual coach accountable who isn't competing on a level playing field.

Our volleyball team has been above .500 in PL play once in the last 20-something years. Interestingly, Lehigh was at least as bad. Rather suddenly, lehigh is among the best in the league. How?  Surely an infusion of scholarships.

How does one hold a lax coach accountable when he's sent to battle with 2 scholarships vs lehigh's 12?  If Bucknell has had success without scholarships, how about our AD figuring out their methods?

What Pard sports are adequately funded and underperforming?  Women's bball is the glaring example and our hopes are with Coach Grentz. Some/many are not happy with Football.  It's hard to argue against 6 overall losing seasons in a row and yet prior to this injury plagued disaster we were 8-4 in the league with a championship. Fran - consistent tournament success.

Several women's sports have been  bolstered with scholarships. If it's more than one or two, you'd expect results.
Lafalum

Sports that are fully funded with scholarships:
Football ( perhaps minus one) 57 equivalencies
M/W basketball 14/13 repectively
Field Hockey 12
M/W soccer 12 each
women"s lacrosse 12

All had losing seasons last year except women's soccer who had many ties and a poor PL season. Field Hockey started well, made the playoffs after a 500 season out of conference and in conference. Then lost to American in the playoffs.  Both women's soccer and field hockey could be better next year. Men's soccer has some good individual recruits. Football has a killer schedule, and I don't see a big turnaround for either basketball teams.
Andy

An outsiders view - help me out, please:

Consistently Horrendous

Men's lax - under funded
M&W swimmimg - participant based
M&W tennis - participant based
Women's soccer- newly increased funding
Women's lax - newly increased funding
Women's bball - well supported
Volleyball - participant based

Underperforming

FH - a top program in the league and nationally, well supported. Allowed a top coach to leave, program has slipped in the league. Coach working hard apparently with talent incoming.

Men's soccer - another long term scholarship benefactor, disappointing in my view.

Baseball - alumni supported, good facilities. Not sure how much aid Joe has to work with.

Successful Considering Level of Funding

Men's bball - a championsip 2 years ago, good tourney performances. Still, IMO open to criticism when compared to the post-season success of our league mates. Even during out top seasons, Fran's teams have no chance in the dance.

Football - A championship in'13 while beating every team in the league at least once over 2 seasons. But, 6 losing seasons in a row.....my categorization here on shaky ground.
The Maroon

Lafalum wrote:
Sports that are fully funded with scholarships:
Football ( perhaps minus one)
M/W basketball
Field Hockey
M/W soccer
women"s lacrosse

All had losing seasons last year except women's soccer who had many ties and a poor PL season. Field Hockey started well, made the playoffs after a 500 season out of conference and in conference. Then lost to American in the playoffs.  Both women's soccer and field hockey could be better next year. Men's soccer has some good individual recruits. Football has a killer schedule, and I don't see a big turnaround for either basketball teams.


Actally all of the scholarship sports should be significantly improved next year.

I could see both basketball programs doubling their win output - moving them from horrendous to mediocre.

Dennis Bohn has won before - I'm willing to stick with him.

Despite his poor record I'm a fan of Mick Statham.

Women's lax was generally - not entirely - staffed by underclassmen including one of the leagues most promising frosh.

I expect Field Hockey to get to the finals.

What the hell we're going to do about Men's Lacrosse, Volleyball, and softball is anybody's guess.
Lafalum

Andy wrote:
An outsiders view - help me out, please:

Consistently Horrendous

Men's lax - under funded
M&W swimmimg - participant based
M&W tennis - participant based
Women's soccer- newly increased funding
Women's lax - newly increased funding
Women's bball - well supported
Volleyball - participant based

Underperforming


FH - a top program in the league and nationally, well supported. Allowed a top coach to leave, program has slipped in the league. Coach working hard apparently with talent incoming.

Men's soccer - another long term scholarship benefactor, disappointing in my view.

Baseball - alumni supported, good facilities. Not sure how much aid Joe has to work with.

Successful Considering Level of Funding

Men's bball - a championsip 2 years ago, good tourney performances. Still, IMO open to criticism when compared to the post-season success of our league mates. Even during out top season's, Fran's teams have no chance in the dance.

Football - A championship in'13 while beating every team in the league at least once over 2 seasons. But, 6 losing seasons in a row.....my categorization here on shakey ground.


agree for the most part
Andy

Thanks, lafalum.

Aaron - is the fully funded wsoc program on the upswing? Otherwise although Statham is a solid guy, cant be happy.  We cant simultaneously cry about lack of accountability and be satisfied with his results.
Andy

[quote="The Maroon:54110"]
Lafalum wrote:


What the hell we're going to do about Men's Lacrosse, Volleyball, and softball is anybody's guess.


