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
bethlehempard

Time for Change

As was posted elsewhere:

In year three of the scholarship football era, Lafayette is by far the worst team in a weak league and 235 of 253 in Sagarin ratings.
Thanks to Davidson, Valpo and several tiny southern schools who are beneath us.
Lafayette sports in general have failed in the scholarship era but football is supposed to be the marquee program.
It's time for change. Change with gratitude and respect but
IT'S TIME!!!!

Other teams take hits and move on. Lehigh is getting better with a freshman QB and RB. Lafayette finds new reasons and ways to fail.
The effort is there, as far as I can tell. The pride is there.
We need a win, today or in two weeks, to avoid 1-10. The best result left is 3-8.

Lafayette needs a change.
Kpard

Re: Time for Change

bethlehempard wrote:
As was posted elsewhere:

In year three of the scholarship football era, Lafayette is by far the worst team in a weak league and 235 of 253 in Sagarin ratings.
Thanks to Davidson, Valpo and several tiny southern schools who are beneath us.
Lafayette sports in general have failed in the scholarship era but football is supposed to be the marquee program.
It's time for change. Change with gratitude and respect but
IT'S TIME!!!!

Other teams take hits and move on. Lehigh is getting better with a freshman QB and RB. Lafayette finds new reasons and ways to fail.
The effort is there, as far as I can tell. The pride is there.
We need a win, today or in two weeks, to avoid 1-10. The best result left is 3-8.

Lafayette needs a change.


It will be 1-10. Get ready for it.
Kpard

Re: Time for Change

Kpard wrote:
bethlehempard wrote:
As was posted elsewhere:

In year three of the scholarship football era, Lafayette is by far the worst team in a weak league and 235 of 253 in Sagarin ratings.
Thanks to Davidson, Valpo and several tiny southern schools who are beneath us.
Lafayette sports in general have failed in the scholarship era but football is supposed to be the marquee program.
It's time for change. Change with gratitude and respect but
IT'S TIME!!!!

Other teams take hits and move on. Lehigh is getting better with a freshman QB and RB. Lafayette finds new reasons and ways to fail.
The effort is there, as far as I can tell. The pride is there.
We need a win, today or in two weeks, to avoid 1-10. The best result left is 3-8.

Lafayette needs a change.


It will be 1-10. Get ready for it.


And yes I agree. At the very least we need a change on offense. We either do not have the right scheme or players with the right skill set. We are very easy to defend. I know we had a lot of injuries, but, I don't think it matters. We need a better scheme.
bethlehempard

A couple posters made some very thoughtful comments on this issue in the game thread.
Odd little fact: Lafayette has had nine football head coaches since World War 2. Only three -- Russo, Gamble and Williamson -- had winning records. I'm excluding Mylin who coached a final year in 1946 after his earlier stint.
1-10. That would be the worst year since 1964, 0-7.
Even the years around the time of The Study were never under two wins.
This is sad. Six years and no real reason for optimism about next year.
Jpao92

The simple fact of the matter is that the College could care the less about athletics.  The powers that be are far too good to worry about what they see as barbaric, dumb jocks.  They are busy patting each other on the back and planning the next big building project in a flood zone.  

Athletics are so nothing, unless of course you need to hype the hell out of the 150th game of that rivalry thingy so that you can sell merchandise and use the 150th rivalry thingy to kick off your next capital campaign.   Then, athletics are the most important thing in the world.
bethlehempard

I admire our announcing crew's ability to be straight but not be negative.
John Leone for example. You could water-board him for hours and he wouldn't say anything bad about the college.
In case I skip the Lehigh game I hope our regular crew has the assignment. It's hard to lose to the Brown and then live among them.
flyfisher

Jpao92 wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is that the College could care the less about athletics.  The powers that be are far too good to worry about what they see as barbaric, dumb jocks.  They are busy patting each other on the back and planning the next big building project in a flood zone.  

Athletics are so notwhing, unless of course you need to hype the hell out of the 150th game of that rivalry thingy so that you can sell merchandise and use the 150th rivalry thingy to kick off your next capital campaign.   Then, athletics are the most important thing in the world.


Bingo. The boys know what the school thinks of them. How many colleges schedule a fair and games on the Quad during the first half of a home football game? There are two kinds of kids at LC. Athletes and NARK'S...non athletic regular kids.

More importantly, many of the kids know some of the budget numbers. They see the frozen budgets. Finally the school has realized they have to replace the turf. I guess all the injuries and the field being well past its life finally registered. It's over due. They'll probably try to figure out a way to make the Maroon Club pay for it or Jack Bourger. Less money the school has to shell out.
Pards Rule

bethlehempard wrote:
A couple posters made some very thoughtful comments on this issue in the game thread.
Odd little fact: Lafayette has had nine football head coaches since World War 2. Only three -- Russo, Gamble and Williamson -- had winning records. I'm excluding Mylin who coached a final year in 1946 after his earlier stint.
1-10. That would be the worst year since 1964, 0-7.
Even the years around the time of The Study were never under two wins.
This is sad. Six years and no real reason for optimism about next year.


1964 I found out was 0-7-2, including a 3-3 tie in #100. 1963 team had one win.
SixtyEighter

I would predict no changes unless Frank fires some assistants or "retires" due to health issues.The biggest problem is recruiting. Our players are just not as good as our opponents'.We don't have a thousand yard back. Both of our lines are inadequate.Our defensive backfield is continuously breaking down.The QB play has been totally inconsistent.Even our best players make continuous mental errors. We seem slower than the opponents.On top of all that I don't think Byerly has the inclination to  manage a Division 1 Athletic Department and her predecessor considered the athletic department an unwanted stepchild.The entire athletic department is a pathetic mess.I also think there is a root problem with the trainers and the strength coach. No other school has such a plethora of injuries year in and year out.It also seems that  the football team is consistently outhit.But that is an empirical observation. One of the things I have been railing about is the school's culture of accepting losing sports teams.It's extremely disturbing.There is a strange inconsistency in spending millions on facilities and scholarships but cutting corners on supporting the teams.
Lafalum

SixtyEighter wrote:
I would predict no changes unless Frank fires some assistants or "retires" due to health issues.The biggest problem is recruiting. Our players are just not as good as our opponents'.We don't have a thousand yard back. Both of our lines are inadequate.Our defensive backfield is continuously breaking down.The QB play has been totally inconsistent.Even our best players make continuous mental errors. We seem slower than the opponents.On top of all that I don't think Byerly has the inclination to  manage a Division 1 Athletic Department and her predecessor considered the athletic department an unwanted stepchild.The entire athletic department is a pathetic mess.I also think there is a root problem with the trainers and the strength coach. No other school has such a plethora of injuries year in and year out.It also seems that  the football team is consistently outhit.But that is an empirical observation. One of the things I have been railing about is the school's culture of accepting losing sports teams.It's extremely disturbing.There is a strange inconsistency in spending millions on facilities and scholarships but cutting corners on supporting the teams.


Spot on sixtyeighter….you are the first one to mention the training and strength area. I agree we can easily spend 18 million for the 10 majors in film studies and their  facilities and struggle with expenditures like turf replacement that goes to health and safety of 85 football players. Much of this may have to do with the incompetent level of advocacy for all of athletics.
To have a competing event on the quad while a football game is going on is bush. The school newspaper sports coverage ( and most coverage from the Lafayette) is woeful.
Andy

SixtyEighter wrote:
I would predict no changes unless Frank fires some assistants or "retires" due to health issues.The biggest problem is recruiting. Our players are just not as good as our opponents'.We don't have a thousand yard back. Both of our lines are inadequate.Our defensive backfield is continuously breaking down.The QB play has been totally inconsistent.Even our best players make continuous mental errors. We seem slower than the opponents.On top of all that I don't think Byerly has the inclination to  manage a Division 1 Athletic Department and her predecessor considered the athletic department an unwanted stepchild.The entire athletic department is a pathetic mess.I also think there is a root problem with the trainers and the strength coach. No other school has such a plethora of injuries year in and year out.It also seems that  the football team is consistently outhit.But that is an empirical observation. One of the things I have been railing about is the school's culture of accepting losing sports teams.It's extremely disturbing.There is a strange inconsistency in spending millions on facilities and scholarships but cutting corners on supporting the teams.


That last sentence, 68,a succinct summation of the paradox at Alma mater.

Some thoughts on some of your other comments:

Overall our players are right there with the rest of the league with the exception IMO of OL and maybe in mobility of interior DL. We were tied with BU in having 6 on the  PL preseason all league team.

Frank's post game hugs w/ opposing coaches and other more direct evidence has me believing this is Frank's swan song.

Continues to surprise me how the negativists refuse to recognize the 2013 championship. I assure you the Gate fans will celebrate their championship should they win out despite a 1-4 OOC record.
Pard4Life

Maybe we should take a look at how we practice... are we more intense than other teams during the week?  The Ivy teams don't even hit each other.
SixtyEighter

The 2013 championship was great - lightning caught in a bottle- but in context we lost 6 games that year and 6 more last year and 9 more so far this year.And what happened against New Hampshire ? In three previous play off appearances we weren't demolished like wewere by New Hampshire and were competitive in two out of the three.
Andy

SixtyEighter wrote:
The 2013 championship was great - lightning caught in a bottle- but in context we lost 6 games that year and 6 more last year and 9 more so far this year.And what happened against New Hampshire ? In three previous play off appearances we weren't demolished like wewere by New Hampshire and were competitive in two out of the three.


