|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Jan 26, 2018 20:41:36 GMT -5
I received some intel tonight that there was a meeting today with faculty by a consulting group (ICA) that is probing options for La Salle that include: - Dropping to a D3 Athletics school for all sports
- Dropping to D3 for all but Basketball (not clear if just men or men and women) - similar to Johns Hopkins for lacrosse
- Dropping from the A10 to a lower ranked conference (Patriot League may have been mentioned)
The group cited facilities, fields, and that La Salle is not competitive anymore in the Big 5 as reasons to make the switch, and discussed the waste under Brennan and the squandering of opportunity after the Sweet 16 run. In fact, ICA specifically mentioned that La Salle's facilities barely make it competitive with D3 schools. The group said they are involving faculty (one member is on the committee from what I heard), staff, alumni, and student athletes. Unless I was sleeping through one of our Alumni Board meetings, this was never discussed or brought to Alumni Board's attention...even when Bradshaw came to the meeting in the fall. My contact said recommendations are due to be presented sometime in February but didn't know exact timing. They said the committee kept talking about wanting to be "transparent" which made faculty members feel as if the decision was already predetermined. Keep in mind, I heard none of the above first-hand, but was contacted by two different people at the school about this wondering what we could do to ensure our voices were heard. Well....I figured this would be as good a place as any to get some people who care and are passionate about La Salle to express their voices. So....let's do what we do best on this board and discuss and make our voices heard.
|
|
|
Post by calsufan on Jan 26, 2018 21:39:34 GMT -5
I had to check the calendar real quick to make sure I hadn't zoned out and woken up on April 1. WTF???
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Jan 26, 2018 21:44:42 GMT -5
This needs to be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by manayunk53 on Jan 26, 2018 21:48:39 GMT -5
What? There have been some bad ideas tossed around on this board, but this has to be the worst one ever.
My gut reaction is that La Salle needs to fire whomever is responsible for this idea. This is the exact opposite of the type of thinking we need. Division 3? Are you kidding me? This thing needs to be squashed immediately.
And how much are we paying this consulting group? What an absolute waste.
|
|
|
Post by durenduren on Jan 26, 2018 21:58:57 GMT -5
This is very misleading. I can't get into it much more than this, but this post is really jumping to some outlandish conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Jan 26, 2018 22:11:19 GMT -5
While I often lament that we aren't winning consistently in the A10, we haven't exactly been the doormats of the league. Despite our lack of top level athletic facilities, we've been able to remain competitive. As for basketball, a move to the Patriot or MAAC would likely return us to the days of dominating a league, year in and year out. There is absolutely no way this basketball team belongs in D3 with its tradition.
And why move the other programs to D3?? We've been very successful in soccer, track, and cross country...to name a few sports.
If they decide to move us to D3 we immediately become a West Chester, or Beaver, or whatever that school is called now. The move would not only lessen or sports programs, it diminishes the reputation of the school, and it lessens the value of our academic degrees.
Absurd for it to be even discussed or have a consultant present the idea.
|
|
|
Post by las71 on Jan 26, 2018 22:24:42 GMT -5
Hard to believe that dropping to D3 would be in the best interest of the university. I admit that I have no idea what athletics cost the school and suspect that it's not profitable in most years but I wonder how long it would be before we became increasingly irrelevant in the Philadelphia area should we drop to d3. I don't believe we could just be D1 in mens basketball because I don't think we could find a conference who would take us just for mens hoops. Hopkins situation is different. They were D1 in lacrosse when very few schools had lacrosse so they met a need for the relatively few schools that had the sport. While I know that dropping to a lower ranked conference is unpopular on this board, I could see that as a possibility. We either can't or won't make the financial commitment to upgrade our facility. Without that, I fear we cannot compete in the A10 so dropping down may help us compete in mens basketball while reducing travel expenses for non revenue sports. I can't see any possibility of the Patriot league wanting us. We are not at their academic level and probobly don't upgrade the league profile enough for them to take us. That basically leaves us heading back to the MAAC or joining the CAA. I suspect there are far more schools (small catholic schools without football) similar to La Salle in the MAAC so that would be the likely destination if we leave the A10 but remain D1. If it's true that this is being considered coupled with the art sales, maybe our real concern should be the survival of our alma mater.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 26, 2018 22:47:18 GMT -5
As a former athlete this would be very disappointing. Extremely.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Jan 26, 2018 22:57:15 GMT -5
I'm sure like all the program prioritization that is going on, the school is looking at how to make athletics better and a more sustainable part of the University, and Momentum: 2022 talks specifically about performance in Men's and Women's basketball. I get it. Options need to be considered, and like the academic prioritization, an outside consulting firm was brought in to evaluate and assess options.