Is this basically the dilemma that Atkinson was faced with and decided the answer was to sacrifice football funding?  I'm in agreement with our AD here, in not resorting to that.  Funding men's lax has to be a priority fix. The sport has become important and with the ability to bring national recognition.
Andy

NCAA D-1 equivalency limits:

MSoc - 9.9  LC - Thought it was 2 per year to 8. At least that's how we began.

WSoc - 14  LC - I've not seen our policy delineated.  Lafalum says 12.

MLax - 12.6  LC - ?

WLax - 12  LC - Lafalum says fully funded.

FH - 12  LC - Lafalum says fully funded

3/2006 announcement:

...Providing three men's and women's basketball full athletic scholarships in each year's entering class will continue for a four-year cycle until each team has 12 student-athletes on full scholarships.

Merit-based athletic scholarships will be offered by coaches beginning in the fall of 2007 in the sports of men's soccer and women's field hockey. Coaches in these sports will have the ability to award athletic scholarship grants beyond need.

Lafayette's scholarship program will provide maximum flexibility within established policy and budgetary constraints. "This program will allow the administration to make adjustments as the competitive environment changes from year to year," Weiss said. Oversight of the academic impact of the program will be shared between the administration and the faculty.

The program establishes annual goals for enhancement of the academic profile of the entire entering class of student-athletes, a goal consistent with the overall academic mission of the College.////


Athletic Scholarships

Lafayette offers athletic scholarships in 11 sports:

baseball
men’s and women’s basketball
women’s field hockey
football
men’s and women’s lacrosse
men’s and women’s soccer
softball
women’s volleyball

https://admissions.lafayette.edu/...es-of-aid/lafayette-scholarships/

Coach Tavani has stated we'll be in the high 50s this season. Bet bottom dollar that FU, LU, Gate are at 60.  Why aren't we?  (Question: does Friends of Football finance 1 scholarship (payable up front) per year or total?)
Lafalum

Andy wrote:
NCAA D-1 equivalency limits:

MSoc - 9.9  LC - Thought it was 2 per year to 8. At least that's how we began.

WSoc - 14  LC - I've not seen our policy delineated.  Lafalum says 12.

MLax - 12.6  LC - ?

WLax - 12  LC - Lafalum says fully funded.

FH - 12  LC - Lafalum says fully funded

3/2006 announcement:

...Providing three men's and women's basketball full athletic scholarships in each year's entering class will continue for a four-year cycle until each team has 12 student-athletes on full scholarships.

Merit-based athletic scholarships will be offered by coaches beginning in the fall of 2007 in the sports of men's soccer and women's field hockey. Coaches in these sports will have the ability to award athletic scholarship grants beyond need.

Lafayette's scholarship program will provide maximum flexibility within established policy and budgetary constraints. "This program will allow the administration to make adjustments as the competitive environment changes from year to year," Weiss said. Oversight of the academic impact of the program will be shared between the administration and the faculty.

The program establishes annual goals for enhancement of the academic profile of the entire entering class of student-athletes, a goal consistent with the overall academic mission of the College.////


Athletic Scholarships

Lafayette offers athletic scholarships in 11 sports:

baseball
men’s and women’s basketball
women’s field hockey
football
men’s and women’s lacrosse
men’s and women’s soccer
softball
women’s volleyball

https://admissions.lafayette.edu/...es-of-aid/lafayette-scholarships/

Coach Tavani has stated we'll be in the high 50s this season. Bet bottom dollar that FU, LU, Gate are at 60.  Why aren't we?  (Question: does Friends of Football finance 1 scholarship (payable up front) per year or total?)


I thought fully funded as per Ncaa  mens soccer was 12 but in any case I know men's soccer was fully funded. Men's basketball seems to have been raised to 13 as has women's basketball. W soccer definitely 12 as is FH and women's lacrosse. My info came from Jim Dicker and updated by individual coaches. Changes were mandated when football got them because of title IX.

There was a budgetary restraint put on that total scholarship eqivilancies would be the same as need based athletic aid. Remember a football scholarship counts double as one addition requires a women's addition. which is the reason the men's sports are not fully funded. The beneficiaries of  football's scholarships are the women's sports of lacrosse +12 Fh +4 ( after eight already given), w soccer +12 (maybe 14 now), basketball +1, softball??, VB,?? Football needs 58 to make limit to qualify for a play for pay game with a BCS school. We should have it made because we are playing Army. Yes, fof is funding one 4 year scholarship up front.
I am a little confused as to why athletic scholarship recipients must file FAFSA.
BPard

I don't get the "full funding" excuses - and that's just what they are - lame excuses. Last I checked at equity in athletics, we spend comparable to our Patriot League peers on a per sport and per athlete basis. In some cases, we are spending far more, and getting far less success on the field.
NewXbo

It concerns me that there has been no mention of ADMISSIONS. If there are two athletes being recruited for the same position and one is more athletic and a better player and the other player has better academic scores, will admissions be willing to accept the better player if he/she meets the minimum qualifying scores?
RichH

A bit surprisedvthat Pards are only in the high 50s. Not sure where all are. Cross and BU started out slowly but appear to have maxed.  Fordham and Gate likely at max. Lehigh may be but with all the hubbub and Stubbs having to end his career due to injury,no way to tell. Nana a WO RB just got a 1/2 schollie. Stubbs remains on full ride. Dont know whether it still counts vs Andy's budget. Wecalso have 2 5th yrs both on full need aid.
Lafalum

NewXbo wrote:
It concerns me that there has been no mention of ADMISSIONS. If there are two athletes being recruited for the same position and one is more athletic and a better player and the other player has better academic scores, will admissions be willing to accept the better player if he/she meets the minimum qualifying scores?


