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
ed65

Spring Sports Records

Men:

Baseball 14-27-1; PL 9-11; PL Tournament 4th seed
Golf         3rd in PL Tournament
Mens Lax  4-10 PL; PL 1-7
Mens Tennis  7-12; PL 1-7
Mens T&F      6th of 9 in PL

Women:

Womens Lax  4-13; PL 2-6
Softball          4-37; PL 1-17 - LU won PL Championship
Womens Tennis  4-12; PL 1-6
Womens T&F   7th of 10 in PL

The records speak for themselves.  If anyone wonders why so many on the board are discouraged about the overall LC Athletic Program, please see this.
flyfisher

Re: Spring Sports Records

ed65 wrote:
Men:

Baseball 14-27-1; PL 9-11; PL Tournament 4th seed
Golf         3rd in PL Tournament
Mens Lax  4-10 PL; PL 1-7
Mens Tennis  7-12; PL 1-7
Mens T&F      6th of 9 in PL

Women:

Womens Lax  4-13; PL 2-6
Softball          4-37; PL 1-17 - LU won PL Championship
Womens Tennis  4-12; PL 1-6
Womens T&F   7th of 10 in PL

I understand everyone's frustrations. I do think I understand the objectives the Board has for athletics at LC.


The records speak for themselves.  If anyone wonders why so many on the board are discouraged about the overall LC Athletic Program, please see this.
ed65

Fly:  I would very much like to hear the Board's Objectives for Athletics.  My guess it is to have as much losing as possible so LC will move to D-3.  To be fair, not all Trustees feel that way, of course, but several probably do.
SixtyEighter

With records like tose we probably are DIII in competitive levels.Lehigh softball is in the NCAA playoffs and their baseball team is playing Navy for the baseball championship.(See today's Morning Call.) Not that it's Lehigh but they are a standard of comparison.Lafayette lacks the committment to athletic success and has at least since the 50's accredtation scare.
carney2

ed65 wrote:
Fly:  I would very much like to hear the Board's Objectives for Athletics.  My guess it is to have as much losing as possible so LC will move to D-3.  To be fair, not all Trustees feel that way, of course, but several probably do.


I'm sure that your comment is meant as sarcasm, but in case someone didn't take it that way, it is truly not possible that any one, or any group, on the BoT has an objective of losing as much as possible so LC will move to D-3.  Best bet is that many (most) on the Board if asked "What do you think of Lafayette athletics?" would respond "I don't."  Which is to say that athletics is in no way a priority in their actions or their thinking as members of that august body.

If they had objectives regarding athletics, they might be phrased something like this:

Control expenditures.

Athletics should have only limited control over any revenues they produce.  (As in "Whatever happened to Lafayette's cut from No. 150 at Yankee Stadium?")

At no time should it appear that athletics is a priority at Lafayette.  (If you choose to translate that as the old "win, but don't win too much" edict that was supposedly given to Bill Russo, you probably wouldn't be far off base.)

No area of the College should ever have a legitimate complaint that they have taken a back seat to athletics.  This is particularly true of academic departments and faculty activities.

Athletics are not part of the College's mission statement and the tail should never wag the dog.

It's not a conspiracy.  It's a way of thinking and an attitude.  Since the BoT pretty much births its own in secret proceedings, you can rest assured that nothing will be changing in the foreseeable future.  Opposing viewpoints will neither be aired nor tolerated.  They certainly won't be solicited.
Bogus Megapardus

As Dan Weiss himself said, there is "zero chance" of Lafayette dropping Division I sports.  It just isn't going to happen.
flyfisher

Hard for me to say this but Carney is right.

The article on the school athletic website says it all....The Real Deal is the name of the article. LC takes great pride not just in having true student athletes but they want the very best students who every now and catch lightning in a bottle and win a championship. Look at the articles on n the kids. We celebrate, as we should, great students, GPA's, scholarships after undergrad. LC places more academic athletes on post season recognition teams. Our graduation rates are tops in the country. All these things are very important, probably the most important. However winning does not appear to be a priority.If it wasn't for the Friends of each sport it would be worse.

It's a wonderful college. It has everything...academics, facilities, beautiful campus, great reputation, strong alumni base, lucky to be a part of it. It just doesn't have winning as a priority. Some here complain about the AD. I could make a case he does a great job with what he has to work with.
Lafalum

flyfisher wrote:
Hard for me to say this but Carney is right.