One can focus on OOC losses or the most league wins over the last 2 years than any team other than scholarship FU.
Lafalum

Andy wrote:
SixtyEighter wrote:
The 2013 championship was great - lightning caught in a bottle- but in context we lost 6 games that year and 6 more last year and 9 more so far this year.And what happened against New Hampshire ? In three previous play off appearances we weren't demolished like wewere by New Hampshire and were competitive in two out of the three.


One can focus on OOC losses or the most league wins over the last 2 years than any team other than scholarship FU.


I hate to repeat myself but the environment all our coaches work in does not encourage, inspire, or support winning. I don't care if its field hockey, football, soccer or basketball. We seem to do anything we can to kill success and certainly not promote a winning culture. It has been done again and again either through the budget, scholarship policy ( and it is still an ongoing struggle), or keeping good head coaches or assistant coaches.  They ask for more and more money as they divert other monies for other purposes.

If there was no money coming in from donors we would be division 3 today. I don't have an answer that doesn't end up turning over 30 or 40 years of flawed leadership starting at the top levels of the BOT. I am frustrated!!

We could be a better school with more inspiring leadership at that level.
Andy

Lafalum wrote:
I hate to repeat myself but the environment all our coaches work in does not encourage, inspire, or support winning. I don't care if its field hockey, football, soccer or basketball. We seem to do anything we can to kill success and certainly not promote a winning culture. It has been done again and again either through the budget, scholarship policy ( and it is still an ongoing struggle), or keeping good head coaches or assistant coaches.  They ask for more and more money as they divert other monies for other purposes.


No doubt fans are grateful for your exposure of the destructive policies of our administration over the years, lafalum, as you describe above. It also points out the catch-22 that this board has become. A site to criticize overall policy and coaches in particular while concurrently trying to celebrate and support the teams. The change being called for in this thread is football coaching staff change, not administratiion change. I read your paragraph and marvel at a staff who while working under the conditions you describe has somehow managed 4 championships and yet is villified and called "garbage."  

If you were a recruit with options reading your paragraph (and, of course, any interested athlete will find this board) would you still choose LC? In a sense we perpetuate the problems.

Lafalum, what do you want us to do? You have our respect. How can we help? Withhold donations? You say they'll go D-3.  Is this forum the best place to wage war aginst the administration?  Most of us understand the problems. What do you want us to do? Lead, we'll follow. Let's get on with it.
edge29

Andy wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
I hate to repeat myself but the environment all our coaches work in does not encourage, inspire, or support winning. I don't care if its field hockey, football, soccer or basketball. We seem to do anything we can to kill success and certainly not promote a winning culture. It has been done again and again either through the budget, scholarship policy ( and it is still an ongoing struggle), or keeping good head coaches or assistant coaches.  They ask for more and more money as they divert other monies for other purposes.


No doubt fans are grateful for your exposure of the destructive policies of our administration over the years, lafalum, as you describe above. It also points out the catch-22 that this board has become. A site to criticize overall policy and coaches in particular while concurrently trying to celebrate and support the teams. The change being called for in this thread is football coaching staff change, not administratiion change. I read your paragraph and marvel at a staff who while working under the conditions you describe has somehow managed 4 championships and yet is villified and called "garbage."  

If you were a recruit with options reading your paragraph (and, of course, any interested athlete will find this board) would you still choose LC? In a sense we perpetuate the problems.

Lafalum, what do you want us to do? You have our respect. How can we help? Withhold donations? You say they'll go D-3.  Is this forum the best place to wage war aginst the administration?  Most of us understand the problems. What do you want us to do? Lead, we'll follow. Let's get on with it.


Well said Andy.  We can b***h and complain about coaches, players, scheme, etc., but the only way we can affect REAL change is at the very top.  How do we do this?  Football alumni have be the largest contingency of LC Alums yet we can't lobby for additional resources to support the program?  It's a head scratcher.  Friends of Football is great but doesn't seem to have any influence.  Is it an issue of FOLF not asking/pushing the admin and trustees for more $$ or something else?
BPard

Quote:
One can focus on OOC losses or the most league wins over the last 2 years than any team other than scholarship FU.
2 years is an arbitrary point. As I pointed out here, football under Tavani is actually the only program that has succeeded according to the Athletic Department's success criteria (every student-athlete has chance to win a PL championship). Note: IMO, looking a record under a head coach is not arbitrary like your 2 year snapshot.

RE: Funding, remember that money is fungible. While I haven't talked with any coaches or the ADs, I would be shocked if they did not include the Maroon Club or Friends of Football donations in budget planning. And last time I checked, both organizations are actually part of the College (i.e., you make a directed gift to the College) so all of their support/spending is actually part of the College spending.

Withholding donations does not work. Castigating the BoT does not work, especially if it is done anonymously on the Internet.

What might work? Ask them to live up to their own standard. Ask Bruce and Annette what they need to succeed according to their own criteria (see above - don't be shy about pointing out the College has failed miserably in 21 sports at coming close to achieving this goal) and then help bring about whatever change is necessary.

Help Bruce, Annette, and Kim put forward a better, stronger argument to their supervisors and the BoT.
BPard

edge29 wrote:
the only way we can affect REAL change is at the very top.  How do we do this?  Football alumni have be the largest contingency of LC Alums yet we can't lobby for additional resources to support the program?  It's a head scratcher.  Friends of Football is great but doesn't seem to have any influence.  Is it an issue of FOLF not asking/pushing the admin and trustees for more $$ or something else?
IMHO, you don't need to go to very top. Byerly is fine (so far) and probably the best you can hope for at a college like Lafayette in that no President "likes" dealing with the tremendous headaches that athletics and Greek Life cause. Cost of doing business.

You need to identify, work with, and make decisions easy for trustees. Relevant committees are Financial Policy, Student Life, Trustees & Governance, and Development, Alumni & Community Relations.

Lafalum has found out headaches coaches and ADs deal with - from admissions, flat budgets, scholarship funding/management, etc. I'm guessing from talking to the coaches and ADs. This is what your leadership - including Maroon Club and FOLF - needs to be doing and then bringing the issues - and proposed solutions - to the entire membership for their support. If MC and FOLF aren't doing this, they aren't leading and you need people who will. There is a role for the people who write the checks and a role for the people who do the volunteer work (advocacy). You need both.

Those leaders need to figure out how the College works (it sounds like they either haven't figured this out yet or are not leveraging it to the benefit of their constituency - which has student athletes and alumni supporting athletics at its core but must be broadened to all students and alumni) and then work with the appropriate stakeholders to advance the interests of their constituency.

This stuff is not easy but it is relatively simple. Time and effort is all it takes.

This is a very long answer to your question that given the issues raised on these forums, my answer would be: Yes, the issues are symptoms of lack of effectiveness in FOLF and Maroon Club in advocating for the changes to position the Athletic Department in general, and football specifically, in a position to succeed consistently.

Still, remember that this board also pilloried the 150th being in Yankees Stadium for various reasons including predictions it would never sell out. Well look how that turned out...
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
edge29 wrote:
the only way we can affect REAL change is at the very top.  How do we do this?  Football alumni have be the largest contingency of LC Alums yet we can't lobby for additional resources to support the program?  It's a head scratcher.  Friends of Football is great but doesn't seem to have any influence.  Is it an issue of FOLF not asking/pushing the admin and trustees for more $$ or something else?
IMHO, you don't need to go to very top. Byerly is fine (so far) and probably the best you can hope for at a college like Lafayette in that no President "likes" dealing with the tremendous headaches that athletics and Greek Life cause. Cost of doing business.

You need to identify, work with, and make decisions easy for trustees. Relevant committees are Financial Policy, Student Life, Trustees & Governance, and Development, Alumni & Community Relations.

Lafalum has found out headaches coaches and ADs deal with - from admissions, flat budgets, scholarship funding/management, etc. I'm guessing from talking to the coaches and ADs. This is what your leadership - including Maroon Club and FOLF - needs to be doing and then bringing the issues - and proposed solutions - to the entire membership for their support. If MC and FOLF aren't doing this, they aren't leading and you need people who will. There is a role for the people who write the checks and a role for the people who do the volunteer work (advocacy). You need both.

Those leaders need to figure out how the College works (it sounds like they either haven't figured this out yet or are not leveraging it to the benefit of their constituency - which has student athletes and alumni supporting athletics at its core but must be broadened to all students and alumni) and then work with the appropriate stakeholders to advance the interests of their constituency.

This stuff is not easy but it is relatively simple. Time and effort is all it takes.

This is a very long answer to your question that given the issues raised on these forums, my answer would be: Yes, the issues are symptoms of lack of effectiveness in FOLF and Maroon Club in advocating for the changes to position the Athletic Department in general, and football specifically, in a position to succeed consistently.

Still, remember that this board also pilloried the 150th being in Yankees Stadium for various reasons including predictions it would never sell out. Well look how that turned out...


Bingo!!
ed65

BPard wrote:
Quote:
One can focus on OOC losses or the most league wins over the last 2 years than any team other than scholarship FU.
2 years is an arbitrary point. As I pointed out here, football under Tavani is actually the only program that has succeeded according to the Athletic Department's success criteria (every student-athlete has chance to win a PL championship). Note: IMO, looking a record under a head coach is not arbitrary like your 2 year snapshot.

RE: Funding, remember that money is fungible. While I haven't talked with any coaches or the ADs, I would be shocked if they did not include the Maroon Club or Friends of Football donations in budget planning. And last time I checked, both organizations are actually part of the College (i.e., you make a directed gift to the College) so all of their support/spending is actually part of the College spending.