I think paying a firm to tell us Brennan made bad decisions is ridiculous, they could've spent 30 minutes on this Board a few years ago or talked to anyone in the athletic staff or former athletes and come to that conclusion. Likewise, putting forth an option of moving to D3 really shouldn't be something that was put out there to faculty who are now walking around talking about it. As far as a move to a lesser conference. Do I want it, no....I think we are making progress in many sports. On the other hand, I'm not sure what we are getting from a student recruitment standpoint by playing games in Dayton, St. Louis, North Carolina, and Olean since I don't think we are drawing many students from those areas. As pointed out above, the travel costs for the non-revenue sports to those places probably isn't yielding anything. La Salle is a regional school and maybe should focus on being in a more regional conference with its more limited resources. I guess the school has to decide if it wants to build up its brand regionally or nationally and adjust conferences accordingly.
THAT should be the goal of this assessment, not to tell faculty that D3 is under consideration. That should be a last resort and never even presented as an option. The A10 isn't what it once was either, from a basketball standpoint (one bid league this year maybe), so maybe it's dying a bit and now is the time to jump to a more regional conference where we can be consistently in the top half for hoops and compete for a bid every year.
|
|
|
Post by belfieldhappyhour on Jan 26, 2018 22:58:45 GMT -5
Hard to believe that dropping to D3 would be in the best interest of the university. I admit that I have no idea what athletics cost the school and suspect that it's not profitable in most years but I wonder how long it would be before we became increasingly irrelevant in the Philadelphia area should we drop to d3. I don't believe we could just be D1 in mens basketball because I don't think we could find a conference who would take us just for mens hoops. Hopkins situation is different. They were D1 in lacrosse when very few schools had lacrosse so they met a need for the relatively few schools that had the sport. While I know that dropping to a lower ranked conference is unpopular on this board, I could see that as a possibility. We either can't or won't make the financial commitment to upgrade our facility. Without that, I fear we cannot compete in the A10 so dropping down may help us compete in mens basketball while reducing travel expenses for non revenue sports. I can't see any possibility of the Patriot league wanting us. We are not at their academic level and probobly don't upgrade the league profile enough for them to take us. That basically leaves us heading back to the MAAC or joining the CAA. I suspect there are far more schools (small catholic schools without football) similar to La Salle in the MAAC so that would be the likely destination if we leave the A10 but remain D1. If it's true that this is being considered coupled with the art sales, maybe our real concern should be the survival of our alma mater. I'm pretty sure there are NCAA rules against this. When we had football, Georgetown had to move their football from D-III to D-IAA because everything else they had was D-I. I thought the rule was something along the lines of, if a school has D-I football or basketball, every other sport has to be on the same level. I could be wrong, but I don't think you can have split divisions like that, at least not between D-III and D-I.
|
|
3ball
Mop-Up Time
Posts: 91
Likes: 125
|
Post by 3ball on Jan 26, 2018 23:00:40 GMT -5
After the Lionel Era we squandered opportunity and were lost for 20 years. We then squandered the Sweet 16 run and are lost again. I wish I knew just how bad our financial situation was- sure doesn’t sound promising. We could write a book on how not to run an athletic program that rises the whole institution.
|
|
|
Post by a10 on Jan 26, 2018 23:31:17 GMT -5
This is VERY depressing to read and it breaks my heart because it sounds as if the school has reached a conclusion that making these moves is the last gasp for La Salle University.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Jan 27, 2018 0:08:13 GMT -5
Here's another sobering stat about our A10 performance...at least in basketball. Since La Salle joined the A10 in the 95-96 season, the conference has earned 72 bids to the NCAA tournament. La Salle has had just 1 of those bids. 1 out of 72..that's 1.4% of the conference's NCAA tournament appearances in 22 years. We went twice while I was a student and played in the MAAC, and once to NITs before we switched to the disastrous MCC conference my senior year.