The article on the school athletic website says it all....The Real Deal is the name of the article. LC takes great pride not just in having true student athletes but they want the very best students who every now and catch lightning in a bottle and win a championship. Look at the articles on n the kids. We celebrate, as we should, great students, GPA's, scholarships after undergrad. LC places more academic athletes on post season recognition teams. Our graduation rates are tops in the country. All these things are very important, probably the most important. However winning does not appear to be a priority.If it wasn't for the Friends of each sport it would be worse.

It's a wonderful college. It has everything...academics, facilities, beautiful campus, great reputation, strong alumni base, lucky to be a part of it. It just doesn't have winning as a priority. Some here complain about the AD. I could make a case he does a great job with what he has to work with.


A "great" job???
flyfisher

Ok, maybe just a good job. When you look at lack the lack of support he gets his performance doesn't look so bad. While I don't know the selection criteria, a year or so ago he won a national award as best AD in the country.
pardfan

Just yesterday uncovered an old parents organization newsletter from June 1968.  Entitled "For Parents Only," it discussed the spring Parents Weekend and followed that with this observation:

"Spring Sports Show Well

Lafayette's spring varsity teams achieved a notable combined record of 38 wins and 25 losses, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL OVERALL RECORD SINCE 1962
[my capital letters].
              Baseball     15-7
              Tennis        10-1
              Track           5-1
              Golf             5-7
              Lacrosse      3-9

The records in tennis and track were the best achieved by these teams in 6 and 13 years respectively..."

Point:  Winning is not the normal state of affairs at the College.  It's nice when it happens but.....Way too many coaches on campus with losing career records points to our present situation.  Seems things weren't much better fifty years ago.

"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
Lafalum

Bogus Megapardus wrote:
As Dan Weiss himself said, there is "zero chance" of Lafayette dropping Division I sports.  It just isn't going to happen.


That was after he told the school newspaper that Lafayette has to decide whether Div 1 and scholarships is in the best interest of the school. With Dan you never knew what his stance was by direct comments. It depends on who he was talking to.
Bogus Megapardus

pardfan wrote:
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."


Such a terrific song, I can't resist posting this - Here's Bob Dylan (who wrote the tune), Roger McGuinn (who played it best with the Byrds), Tom Petty, Neil Young, Eric Clapton and George Harrison performing "My Back Pages" live.  You might notice G.E. Smith in there in there as well, to the right of McGuinn and behind Harrison. Pure greatness (almost as good as "The Cyrkle"):

http://www.theguardian.com/music/...es-30th-anniversary-concert-video


EDIT - Looking at that video again, it now looks to me like Donald "Duck" Dunn is on bass, Steve Cropper is on guitar (right behind Tom Petty) and Al Kooper is off to the left playing the B3.  That's an incredible collection of talent.  Wonder of any of them play lacrosse?  Rolling Eyes

ALSO - note to Dan Weiss:  if classic rock had divisions, these guys would be DI.
leopard88

Bogus Megapardus wrote:
pardfan wrote:
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."


Such a terrific song, I can't resist posting this - Here's Bob Dylan (who wrote the tune), Roger McGuinn (who played it best with the Byrds), Tom Petty, Neil Young, Eric Clapton and George Harrison performing "My Back Pages" live.  You might notice G.E. Smith in there in there as well, to the right of McGuinn and behind Harrison. Pure greatness (almost as good as "The Cyrkle"):

http://www.theguardian.com/music/...es-30th-anniversary-concert-video


EDIT - Looking at that video again, it now looks to me like Donald "Duck" Dunn is on bass, Steve Cropper is on guitar (right behind Tom Petty) and Al Kooper is off to the left playing the B3.  That's an incredible collection of talent.  Wonder of any of them play lacrosse?  Rolling Eyes

ALSO - note to Dan Weiss:  if classic rock had divisions, these guys would be DI.


Neil Young is Canadian, so he probably plays lacrosse.
Bogus Megapardus

leopard88 wrote:
Neil Young is Canadian, so he probably plays lacrosse.


Robbie Robertson (of The Band) is both Canadian and Native American (Mohawk/Six Nations Reservation).  Those guys play as a separate country in international lacrosse.

