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 -> Football
pardfan

Consulting f. announcement puts Pres."skin in game"

With the announcement of the involvement of a consulting firm (as some had predicted on the Forum) Byerly concluded with "...and to be successful competitors in the Patriot League." (On Oct. 9, I said SHE should say"... LC is totally committed to winning in the PL."  Close enough, I guess.)
Problem IMO:  Bruce made the announcement which makes me wonder if, despite the fact that he has been part of the problem, he is considered part of the solution.  Everything and everyone should be in play here to do it right.
Andy

Good call, lafalum.
ed65

The appointment of this group is really important.  One thing is missing: Alumni on the Committee.  I wonder why we were omitted?  And depending who the Trustees are ... I hate to even think about it.
Zeus

Too Funny on several levels.
edge29

So they're putting a group together to study themselves?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I suppose this is a step in the right direction but this reminds me of the idiots governing the Town I live in. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying things that 2 citizens could have come up with solutions to in 5 minutes.

Here are 2 questions the consultants can study...

1 - What is essential to the long-term sustainability of athletics??

Hint: $$$$

2 - Once #1 is determined, how do we ensure that we grow that source?

Hint: win

It ain't rocket science folks.
Lafalum

edge29 wrote:
So they're putting a group together to study themselves?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I suppose this is a step in the right direction but this reminds me of the idiots governing the Town I live in. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying things that 2 citizens could have come up with solutions to in 5 minutes.

Here are 2 questions the consultants can study...

1 - What is essential to the long-term sustainability of athletics??

Hint: $$$$

2 - Once #1 is determined, how do we ensure that we grow that source?

Hint: win

It ain't rocket science folks.


Why do people hire consultants:
1. They don't know answer
2. They know the answer and they don't like it
3. They know the answer and they want cover when they impose the solution.


The answer of course number is number 3, the sub answer is win.
The question is how do we win and that is what we are unwilling to do because it can involve reporting structure and a change in personnel. I honestly think it is not as much money as you might think and if you win the money will come.
However, the very fact you are having a study will freeze the large money until the results are known. That is capital money and operating money.
Lafalum

edge29 wrote:
So they're putting a group together to study themselves?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I suppose this is a step in the right direction but this reminds me of the idiots governing the Town I live in. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying things that 2 citizens could have come up with solutions to in 5 minutes.

Here are 2 questions the consultants can study...

1 - What is essential to the long-term sustainability of athletics??

Hint: $$$$

2 - Once #1 is determined, how do we ensure that we grow that source?

Hint: win

It ain't rocket science folks.


Why do people hire consultants:
1. They don't know answer
2. They know the answer and they don't like it
3. They know the answer and they want cover when they impose the solution.


The answer of course number is number 3, the sub answer is win.
The question is how do we win and that is what we are unwilling to do because it can involve reporting structure and a change in personnel. I honestly think it is not as much money as you might think and if you win the money will come.
However, the very fact you are having a study will freeze the large money until the results are known. That is capital money and operating money.
Those alums that write the larger checks should be part of the process to insure that flow of money continues.
LeopardBall10

Lafalum wrote:

3. They know the answer and they want cover when they impose the solution.

The answer of course number is number 3, the sub answer is win.
The question is how do we win and that is what we are unwilling to do because it can involve reporting structure and a change in personnel.


I agree with this 100%. I think she already knows the answer she is looking for, but as others have mentioned in other threads, creating cross represented committees has been her M.O. for increasing discussion across employee groups and bettering relations between staff, faculty, etc.

I think she hired this consultant to bring a campus wide group together to discuss why we are not competitive, why we should be competitive, and how we get there. I think this will allow the Trustees and faculty to think it was their idea all along to change reporting structures and personnel.
ed65

edge29 wrote:
So they're putting a group together to study themselves?

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

I suppose this is a step in the right direction but this reminds me of the idiots governing the Town I live in. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars studying things that 2 citizens could have come up with solutions to in 5 minutes.

Here are 2 questions the consultants can study...

1 - What is essential to the long-term sustainability of athletics??

Hint: $$$$

2 - Once #1 is determined, how do we ensure that we grow that source?

Hint: win

It ain't rocket science folks.