Would you put your money on something with a 1.4% chance of success? Looking at that, maybe the A10 isn't where we belong if we want a chance to go to the NCAAs every year.
(I can't help but wonder if the consulting firm included that stat in their assessments and what they charged...10 minutes on the internet and I had the answer..although didn't double check my math, so someone keep me honest.)
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Jan 27, 2018 1:09:51 GMT -5
Here's another sobering stat about our A10 performance...at least in basketball. Since La Salle joined the A10 in the 95-96 season, the conference has earned 72 bids to the NCAA tournament. La Salle has had just 1 of those bids. 1 out of 72..that's 1.4% of the conference's NCAA tournament appearances in 22 years. We went twice while I was a student and played in the MAAC, and once to NITs before we switched to the disastrous MCC conference my senior year. Would you put your money on something with a 1.4% chance of success? Looking at that, maybe the A10 isn't where we belong if we want a chance to go to the NCAAs every year. (I can't help but wonder if the consulting firm included that stat in their assessments and what they charged...10 minutes on the internet and I had the answer..although didn't double check my math, so someone keep me honest.) Yea, if we drop conferences, I'm out. I will route for the Irish like I do in football. Not that I'm a big donor, so it doesn't mean a hill of beans to the University, but as something that I love, sleep, breathe, and have for the last 15 years, I would just be crushed. I would sign up for 5 more years of Giannini before I would support this team as a MAAC member.
|
|
|
Post by luhoopsfan on Jan 27, 2018 5:21:23 GMT -5
Did this consultant factor in the % of alumni, in particular YOUNG alumni, that are former athletes and the pride that comes with knowing they were Division 1 athletes in their career? To then move their programs down to a Division 3 level would be an absolute insult to those folks when the solicitation for donations came in the mail.
I mean no disrespect to any Division 3 athletes but the idea would then be that they needed to support a program that operates on a lower level and now targets a lower level athlete. Basically, “support our effort to not be as good as we used to be!”
There may be cost savings in Division 3 but they would be more than offset by a dramatic reduction in donations and would likely be an even worse financial strain than today.
For the life of me I can’t understand how this was even allowed to be communicated as a possible solution and hopefully it was a bit of a misunderstanding/miscommunication.
Yes, a past opportunity was wasted a bit, but it doesn’t mean you pull the plug on everything. As has been said before, the school has had plenty of success in other sports like W soccer, Track, Swimming and has new coaching in place for baseball and softball to hopefully take steps forward. I find it hard to believe that a move out of Division 1 is a real option. It’s as much an “option” as moving to the Big East, you could put it on paper under the header of options but it’s not real either.
Moving down a conference as a consideration I can understand doing some serious evaluations. But does the operating cost model change enough to make up for the lost revenues of shares television agreements and NCAA basketball units? Maybe it does. Would we win a lower level (1-bid) league more than once every 20 years to go to the NCAA tournament? Maybe we would. Regardless of the league we play sports in, the facilities issues need to be addressed in the next 5 years. Basketball is the front porch of athletics at La Salle and our home has very little curb appeal. I have no idea why there can’t be a capital campaign started to address those facilities. I really don’t.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 27, 2018 7:54:12 GMT -5
Did this consultant factor in the % of alumni, in particular YOUNG alumni, that are former athletes and the pride that comes with knowing they were Division 1 athletes in their career? To then move their programs down to a Division 3 level would be an absolute insult to those folks when the solicitation for donations came in the mail. While I agree 100%, feelings are a tough thing to quantify (and monetize). *** [rant] Here is my longer take on this. The athletic department made bad decisions throughout my entire time there. We can debate plans vs. results, but almost every move was a short term look at a long term problem. Here is a couple: - Starting a football program. La Salle revived football in 1997, joined the MAAC in 1999 and settled a $7.5M lawsuit when Preston Plevertes was put back on the field with a concussion. The school was never equipped to have a football team and there was no long-term plan, but they saw the short term gain of high school football players paying tuition who couldn't/didn't make other teams. Football was 35-76 in its second go-round.