Withholding donations does not work. Castigating the BoT does not work, especially if it is done anonymously on the Internet.

What might work? Ask them to live up to their own standard. Ask Bruce and Annette what they need to succeed according to their own criteria (see above - don't be shy about pointing out the College has failed miserably in 21 sports at coming close to achieving this goal) and then help bring about whatever change is necessary.

Help Bruce, Annette, and Kim put forward a better, stronger argument to their supervisors and the BoT.


Re: "castigating the BoT does not work especially if it is done anonymously.." I will continue to talk about our dismal athletic program to every board member I meet or run into at various LC Events.  Many of them have no clue as to the losing culture of the program.  All they see in L-L 150 and making the NCAA Hoops Tournament (I'll bet most Trustees have no idea that the men's basketball team is the only winning team in the last three years).  They have no idea that almost all teams have losing records overall and especially in the PL.  This can be blamed squarely on Bruce and the invisible Ms. Dorio.  It seems to me like simply are inept at communications to Byerly and the BoT, and as classic bureaucrats they are all about budgets NOT winning.  The first change as Lafalum and I have previously indicated is to have athletics report to Byerly.  She is in her third year, and seems to have a handle on all the critical issues at LC EXCEPT athletics.  The second step is for the job descriptions of Bruce and the coaches to have as the key metric of their performance WINNING not budgets.  A third change is to make the Maroon Club separate from the college - it is a stooge for the admin and a bunch of cheerleaders at best.  A fourth change would be for Friends of Football (and other sports) to make presentations to the BoT on what it will take to create a winning culture (it won't be done in one year).  

How is that for a start!  Everyone on this board who cares about sports should be lobbying every trustee they know.  And talking to Alison about this every chance you get - she is very visible and wants to reach out to alums.
ed65

Lafalum wrote:
BPard wrote:
edge29 wrote:
the only way we can affect REAL change is at the very top.  How do we do this?  Football alumni have be the largest contingency of LC Alums yet we can't lobby for additional resources to support the program?  It's a head scratcher.  Friends of Football is great but doesn't seem to have any influence.  Is it an issue of FOLF not asking/pushing the admin and trustees for more $$ or something else?
IMHO, you don't need to go to very top. Byerly is fine (so far) and probably the best you can hope for at a college like Lafayette in that no President "likes" dealing with the tremendous headaches that athletics and Greek Life cause. Cost of doing business.

You need to identify, work with, and make decisions easy for trustees. Relevant committees are Financial Policy, Student Life, Trustees & Governance, and Development, Alumni & Community Relations.

Lafalum has found out headaches coaches and ADs deal with - from admissions, flat budgets, scholarship funding/management, etc. I'm guessing from talking to the coaches and ADs. This is what your leadership - including Maroon Club and FOLF - needs to be doing and then bringing the issues - and proposed solutions - to the entire membership for their support. If MC and FOLF aren't doing this, they aren't leading and you need people who will. There is a role for the people who write the checks and a role for the people who do the volunteer work (advocacy). You need both.

Those leaders need to figure out how the College works (it sounds like they either haven't figured this out yet or are not leveraging it to the benefit of their constituency - which has student athletes and alumni supporting athletics at its core but must be broadened to all students and alumni) and then work with the appropriate stakeholders to advance the interests of their constituency.

This stuff is not easy but it is relatively simple. Time and effort is all it takes.

This is a very long answer to your question that given the issues raised on these forums, my answer would be: Yes, the issues are symptoms of lack of effectiveness in FOLF and Maroon Club in advocating for the changes to position the Athletic Department in general, and football specifically, in a position to succeed consistently.

Still, remember that this board also pilloried the 150th being in Yankees Stadium for various reasons including predictions it would never sell out. Well look how that turned out...


Bingo!!


Btw: I did not pillory the 150th being in Yankee Stadium - I was all for it from the beginning as were most NY Alums who I know.  It remains a highlight of my experience with Lafayette College since my freshman year in 1961!
Jpao92

Yes, many here pilloried the College for holding the 150th game at Yankee Stadium.  We sold that place out!!!  And as far as I am concerned the entire event is the poster child for how cynical the powers that be at the College are.

How much of the money that was made at that event went back to the football program?   How much hype did the College heep upon that event in the name of one thing and one thing only, launching its next capital campaign.  Was there a game?!?  Sure, but I bet that Allison and the BOT could have cared the less about the damn score.  We alums do, however.  It is a source of pride for us.  And I get it, to the administration a silly thing like jocks pushing themselves around a field is a weed on the ivory tower.

Never have I experienced leadership of a BOT or administration more ambivalent about the feelings or concerns of its alums, even those who are big donors and for which certain playing fields have been named.  They live in a bubble and pat each other on the backs and slap high fives as to how they are doing.   Accountability for a consistently losing head coach?  First you have to care and they don't.   Athletic success playing a role as a positive messenger for the College?  Dont be silly (according to Allison).   I mean, it's not like any of the other PL schools have figured this out (or have they?).  

What to do?   All you can do is to engage Allison and any member of the BOT whenever and wherever you can.  I attend games and have said my piece to Allison, Ahart (who runs the other way when he sees me), Bruce, etc.  withhold funds?  Absolutely!!  It's not like they are going to the athletic program anyway.  You really think your donations are going to support the program?  The big donors, yes, but I know I have my doubts about the smaller donations.   Even then, let's say we mustered up 20mil tomorrow.  The College would still give a crap about athletics, sub-standard coaches would continue to have tenured jobs for life and losing would reign.  

If I seem a bit miffed today it is because I just received the latest College fundraiser in the mail.  It is for the fund raising contest during the Game.  Features football (those barbarian jocks) prominently.  Once again, the College's cynicism on display.  Treat athletics like crap until you can make a buck off if it.  A buck the program probably will never see returned to it.  Athletics, the great fundless, fundraiser.
Andy

Some excellent ideas, ed!  We're grateful to you, lafalum and other influential alumni for their efforts.

A minor point, the "2 year arbitrary" period was chosen because it coincides, if my math is correct, with the bounce back financially from Weiss's budget cuts. Guys tend to cite the "6 losing seasons" without mentioning the budget cuts and comparatively few equivalencies Tavani was working with. Frank has done pretty well when the playing field has been fairly level.

I opposed the Yankee Stadium move in support of alums who built the new Fisher and who IMO deserved to showcase it. At the least we shouldn't have lost a home game in the series. Kudos to those who foresaw the big turnout. I bought4 tickets and had fun with my son. It's a crime that football didn't benefit financially as has been posted on the board.

I appreciate Bpard's and edge's point that the anonymous complaining on this board may be not only ineffective but counterproductive to our coaches' efforts.

As far as accountability of losing coaches - we have plenty who are not given resources commensurate with the competition. Difficult for Bruce to fire someone who hasnt been adequately funded.
Jpao92

Just for my clarification, what is the expiration date on the funding excuse vis a vis football?   At what point should I and others start referring to for when Frank was on level ground with the other programs?
BPard

Jpao & ed- to be successful at driving change from the Trustees level, any effort needs to be organized and focused with a purpose, not just one-off alumni who are easily dismissed.

There are concrete changes folks have described on this forum (e.g., org structure, flat budgets, lack of competitive salaries for assistants - which if you want change you should rephrase this to Lafayette being unwilling to pay its employees a livable wage). There are also shortcomings that have been pointed out (e.g., 150th not supporting football funding, lack of success by the AD's own criteria in 21 sports, lack of clarity to coaches/donors on the management of scholarship funds/admissions coordination).

Who will raise these issues in a manner that will actually drive the change you yearn for?

I disagree with ed that Maroon Club should be split off from the College. It is the almost certainly your best vehicle to address issues surrounding athletics. Almost always easier, and more effective, to affect change from within than without.

The College is a business. It is a non-profit, but still a business. With over a billion dollars in assets. You think the full board of trustees is going to listen to a presentation from the FOLF about a "winning" culture? Please. I hope they would think this is a ridiculous idea.

Now if you actually map out a vision of what the future of Lafayette Athletics can look like compared to today, the changes required to get there, communicate the benefits for the College overall while pointing to common touchpoints all trustees/officers can emotionally relate to like the 150th and March Madness, the resources required to get that future vision AND why the STUDENTS are deserving of those resources....well then, you might be onto something especially if you have a few trustees preview it all (and even better, faculty too!) and support it when you take it to the Cabinet before THEY bring it to the relevant committees I highlighted earlier.

But AFAIK, that hasn't happened. There is always time though. But I don't have a clue as to who the right people are to do the heavy lifting. It is almost certainly not the people writing the checks.

ed is right that it will take more than a year, and therefore patience and persistence. It can be done.[/b]
LeopardBall10

BPard wrote:
Jpao & ed- to be successful at driving change from the Trustees level, any effort needs to be organized and focused with a purpose, not just one-off alumni who are easily dismissed.

There are concrete changes folks have described on this forum (e.g., org structure, flat budgets, lack of competitive salaries for assistants - which if you want change you should rephrase this to Lafayette being unwilling to pay its employees a livable wage). There are also shortcomings that have been pointed out (e.g., 150th not supporting football funding, lack of success by the AD's own criteria in 21 sports, lack of clarity to coaches/donors on the management of scholarship funds/admissions coordination).

Who will raise these issues in a manner that will actually drive the change you yearn for?

I disagree with ed that Maroon Club should be split off from the College. It is the almost certainly your best vehicle to address issues surrounding athletics. Almost always easier, and more effective, to affect change from within than without.