Good points edge.  I would add that in order to achieve #2, there must be a completer reorganization of the the reporting structure AND a change in personnel at the top of the Athletics Dept.  Strategies are great but how effectively they are executed is the key.  Also, Lafalum is quite correct that Alison needs institutional buy-in here to cope with the dissidents on the Board, Faculty and Alumni who are anti-sports.
SixtyEighter

I read the press release re: the Athletic Consultng gambit. To find out why we are noncompetitive one need s to look no farther than the apparent disconnect between McCutcheon's statement and that of Byerly.Alison is looking to improve in the league and McCutcheon is looking to promote vague "institutional" goals.I am coming to the conclusion that he is a road block to success.
edge29

LeopardBall10 wrote:
Lafalum wrote:

3. They know the answer and they want cover when they impose the solution.

The answer of course number is number 3, the sub answer is win.
The question is how do we win and that is what we are unwilling to do because it can involve reporting structure and a change in personnel.


I agree with this 100%. I think she already knows the answer she is looking for, but as others have mentioned in other threads, creating cross represented committees has been her M.O. for increasing discussion across employee groups and bettering relations between staff, faculty, etc.

I think she hired this consultant to bring a campus wide group together to discuss why we are not competitive, why we should be competitive, and how we get there. I think this will allow the Trustees and faculty to think it was their idea all along to change reporting structures and personnel.


If this is the case, she's more on board than I thought!
artanis

I recently saw a list of PL programs and the money spent on football. If I recall, Fordham led the way with Colgate, LU and Lafayette close behind at $5 million. I know that money is important, but if you are already competitive as far as dollars spent is concerned, what else is wrong if you're not winning?

Georgetown spends $1 million and there are no merit scholies, so their bringing up the rear is explainable...although before this year, they were beating the pards.

So really, what is the problem if it is not dollars?
artanis

Re: "The Committee"

Take your pick:

If Columbus had an advisory committee he would probably still be at the dock.
— Arthur Goldberg



There is no monument dedicated to the memory of a committee.
— Lester J. Pourciau



Socrates was killed by a committee, so committees are not totally useless.
— John Alejandro King



A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled.
— Sir Barnett Cocks


To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three men, two of whom are absent.
— Robert Copeland



A committee can make a decision that is dumber than any of its members.
— David Coblitz
Franks Tanks

artanis wrote:
I recently saw a list of PL programs and the money spent on football. If I recall, Fordham led the way with Colgate, LU and Lafayette close behind at $5 million. I know that money is important, but if you are already competitive as far as dollars spent is concerned, what else is wrong if you're not winning?

Georgetown spends $1 million and there are no merit scholies, so their bringing up the rear is explainable...although before this year, they were beating the pards.

So really, what is the problem if it is not dollars?


In football it is coaching, and lack of accountability. Other sports have inadequate budgets, which should be explored.  Go back to the Lehigh board.
Lafalum

Franks Tanks wrote:
artanis wrote:
I recently saw a list of PL programs and the money spent on football. If I recall, Fordham led the way with Colgate, LU and Lafayette close behind at $5 million. I know that money is important, but if you are already competitive as far as dollars spent is concerned, what else is wrong if you're not winning?

Georgetown spends $1 million and there are no merit scholies, so their bringing up the rear is explainable...although before this year, they were beating the pards.

So really, what is the problem if it is not dollars?


In football it is coaching, and lack of accountability. Other sports have inadequate budgets, which should be explored.  Go back to the Lehigh board.


Accountability and the shameful wages paid to assistants.
Franks Tanks

Lafalum wrote:
Franks Tanks wrote:
artanis wrote:
I recently saw a list of PL programs and the money spent on football. If I recall, Fordham led the way with Colgate, LU and Lafayette close behind at $5 million. I know that money is important, but if you are already competitive as far as dollars spent is concerned, what else is wrong if you're not winning?

Georgetown spends $1 million and there are no merit scholies, so their bringing up the rear is explainable...although before this year, they were beating the pards.

So really, what is the problem if it is not dollars?


In football it is coaching, and lack of accountability. Other sports have inadequate budgets, which should be explored.  Go back to the Lehigh board.


Accountability and the shameful wages paid to assistants.