- In 2006, Sprinturf was added to both Hank Devincent Stadium (Which also got lights) and McCarthy field. This was done while football was still a sport and before any news (or knowledge that the players had) of its demise. Now, did they need to do something with the fields? Certainly, but do they do it in this manner if Football is known to be DOA. I was friends with a couple baseball players who didn't like the change because of the lack of true surface on the infield. It certainly didn't have any ROI.
- As I mentioned about football, La Salle has too many sports. They always have. Currently, the website shows 10 men's teams and 13 women's teams. St. Bonaventure's spread is 10/8. St. Joe's is 9/9. UMASS is 9/10. George Mason is 10/10. La Salle recently added water polo. Now, I don't know anything about the inner-workings of the water polo team, but they employee three coaches. La Salle has two rowing teams. They're considering adding Men's Lacrosse (I think). Most of these teams are not built to be competitive. Volleyball went almost a decade before it got an A10 win (retaining the same coach, who had a .201 win pct over 10 years). These teams are there to generate tuition income. It was an argument Torpey always used when fighting for funding for the Track team. He had over 100 athletes, the vast majority (80%) of which were not receiving any athletic aid. Some came just to run in college. But all it cost him was a pair of shoes and entry fees. Most of these athletes didn't compete outside of a van ride away. And he won championships. Doing this on the scale La Salle has, having a team it doesn't support, is laughable and short-sighted.
-
- I did a year or two in the athletic department working volleyball games and being on call. It was run like a glorified high school operation in my opinion. Now, this has changed and things have improved both since the S16 run and since Bradshaw came in. That said, I've seen deadlines missed. I've seen them not be able to get the nets to go up or down an hour before the game and Phil Snead furiously trying to fix mechanical problems. I've seen a school that has been unable to sell tickets online for 10 years after it became possible and still running mom/pop organization that relies heavily on snail mail. Kale Beers still solicits emails to LaSalleSID@AOL.com (And used to encourage hitting him up on AIM). The Marketing staff, which is improved, used to be 1.5 FTE people and Brennan's son as a grad assistant. The fan excitement staff used to be a 23-year-old with a Facebook account. They somehow believed they should carry both cheerleaders and a dance team, despite neither seemingly having attendance be mandatory. The 5-7 student workers that worked in Hayman? They basically kept the place running day-to-day.
-
- It is unbelievable that nothing concrete (outside of pay raises) came from the Sweet 16 year. Villanova won a national championship and is spending 100s of millions building new buildings, both athletic and not. Where did that S16 money go? Instead of thinking long term and taking chances that will pay off in a big way, they padded the pockets of a couple people and continued to run things bare-bones...thinking that they finally solved the puzzle.
This seems like I'm piling on and that is not my desire. These are all things that I see changing, but they are reasons why La Salle is currently in this predicament. And bowing out and going to the MAAC/CAA or dropping to D3 (which, lets be honest...is probably not going to happen), it is just a way to bury the problems from two decades of bad, bad management. But no effort has been made to improve things. Bringing Bradshaw in will help, but he's a guy in his twilight years that is doing this because he has a connection to the school. He is not a long-term solution. Are they looking for one in that post? No idea. It is the same argument that is always made for G.... "BUT IT COULD BE WORSE!"
Could it be? So we should just not take chances because we know what we have now? You have a large amount of money sitting out there waiting for a new facility. That is going to be wasted if things aren't put in motion. The school really needs to decide whether athletics is just a money maker due to sports like golf or if it a marketing tool that could bring both attention and bodies into the seats.