The College is a business. It is a non-profit, but still a business. With over a billion dollars in assets. You think the full board of trustees is going to listen to a presentation from the FOLF about a "winning" culture? Please. I hope they would think this is a ridiculous idea.

Now if you actually map out a vision of what the future of Lafayette Athletics can look like compared to today, the changes required to get there, communicate the benefits for the College overall while pointing to common touchpoints all trustees/officers can emotionally relate to like the 150th and March Madness, the resources required to get that future vision AND why the STUDENTS are deserving of those resources....well then, you might be onto something especially if you have a few trustees preview it all (and even better, faculty too!) and support it when you take it to the Cabinet before THEY bring it to the relevant committees I highlighted earlier.

But AFAIK, that hasn't happened. There is always time though. But I don't have a clue as to who the right people are to do the heavy lifting. It is almost certainly not the people writing the checks.

ed is right that it will take more than a year, and therefore patience and persistence. It can be done.[/b]


Absolutely spot on BP. So, by my estimation we would need to have a few things in place before we went to anyone of substance:

1. We need our manifesto. Someone with understanding and influence would need to write a piece describing the issues at hand AND the proposed solutions (that is key). Well written and mapping out the alumni vision for LC athletics.

2. Signed commitment from a large alumni base, either a petition for change, an agreement to withhold funding, or both. Numbers talk, and without the ability to show the college real people care about the issue and continued neglect will result in less gifts there is no reason for them to listen (or at least they haven't listened in the past).

3. A front man, someone the alumni, current student athletes, and the Pres and BOT respect. This would probably be the most difficult thing to get right. You need a champion for the cause who is willing to give time and effort, and is willing to see it through to the end. A big donor like Jack would have the weight to throw around, but he has already done so many battles with the administration. Would a "well known" alum like Blake or Partidge be the guys?

And then there are other variables that this group would need to take into account. Do you get the media involved? To what extent? Do you target just former student athletes in the initial petition signing or is this an issue that a larger base would be interested in?

And even with all of that we have seen the college take things like the Greek issue with mountains of support and continue on their merry way without so much as addressing them. Don't get me wrong this is something I can get behind, I just don't know how much real hope I have.
Franks Tanks

LeopardBall10 wrote:
BPard wrote:
Jpao & ed- to be successful at driving change from the Trustees level, any effort needs to be organized and focused with a purpose, not just one-off alumni who are easily dismissed.

There are concrete changes folks have described on this forum (e.g., org structure, flat budgets, lack of competitive salaries for assistants - which if you want change you should rephrase this to Lafayette being unwilling to pay its employees a livable wage). There are also shortcomings that have been pointed out (e.g., 150th not supporting football funding, lack of success by the AD's own criteria in 21 sports, lack of clarity to coaches/donors on the management of scholarship funds/admissions coordination).

Who will raise these issues in a manner that will actually drive the change you yearn for?

I disagree with ed that Maroon Club should be split off from the College. It is the almost certainly your best vehicle to address issues surrounding athletics. Almost always easier, and more effective, to affect change from within than without.

The College is a business. It is a non-profit, but still a business. With over a billion dollars in assets. You think the full board of trustees is going to listen to a presentation from the FOLF about a "winning" culture? Please. I hope they would think this is a ridiculous idea.

Now if you actually map out a vision of what the future of Lafayette Athletics can look like compared to today, the changes required to get there, communicate the benefits for the College overall while pointing to common touchpoints all trustees/officers can emotionally relate to like the 150th and March Madness, the resources required to get that future vision AND why the STUDENTS are deserving of those resources....well then, you might be onto something especially if you have a few trustees preview it all (and even better, faculty too!) and support it when you take it to the Cabinet before THEY bring it to the relevant committees I highlighted earlier.

But AFAIK, that hasn't happened. There is always time though. But I don't have a clue as to who the right people are to do the heavy lifting. It is almost certainly not the people writing the checks.

ed is right that it will take more than a year, and therefore patience and persistence. It can be done.[/b]


Absolutely spot on BP. So, by my estimation we would need to have a few things in place before we went to anyone of substance:

1. We need our manifesto. Someone with understanding and influence would need to write a piece describing the issues at hand AND the proposed solutions (that is key). Well written and mapping out the alumni vision for LC athletics.

2. Signed commitment from a large alumni base, either a petition for change, an agreement to withhold funding, or both. Numbers talk, and without the ability to show the college real people care about the issue and continued neglect will result in less gifts there is no reason for them to listen (or at least they haven't listened in the past).

3. A front man, someone the alumni, current student athletes, and the Pres and BOT respect. This would probably be the most difficult thing to get right. You need a champion for the cause who is willing to give time and effort, and is willing to see it through to the end. A big donor like Jack would have the weight to throw around, but he has already done so many battles with the administration. Would a "well known" alum like Blake or Partidge be the guys?

And then there are other variables that this group would need to take into account. Do you get the media involved? To what extent? Do you target just former student athletes in the initial petition signing or is this an issue that a larger base would be interested in?

And even with all of that we have seen the college take things like the Greek issue with mountains of support and continue on their merry way without so much as addressing them. Don't get me wrong this is something I can get behind, I just don't know how much real hope I have.


Good stuff.  Trying to think of the right "front man".  It would need to be someone who is very successful and visible, but also hasn't yet fought many battles with the BOT.  Some like Jack B or Bill R would of course be tremendous, but I fear they have already fought their share of battles and the BOT may have tuned them out to a degree.

We could have Joe Maddon deliver and support the message, but he doesn't have the time to research and perform the nitty gritty work.
SIDELINER

Would anyone like to post an educated guess on the annual cost of merit scholarships in football -- 15 fulls -- vs. the approximate cost of 30-35 kids who were coming in under need-based aid (which I assume could have ranged from very little to lots) before scholarships (BS)? Wondering, for example, if a Georgetown doesn't give almost as much aid as a merit-scholarship institution.
Franks Tanks

SIDELINER wrote:
Would anyone like to post an educated guess on the annual cost of merit scholarships in football -- 15 fulls -- vs. the approximate cost of 30-35 kids who were coming in under need-based aid (which I assume could have ranged from very little to lots) before scholarships (BS)? Wondering, for example, if a Georgetown doesn't give almost as much aid as a merit-scholarship institution.


It is my understanding that Georgetown does not give out anywhere near as much aid as other PL schools.  Our friend DFW Hoya always said that Georgetown wasn't opposed to scholarships for football (like some other schools), but couldn't or more precisely wouldn't pay for them.
Andy

SIDELINER wrote:
Would anyone like to post an educated guess on the annual cost of merit scholarships in football -- 15 fulls -- vs. the approximate cost of 30-35 kids who were coming in under need-based aid (which I assume could have ranged from very little to lots) before scholarships (BS)? Wondering, for example, if a Georgetown doesn't give almost as much aid as a merit-scholarship institution.


There was a published statement several years ago that only 2 programs were above 50 equivalencies(surely not us), so if scholarships bring us to 57....

Jpao, you can research the budget figures for all PL schools on the Equity In Athletics website. I've heard we're at 42 schols this year, need to be at 57 when we play Army for the game to "count" for them. LC's football budget is in the top tier in the PL and has been for several years. The budget was cut in I believe '08 and '09. The year Frank could only bring in 17 kids when the rest of the league brought in mid 30s. That hurt numbers for several years obviously.
BPard

LB10, you only need 1&3 on your list. 2 isn't worth doing in terms of getting alum to sign or issue threats. Counterproductive.

Show support for vision, yes. Should be self evident in MC though with no need to sign something.

No need for media until College announcement.

Mindset needs to be about building better future of Athletics and therefore the College. Rest is a distraction.

You won't get 1 without 3.
bison137

SixtyEighter wrote:
. No other school has such a plethora of injuries year in and year out.



I don't think that's accurate.  Everyone notices their own injuries a lot more than those of other teams.
bison137

Andy wrote:
SIDELINER wrote:
Would anyone like to post an educated guess on the annual cost of merit scholarships in football -- 15 fulls -- vs. the approximate cost of 30-35 kids who were coming in under need-based aid (which I assume could have ranged from very little to lots) before scholarships (BS)? Wondering, for example, if a Georgetown doesn't give almost as much aid as a merit-scholarship institution.


There was a published statement several years ago that only 2 programs were above 50 equivalencies(surely not us), so if scholarships bring us to 57....

Jpao, you can research the budget figures for all PL schools on the Equity In Athletics website. I've heard we're at 42 schols this year, need to be at 57 when we play Army for the game to "count" for them. LC's football budget is in the top tier in the PL and has been for several years. The budget was cut in I believe '08 and '09. The year Frank could only bring in 17 kids when the rest of the league brought in mid 30s. That hurt numbers for several years obviously.



From Equity in Athletics, here are the expenses for 2013 and 2014.   These numbers include the cost of scholarships, salaries, recruiting expenses, and a few other small items.   They do not include game-day expenses, such as hotels, food, buses, etc.


2013 Bucknell University $2,948,576
2013 Colgate University $4,174,572
2013 College of the Holy Cross $4,026,566
2013 Fordham University $5,123,605
2013 Georgetown University $1,339,323
2013 Lafayette College $4,264,678
2013 Lehigh University $3,862,891

2014 Bucknell University $3,353,251
2014 Colgate University $4,696,526
2014 College of the Holy Cross $4,393,967
2014 Fordham University $5,831,479
2014 Georgetown University $1,304,542
2014 Lafayette College $4,905,051
2014 Lehigh University $4,689,489
ed65

BPard wrote:
Jpao & ed- to be successful at driving change from the Trustees level, any effort needs to be organized and focused with a purpose, not just one-off alumni who are easily dismissed.