Good point. As we discussed years ago, and you very correctly pointed out, increasing assistants salaries would be perhaps the best way to spend money.  Paying a coach 65k instead of 35k (or whatever the numbers may be) can attract much better coaches and provide stability.  This simple act may allow notable improvement in non-revenue sports.  This is assuming better assistants would also do a better job finding and evaluating talent.
flyfisher

Forgive me but I struggle with this consulting thing. I have read the comments here and tend to agree that the college knows what they want to do for the most part and is looking for outside support of their ideas. Seems to be a lot of politics. Disappointed some key alumni are not involved. Once again, we want your money but then shut up.
Leopard Loyalist

Academia loves committees, but too often the committees are all study and little action. Hiring a consulting firm, however, indicates a financial commitment that in turn suggests a commitment to actually doing something. Why spend money on a consultant if you don't want to achieve the stated objective?--even if, as has been suggested, you already know what you need to do.
As for Bruce's comments about institutional mission and goals, it could be interpreted as meaning what has been said on this board many times: if we aspire to excellence in all other areas of institutional effort, why can't there be a similar aspiration for excellence in the athletic program?
BPard

flyfisher wrote:
Seems to be a lot of politics. Disappointed some key alumni are not involved. Once again, we want your money but then shut up.
Lafayette is a very political place.

I will surprised if alumni - particularly major funders of athletics - are not included in the process even if they don't have seats on the committee itself.
NewXbo

This seems like it's a replay of the Eve Atkinson era.
ed65

NewXbo wrote:
This seems like it's a replay of the Eve Atkinson era.


No way this is a replay of that nonsensical travesty.  The issue on the table is how to be competitive in the PL.  Not to drop to D-III.
seenalot

We all hope you are right.
Lafalum

A guarantee would be to have prominent alumni ( non BOT) on the committee who would go nuts publicly if Div 3 were considered or dropping football. ( I do not believe that dropping football or div 3  on the table).
SIDELINER

I've heard often that the chairman of the BoT cares nothing about athletics and that most of the board feels that way. Can anyone tell us who on the board might act FAVORABLY toward athletics?  I've been told that the BoT met on the Saturday of Homecoming weekend and after the meeting, all of them left the college without making even a cursory appearance at the football game. Does that sound right? Is there's that much nonchalance about the most visible sport, what can anyone hope for from this study?
flyfisher

[quote="SIDELINER:57537"]I've heard often that the chairman of the BoT cares nothing about athletics and that most of the board feels that way. Can anyone tell us who on the board might act FAVORABLY toward athletics?  I've been told that the BoT met on the Saturday of Homecoming weekend and after the meeting, all of them left the college without making even a cursory appearance at the football game. Does that sound right? Is there's that much nonchalance aabout the most visible sport, what can anyone hope for from this study?[/quote


Your comments are very accurate. Especially about the chairman of the Board of Trustees. I did see a couple at the game after the meeting. Neither were sitting but hanging out near the Coca-Cola Zone. I understand that the focus at Lafayette College needs to be on the growth of the college and the financials. However your assessment is correct that there is very little love for athletics among the Board of Trustees.
ed65

[quote="flyfisher:57538"]
SIDELINER wrote:
I've heard often that the chairman of the BoT cares nothing about athletics and that most of the board feels that way. Can anyone tell us who on the board might act FAVORABLY toward athletics?  I've been told that the BoT met on the Saturday of Homecoming weekend and after the meeting, all of them left the college without making even a cursory appearance at the football game. Does that sound right? Is there's that much nonchalance aabout the most visible sport, what can anyone hope for from this study?[/quote


Your comments are very accurate. Especially about the chairman of the Board of Trustees. I did see a couple at the game after the meeting. Neither were sitting but hanging out near the Coca-Cola Zone. I understand that the focus at Lafayette College needs to be on the growth of the college and the financials. However your assessment is correct that there is very little love for athletics among the Board of Trustees.