[/rant]
|
|
|
Post by jellybean on Jan 27, 2018 8:47:53 GMT -5
I believe that to be D-1 MBB, you need to field 7 D-1 sports for both Men and Women or 6 Men and 8 Women's programs with 2 sports including both genders. Otherwise every school in America would go D-3 and offer just MBB at D-1. Why did they expand last year and add Men's and Women's Water Polo. Why would they go out and make a commitment to the new Baseball coach? If we are in a bad spot what about St. Bonnie's? I heard their non-revenue sports are so under-funded that they rotate one full scholarship between 3-4 sports. Use Softball as an example, they have four scholarships and get an extra once every decade let's say. OT- drop St; Louis from the league their fans don't want to be in the A10. That saves a few dollars. Interesting times. If 10% of this report is true than it's another waste of money hiring a consultant. As for being non-competitive in the Big 5, we played Nova one of it's best games of this and last season. We beat both Temple and Penn. We have SJU(PA) coming up with a sellout at Gola and then the Big 5 game there. We win at Hagan and we are 3-1. Hmm? Personally I will not spend much time thinking about my commitment to La Salle if I don't like these pending changes. I am sure others will do the same.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 27, 2018 8:51:50 GMT -5
The argument can not be that La Salle basketball isn’t competitive. It is competitive. It just isn’t successful.
|
|
|
Post by sidclassof69 on Jan 27, 2018 8:58:17 GMT -5
The only thing I see here, that I agree with, is that our facilities are D-3. Our D-3 facilities has a an effect on our success- Makes it very difficult to compete against schools who pour $ into their sports facilities
|
|
|
Post by jellybean on Jan 27, 2018 9:09:31 GMT -5
The only thing I see here, that I agree with, is that our facilities are D-3. Our D-3 facilities has a an effect on our success- Makes it very difficult to compete against schools who pour $ into their sports facilities It is poor for virtually all sports. We have no indoor facility to have teams practice. They need to share time. Baseball and Softball have a cage in the bowels of McCarthy. I can imagine that is a big recruiting jewel. The offices are so bad that coaches don't meet recruits and their families there. Some teams get into vans and travel up to an hour away from school to get indoor practices. Personally I know of one recruit (non-basketball) who turned the school down just because her HS had better facilites. One FR transferred after going to other A10 schools and seeing what they had. Track is not even capable of holding meets because there are not enough lanes. We are dealing with a 1950 facility.
|
|
|
Post by lasalle89 on Jan 27, 2018 9:13:20 GMT -5
Instead of coming up with a solution and a plan we are advised to go D3? These decisions cannot be made by accountants. Yes the finances are important but being D1 is even more important. If we go D3 I am sure they are going to recommend the basketball team drop to a lesser conference as well. Sad to hear that if we drop to D3 our facilities are still considered lacking. LaSalle is going BACKWARDS as usual instead of forward. I hope we are not paying a firm big money to be told what anyone on here could tell them. LaSalle makes it hard for even the most diehard fans to continue being supportive. Numbers don’t lie. One NCAA appearance is not good. If we could get there more often that money would go a long way.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 27, 2018 9:17:56 GMT -5
. One NCAA appearance is not good. If we could get there more often that money would go a long way. This is the kind of long term thinking I’m talking about, but it also starts building a fundraising base.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Jan 27, 2018 9:30:19 GMT -5
. One NCAA appearance is not good. If we could get there more often that money would go a long way. This is the kind of long term thinking I’m talking about, but it also starts building a fundraising base. This is why I'm OK with a lesser conference, although granted, that's not factoring in any TV revenue or tournament money sharing that some conferences do. But I think if we were in a conference we were competitive year-on-year (like the MAAC) and knew that we had a stronger chance to get there, there would be more excitement in February and march around 20th and Olney. La Salle has had exactly 4 winning conference records in 22 years of A10 play. In the MAAC, winning conference record every year and post-season (NCAA or NIT) every year.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 27, 2018 9:39:10 GMT -5
Forgetting that I disagree, you are just accepting that you’re Drexel at that point. That outside of winning a conference tournament, you’re not making the NCAA tournament. And if you do win the conference tournament, you’re likely one and done and will be a near double-digit underdog.
Drexel won 27 games and didn’t make it because they didn’t deserve to make it. That’s the life you want. If La Salle wins 27 games now they’re at minimum a 4 seed.