There are concrete changes folks have described on this forum (e.g., org structure, flat budgets, lack of competitive salaries for assistants - which if you want change you should rephrase this to Lafayette being unwilling to pay its employees a livable wage). There are also shortcomings that have been pointed out (e.g., 150th not supporting football funding, lack of success by the AD's own criteria in 21 sports, lack of clarity to coaches/donors on the management of scholarship funds/admissions coordination).

Who will raise these issues in a manner that will actually drive the change you yearn for?

I disagree with ed that Maroon Club should be split off from the College. It is the almost certainly your best vehicle to address issues surrounding athletics. Almost always easier, and more effective, to affect change from within than without.

The College is a business. It is a non-profit, but still a business. With over a billion dollars in assets. You think the full board of trustees is going to listen to a presentation from the FOLF about a "winning" culture? Please. I hope they would think this is a ridiculous idea.

Now if you actually map out a vision of what the future of Lafayette Athletics can look like compared to today, the changes required to get there, communicate the benefits for the College overall while pointing to common touchpoints all trustees/officers can emotionally relate to like the 150th and March Madness, the resources required to get that future vision AND why the STUDENTS are deserving of those resources....well then, you might be onto something especially if you have a few trustees preview it all (and even better, faculty too!) and support it when you take it to the Cabinet before THEY bring it to the relevant committees I highlighted earlier.

But AFAIK, that hasn't happened. There is always time though. But I don't have a clue as to who the right people are to do the heavy lifting. It is almost certainly not the people writing the checks.

ed is right that it will take more than a year, and therefore patience and persistence. It can be done.[/b]


Some good points by bpard and some I agree with (some I disagree withe.g. the Maroon Club - it is completely ineffective IMHO).  But you are correct: we need an organized and credible effort.  As for working within the system, sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't.  What I would like to see is a bomb (written, of course) sent the BoT and the Admin which lambastes LC for its treatment of athletics and its dishonorable membership in D1.  Perhaps it needs to be done anonymously then followed by the organized effort led by whoever - persuading a Trustee to lead it might be another idea.  There are plenty of people in the Friends of Groups who I'm sure would help out, and I am willing to take a strong and visible role in this (as are others on the Board).  Information such as the lackluster performance of the teams is easy to obtain AND that information is powerful.  Budget numbers on individual sports might be more difficult (but maybe available through the coaches.)

So bpard, good job.  Let's continue to work on this and develop ideas.  I'm going to be in Easton on Friday, Saturday and Sunday morning of Lehigh Weekend if anyone wants to meet and discuss this.
Jpao92

Andy,

That gets to my point.  Lafayette has been funded at a level to allow it to be more than competitive for at least five years plus or minus one.  There really is no excuse for Frank to not put up an occasional winning season at this point.  I know, I know, the PL championship was great.  It was also an embarrassment to the league to send a team with a losing record to the NCAA tournament. Don't get me wrong, I will take it but I am greedy, I want it all.  I want the PL championship and a winning record.  Too much to ask I suppose in the land of low expectations that has become Lafayette.

I really have two words to describe my feelings toward any coach, not just Frank.  I really do like Frank.   Anyway, the two words are "West Point."   Look at the football program there.   We certainly don't have what they have.  That is, we don't have a tenth of the challenges that Army football and its head coach face while playing in FBS.   Weight limitations, limited practice time, required post-graduate military service limiting recruiting and on and on and on.  

At West Point a coach has infinite excuses (Frank could only dream of) with which to justify losing season after losing season.  As we know, they suffer losing season after losing season.    Under the Lafayette standard, one would expect said coach to have a job for life, they have every excuse after all.  Yet, Army cleans house routinely, even if it knows that a new coach will likely net the same results.  Why?  Because Army and any coach accepting that job knows the  challenges and takes the job understanding it is expected that they must be overcome.   The culture of West Point simply can't abide failure or allow its students to receive that message.   Fail, excuse or not, its the door.  Unfair to be sure but that is coaching.  

Before anyone says it, I am not comparing Lafayette and its students or its mission to West Point.  I am merely stating that coaching is supposed to be a rough and unforgiving career.   Challenges of coaching at Lafayette or anywhere aren't always known but most of them are. The consequences of failing to meet those challenges is another thing.    Failure at Lehigh is a boot out the door.   Failure at Lafayette is Bruce giving out a two year contract extension instead of a five year one.    There is a message for our students and the public at large about Lafayette and its mission.  Excellence at everything we do? Not so much.  Not saying that the instant a coach fails at LC they should be shown the door but there has to be some expiration date or some re-definition of what success means.
Zeus

If one things Lafayette Football has been operating on a level playing field, you are sorely mistaken.
Franks Tanks

Zeus wrote:
If one things Lafayette Football has been operating on a level playing field, you are sorely mistaken.


You keep saying this, but I don't really believe you until I see an explanation.  The numbers provided by Bison137 contradict your point.  Our facilities contradict your point.  Are you saying we can't get some kids through admissions? That happens everywhere in the league.
flyfisher

Andy wrote:
SIDELINER wrote:
Would anyone like to post an educated guess on the annual cost of merit scholarships in football -- 15 fulls -- vs. the approximate cost of 30-35 kids who were coming in under need-based aid (which I assume could have ranged from very little to lots) before scholarships (BS)? Wondering, for example, if a Georgetown doesn't give almost as much aid as a merit-scholarship institution.


There was a published statement several years ago that only 2 programs were above 50 equivalencies(surely not us), so if scholarships bring us to 57....

Jpao, you can research the budget figures for all PL schools on the Equity In Athletics website. I've heard we're at 42 schols this year, need to be at 57 when we play Army for the game to "count" for them. LC's football budget is in the top tier in the PL and has been for several years. The budget was cut in I believe '08 and '09. The year Frank could only bring in 17 kids when the rest of the league brought in mid 30s. That hurt numbers for several years obviously.


The question is, who is paying for that budget? More on that point tomorrow when I have time.
BPard

Jpao92 wrote:
withhold funds?  Absolutely!!  It's not like they are going to the athletic program anyway.  You really think your donations are going to support the program?  The big donors, yes, but I know I have my doubts about the smaller donations.
I skipped over this yesterday, but just found this article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that gets to the heart of this point.

Quote:
Ann E. Kaplan, director of the Council for Aid to Education’s annual survey of college fund raising, expressed surprise at how much mistrust alumni showed in the new study.

"It is illegal for an institution not to use funds for the purposes a donor restricts them to," Ms. Kaplan said. Colleges, she said, "are meticulous about following donor intent," so that "if you make a gift to your alma mater, and you direct that that gift be used for a specific purpose, it will be."

One possible explanation for the low trust levels identified in the study may be the chief population it surveyed — not the major donors who account for a disproportionate share of philanthropic support for higher education, but smaller donors who give primarily in the course of annual fund drives.


I've never had any issue with the College providing supporting evidence of my paltry gifts reaching their intended purpose. I do usually cc the department head, coach, or student group when making a directed gift. Athletics should be able to easily demonstrate to any donor the receipt and use of donations.
flyfisher

BPard wrote:
Jpao92 wrote:
withhold funds?  Absolutely!!  It's not like they are going to the athletic program anyway.  You really think your donations are going to support the program?  The big donors, yes, but I know I have my doubts about the smaller donations.
I skipped over this yesterday, but just found this article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that gets to the heart of this point.

Quote:
Ann E. Kaplan, director of the Council for Aid to Education’s annual survey of college fund raising, expressed surprise at how much mistrust alumni showed in the new study.

"It is illegal for an institution not to use funds for the purposes a donor restricts them to," Ms. Kaplan said. Colleges, she said, "are meticulous about following donor intent," so that "if you make a gift to your alma mater, and you direct that that gift be used for a specific purpose, it will be."

One possible explanation for the low trust levels identified in the study may be the chief population it surveyed — not the major donors who account for a disproportionate share of philanthropic support for higher education, but smaller donors who give primarily in the course of annual fund drives.


I've never had any issue with the College providing supporting evidence of my paltry gifts reaching their intended purpose. I do usually cc the department head, coach, or student group when making a directed gift. Athletics should be able to easily demonstrate to any donor the receipt and use of donations.


I have no doubt gifts through the Maroon Club designated for football end up being used on football. However the issue I have is the College then cuts their budget. It's not one for one but for most every dollar the Maroon Club raises for football (or any other significant donor), the College reduces their financial support by a similar amount. At this pace we never get ahead and grow the program.
Lafalum

flyfisher wrote:
BPard wrote:
Jpao92 wrote:
withhold funds?  Absolutely!!  It's not like they are going to the athletic program anyway.  You really think your donations are going to support the program?  The big donors, yes, but I know I have my doubts about the smaller donations.
I skipped over this yesterday, but just found this article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that gets to the heart of this point.

Quote:
Ann E. Kaplan, director of the Council for Aid to Education’s annual survey of college fund raising, expressed surprise at how much mistrust alumni showed in the new study.

"It is illegal for an institution not to use funds for the purposes a donor restricts them to," Ms. Kaplan said. Colleges, she said, "are meticulous about following donor intent," so that "if you make a gift to your alma mater, and you direct that that gift be used for a specific purpose, it will be."

One possible explanation for the low trust levels identified in the study may be the chief population it surveyed — not the major donors who account for a disproportionate share of philanthropic support for higher education, but smaller donors who give primarily in the course of annual fund drives.