There are definite exceptions to the anti athletics Board Members including Bob Sell, Hal Kamine, Jim Fisher, Bruce Maggin, David Reif and others so let's not be too quick to condemn the entire group.  One of the women trustees gives money to Field Hockey.  Now, I am as critical of the Board as any of you, but we need to be fair here.
SIDELINER

I didn't really mean to broad-brush the members of the BoT and I thank you for the names of some who would have interest in the betterment of the program in all areas. Now, will any of those men be included on the committee? Would any scream out, as Lafalum mentions, if they saw things they don't like? I suppose only time will tell.
ed65

SIDELINER wrote:
I didn't really mean to broad-brush the members of the BoT and I thank you for the names of some who would have interest in the betterment of the program in all areas. Now, will any of those men be included on the committee? Would any scream out, as Lafalum mentions, if they saw things they don't like? I suppose only time will tell.


Clearly. as you point out, the key is who is on the committee.  Also, several of us have written Alison to recommend that at least two non Trustee Alums (who support winning in athletics) be appointed to the committee.
Lafalum

[quote="ed65:57541"]
flyfisher wrote:
SIDELINER wrote:
I've heard often that the chairman of the BoT cares nothing about athletics and that most of the board feels that way. Can anyone tell us who on the board might act FAVORABLY toward athletics?  I've been told that the BoT met on the Saturday of Homecoming weekend and after the meeting, all of them left the college without making even a cursory appearance at the football game. Does that sound right? Is there's that much nonchalance aabout the most visible sport, what can anyone hope for from this study?[/quote


Your comments are very accurate. Especially about the chairman of the Board of Trustees. I did see a couple at the game after the meeting. Neither were sitting but hanging out near the Coca-Cola Zone. I understand that the focus at Lafayette College needs to be on the growth of the college and the financials. However your assessment is correct that there is very little love for athletics among the Board of Trustees.


There are definite exceptions to the anti athletics Board Members including Bob Sell, Hal Kamine, Jim Fisher, Bruce Maggin, David Reif and others so let's not be too quick to condemn the entire group.  One of the women trustees gives money to Field Hockey.  Now, I am as critical of the Board as any of you, but we need to be fair here.


You can add Jim Birle '83, Michael Heaney '86 and Don Morel all of whom made substantial 6 figure gifts for athletic capital improvements. Barbara Levy and Judd Linville are also supporters.

There are a significant number of emeritus members who are VERY anti athletic and whose appearance would be a bad sign including Arthur Rothkof, Dan Weiss, and Wiilliam Rutledge and a number of other Rothkopf followers. If their names appeared would in my opinion hurt the credibility of the effort.

Likewise I think of a number of faculty I would like to see on it like Alan Childs and Susan Averett. I'll leave off other faculty I think would be a bad sign.
Pards Rule

Put Pards Rule on the committee!!!!
Franks Tanks

J.B. Reilly should be supportive as well.  I heard he has a Lafayette football helmet, and other Pard football stuff, in his office!
Lafalum

Franks Tanks wrote:
J.B. Reilly should be supportive as well.  I heard he has a Lafayette football helmet, and other Pard football stuff, in his office!


You are correct!!!
SIDELINER

In September of 2008, Lafalum posted the following:

"I can verify that statement.  I can also verify that the athletic dept is short one trainer resulting in lack of coverage for some sports at practice and at away games. I can verify that many asst coaches are not paid even minimum wage and to call  them full time employees is a joke. I can also verify if it wasn't for the generosity of the many  people who donate to the "Friends of " organizations we'd be a terrible fix!! And a shout out to a strong group of committed, large donors who without their support we'd be playing Moravian in our "big" rivalry games.
The BOT has done squat for athletics and it has been these alumni that have gotten it done when needed.!!"

Does it sound at all like things are pretty much the same today?
ed65

Again, I don't agree with you Sideliner.  I don't think things are pretty much the same today.  The fact that the committee is being formed and the consulting firm has been hired is very positive.  And I am as cynical as you are AND have been dealing with the athletics issue for 50 years.  Let's see what happens with this initiative and not judge it before we see the report.  Again, let's be fair here.  if you count up the Board Members listed as positive, it is a substantial number.
flyfisher

[quote="ed65:57541"]
flyfisher wrote:
SIDELINER wrote:
I've heard often that the chairman of the BoT cares nothing about athletics and that most of the board feels that way. Can anyone tell us who on the board might act FAVORABLY toward athletics?  I've been told that the BoT met on the Saturday of Homecoming weekend and after the meeting, all of them left the college without making even a cursory appearance at the football game. Does that sound right? Is there's that much nonchalance aabout the most visible sport, what can anyone hope for from this study?[/quote


Your comments are very accurate. Especially about the chairman of the Board of Trustees. I did see a couple at the game after the meeting. Neither were sitting but hanging out near the Coca-Cola Zone. I understand that the focus at Lafayette College needs to be on the growth of the college and the financials. However your assessment is correct that there is very little love for athletics among the Board of Trustees.