Asit has been explained to me it's all about overall averages of the incoming class, whatever that means.
Lafalum

Until this year unused scholarship money could not be carried forward and used the next year. Unused would be a student no show or transfer out for whatever reason. That is no longer an issue. Byerly has intervened and changed the policy.
RichH

Lafalum wrote:
NewXbo wrote:
It concerns me that there has been no mention of ADMISSIONS. If there are two athletes being recruited for the same position and one is more athletic and a better player and the other player has better academic scores, will admissions be willing to accept the better player if he/she meets the minimum qualifying scores?


Asit has been explained to me it's all about overall averages of the incoming class, whatever that means.

AI is computed each year against the overall incoming class. The less accomplished athlete.may be a low band in AI computation. PL rules limit the number of low band recruits that a coach can get in. If he is referring to a non AI situation, it could only be LC's admissions policy.
Andy

Lafalum wrote:
Until this year unused scholarship money could not be carried forward and used the next year. Unused would be a student no show or transfer out for whatever reason. That is no longer an issue. Byerly has intervened and changed the policy.


Progress!

And thanks for all the info, laf.
Andy

BPard wrote:
I don't get the "full funding" excuses - and that's just what they are - lame excuses. Last I checked at equity in athletics, we spend comparable to our Patriot League peers on a per sport and per athlete basis. In some cases, we are spending far more, and getting far less success on the field.


Could you reveal on  which sports we're spending far more and getting far less success?

Two scholarships vs 12 is a lame excuse?
BPard

Andy wrote:
BPard wrote:
I don't get the "full funding" excuses - and that's just what they are - lame excuses. Last I checked at equity in athletics, we spend comparable to our Patriot League peers on a per sport and per athlete basis. In some cases, we are spending far more, and getting far less success on the field.


Could you reveal on  which sports we're spending far more and getting far less success?

Two scholarships vs 12 is a lame excuse?
In the first example I looked up baseball (alphabetical and all): Lafayette (7-13) spent $630k in total expenses in 2014 (most recent year reported) while Holy Cross (14-6) spends $396k. But the records are this year and the money is last year? Ok let's look at last year's record. Lafayette (9-11), Holy Cross (12-Cool. Going back farther, both teams were in the basement together the previous year but the year before that, Holy Cross had the best record in the PL at 15-5 while we were in the basement at 6-14. The year before that, Holy Cross is 13-7 while we are 7-13. Their year in the basement is an aberration. Ours is a trend. And yes, we spend $200k more than them every year back to 2012 for that result.

Money is not the issue with this sport.  

Lest you think I'm picking on the men or baseball specifically, let's look at WBB. Lafayette spends $1.7 million a year in total expenses. The following teams spend $200k (or more!) less than Lafayette: American, Bucknell, Colgate, Lehigh, Loyola. That's right, Boston U spends the same as us while Fordham, and Georgetown spend more than us (by a LOT). Where are we every year? The basement. As with baseball, the WBB spending difference between us and the rest of the league is about the same at least back through 2012.

Again, money is not the issue.

These are both trends, not one-off season flukes.

While I'm at it, I'll give you the numbers for football: we have been the #2 or #3 spender in the Patriot League for football every year since 2012 behind Fordham and (except once) Colgate. We have spent MILLIONS more than Bucknell. We've also spent a million more than Lehigh.

So yes, complaining about funding to justify the sorry state of Lafayette athletics is a lame excuse.

We're spending the money. On a dumpster fire.

EDIT: All spending data from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ not from "i hear" or "someone told me." I didn't cherrypick 2012 to suit the data. I just needed a cutoff point somewhere for these sports and going 4 years back seemed reasonable. YMMV
Andy

ATHLETICALLY RELATED STUDENT AID
                                                    MEN         WOMEN
2014 Bucknell University PA.....4590811  5093396
2014 Colgate University NY......6192128  4815428
2014 College of the Holy Cross..5401290  3738331
2014 Lafayette College PA........4821023  2967995
2014 Lehigh University PA........6095812  4411770

As in most things, you want quality, you have to ante up.

2014 FOOTBALL

FU  6.5 MIL
LC  5.49
LU  5.28
CU  5.27

Just an example of how differences in overall expenses don't necessarily equate to aid, which is what I'm talking about in regards to underfunding. Does anyone actually believe that Lafayette is granting more aid in football than Colgate and/or Lehigh?