I've never had any issue with the College providing supporting evidence of my paltry gifts reaching their intended purpose. I do usually cc the department head, coach, or student group when making a directed gift. Athletics should be able to easily demonstrate to any donor the receipt and use of donations.


I have no doubt gifts through the Maroon Club designated for football end up being used on football. However the issue I have is the College then cuts their budget. It's not one for one but for most every dollar the Maroon Club raises for football (or any other significant donor), the College reduces their financial support by a similar amount. At this pace we never get ahead and grow the program.


by Jove I think you got it!!…..apologies to George Bernard Shaw and Prof Higgins
BPard

Quote:
I have no doubt gifts through the Maroon Club designated for football end up being used on football. However the issue I have is the College then cuts their budget. It's not one for one but for most every dollar the Maroon Club raises for football (or any other significant donor), the College reduces their financial support by a similar amount. At this pace we never get ahead and grow the program.

As I said back on the first page, money is fungible which is why from department, team's, and College's perspectives, the source of funding should be irrelevant.

If the AD or coaches can't defend their budgets or get the resources they require to succeed, then that is an institutional problem they need help solving.

EDIT: Looks like this is a timely discussion since requests for operations increases were due 2 weeks ago and Division Heads reported to Cabinet on their prioritization last week. Cabinet and Committee reviews begin shortly.

So what operating increases did Tavani request? What operating increases did the AD request? Did they mark them as Desirable, Important, or Critical?

Likewise, what capital/equipment requests do they plan to submit by this Friday?

Hopefully they've already lined up Division support (Campus Life) for their requests.

Note: I'm not being snide. I have no idea what, if anything, they are putting forward for funding. It is unfair to blame the College for lack of support without knowing this critical piece of information.
Andy

Lafalum wrote:
flyfisher wrote:
BPard wrote:
Jpao92 wrote:
withhold funds?  Absolutely!!  It's not like they are going to the athletic program anyway.  You really think your donations are going to support the program?  The big donors, yes, but I know I have my doubts about the smaller donations.
I skipped over this yesterday, but just found this article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed that gets to the heart of this point.

Quote:
Ann E. Kaplan, director of the Council for Aid to Education’s annual survey of college fund raising, expressed surprise at how much mistrust alumni showed in the new study.

"It is illegal for an institution not to use funds for the purposes a donor restricts them to," Ms. Kaplan said. Colleges, she said, "are meticulous about following donor intent," so that "if you make a gift to your alma mater, and you direct that that gift be used for a specific purpose, it will be."

One possible explanation for the low trust levels identified in the study may be the chief population it surveyed — not the major donors who account for a disproportionate share of philanthropic support for higher education, but smaller donors who give primarily in the course of annual fund drives.


I've never had any issue with the College providing supporting evidence of my paltry gifts reaching their intended purpose. I do usually cc the department head, coach, or student group when making a directed gift. Athletics should be able to easily demonstrate to any donor the receipt and use of donations.


I have no doubt gifts through the Maroon Club designated for football end up being used on football. However the issue I have is the College then cuts their budget. It's not one for one but for most every dollar the Maroon Club raises for football (or any other significant donor), the College reduces their financial support by a similar amount. At this pace we never get ahead and grow the program.


by Jove I think you got it!!…..apologies to George Bernard Shaw and Prof Higgins


If my small donation doesn't add to the existing budget then there's no point in donating.
Jpao92

To elaborate on what I said above, I have no doubt that the College takes a donation that is demarcated for a certain purpose and applies it as requested.  But my skepticism stems from the de facto effect of the College's actions.   If I give $1, it seems to me that the College views that donation as a way to decrease the athletic budget by $1.   As someone said, it is a backdoor way of making my donation not go where it is supposed to, namely, to improve the athletic program.

Increasing funding is only part of the problem.   The bigger challenge is changing the College's view regarding the mission of the athletic program and what role it plays at the College.  If we were to fund athletics as desired, I am still of the opinion that nothing would change.    The continuing view would be that athletics are beneath the worthiness of the College.   We would end up with the highest paid tenured head coaches.
pardfan

Jpao92 wrote:
To elaborate on what I said above, I have no doubt that the College takes a donation that is demarcated for a certain purpose and applies it as requested.  But my skepticism stems from the de facto effect of the College's actions.   If I give $1, it seems to me that the College views that donation as a way to decrease the athletic budget by $1.   As someone said, it is a backdoor way of making my donation not go where it is supposed to, namely, to improve the athletic program.

Increasing funding is only part of the problem.   The bigger challenge is changing the College's view regarding the mission of the athletic program and what role it plays at the College.  If we were to fund athletics as desired, I am still of the opinion that nothing would change.    The continuing view would be that athletics are beneath the worthiness of the College.   We would end up with the highest paid tenured head coaches.


 I designate reasonable amts to rowing and ice hockey and they are never treated as budget increases.  The players tell me any extra amts must be raised from things like golf outings.  My gifts reinforce the budget.  Perhaps that's the way it should work;  but the woman who deals with my giving in my region was surprised by that information.

I don't see how we can change the culture and still have Bruce as AD.
Winning 150 and March Madness last yr bought him some time, sadly.
I don't think Alison realizes the severity of the problem.  To her it's 150 and March Madness and sufficient budgets (considering Bison's data) to make winning certainly a possibility.  To us, (someone stated previously) it's three yrs of losing teams (except last yr.'s men's basketball) with no end in sight.  We can't go on like this, can we?
LeopardBall10

pardfan wrote:
 We can't go on like this, can we?


No, I don't think we can. And that is why I fully support the ideas that BPard and ed65 have put forward. I think you are right, President Byerly probably doesn't know the full extent of the problem (which stems from the AD reporting to Student Life and possible not even being in the meetings with her), and the only way to bring a lot of that to light is to explicitly spell out what the issues are, how the alumni base feels about them, and what we expect to be done to correct them.

I have also been thinking about BPard's comment about not needing a show of alumni support. I understand and agree with your point about the "threat of withholding donations" being counterproductive. However, I do feel like grass roots campaigns can be significant, but maybe that is the new school in me.

But I still haven't heard any ideas for how to get this off the ground. As with any "grass roots campaign", which I guess this is considering we are trying to start actual motion through an online message board, the diffuclt thing is to get something actually started.

Someone had mentioned a few BOT members being sympathetic to the athletic struggles, but are they sympathetic enough to champion the cause? Is there anyone currently on staff at the college who would be willing to rock the boat? I agree with BPard that we can't get started without a front man/woman.

Maybe I am reaching here, but does the argument/cause gain any validity if the front man is a current student athlete? Maybe approach the current Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (the small group of athletes from each team tasked with managing the student-athlete-to-campus relationships)? With the right student, support from the other teams, and an alumni base behind the actions it could be powerful but would take a different path.
Lafalum

I like a three pronged approach. The idea of  student athletes in the picture is a good one. It's easier to ignore alumni but its harder to ignore someone you see on campus every day. Athletes represent 25 % of the student body and a like percentage of the alumni base.
Letters to the president from alumni. My sense is the president has not made this a priority and many alumni, even some of our donors have privately brought it to her attention with no action to date. She listens and she is polite which is an improvement. A more grass roots letter writing may get her to move when other efforts bubble up to her level.
Contact with BOT members may help the atmosphere and give people who are sympathetic some backbone and courage.
My sense is this problem is 10 pct money ( if the numbers above are correct) and 90 pct management. All we are asking is that the administration (athletic and general) be good stewards of OUR money.
BPard

LeopardBall10 wrote:
I have also been thinking about BPard's comment about not needing a show of alumni support.

You might misunderstand. You absolutely need a show of alumni support. But you already have that (see Maroon Club + Friends groups).

What you need is a plan with a path forward.

Also, you need more than a front man in that the person has to do the work and not just be a figurehead.
LeopardBall10

BPard wrote:
LeopardBall10 wrote:
I have also been thinking about BPard's comment about not needing a show of alumni support.

You might misunderstand. You absolutely need a show of alumni support. But you already have that (see Maroon Club + Friends groups).

What you need is a plan with a path forward.

Also, you need more than a front man in that the person has to do the work and not just be a figurehead.


No, I think we are on the same page. You were commenting more on the "threats of withholding funds" more so than the show of support.

But this is where ed65 and I agree that the Maroon Club and Friends Groups might not be enough. Because they are part of the college, how hog tied are they? If you think they really are enough then why isn't Fran Mustaro the first name on everyone's mind as the one to do the work we are talking about? Or is it because not enough alumni have raised these issues with each other outside of boards such as this?

And you are right, whoever takes the lead will have to be able to do the work, be on campus, write out and present the plan.
Lafalum

LeopardBall10 wrote:
BPard wrote:
LeopardBall10 wrote:
I have also been thinking about BPard's comment about not needing a show of alumni support.

You might misunderstand. You absolutely need a show of alumni support. But you already have that (see Maroon Club + Friends groups).

What you need is a plan with a path forward.

Also, you need more than a front man in that the person has to do the work and not just be a figurehead.


No, I think we are on the same page. You were commenting more on the "threats of withholding funds" more so than the show of support.

But this is where ed65 and I agree that the Maroon Club and Friends Groups might not be enough. Because they are part of the college, how hog tied are they? If you think they really are enough then why isn't Fran Mustaro the first name on everyone's mind as the one to do the work we are talking about? Or is it because not enough alumni have raised these issues with each other outside of boards such as this?

And you are right, whoever takes the lead will have to be able to do the work, be on campus, write out and present the plan.