There are definite exceptions to the anti athletics Board Members including Bob Sell, Hal Kamine, Jim Fisher, Bruce Maggin, David Reif and others so let's not be too quick to condemn the entire group.  One of the women trustees gives money to Field Hockey.  Now, I am as critical of the Board as any of you, but we need to be fair here.


Obviously some of the BOT care about sports, especially those families that have their names on facilities. All of said was I saw two of them at the game. There could have been 50 of them for all I know. I only know or have met 5-6 of them. Someone made the comment that none of them were there and I knew that was incorrect. However I als know there several/many that are not as supportive of athletics as we would hope.

Some things are more clear to me now. We have 2000 students. We need to grow to some degree. It would s hard to grow in STEM majors with so few students. Someone else mentioned that last week. Some engineering classes have already been cut the last few years. Byerly has a lot of long term issues to address. I doubt athletics is at the top, though still important.
bethlehempard

Conceding that there is a problem is a huge step forward.
American steel and auto companies didn't do that. Baylor football didn't do that. Lehman didn't do that.
Just knowing that leadership has noticed and cares and is moving forward is big. What matters most is the goal: competitiveness in the Patriot League. The admission is of course that we aren't.
I do understand the wariness for the veterans of "The Study."
Consider though that just a few days ago, the impression among fans was that nobody gave a damn.
BPard

flyfisher wrote:
Some things are more clear to me now. We have 2000 students. We need to grow to some degree. It would s hard to grow in STEM majors with so few students.
You're off by over 20% on the size of the College.

It's a lot easier to get to 3,000 when you're already at 2,500 than if you're actually starting at 2,000.
SIDELINER

Three most recent Reinhard blogs pertain to sports studies -- one a reaction to the college release and two others old columns from the Eve Atkinson era.

www.ramblingsfromthebench.blogspot.com
Lafalum

SIDELINER wrote:
Three most recent Reinhard blogs pertain to sports studies -- one a reaction to the college release and two others old columns from the Eve Atkinson era.

www.ramblingsfromthebench.blogspot.com

Excellent article....couldn't have said it better myself. He has a great feel for the issues!! No doubt the announcement has put some fears in some places. I am  sure there are administrators that are uneasy, as are some coaches. No one likes change and this "study" implies and says change. The appointment of visible non BOT alumni to the committee is key and will say a lot. I await that announcement.
NewXbo

Well, it is an interesting article. However, it seems that he is suggesting that appointing the "money boys" to the committee is the answer.  Sure, money will be important to improve facilities, better pay for assistants, etc. but that alone will not guarantee success.

The issue is how do recruit better athletes.
LeopardBall10

NewXbo wrote:
The issue is how do recruit better athletes.


To be honest, that is the easy answer. You win. We have better facilities than our peers, we have a better location than a lot of our peers, etc. etc. Kids want to win rings. Winning begets winning.
Lafalum

NewXbo wrote:
Well, it is an interesting article. However, it seems that he is suggesting that appointing the "money boys" to the committee is the answer.  Sure, money will be important to improve facilities, better pay for assistants, etc. but that alone will not guarantee success.

The issue is how do recruit better athletes.


I don't think it's  just that. It's administration, coaching and everything that goes with it. In many cases, I believe we have good, competitive athletes, who are badly motivated or not motivated at all. Yes they want to win but are not given the psychological and technical skills to get it done.
Paul had suggested people like Tom Odjakian  and others that could tell them what needs to be done organizationally. I honestly don't think its a lot of money either. Our facilities are fine, but lets says we do  an average increase in  salaries for number one assistants of lets say, 12 sports of 20,000 dollars is 240,000 dollars in an overall school budget of 200 mil is not a big lift.