Further, you don’t get to take a Pookie and BJ with you. They’re not coming to sub-A10 La Salle.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Jan 27, 2018 9:50:14 GMT -5
Forgetting that I disagree, you are just accepting that you’re Drexel at that point. That outside of winning a conference tournament, you’re not making the NCAA tournament. And if you do win the conference tournament, you’re likely one and done and will be a near double-digit underdog. Drexel won 27 games and didn’t make it because they didn’t deserve to make it. That’s the life you want. If La Salle wins 27 games now they’re at minimum a 4 seed. Further, you don’t get to take a Pookie and BJ with you. They’re not coming to sub-A10 La Salle. Pookie and BJ aren't getting us to the post-season. They are great players, and fun to watch, but that's our current reality. Maybe we get a Ryan Daly who stays for 4 years and develops over those 4 years into a top player and leader in the league instead of needing transfers to lift us up to A10 level of competition. I'd rather be one-and-done 4 years in a row than none-and-done for 21 of 22 years. At this point I'd be happy being Drexel since they seem to have our number of late and have beaten us 2 of the last 3 times we've played them. With BJ and Pookie, we are 0-2 against the CAA this year.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Jan 27, 2018 9:56:07 GMT -5
Drexel hasn’t made the tournament since 1996. And it’s a false choice. There’s no guarantee La Salle would win a difference consistently. And there’s no guarantee that they can’t win consistently at the A10 level. There aren’t enough variables that have been tested.
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Jan 27, 2018 10:02:08 GMT -5
Forgetting that I disagree, you are just accepting that you’re Drexel at that point. That outside of winning a conference tournament, you’re not making the NCAA tournament. And if you do win the conference tournament, you’re likely one and done and will be a near double-digit underdog. Drexel won 27 games and didn’t make it because they didn’t deserve to make it. That’s the life you want. If La Salle wins 27 games now they’re at minimum a 4 seed. Further, you don’t get to take a Pookie and BJ with you. They’re not coming to sub-A10 La Salle. Pookie and BJ aren't getting us to the post-season. They are great players, and fun to watch, but that's our current reality. Maybe we get a Ryan Daly who stays for 4 years and develops over those 4 years into a top player and leader in the league instead of needing transfers to lift us up to A10 level of competition. I'd rather be one-and-done 4 years in a row than none-and-done for 21 of 22 years. At this point I'd be happy being Drexel since they seem to have our number of late and have beaten us 2 of the last 3 times we've played them. With BJ and Pookie, we are 0-2 against the CAA this year. With the right coach, Pookie and BJ would be in the post season.
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Jan 27, 2018 10:11:31 GMT -5
Whoa. Downgrade and Lesser are such ugly words.
The internal and external communication campaigns for this announcement will couch it as a “competitive conference realignment.” Be it the MAAC or NEC, any move would be announced with a “rededication to winning athletics” illustrated by an actual (slight) increase in spending and with the pointed-out idea that the school will get more bang for their buck in our new conference. The announcement will harken back to the school’s athletic successes in prior conferences if that somehow insures success returning to their ranks. The announcement would also be coupled with a (purposely too nebulous) long term plan to “upgrade our athletic facilities” to be the newest and best in the new conference. Despite the campaign the headlines and more importantly, the University community backlash will be ferocious and likely vicious. Explorers Are Never Lost (unless we cut and …)
Put me down for a NO on competitive conference realignment bullshit. I’d rather to learn to swim in the Olympic size pool than be relegated to the kiddie one.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Fortune on Jan 27, 2018 10:13:03 GMT -5
Our women’s soccer team JUST won the A10 tournament! What the hell is going on here. I demand a statement from La Salle ASAP. Our alma mater is slowly dying before our eyes!! (?)
|
|
MisterD
The Baptist Himself
Voted Most Popular Poster 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023
Posts: 8,466
Member is Online
Likes: 6,369
|
Post by MisterD on Jan 27, 2018 10:18:16 GMT -5
Drexel hasn’t made the tournament since 1996. And it’s a false choice. There’s no guarantee La Salle would win a difference consistently. And there’s no guarantee that they can’t win consistently at the A10 level. There aren’t enough variables that have been tested. Except for a history of winning a lot in lower conferences and >20 years in the A-10 that most people either haven't cared about or can't ever stop whining about.
|
|