Most of you may not know this but the Friends of Groups started as independent organizations by alumni. The more active were Friends of Football, Men's Basketball( which became moribund), friends of field hockey. Lacrosse and Baseball.
Mid-term Weiss the BOT intervened in those organizations ( including the Maroon Club) and dictated charter changes including virtual approval by the
administration and BOT of officers of those groups including term limits. They also kicked off people from the Maroon Club executive committee who were active in the scholarship issue. The executive director of the Maroon Club reports to a senior officer in development. THe AD of course reports to VP of student life, athletic facilities reports to VP of finance ultimately. ( The the care of Metzgar is now outsourced). Use of scholarships is jointly administered by Finance and Admissions ( or whatever they call it now).
I'll let you guys figure out what that all means.
NewXbo

Lafalum wrote:
LeopardBall10 wrote:
BPard wrote:
LeopardBall10 wrote:
I have also been thinking about BPard's comment about not needing a show of alumni support.

You might misunderstand. You absolutely need a show of alumni support. But you already have that (see Maroon Club + Friends groups).

What you need is a plan with a path forward.

Also, you need more than a front man in that the person has to do the work and not just be a figurehead.


No, I think we are on the same page. You were commenting more on the "threats of withholding funds" more so than the show of support.

But this is where ed65 and I agree that the Maroon Club and Friends Groups might not be enough. Because they are part of the college, how hog tied are they? If you think they really are enough then why isn't Fran Mustaro the first name on everyone's mind as the one to do the work we are talking about? Or is it because not enough alumni have raised these issues with each other outside of boards such as this?

And you are right, whoever takes the lead will have to be able to do the work, be on campus, write out and present the plan.


Most of you may not know this but the Friends of Groups started as independent organizations by alumni. The more active were Friends of Football, Men's Basketball( which became moribund), friends of field hockey. Lacrosse and Baseball.
Mid-term Weiss the BOT intervened in those organizations ( including the Maroon Club) and dictated charter changes including virtual approval by the
administration and BOT of officers of those groups including term limits. They also kicked off people from the Maroon Club executive committee who were active in the scholarship issue. The executive director of the Maroon Club reports to a senior officer in development. THe AD of course reports to VP of student life, athletic facilities reports to VP of finance ultimately. ( The the care of Metzgar is now outsourced). Use of scholarships is jointly administered by Finance and Admissions ( or whatever they call it now).
I'll let you guys figure out what that all means.



I think it says that there should be a business major which would produce a graduate who would be able to create a logical organizational chart.
BPard

Again, missing the point. There already is support for athletics from rank and file. Don't need to worry about that.

What is lacking is a vision with concrete steps laid out to achieve that vision. At least as far as I can tell, that's lacking.
ed65

As previously mentioned, I am willing to take a major role in this.  But I need some help. We need to come up with a way - letter writing, creating a website, Twitter Campaign, we need ideas for communicating the message. And part of the message is excellence in athletic which includes winning (and certainly not winningat all costs - no one wants that).

We need a way to show we are really serious.   The bottom line is that LC has a really weak D1 Athletic Program and there is not excuse for it.  I hate to say it but the women's teams except for field hockey are not competitive in the PL or in D1 in general.  Some of the men's teams also are not competitive. Examples include tennis, track & field, Cross country and swimming, to name a few.  Most Board Member, Faculty and Administration (and most alumni) are not aware of the vast number of losing teams or the paltry number of PL Championships.  So part of this is an education program.

More tomorrow when I am awake.
LeopardBall10

ed65 wrote:
As previously mentioned, I am willing to take a major role in this.  But I need some help. We need to come up with a way - letter writing, creating a website, Twitter Campaign, we need ideas for communicating the message. And part of the message is excellence in athletic which includes winning (and certainly not winningat all costs - no one wants that).

We need a way to show we are really serious.   The bottom line is that LC has a really weak D1 Athletic Program and there is not excuse for it.  I hate to say it but the women's teams except for field hockey are not competitive in the PL or in D1 in general.  Some of the men's teams also are not competitive. Examples include tennis, track & field, Cross country and swimming, to name a few.  Most Board Member, Faculty and Administration (and most alumni) are not aware of the vast number of losing teams or the paltry number of PL Championships.  So part of this is an education program.

More tomorrow when I am awake.


I'll be willing to help as much as I can, but living in the corporate world, with young kids, and being nowhere near Easton makes that a little difficult.

In my mind, before we can even start to talk about how to get the message out we need to have a defined message. We need a written expression of concerns and proposed solutions. Is that something you think you would want to take a crack at, ed65?

Maybe get a list of issues started on the board? Once we have our vision for the athletics team spelled out then it becomes easier to present that Vision to potential backers, float the idea through the Friends groups, see if we can get any of the athletes excited about it, and grow it grass roots from there. In my opinion, letter writing is dead and Twitter campaigns won't gain enough momentum with the small size of the college, maybe a universal hashtag across social media that we could get alums behind (you would need as least large regional coverage of the twitter campaign to force anyone to do anything and even then you would need boots on the ground). But maybe that is a good first step, get the vision out to the alums via social media, word of mouth, help of Friends groups and build on the momentum to gain a meeting with the BOT and Pres?
ed65

I will take a crack at it.
whatthefrank?

If I understand it correctly, the Maroon club and Friends all flow through the college??  Is it possible to make them independent?  If not then do you think there is enough support to create a new organization that would be independent and raise funds independently of the school?  Obviously we would be all fishing in the same pond, but if people are really serious about changing things, controlling the direction and money of a "Lafayette Football Association" may make some sense and that would be a huge hole for Bruce to have to explain away
RichH

From an interested outsider's POV, the first step in your quest must be an independent association of alumni and fans. Inasmuch as,the standing groups have been co opted by the college,little can be achieved thru them.
I hope that ,whatever path you choose , you can change the mindset of your Administration and faculty or at the least conterbalance their power. Good luck.
LeopardBall10

RichH wrote:
From an interested outsider's POV, the first step in your quest must be an independent association of alumni and fans. Inasmuch as,the standing groups have been co opted by the college,little can be achieved thru them.
I hope that ,whatever path you choose , you can change the mindset of your Administration and faculty or at the least conterbalance their power. Good luck.


To your point and whatthefrank, Lafalum posted earlier that these organizations did start as independent but were part of some "force collaboration" on the part of the BOT during the Weiss administration. I can't speak to that, but I think that trying to create yet another organization is redundant because it would contain the same member base as both the maroon club and the FOF.

If anything we need to find the dissenters, those in the two organizations who either resent the college's involvement or also feel strongly about our issues and bring them into the fold. We've talked about a multi-pronged approach and I think it is necessary. If you have support from alums, student-athletes, and FOF (which includes the Maws and Paws)/Maroon Club I think you have a chance of being heard.
RichH

10
Relying on the posts here, finding dissenters is a solid start but if,as it appears,the groups are controlled by college.the dissenters will have little power to effectuate a change in.the policy of those groups. Nothing would prevent those dissenters joining likeminded alumni( hopefully including big donors) to demand change.
adcs2

With the ouster of the women's soccer coach earlier this week it is obvious the Nate Pine is holding the coaching staff in Worcester accountable for W-L. We have many coaches that have a similar lack of success as the former Crusaders' coach in the same (or longer) tenure.  

This is at least the third coach Pine has moved along in the last two years since taking over as AD. Bruce, are you listening?
NewXbo

adcs2 wrote:
With the ouster of the women's soccer coach earlier this week it is obvious the Nate Pine is holding the coaching staff in Worcester accountable for W-L. We have many coaches that have a similar lack of success as the former Crusaders' coach in the same (or longer) tenure.  

This is at least the third coach Pine has moved along in the last two years since taking over as AD. Bruce, are you listening?


Who would you fire, adcs?
adcs2

I think any coach who has been on the job for 5+ years and has won less than 25% of their league games should have some explaining to do. An exception could be made for a good trend line (overcoming a rough start with good recent performance).
BackintheDay

[quote="LeopardBall10:51701"][quote="RichH:51700"]From an interested To your point and whatthefrank, Lafalum posted earlier that these organizations did start as independent but were part of some "force collaboration" on the part of the BOT during the Weiss administration. I can't speak to that, but I think that trying to create yet another organization is redundant because it would contain the same member base as both the maroon club and the FOF.

I think they did that so that these donations would count toward LC and increase the Alumni % Donating, which has been stuck in the 30s since Danny Boy began his quest to remake LC in his image.   The people in Alumni Affairs will do anything to make statistics dance (in their favor of course).  This may also be the way that they can co-mingle the funds and reduce the portion that LC contributes to the a sports team's budget and put alumni's money toward pet projects such their march toward more Liberal Arts programs.  Thanks, BOT and Waldo.
whatthefrank?

the point of starting another organization would be to hopefully sway donors from the Friends and Maroon to the new organization that is not connected to the school, thereby controlling the $$ .I am not suggesting $$ be withheld but if they are using Alum $$ to off set and or decrease the institutional contribution it would be evident and avoidable.  Perhaps there is no need for a new organization and perhaps one of the existing ones could be separated.  I know that is possible, it just takes a lot of work and support of the people within the organization.

Nothing will change as long as the organizations still falls under the school umbrella.  Unless we get a new AD etc.  I think it is worth further consideration.  If nothing else Bruce and company will have to explain why FOF or the Maroon club are starting there own non profit and thus he will have ONLY the schools $$ to play with
NewXbo

Wouldn't the danger be that the college would decrease the budget for the various sports as they did previously with football?
BPard

A confrontational approach is much less likely to be successful than one that builds on common ground.