Winning has to become a goal. I don't see that in Bruce's statement and its hidden in the overall objective of the committee. It isn't stated because the players ( Administration and coaches) are afraid of the standard!! That's what we have to get beyond.
Jpao92

[Quote="Lafalum:57589"]
Excellent article....couldn't have said it better myself. He has a great feel for the issues!! No doubt the announcement has put some fears in some places. [/quote]

I said the same thing he says in this article directly, twice now, to the President.  Excellence!!  It isn't that athletics are the end all be all of the College or that they define us.  But the College undertakes to put teams on the field and provide first rate facilities for said teams.  It should do so with the goal of showing the world that we strive for excellence in everything we do.   Right now the message is one of complacency and apathy.  

The egg heads and erudite set that form the anti-jock faction or the "we should be Williams" faction look at athletics much (not exactly, mind you) as they do the Greek system.     They believe athletics to be a distraction and a black mark/obstacle to being judged academically elite.   Another factor here is the zero sum faction that believes every dollar donated or allocated to athletics is stealing from an academic designated donation to the College.  This faction fails to grasp that in many cases but for athletics the donation would not be made in the first place.   By the way, I have seen this same "but for" attitude amongst academic departments in the College.  

The College has its answer already.  They are forming this committee simply to validate that answer and provide cover.   They have done this same kabuki theatre before.  The question is, what is the answer they have already come up with?
Lafalum

NewXbo wrote:
However, it seems that he is suggesting that appointing the "money boys" to the committee is the answer.  Sure, money will be important to improve facilities, etc


Think about it, why would you write a big check until you found out more about the study?? These people are not stupid!! They've made the decision to have the study, get on with it or the  money will dry up!!
Zeus

There is significance evidence that shows the college's view of athletics, period.
LeopardBall10

Jpao92 wrote:
They have done this same kabuki theatre before.


The reference had me ROFL. Now I can't get the image of Frank on the sidelines wearing a kabuki mask out of my head.


If only I weren't at work and had access to my photoshop.
ed65

LeopardBall10 wrote:
Jpao92 wrote:
They have done this same kabuki theatre before.


The reference had me ROFL. Now I can't get the image of Frank on the sidelines wearing a kabuki mask out of my head.


If only I weren't at work and had access to my photoshop.


LOL LeopardBall!
NewXbo

Maybe the college doesn't offer enough majors, or offer majors that are not attractive to athletes of various sports. LU offers supply chain management, education, etc.  Per LVL today, supply chain management has a median salary of $100,000+.
flyfisher

BPard wrote:
flyfisher wrote:
Some things are more clear to me now. We have 2000 students. We need to grow to some degree. It would s hard to grow in STEM majors with so few students.
You're off by over 20% on the size of the College.

It's a lot easier to get to 3,000 when you're already at 2,500 than if you're actually starting at 2,000.


Well hell, flog me. That makes a difference. That changes everything
SIDELINER

Isn't it time to update the dashboard on this site? Get that one football league WIN added in there -- and maybe some other positive results, too.
PardDad71

Competitive in the PL

Lafalum wrote:
A guarantee would be to have prominent alumni ( non BOT) on the committee who would go nuts publicly if Div 3 were considered or dropping football. ( I do not believe that dropping football or div 3  on the table).


Dropping to DIII would be a disaster.   Alumuni would give less, and you would discover switching to DIII athletics would not mean winning.  

To be more competitive, my 2 cents is you need to grow the College.   Someone accurately pointed out doing that in STEM majors is hard.   Someone else mentioned adding courses of study, and I agree with that.

Other PL schools enroll players who are not academic fits for STEM majors.  I am not saying they are not intelligent kids, but this expands the talent pool you can recruit from
flyfisher

Re: Competitive in the PL

PardDad71 wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
A guarantee would be to have prominent alumni ( non BOT) on the committee who would go nuts publicly if Div 3 were considered or dropping football. ( I do not believe that dropping football or div 3  on the table).


Dropping to DIII would be a disaster.   Alumuni would give less, and you would discover switching to DIII athletics would not mean winning.  