Here's my photoshop impression of Robbie Robertson, ready for action:




So . . . Neil Young vs. Robbie Robertson as FOGOs - who wins possession?





pardfan

Bogus Megapardus wrote:
pardfan wrote:
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."


Such a terrific song, I can't resist posting this - Here's Bob Dylan (who wrote the tune), Roger McGuinn (who played it best with the Byrds), Tom Petty, Neil Young, Eric Clapton and George Harrison performing "My Back Pages" live.  You might notice G.E. Smith in there in there as well, to the right of McGuinn and behind Harrison. Pure greatness (almost as good as "The Cyrkle"):

http://www.theguardian.com/music/...es-30th-anniversary-concert-video


EDIT - Looking at that video again, it now looks to me like Donald "Duck" Dunn is on bass, Steve Cropper is on guitar (right behind Tom Petty) and Al Kooper is off to the left playing the B3.  That's an incredible collection of talent.  Wonder of any of them play lacrosse?  Rolling Eyes

ALSO - note to Dan Weiss:  if classic rock had divisions, these guys would be DI.


Thanks for posting the anniversary concert video.  Can't wait to play it again.
leopard88

Bogus Megapardus wrote:
leopard88 wrote:
Neil Young is Canadian, so he probably plays lacrosse.


Robbie Robertson (of The Band) is both Canadian and Native American (Mohawk/Six Nations Reservation).  Those guys play as a separate country in international lacrosse.

Here's my photoshop impression of Robbie Robertson, ready for action:




So . . . Neil Young vs. Robbie Robertson as FOGOs - who wins possession?







Neil seems pretty crafty, so I see him being the better FOGO.  On the other hand, I think Robbie would be better in the run of play.
bethlehempard

Steve Cohen noted:

http://baseballnews.com/louisvill...er-freshmen-all-americans-6-2-15/

I read Neil Young's autobiography and it didn't mention lacrosse unfortunately. I preferred the books by Keith Richards and Eric Clapton, but Young's was worth reading. Richards's was the best despite some gratuitous shots at Jagger and his "tiny dodger."
For fans of the genre, I recommend the late Cynthia Lennon's "John" for a look at the Beatles as they became famous. An overlooked little gem and a fair view of Yoko, for those old enough to remember the woman who brought the world so much vile art and helped bring down the band.
flyfisher

Recently i learned some factual things on our athletic department.

When i comes to lacrosse we have 1 (one) scholarship compared to Loyola at a full squad of 12.

Lehigh and Bucknell raised over 2.0 mil this year. Lafayette sitting around 1.6 mil. Of which about 550k has to come from the Maroon Club.

WE have not had a budget increase for football in years. Money has to be raised outside the College budget

Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.

As suspected, Fordham does have a little more flexibility in football recruiting when it comes to academics. Helps explain the amount of transfers. Plus they have the full squad and have had for a few years now.

There is more to the money side however financially we are playing with one arm behind our back with several (not all) teams.

One thing I found amazing is that Frank has not had a budget increase from the school since his arrival. This doesnt mean scholarships. Money required to support the program, recruiting budget etc. Most of the funds get nad eup from Maroon club and others.
Pardsfriend

Athletic budget

One correction.  In men's lacrosse, we have two scholarships to date, with a third scheduled for the incoming 2015-16 freshmen class.

 The NCAA limit for men's lax is 12.6 per program.
bison137

flyfisher wrote:


Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.




If you count the incoming freshmen, Bucknell is well under 138 equivalencies.   About 42 in football, about 42 in women's sports, 13 in men's basketball, 13 in women's basketball.     Colgate and Lehigh may have close to 200, and Boston U is no doubt higher than that.
BillS

bison137 wrote:
flyfisher wrote:


Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.




If you count the incoming freshmen, Bucknell is well under 138 equivalencies.   About 42 in football, about 42 in women's sports, 13 in men's basketball, 13 in women's basketball.     Colgate and Lehigh may have close to 200, and Boston U is no doubt higher than that.
I thought the rule was 58.5 equivalencies in football to play an FBS opponent? This is really confusing because Bucknell plays an FBS opponent next season.
bison137

BillS wrote:
bison137 wrote:
flyfisher wrote:


Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.