LC women's basketball has been a disaster - both while playing w/out scholarships in a scholarship league, and while competing with scholarships. Hence, the coaching changes, I imagine. We're hopeful with Coach G, although she scares me with the talk of needing players with 4.0 HS GPAs.

Years ago, on Aaron's first board, when these figures were cited it was mentioned that one has to be cautious due to differences in accounting practices.  I am curious as to how a $30 mil stadium redo or a $2 mil arena freshening is accounted for?  Are those expenses included in these EIA figures?

With the same caveat, a quick look at Men's Lax:

LOY  1.49 mil
LU    1.3 mil
CU    1.02 mil
BU     972k
BUC  746k
LC     594k

Yes, it's ALL about the money.

VB

BU     1.08 mil
BUC   625k
CU     624k
LU      614k
LC      498k

WSOC

BU    1.376 mil
CU    1.1 mil
LOY   1.04 mil
BUC   858k
HC     812k
LC      742k
LU      698k

FB

2010  LU 4.32 mil  LC 3.85 mil  LC - L
2011  LU  4.48 mil LC 4.3 mil    LC - L
2012  LC  4.66 mil LU 4.19 mil LC - L
2013  LC  4.68 mil  LU 4.33 mil  LC - W
2014  LC  5.5 mil   LU  5.29 mil  LC - W
BPard

I didn't say all sports had more spending with less results than all our peers, I said some. The examples I quoted (Baseball and WBB) back that up.

Spending may not equal student aid; however, money is fungible. We are spending a comparable amount of money to our peers, and in some cases, spending more. In football, yes, I do believe we are spending more money than everyone in the league except for Fordham. That's what the data says.  Demonstrate how the reported spending data is flawed or stop giving the administration cover in buying their crying about funding as the cause of all of our woes.

Maybe, just maybe, we aren't spending our money as effectively as our peers.

Complaining about money, or the lack thereof, as the cause of this dumpster fire is lame. See baseball & WBB. What has funding gotten us relative to our peers? A dumpster fire.

If you throw more money into a dumpster fire, all you will accomplish is burning more money.

EDIT: And in your examples, you conveniently leave out Holy Cross, who spends less than us in MLax and Volleyball, in order to make it look like we spend the least in the league in these sports. We don't.
The Maroon

Thanks Andy - The men's lax numbers put things in excellent perspective as I watched the team more closely than ever this Spring. Those that keep claiming we should be a lacrosse powerhouse by virtue of our location and demographics and blame the coaching staff that we aren't need to see the whole picture.

It looks like beyond giving the volleyball team a full-time coach, they've done almost nothing to help that program over the years.

We ask WAYYY to much of our student athletes to put them in a position where they simply have no chance.
Andy

I left out HC because in many cases they're irrelevant.

Spending does not equate to athletic aid, and at $60k per year, it's of paramount importance.

Please get real. A few short years ago LC football was in the low 40s equivalency wise while FU and Gate were over 50. Rules allowed PL teams to max out at 60 in the 3rd year. Why arent we there?

Tavani had 3 championships in a row, had momentum, won 22 games over the next 3 years with wins over Harvard, Yale, Gate, Fordham, Liberty, Lehigh (and that painful OT loss); and Weiss gutted the program. Yikes!

I'm not giving the admin an excuse, I'm blaming them.

Other than wbball I still am not aware of a poor performing program in which we "out aid" our PL competition.  Baseball?  It's been posted here that Joe has 1.5 equiv per year. How much aid either grant or need based does HC give yearly?  They have been very successful lately and I'm jealous.
BPard

The other comment I made was about spending per student athlete in aggregate.

Taking another look at the data, I see we are in the bottom half, but not the basement. We spend $35k compared to PL $44k mean and $46k median. Bucknell and Holy Cross both spend less. Top is Fordham at $60k followed by Boston U at $52k and American at $51k. Rest of the pack (Colgate, Georgetown, Lehigh, Loyola) range from $42k to $49k.

Here, you could make an argument that we can be more competitive by increasing spending by 20% to join the pack, which would be a $3.6 mil increase. Of course, others will increase spending too (Bucknell, Holy Cross, and Fordham all had 30%+ YoY spending increases last year while Lafayette had 20%), so we need a larger jump to close the gap. More like 40% or $7.2 mil.

Are we competitive in spending on a per student athlete basis in the PL? No. Do we get get less for our dollar than our comparables (Bucknell & Holy Cross)? Still seems that way to me. Why feed the beast more dollars until that changes?
BPard

Andy wrote:
I left out HC because in many cases they're irrelevant.

Spending does not equate to athletic aid, and at $60k per year, it's of paramount importance.
HC is only irrelevant in your mind because they undermine your argument. Its why you include them sometimes and exclude them others. The irony of you closing your post by saying you're jealous of HC recent success after saying they're irrelevant is I suppose lost on you.