To be more competitive, my 2 cents is you need to grow the College.   Someone accurately pointed out doing that in STEM majors is hard.   Someone else mentioned adding courses of study, and I agree with that.

Other PL schools enroll players who are not academic fits for STEM majors.  I am not saying they are not intelligent kids, but this expands the talent pool you can recruit from


I really don't think dropping to D3 is an option. At least not right now.

We do have to consider majors for athletes. My son is in engineering. They Started with 7 in his class and are now down to 2. Junior class down to 3. A recent player was asked by the staff to get out of engineering due to him playing a big role on the football team. You can major in engineering and play football but it's tough to give 100% to both. Tough to keep weight on when averaging 3-4 hours of sleep a night.

Not saying we need to offer criminal justice majors but need to continue to offer choices.

And to get on my soapbox for a minute, I still think we should offer a business major. I understand why we don't. There are many Wall Street firms that do not actively recruit at LC due to this. Doesn't mean you can get hired, just have to use other avenues. And this comes straight from those recruiters.
BPard

Econ dept used to be business and economics. Faculty voted to strip the business out. Business as a major is a non starter with the faculty unfortunately.

Not sure we need to add new courses of study except possibly education.

What other new majors  or departments would be worth adding?
Franks Tanks

We offer a finance track in the department that prepares students well for Wall Street jobs.  Many of my friends make crazy money with an undergrad Econ degree from Lafayette and nothing else. A general business major is not very valuable anyway, as employers like quantative majors like Econ, Finance and accounting.  I do think we should offer more descriptive majors, but our grads aren't losing out cause their degree doesn't say Business Management.

Also think you are being overly dramatic on the engineering piece.  Many of my athlete friends were engineering majors.  Yes, they worked hard and had some late nights now and then, but they had enough free time to socialize as much as the rest of us.  

As for new magots I agree the often suggested education major would be a positive on several fronts.  We are not the type of school that is equipped or accustomed to offering majors like nursing or PT do we shouldn't, and given this not sure what other majors would be beneficial at this point.
PardDad71

majors

BPard wrote:
Econ dept used to be business and economics. Faculty voted to strip the business out. Business as a major is a non starter with the faculty unfortunately.

Not sure we need to add new courses of study except possibly education.

What other new majors  or departments would be worth adding?



Ideally you want to focus on areas of higher potential employment.   Education definitely fits,   I think adding a discipline/major in Marketing/Sales/PR (encompassing the usual "Communications" major) while not popular with the elitists, makes sense; Hospitality management could be stand alone or part of Econ, and either as a subset to pre-law, or chem something related to the Healthcare/Pharmaceutical industries    Probably also as a subset to one of the quantitative majors would be  Logistics.
ed65

Re: majors

PardDad71 wrote:
BPard wrote:
Econ dept used to be business and economics. Faculty voted to strip the business out. Business as a major is a non starter with the faculty unfortunately.

Not sure we need to add new courses of study except possibly education.

What other new majors  or departments would be worth adding?



Ideally you want to focus on areas of higher potential employment.   Education definitely fits,   I think adding a discipline/major in Marketing/Sales/PR (encompassing the usual "Communications" major) while not popular with the elitists, makes sense; Hospitality management could be stand alone or part of Econ, and either as a subset to pre-law, or chem something related to the Healthcare/Pharmaceutical industries    Probably also as a subset to one of the quantitative majors would be  Logistics.


Good thinking by Pard Dad.  All of these concentrations should be discussed although it would involve dealing with the academics who do not necessarily think in practical terms!
Lafalum

Education is a win/win. By placing our grads in high schools, we will inspire young students to apply to our school. I see it all the time in our local schools.
WVPard

All - Education sounds great, but will the Faculty go for it?  Also, would a teaching career support the potential student loan debt?

Not being critical, I just don't know the answers and am thinking out loud.  

I can only provide one point of reference - my brother was an instructor at Tulane, after working his way up from UNO [where he obtained a MFA, not Phd or EDD], then Xavier (NO) and Loyola (NO), [I can't remember the order], after obtaining really good teaching reviews throughout, maxed out at about $50,000.  He has over $110,000 in student loans and is now doing something else.