If you count the incoming freshmen, Bucknell is well under 138 equivalencies.   About 42 in football, about 42 in women's sports, 13 in men's basketball, 13 in women's basketball.    Colgate and Lehigh may have close to 200, and Boston U is no doubt higher than that.
I thought the rule was 58.5 equivalencies in football to play an FBS opponent? This is really confusing because Bucknell plays an FBS opponent next season.



In my original post, I tried to be apples-to-apples with the number Flyfisher is quoting.  If you count need-based aid given for athletic purposes, then the Bucknell number is higher, as is the LC number - but not nearly as high as LU, CU, or Boston U.    My number was only referring to athletes receiving athletic scholarship money.     On the male side, Bucknell effectively only has athletic scholarships in two sports:  football and basketball.   On the women's side, there are more sports involved due to the need to offset football scholarships.

In any event, there is no equivalency requirement to play an FBS team.   However it requires 56.67 equivalencies (90% of 63) for the game to count towards qualifying an FBS team for a bowl game.   But equivalencies are different than scholarships.   A number of PL teams met the 56.67 threshold when they had no scholarships.  In any event, I don't think Bucknell will have 56.67 this coming year no matter  how you count.   Will be in the 52-54 range if you include the seniors receiving athletic need-based aid.
BillS

bison137 wrote:
BillS wrote:
bison137 wrote:
flyfisher wrote:


Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.




If you count the incoming freshmen, Bucknell is well under 138 equivalencies.   About 42 in football, about 42 in women's sports, 13 in men's basketball, 13 in women's basketball.    Colgate and Lehigh may have close to 200, and Boston U is no doubt higher than that.
I thought the rule was 58.5 equivalencies in football to play an FBS opponent? This is really confusing because Bucknell plays an FBS opponent next season.



In my original post, I tried to be apples-to-apples with the number Flyfisher is quoting.  If you count need-based aid given for athletic purposes, then the Bucknell number is higher, as is the LC number - but not nearly as high as LU, CU, or Boston U.    My number was only referring to athletes receiving athletic scholarship money.     On the male side, Bucknell effectively only has athletic scholarships in two sports:  football and basketball.   On the women's side, there are more sports involved due to the need to offset football scholarships.

In any event, there is no equivalency requirement to play an FBS team.   However it requires 56.67 equivalencies (90% of 63) for the game to count towards qualifying an FBS team for a bowl game.   But equivalencies are different than scholarships.   A number of PL teams met the 56.67 threshold when they had no scholarships.  In any event, I don't think Bucknell will have 56.67 this coming year no matter  how you count.   Will be in the 52-54 range if you include the seniors receiving athletic need-based aid.
Thanks !
flyfisher

bison137 wrote:
BillS wrote:
bison137 wrote:
flyfisher wrote:


Lafayette has about 138 scholarship athletes vs approx 200 for our traditional PL rivals.




If you count the incoming freshmen, Bucknell is well under 138 equivalencies.   About 42 in football, about 42 in women's sports, 13 in men's basketball, 13 in women's basketball.    Colgate and Lehigh may have close to 200, and Boston U is no doubt higher than that.
I thought the rule was 58.5 equivalencies in football to play an FBS opponent? This is really confusing because Bucknell plays an FBS opponent next season.



In my original post, I tried to be apples-to-apples with the number Flyfisher is quoting.  If you count need-based aid given for athletic purposes, then the Bucknell number is higher, as is the LC number - but not nearly as high as LU, CU, or Boston U.    My number was only referring to athletes receiving athletic scholarship money.     On the male side, Bucknell effectively only has athletic scholarships in two sports:  football and basketball.   On the women's side, there are more sports involved due to the need to offset football scholarships.

In any event, there is no equivalency requirement to play an FBS team.   However it requires 56.67 equivalencies (90% of 63) for the game to count towards qualifying an FBS team for a bowl game.   But equivalencies are different than scholarships.   A number of PL teams met the 56.67 threshold when they had no scholarships.  In any event, I don't think Bucknell will have 56.67 this coming year no matter  how you count.   Will be in the 52-54 range if you include the seniors receiving athletic need-based aid.


This part about the BU, CU, and LU is what i was referiing, as well as some other schools in some sports. Like comparing us to Loyola in lacrosse.

       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