Again, money is fungible. In some individual sports (including football) since 2012 we have spent more, sometimes millions more, than our peers who enjoy more success on the field. Total spending of hundreds of thousands to millions more is IMO of greater importance than $60k per year. So agree to disagree.

Why is only aid money important? Why not look at total spending on a sport and ask if that money is being well spent? It would, IMO, be totally reasonable to conclude we should reallocate some of that money to increase aid - which I assume is your point in focusing exclusively on aid.

Quote:
They have been very successful lately and I'm jealous.
As you'll see from my post above, the two schools who spend less per student athlete than us both increased their annual spending per student athlete by 50% more than we did last year. Given our respective trajectories and our administration's lack of interest in changing our trajectory, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years we are alone in the basement of the PL in the scoreboard and spending. However, it is important to note that the former (scoreboard) preceded the latter (spending) in several sports.
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
Andy wrote:
I left out HC because in many cases they're irrelevant.

Spending does not equate to athletic aid, and at $60k per year, it's of paramount importance.
HC is only irrelevant in your mind because they undermine your argument. Its why you include them sometimes and exclude them others. The irony of you closing your post by saying you're jealous of HC recent success after saying they're irrelevant is I suppose lost on you.

Again, money is fungible. In some individual sports (including football) since 2012 we have spent more, sometimes millions more, than our peers who enjoy more success on the field. Total spending of hundreds of thousands to millions more is IMO of greater importance than $60k per year. So agree to disagree.

Why is only aid money important? Why not look at total spending on a sport and ask if that money is being well spent? It would, IMO, be totally reasonable to conclude we should reallocate some of that money to increase aid - which I assume is your point in focusing exclusively on aid.

Quote:
They have been very successful lately and I'm jealous.
As you'll see from my post above, the two schools who spend less per student athlete than us both increased their annual spending per student athlete by 50% more than we did last year. Given our respective trajectories and our administration's lack of interest in changing our trajectory, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years we are alone in the basement of the PL in the scoreboard and spending. However, it is important to note that the former (scoreboard) preceded the latter (spending) in several sports.


I agree. Spending for operations, especially coaches and asst salaries needs ultimately to be addressed. But we need effective leadership and accountability.
If we don't win giving will collapse! Losing Joe Giamo is systematic. He didn't see his position at Lafayette as eventually being career enhancing.
Andy

BPard wrote:
Andy wrote:
I left out HC because in many cases they're irrelevant.

Spending does not equate to athletic aid, and at $60k per year, it's of paramount importance.
HC is only irrelevant in your mind because they undermine your argument. Its why you include them sometimes and exclude them others. The irony of you closing your post by saying you're jealous of HC recent success after saying they're irrelevant is I suppose lost on you.

Again, money is fungible. In some individual sports (including football) since 2012 we have spent more, sometimes millions more, than our peers who enjoy more success on the field. Total spending of hundreds of thousands to millions more is IMO of greater importance than $60k per year. So agree to disagree.

Why is only aid money important? Why not look at total spending on a sport and ask if that money is being well spent? It would, IMO, be totally reasonable to conclude we should reallocate some of that money to increase aid - which I assume is your point in focusing exclusively on aid.

Quote:
They have been very successful lately and I'm jealous.
As you'll see from my post above, the two schools who spend less per student athlete than us both increased their annual spending per student athlete by 50% more than we did last year. Given our respective trajectories and our administration's lack of interest in changing our trajectory, it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years we are alone in the basement of the PL in the scoreboard and spending. However, it is important to note that the former (scoreboard) preceded the latter (spending) in several sports.


Regarding the HC thing you paint me as way too devious. I quoted figures of leaders in certain sports and our comparable. Couldnt care less what HCs losing VB program spends.

Aid is important because you win with players, not coaches, administrators or facilities.

Effective spending IMO would be taking full advantage of the alumni gifted $30 mil fb stadium and fully funding (60 equivs) the program. How about that for a start?

I appreciate your passion, bpard. Someone else will have to pick up the ball, here, as we're off to Tampa in a few hours. Ahh.....
SixtyEighter

I pose this question - Who besides those of us who post on this board cares about the things we discuss here ?The futility of Lafayette sports is a heritage of our college.My father who was an alum started taking me to Lafayette sports events more than 60 years ago and nothing has changed on the fields in my lifetime.Lightning will occasionally strike . mediocrity is tolerated but losing is the norm.
BPard

Quote:
Effective spending IMO would be taking full advantage of the alumni gifted $30 mil fb stadium and fully funding (60 equivs) the program. How about that for a start?
We have spent more money on football than any other PL school other than Fordham since 2012. The start of the turnaround is to spend even more money? Count me out.

Quote:
But we need effective leadership and accountability. If we don't win giving will collapse!
Yes!

There is no program or department on campus that touches more students' daily lives than athletics. Letting athletics get to such a sorry state across the board makes me question the College's allocation of resources.