You want better pay for assistants to attract better talent? Start from the common ground that the College should pay it's employees a living wage. That is very difficult to argue with, especially at a liberal arts College.

Compare the average salary of women's assistant coaches ($11,922 average, or $20,139 per FTE) to the living wage for Easton. Marvel at how this is below the poverty line. Is that the College you want?

You can do the same comparison for head coaches (remove Fran, who is a highly compensated employee). Pay for most coaches is lower if you assume a reasonable draw for Frank's as an endowed Head Coach, which hasn't been reported in a tax year yet.

You could even just do a straight compare of men v women positions and ask the WAGS dept for their thoughts on what message this sends on behalf of the College.

If you want to highlight the company we keep with our reputation / standing relative to peers, you could make a chart showing the org structure of all other PL schools (see other thread where I posted all of this) and compare it to ours.

If you want the College to be good stewards of donor money, you could suggest the College dust off the consultant's report, which the College paid for, to actually get some benefit from that investment.

I could go on. But hopefully you get the idea.

EDIT: If you don't want Coach for Life positions, you can also start with the idea that tenure is not only critical to reward faculty members for their contributions to their respective fields and the College, but it is also intended to preserve the intellectual freedom of faculty without fear of repercussions for thoughts, research, and positions that go against popular opinion. Applying this concept to athletic coaches demeans the practice and has no practical benefit to the College.
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
A confrontational approach is much less likely to be successful than one that builds on common ground.

You want better pay for assistants to attract better talent? Start from the common ground that the College should pay it's employees a living wage. That is very difficult to argue with, especially at a liberal arts College.

Compare the average salary of women's assistant coaches ($11,922 average, or $20,139 per FTE) to the living wage for Easton. Marvel at how this is below the poverty line. Is that the College you want?

You can do the same comparison for head coaches (remove Fran, who is a highly compensated employee). Pay for most coaches is lower if you assume a reasonable draw for Frank's as an endowed Head Coach, which hasn't been reported in a tax year yet.

You could even just do a straight compare of men v women positions and ask the WAGS dept for their thoughts on what message this sends on behalf of the College.

If you want to highlight the company we keep with our reputation / standing relative to peers, you could make a chart showing the org structure of all other PL schools (see other thread where I posted all of this) and compare it to ours.

If you want the College to be good stewards of donor money, you could suggest the College dust off the consultant's report, which the College paid for, to actually get some benefit from that investment.

I could go on. But hopefully you get the idea.


Great Post.I would add that asst coaches at other schools many times go for the free tuition for post grad work. Not possible at Lafayette, and tuition is not compensated for our asst coaches if they decide to study elsewhere to get a Masters..
BPard

Lafalum wrote:
I would add that asst coaches at other schools many times go for the free tuition for post grad work. Not possible at Lafayette, and tuition is not compensated for our asst coaches if they decide to study elsewhere to get a Masters..
Sounds  like a benefit the College could negotiate through either LVAIC or the Patriot League.

The College does believe in education and lifelong learning, right?!
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
I would add that asst coaches at other schools many times go for the free tuition for post grad work. Not possible at Lafayette, and tuition is not compensated for our asst coaches if they decide to study elsewhere to get a Masters..
Sounds  like a benefit the College could negotiate through either LVAIC or the Patriot League.

The College does believe in education and lifelong learning, right?!


Additionally I just took a quick look at us vs our Patriot League friends. We have the WORST spread of compensation between men and women asst coaches in the league by far. We should be ASHAMED of ourselves. Its even worse for FTE than it is for part timers.
BPard

Lafalum wrote:
Additionally I just took a quick look at us vs our Patriot League friends. We have the WORST spread of compensation between men and women asst coaches in the league by far. We should be ASHAMED of ourselves. Its even worse for FTE than it is for part timers.

Sounds like Bruce should be able to make a strong argument to his boss (who is the College's Senior Diversity Officer) for a budget increase on these grounds.
LeopardBall10

BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
Additionally I just took a quick look at us vs our Patriot League friends. We have the WORST spread of compensation between men and women asst coaches in the league by far. We should be ASHAMED of ourselves. Its even worse for FTE than it is for part timers.

Sounds like Bruce should be able to make a strong argument to his boss (who is the College's Senior Diversity Officer) for a budget increase on these grounds.


Great posts Bpard. Having seen too much of this first hand, I would enjoy shaking your hand one day.
BPard

BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
Additionally I just took a quick look at us vs our Patriot League friends. We have the WORST spread of compensation between men and women asst coaches in the league by far. We should be ASHAMED of ourselves. Its even worse for FTE than it is for part timers.

Sounds like Bruce should be able to make a strong argument to his boss (who is the College's Senior Diversity Officer) for a budget increase on these grounds.

I looked at historical data on equity in athletics, which is the College's disclosed numbers.

Byerly and Diorio have been absolutely awful for women's teams assistant coaches. Women's teams assistant coaches have had their salaries slashed from an average of $22,746 (Year 2012, 14 coaches) to $11,922 (Year 2014, 15 coaches). Lest you think this is due to hiring one small part time coach, on a per FTE basis they slashed salaries from an average of $38,599 (Year 2012, 8.25 FTE) to $20,139 (Year 2014, 8.88 FTE).

Shocking.

To their credit, the women's team's HC salaries are on average rising and if you control for Fran's salary, which at $313k skews the averages men's team's HC salaries, men's and women's teams HCs are almost on par.

But in the world of assistants? Brutal.

Women's teams assistant coaches are actually worse off than they were in 2004, even without adjusting for inflation.

On the other hand, folks have been talking about flat budgets in athletics. Equity in Athletics says that just isn't true. Even accounting for budget shenanigans, I don't think MC raised $3M more in 2014 than it did in 2010, which is the size of the increase in athletics annual expenses over the past 5 years.

Click to download file
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
Additionally I just took a quick look at us vs our Patriot League friends. We have the WORST spread of compensation between men and women asst coaches in the league by far. We should be ASHAMED of ourselves. Its even worse for FTE than it is for part timers.

Sounds like Bruce should be able to make a strong argument to his boss (who is the College's Senior Diversity Officer) for a budget increase on these grounds.

I looked at historical data on equity in athletics, which is the College's disclosed numbers.

Byerly and Diorio have been absolutely awful for women's teams assistant coaches. Women's teams assistant coaches have had their salaries slashed from an average of $22,746 (Year 2012, 14 coaches) to $11,922 (Year 2014, 15 coaches). Lest you think this is due to hiring one small part time coach, on a per FTE basis they slashed salaries from an average of $38,599 (Year 2012, 8.25 FTE) to $20,139 (Year 2014, 8.88 FTE).

Shocking.

To their credit, the women's team's HC salaries are on average rising and if you control for Fran's salary, which at $313k skews the averages men's team's HC salaries, men's and women's teams HCs are almost on par.

But in the world of assistants? Brutal.

Women's teams assistant coaches are actually worse off than they were in 2004, even without adjusting for inflation.

On the other hand, folks have been talking about flat budgets in athletics. Equity in Athletics says that just isn't true. Even accounting for budget shenanigans, I don't think MC raised $3M more in 2014 than it did in 2010, which is the size of the increase in athletics annual expenses over the past 5 years.

Click to download file


The increase may be due to counting scholarships whereas need based aid was not counted before.
BPard

Lafalum wrote:
The increase may be due to counting scholarships whereas need based aid was not counted before.
Student Aid has a big jump ($2.5M) from 2007 to 2008, which probably explains that counting.

However, 2010 to 2014 Student Aid spending only accounts for $1M of the $3.1M increase over that period. Total Recruiting expenses are about the same.

Grand Total Operating Expenses increased by $500k over the same period. Breakdown here was $400k increase for men's teams and $100k increase for women's teams. Coed (i.e. fencing) quadrupled! from $7k to $27k.

Recap from 2010 to 2014:
Men's Team Coaches Salaries increased by $300k
Women's Team Coaches Salaries did not change substantially
Student Aid Expenses increased by $1M ($800k for men, $200k for women)
Recruiting Expenses did not change substantially
Operating Expenses increased by $500k ($400k for men, $100k for women)
Grand total expenses (budget) increase of $3.1M or 20.5%.

This means Uncategorized Expenses increased by $1.3M (the difference between the Grand Total and the itemized categories).  

Of the $3.1M increase, men's teams saw an increase of of over $2.1M and women's teams saw an increase of $965k. Unallocated by gender and coed stayed about the same.

The size of the student body increased 3.6% over the same period.

Bottom line: Athletics spending is up 20% since 2010. What year did athletics scholarships start being counted as student aid? Even if we assume the entire $1M student aid increase is from that accounting change, student aid is only 7 of the 20% increase.

EDIT: For anyone interested, these are the definitions:
Head Coaches' Salaries - Men's, Women's and Coed Teams
Assistant Coaches' Salaries - Men's, Women's and Coed Teams  
Athletically Related Student Aid - Men's, Women's and Coed Teams  
Recruiting Expenses - Men's, Women's and Coed Teams  
Operating Expenses (i.e., Game Day Expenses) - All Sports and Men's, Women's and Coed Teams
Expenses - All Sports and Men's, Women's and Coed Teams
BPard

Per student-athlete, Lafayette spends less ($35k) than the entire Patriot League except for Bucknell ($29k). League average is $44k.

Some may tout the "value" the College is getting with this level of investment. I'd point to this as the cause of the failure of 19/20 of our 23 teams to achieve our athletic department's stated measure of success.

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