I know that some of the wealthy school districts in PA pay their teachers really well and principals even better; but, other than full scholarship recipients can a kid afford to teach with a LC degree and potential debt load?  I certainly agree that this country would be heading in the right direction if LC men and women would be influencing and educating our youth.  

Having wondered all that - I am all for expanding majors, and really wished that there were more choices when I was there in the late 80's/early 90's.  Really, like everyone here, I would support anything that would make the school more successful in all aspects...including, but not limited to, athletics.

Circling my ramblings back to football - I remember Heff telling me that he lost a kid to Penn that he couldn't get into LC.  He was really pissed about losing that kid.  Would admissions soften some requirements if we expanded our base of majors?  If not, would any of this help getting more good athletes?

Again - I don't really know, and am truly wondering.  I have been convinced to become hopeful that the upcoming study signals a commitment to athletic competitiveness; hopefully the expansion discussed in this forum will be on the table.
Franks Tanks

I think Bucknell does a nice job offering real world majors in a liberal arts context.  We do as well, but some tweaking is necessary.

Bucknell has a school of management which offers majors in areas like global management and financial management.  This and education is really the largest offerings that wd don't have.
WVPard

Those majors would be cool.

BTW - I do have to stop and look at the Kabuki masks every visit to this page.  The thought of Frank and the staff wearing them on the sidelines cracks me up.  But, so did Beavis and Butthead back in the day.
Bogus Megapardus

Lots of unemployed "consultants" available now that the election is over.  All those "studies" were *so* accurate, weren't they?
bethlehempard

About the business major:
I have been around high school kids for much of the last 20 years (nephews, nieces, sons and their friends) and I have heard, verbatim, this:

"Mr. Bethlehempard, I'm taking Lafayette off my list because it doesn't have a business program."

Almost verbatim.

I explain that Lafayette provides good preparation for a business career and that many people enter the business world with different degrees. I can cite accountants, bond traders and consultants who went to Lafayette.
I've known a few civil engineers who went into finance, Jamie Dimon was a philosophy major, Mitt Romney studied English and Lloyd Blankfein studied history.

Engineers. Don't forget the line from the overlooked gem of a film, "Margin Call":

"Frankly sir, the mathematics are all the same and the pay is a lot better here (at a bank)."

Like anything else, it's easier not to have to explain or defend.  Just add the damn word and a core curriculum.

We keep touting proximity to New York. Alright then, have a business degree.

As for the consultant, the more specific the task is, the better they do in general. When I recall trouble with consultants it's usually because we chose badly.
I expect the study to wallow in benchmarks because they're easy to generate and explain. That and organizational structure. Both can be reduced to charts and numbers.
PardDad71

When do we hear what THE STUDY concluded?   I am too lazy to look it up
SIDELINER

PardDad71 wrote:
When do we hear what THE STUDY concluded?   I am too lazy to look it up


When it was begun, they were saying the report would come out in April, so if they are on schedule, we should see something soon. I very much doubt if the results are going to make anyone who cares about a strong athletics program happy.
PardDad71

I'm the eternal optimist.  A positive change with the Football program.   A change with womens bball - TBD good bad or indifferent as coach certainly had the reputation, but was not producing the results.

So I've got the wait and see approach.   To me if there is no change to the structure and management at the top of the Athletics Dept then my optimism will be somewhat dampened
carney2

PardDad71 wrote:
When do we hear what THE STUDY concluded?   I am too lazy to look it up


Where is it written that this will become public knowledge?
PardDad71

When you announce you are hiring an outside firm to the alumni/public, I would assume you understand not sharing at least a synopsis of the results would be very counterproductive
seenalot

Somewhat new to this flea circus huh.  Those of us who have suffered a bit longer know the counterproductive, strange and wonderful ways of our alma mater.  I share your hope, just not convinced that we are that transparent in athletics.   Happy to be surprised.
Lafalum

seenalot wrote:
Somewhat new to this flea circus huh.  Those of us who have suffered a bit longer know the counterproductive, strange and wonderful ways of our alma mater.  I share your hope, just not convinced that we are that transparent in athletics.   Happy to be surprised.


I totally agree. This is now in Byerly's hands.... period.... full stop. Any failure to act is on her!!

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