There are many other causes I can support that are not the equivalent to throwing my money into a dumpster fire.
BPard

SixtyEighter wrote:
I pose this question - Who besides those of us who post on this board cares about the things we discuss here ?
Student-Athletes and prospective students. Their parents/families. Some faculty.

And if Maroon was really asked to take down the chart (aka the scoreboard), then presumably whoever in the administration made that requests cares.
NewXbo

BPard wrote:
SixtyEighter wrote:
I pose this question - Who besides those of us who post on this board cares about the things we discuss here ?
Student-Athletes and prospective students. Their parents/families. Some faculty.

And if Maroon was really asked to take down the chart (aka the scoreboard), then presumably whoever in the administration made that requests cares.


So you are saying that there are administrators who care but they have elected to do nothing about it. Maybe you identified the problem. Saying you care is a lot different than doing something about.
BPard

NewXbo wrote:
So you are saying that there are administrators who care but they have elected to do nothing about it. Maybe you identified the problem. Saying you care is a lot different than doing something about.
Agree. That assumes that I interpreted this earlier quote accurately. Perhaps I did not.
Quote:
One thing I know: This chart finds it's way around! It's been, um, politely asked of me to take it down

This is what put a bee in my bonnet. That request is the equivalent to not keeping score or taking the scoreboard down.
The Maroon

I was asked politely.

Won't get into who except to say it was NOT Bruce and it wasn't a strong-arm tactic - more of a plea as a fellow 'Pard to take it down because it makes the coaches jobs even harder. It almost worked to be honest. As I said I HATE the idea of a prospective recruit hitting this board and deciding to go elsewhere  - but I'm not posting speculation, conjecture - nor am I attacking anyone in particular.

This is just what it is. I posted the chart on my FB page and the main reaction was shock that things had gotten this bad.

As long as they are getting record applicants - no, I don't think the clowns in Markle care. At least not most of them.
Kpard

The record is what it is.

Post the graduation rate of student athletes next to it as well if that will make everyone happy or feel better.

What would be interesting to see is a comparison to all the other PL schools and particularly the one who should never be named.
Lafalum

The Maroon wrote:
I was asked politely.

Won't get into who except to say it was NOT Bruce and it wasn't a strong-arm tactic - more of a plea as a fellow 'Pard to take it down because it makes the coaches jobs even harder.  

As long as they are getting record applicants - no, I don't think the clowns in Markle care. At least not most of them.


Haven't we all heard the axiom "to solve a problem you have to first admit there is one." You've got to demonstrate you care. When Dicker was in charge he knew what was needed to change the atmosphere. Sometimes in organizations that what you have to do.
The organization is there to service the students first!!
Lafalum

All the above given, I think we will be better in Women's and Men's Soccer, Field Hockey, women's lacrosse and perhaps baseball. Football's schedule is a killer, basketball lacks strong upperclassmen and they have inexperienced benches.
I truly expect women's and men's soccer, field hockey and women's s lacrosse to be playing after the regular season. Field Hockey should make it to the championship game, as could women's lacrosse, the two soccer teams could be pretty good.
adcs2

I think the greatest likelihood of improvement is WBB.  A lot of talent left the league over the last two years, first at Navy/American and more recently at Army/Lehigh.

Not to single her out over any of the other incoming freshman, but Grentz recruit Olivia Gumbs has a chance to be something special.  She has the pedigree (dad played at Delaware and brother at Towson) and is a Top-100 recruit with an ESPN grade of 90.

Now, I know she hasn't stepped foot on the court yet but is a huge get for this program.

On the flip side, I don't see any improvement out of WSOC.  How the coach is continually retained is a mystery.  The 8-7-1 overall record in 2015 is a testament to crafty non-league scheduling (they were still last in the league).  In 10 years under Statham, the Lady Pards have won 11 matches (1.1 per year).
Andy

adcs2 wrote:
On the flip side, I don't see any improvement out of WSOC.  How the coach is continually retained is a mystery.  The 8-7-1 overall record in 2015 is a testament to crafty non-league scheduling (they were still last in the league).  In 10 years under Statham, the Lady Pards have won 11 matches (1.1 per year).


Agree, but the challenges are familiar ones. Found this an interesting piece (Oct 2014)on our soccer programs. Statham cites the difficulty in competing vs fully funded opponents, predicts improvement as scholarships get up to limit (sounds logical Wink):

Scholarships, Budget, and Recruiting

.......Despite the lack of scholarships, the coaching staff has done very well with recruiting. The coaches take chance on people who might not have had opportunities elsewhere, often recruiting players who were very good in high school, but sustained serious injuries during prime recruiting years. Recruiting has now expanded from just the tri-state area to all over the country and more recently, internationally. Now with scholarships finally being introduced into the program last year, Statham is very optimistic.

“Once we’ve gone through four or five cycles of being able to award athletic scholarships we’ll have taken several steps forwards and hopefully will be competing at the top end of the league,” Statham said.//////

He may be behind schedule. We shall see. Where are we, 4th recruiting cycle with wsoc schols?

https://www.lafayettestudentnews....holarships-budget-and-recruiting/
adcs2

Holy Cross has no such patience under Nate Pine.  Good for him (and them)

http://www.goholycross.com/ViewAr...OEM_ID=33100&ATCLID=210485187
Andy

adcs2 wrote:
Holy Cross has no such patience under Nate Pine.  Good for him (and them)

http://www.goholycross.com/ViewAr...OEM_ID=33100&ATCLID=210485187


Yeah, out with the old in with a new staff experienced with scholarship recruiting.  Good for HC. Mick has that, needs to show dramatic improvement. OR ELSE! Hah, yeah right.
Lafalum

Andy wrote:
adcs2 wrote:
Holy Cross has no such patience under Nate Pine.  Good for him (and them)

http://www.goholycross.com/ViewAr...OEM_ID=33100&ATCLID=210485187


Yeah, out with the old in with a new staff experienced with scholarship recruiting.  Good for HC. Mick has that, needs to show dramatic improvement. OR ELSE! Hah, yeah right.


Mick had several close games including a lot of ties. Turn those into wins and we've got a successful program!!
adcs2

I will say it again ELEVEN league wins in TEN years.
bethlehempard

SixtyEighter wrote:
I pose this question - Who besides those of us who post on this board cares about the things we discuss here ?The futility of Lafayette sports is a heritage of our college.My father who was an alum started taking me to Lafayette sports events more than 60 years ago and nothing has changed on the fields in my lifetime.Lightning will occasionally strike . mediocrity is tolerated but losing is the norm.


This is the only explanation that makes sense. Lafayette is a great school and a great place to go to school, and those are the most important things. The sports records speak for themselves but I think the above post mostly nails the issue.
I've been around high school kids for about 15 years now and I don't think too many of them, including athletes, look at the sports program first or second or third when they are looking at schools.
And they like Lafayette. It remains a very attractive school.
Andy

The Maroon wrote:
I was asked politely.

Won't get into who except to say it was NOT Bruce and it wasn't a strong-arm tactic - more of a plea as a fellow 'Pard to take it down because it makes the coaches jobs even harder. It almost worked to be honest. As I said I HATE the idea of a prospective recruit hitting this board and deciding to go elsewhere  - but I'm not posting speculation, conjecture - nor am I attacking anyone in particular.

This is just what it is. I posted the chart on my FB page and the main reaction was shock that things had gotten this bad.

As long as they are getting record applicants - no, I don't think the clowns in Markle care. At least not most of them.


Here's your response, Aaron.  Showing grave concern over a 20% winning percentage, this bloopers video is posted on the athletics website first page. I'm a little incredulous, but I guess shouldn't be. Maybe the kids find it funny....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=frM34GuRpUU

No spring prospectus this year, roster bios still not updated to reflect 2015. colgate, Buck, Lehigh, HC all done.  The worst year in Lafayette College athletics history and we get a bloopers video. Mind boggling.
Franks Tanks

Andy wrote:
The Maroon wrote:
I was asked politely.

Won't get into who except to say it was NOT Bruce and it wasn't a strong-arm tactic - more of a plea as a fellow 'Pard to take it down because it makes the coaches jobs even harder. It almost worked to be honest. As I said I HATE the idea of a prospective recruit hitting this board and deciding to go elsewhere  - but I'm not posting speculation, conjecture - nor am I attacking anyone in particular.

This is just what it is. I posted the chart on my FB page and the main reaction was shock that things had gotten this bad.

As long as they are getting record applicants - no, I don't think the clowns in Markle care. At least not most of them.


Here's your response, Aaron.  Showing grave concern over a 20% winning percentage, this bloopers video is posted on the athletics website first page. I'm a little incredulous, but I guess shouldn't be. Maybe the kids find it funny....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=frM34GuRpUU

No spring prospectus this year, roster bios still not updated to reflect 2015. colgate, Buck, Lehigh, HC all done.  The worst year in Lafayette College athletics history and we get a bloopers video. Mind boggling.


I was expecting to see a video of the Harvard or Holy Cross games from 2015.  Our AD is either completely checked out or tone deaf.
Andy

Franks Tanks wrote:
I was expecting to see a video of the Harvard or Holy Cross games from 2015.  Our AD is either completely checked out or tone deaf.


Smile  Right, or the incredible 4 blocked PAT/FGs in a row.

Yucking it up and broadcasting it amidst a disaster reflects the "jobs for life" situation in the dept as described by several of our posters.
LeopardBall10

Andy wrote:


Yucking it up and broadcasting it amidst a disaster reflects the "jobs for life" situation in the dept as described by several of our posters.


I hadn't seen this yet, mostly because I never check GoLeopards.com anymore. Like you said, nothing updated, no real fan content... They sure make it hard for me to be a connected, avid fan of the Leopards.

But this video is unreal on a number of different levels. 1.) that the sports marketing/sports info department thought that this was a good idea. "Yay, self-deprecating humor!" 2.) That the administration thought it was a good idea to post it on the official page. I could see maybe using it as a comic break at the PARDEES or to show at the annual welcome back picinic for athletes, but it does not belong on the departments official site 3.) That it has been the front page of the site. This administration truley is tone deaf
NewXbo

Well, we are NUMBER ONE IN SOFTBALL AND BASEBALL (Academically)

Patriot League Honor Roll:

Softball Honorees:
 Lafayette 16
 Holy Cross 15
 Boston 12
 Bucknell 12
 Lehigh 11
 Colgate 10
 Army 5
 Navy No team
 American No team
 Loyola No Team

Baseball Honorees:
 Lafayette 18
 Bucknell 16
 Holy Cross 15
 Lehigh 13
 Army 8
 Colgate No team
 Navy No Team
 American No Team
 Loyola No Team
 Boston No Team

Is there a correlation here?
LeopardBall10

NewXbo wrote:
Well, we are NUMBER ONE IN SOFTBALL AND BASEBALL (Academically)

Is there a correlation here?

Sounds like a great study to me. Someone email Professor Rubec, see if he has anyone in the Econ. department who wants to do a thesis on the sports and look at the correlation rate of academic performance with athletic performance. And that data set would be easy to obtain.
Lafalum

LeopardBall10 wrote:
NewXbo wrote:
Well, we are NUMBER ONE IN SOFTBALL AND BASEBALL (Academically)

Is there a correlation here?

Sounds like a great study to me. Someone email Professor Rubec, see if he has anyone in the Econ. department who wants to do a thesis on the sports and look at the correlation rate of academic performance with athletic performance. And that data set would be easy to obtain.


Correlation is not causation. You would need to do a multivariate analysis using a mix of variable e.g.. success of high school programs, money spent on recruiting (travel, time etc.), experience of coaches and asst coaches, strength and conditioning time, time out of season training, quality of high school competition, and I could go on!! But it might be an interesting study. I believe right now athletes and greeks outperform others academically at Lafayette. Seem a little counter intuitive but true. So would that mean if you are an athlete you will have better grades. No it just means because of the weighting of a specific variable you're getting that outcome from your recruits!!
I guess what's driven is what you want the outcome to be. By emphasizing another mix of the variable you might get a better outcome on the field.......that is management!! There are smart good  athletes but it may mean changing our approach! A wider search area , specific attention and resources in all recruiting, better pr might be helpful!!
Franks Tanks

Lafalum wrote:
LeopardBall10 wrote:
NewXbo wrote:
Well, we are NUMBER ONE IN SOFTBALL AND BASEBALL (Academically)

Is there a correlation here?

Sounds like a great study to me. Someone email Professor Rubec, see if he has anyone in the Econ. department who wants to do a thesis on the sports and look at the correlation rate of academic performance with athletic performance. And that data set would be easy to obtain.


Correlation is not causation. You would need to do a multivariate analysis using a mix of variable e.g.. success of high school programs, money spent on recruiting (travel, time etc.), experience of coaches and asst coaches, strength and conditioning time, time out of season training, quality of high school competition, and I could go on!! But it might be an interesting study. I believe right now athletes and greeks outperform others academically at Lafayette. Seem a little counter intuitive but true.


What he said!

My gut, and experience, with Lafayette tells me that a good portion of our academic all-stars are athletic bench warmers.  We have always "filled out" the roster with smart kids, many of whom may be receiving academic scholarships, that aren't really viable D-I athletes.  These kids typically show up all bright eyed and chipper and thankful for Lafayette giving them a shot to play.  They soon realize their team is terrible, its not going to get better anytime soon and they aren't even going to play all that much.  These kids stick round for a year or two, and move on to focus on academics.  The program then recruits a bumper crop of fresh victims to replace the defections, and the cycle start again.  This is especially true for our "participation" level sports.

With that being said many of our best players are also excellent students, but I believe the situation described above continues to exist.
Andy

Fielding an academically gifted but non-competitive team in the PL is failure.  A championship won with top-notch academic kids is something to brag about.   I could sweep through chem lab, hand out 11 softball uniforms, lead the PL in academic honors and win only 3 fewer games than our softball team did.  Our current state is not something to crow about, it's a failure in recruiting.
RichH

Recruiting high academic kids is common in PL and Ivies. They are called 'levelers" by Ivies. Best is to get both in onevrecruit. Troyan has a huge edge for good players with stellar academics and a budget that keeps him recruiting nationally. Pards do have some fine players. Best teams have at 1 and hopefully 2 excellent Ps.  Pards do not. One decent P only. Troyan spends his full rides on Ps. He will have 3.next year. Not a fair comparison but goesvto my point. Look at Army,Bucknell etc. Bucknell' won it all with the best P in PL. Just one.

       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> All Other Sports
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum