Does UR care about athletics?

[SpiderTrap]

Taking a devils advocate approach to this in light of the recent discussions on "Fire Mooney" threads, which seem to be popping up after each loss the past 2-3 years. But does UR administration really care about athletics? I get the feeling athletics is a distant 2nd or maybe 3rd on the list of importance to the University, when to the majority of schools - especially those in the power 5 conferences and probably the top mid-major/high major conferences - athletics, and the overall mission of the school are 1 and probably 1a in terms of importance to leadership. These schools see the value a successful athletics program can provide in terms of revenue, marketing, etc.

But I just think overall decisions the past few years to our athletics program as a whole show we are not very interested in having a top notch athletic program. Not saying they don't care, but I don't think its as important as we would like to think. Here are some decisions that I think highlight that.

1) AD Hire - previous ADs come from NC State and Duke, and then recently we make a move to Bucknell, a more academic minded school similar to UR and not the athletic type focus of a Duke or NC State.
2) Recruiting issues (facilities as well) - our football team was trending up the past few years, and then we loss Rocco to a rival conference opponent. And main reason being was difficult and restrictions placed on recruiting and lack of commitment from a facilities standpoint. Then we hear similar stories from Men's basketball assistants (one who is now at VCU) who have left and I have heard recruiting restrictions was a major factor in leaving.
3) Fire coaches? - do we ever fire coaches. Just look at Men's and Women's basketball lately - living in mediocrity for the past several years and no change made. I think in a program more focused on athletics - either coach would have been let go years ago, no matter what the cost was on their contract.
4) Reduction in sports - we take out Men's soccer and track to add Lacrosse. I think Lacrosse was a good addition, but we all know we could have just added Lacrosse and dealt with title IX issues down the road to add another women's sport. Main reason for not keeping the sports - money (again, when it is convenient - we act like we are poor school) or because too many student-athletes will hurt our overall academic profile (even though in many of these secondary sports, the kids come to play with limited scholarships and their team GPA's are on par or better than median GPA of general population
5) President - the president sets the tone for the University. They dont need to be sports crazed, but there needs to be an interest and presence their. I am not defending Cooper's words from years past, but I remember the guy being very involved in sports and was at almost every men's basketball game and football game. Then we moved to Ayers, who was less involved and now to Crutcher who is a musician from DIII school smaller than UR. I hardly every see Crutcher around at sporting events except for maybe the obligatory 1-2 games a year.

Just seems to me UR doesn't care about athletics all that much. We put on the show or dance that looks like we care at times, but overall - I just think based on these recent moves and decisions made - it is not the focus of the school and they are less concerned with winning in the big time sports on campus, and more concerned with overall school rankings. When really - these two can work together.

 

[MrTbone]

1) AD Hire - previous ADs come from NC State and Duke, and then recently we make a move to Bucknell, a more academic minded school similar to UR and not the athletic type focus of a Duke or NC State.

FWIW, gill went to duke but came from American. Perhaps more importantly, no one should hold him as any kind of example we should return to, regardless if pedigree.

There’s merit to the rest of your post. I think ur cares about athletics but it’s decidedly down the list.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

But does UR administration really care about athletics?

Not saying they don't care, but I don't think its as important as we would like to think.

Just seems to me UR doesn't care about athletics all that much.

So which argument are you making?

 

[urfan1]

Trap:

I generally respect your opinion, but I think you are off with this one.
A) Although I might prefer an AD from a higher profile program - JH is an athletics person, have you had a one on one conversation with him? He is a former athlete, do you realize how few of those are in the profession now? So he came from a program that understands athletic success AND academic success. I believe that to be closer to our mission.
B) As bad as Cooper was we could get in some marginal students athletes with him. Ayers would not bend at all. Speak to the coaches today, admissions are much better.
C) We don't generally buy out coaches, never have, CM was given a 10 year contract which has been a weight around our neck. Schaffer and WBB suffered a major personal disaster. The school gave him more rope, I believe he is at the end of the rope now.
D) I agree, but remember Ayers was the President. I don't believe Cooper or Crutcher would make the same decision. As a former track athlete, I wish we could get the decision reversed, but I don't see it happening right away. I understand discussions have been had.
E) I don't know where you are at games but I see Crutcher at athletic events on a regular basis. And I have found him willing to speak with most anyone. I believe Crutcher understands our desire to have students that value the classroom, but ALSO the well rounded student, and that includes athletics.

I don't think the picture is as bleak as you believe. Don't you realize we have changed the entire administration structure to give a high ranking advocate of the athletic department a place at the table when the most important University decisions are being made? Change takes time.

 

[FrontRoyalSpider]

Trap:

I generally respect your opinion, but I think you are off with this one.
A) Although I might prefer an AD from a higher profile program - JH is an athletics person, have you had a one on one conversation with him? He is a former athlete, do you realize how few of those are in the profession now? So he came from a program that understands athletic success AND academic success. I believe that to be closer to our mission.
B) As bad as Cooper was we could get in some marginal students athletes with him. Ayers would not bend at all. Speak to the coaches today, admissions are much better.
C) We don't generally buy out coaches, never have, CM was given a 10 year contract which has been a weight around our neck. Schaffer and WBB suffered a major personal disaster. The school gave him more rope, I believe he is at the end of the rope now.
D) I agree, but remember Ayers was the President. I don't believe Cooper or Crutcher would make the same decision. As a former track athlete, I wish we could get the decision reversed, but I don't see it happening right away. I understand discussions have been had.
E) I don't know where you are at games but I see Crutcher at athletic events on a regular basis. And I have found him willing to speak with most anyone. I believe Crutcher understands our desire to have students that value the classroom, but ALSO the well rounded student, and that includes athletics.

I don't think the picture is as bleak as you believe. Don't you realize we have changed the entire administration structure to give a high ranking advocate of the athletic department a place at the table when the most important University decisions are being made? Change takes time.

I expressed my opinion that we look like we are slowly heading for D3 on the other topics board. My post was take down, deleted, with no explanation.

 

[Eight Legger]

In the past 5-7 years, we have thrown a lot of money at athletics and acted as if that is enough proof that we care. But our other actions – or lackthereof – suggest we don't really care. I agree with Fan1, though, that the changes we have made in the past year would indicate we actually do care. What happens in the next 6 months of year will prove or disprove that assumption.

 

[MolivaManiac]

In the past 5-7 years, we have thrown a lot of money at athletics and acted as if that is enough proof that we care. But our other actions – or lackthereof – suggest we don't really care. I agree with Fan1, though, that the changes we have made in the past year would indicate we actually do care. What happens in the next 6 months of year will prove or disprove that assumption.

I agree with this. We will know if we care about athletics by the end of March 2019.

 

[MrTbone]

Hale is a huge advocate for athletics. For anyone who doesn’t know this, there is way more support at the top level for sports than there has been in a long time at UR. Similarly, my understanding is that crutcher is a proponent of athletics as well. I think it’s dreadful generalization to say that he plays the cello and therefore doesn’t care about sports.

All of this said, we are not Clemson or UT or any other big sports school. UR athletics will always take something of a backseat to other university endeavors.

 

[97spiderfan]

In the past 5-7 years, we have thrown a lot of money at athletics and acted as if that is enough proof that we care. But our other actions – or lackthereof – suggest we don't really care. I agree with Fan1, though, that the changes we have made in the past year would indicate we actually do care. What happens in the next 6 months of year will prove or disprove that assumption.

Fan 1, I agree with all that you said. Eight posts hits home to me. How many $$$ we have brought into our athletic programs have been our chief measure of success recently, it is what we tout. We have done well in the fundraising aspects in our athletic programs, which is amazing given the products we have rolled out. I can only imagine how well we would be doing if our football and mens hoops programs were not mired in mediocrity.

I think we are rapidly approaching a place where the ease at which we are able to raise money gets a lot more difficult because folks are so pissed off with the product that they start closing their pocketbooks. That might move the needle the most in making change happen.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I get that fans are frustrated but why is this constantly brought up? Yes the university does care about athletics. Otherwise we wouldn’t have invested in $40+ million in facilities the last 7 years, fired Gill, hired Hardt, given more leadership to Hale, and promoted Linda Boland (who was a former student athlete herself) to academic-athletic liaison. We’ve also seen Hardt fire other coaches for poor performance (baseball coach staff, soccer coach) and even Juco transfers in women b-ball as a sign of athletic- administration alignment. Even with Mooney (who should go) it’s not like he has been dreadful the past 7 years. We’ve just been average. It was only last year that we were awful, and Hardt wasn’t going to fire him with Sherod, Gilyard, Golden, and DMB (before he left in the mid-offseason) coming back after being underclassman.

No one mentions these things when we beat UVA in football a couple of years ago, or #16 Cal in b-ball a only a few years ago. Even bigger schools like Florida State, Baylor, Texas currently and/or recently had years where they sucked. Even VCU had a bad year last year. Do you think their fans are saying this nonsense? Outside of some perennial teams, no team will constantly be good forever.

Please reserve your judgment on Hardt and the steps we take at the end of the year when we see our b-ball record and who we’ve lost to and how. Until then, stop with this nonsense. We aren’t Alabama or Ohio State when it comes to sports. It is evident that we have made investments and the effort to improve our athletic standing. Things like this take time. You all seem to think that these things happen instantaneously. Just pay attention to what’s happening and you’ll see the effort is there. However as a top academic institution we have other mutual priorities that aren’t just athletics (as we should).

By the way, when I was a student, I spoke with Crutcher about athletics at some dinner on campus. I left that conversation thinking that the guy gets it. I don’t care if he personally prefers playing the cello to watching a football game. However, as president of our University he understood what athletics can do for our image, reputation, application numbers, alumni comradarie, and donations. I don’t know if you all realize, but when UR had its donation challenge earlier this summer, donations to athletic department was #1 in number of donations, and total amount!!

 

[Captain Anderson]

Hale is a huge advocate for athletics. For anyone who doesn’t know this, there is way more support at the top level for sports than there has been in a long time at UR. Similarly, my understanding is that crutcher is a proponent of athletics as well. I think it’s dreadful generalization to say that he plays the cello and therefore doesn’t care about sports.

All of this said, we are not Clemson or UT or any other big sports school. UR athletics will always take something of a backseat to other university endeavors.

Good points. Even at big "football factories" like Clemson you have to have everyone rowing in the same direction. Clemson didn't win the ACC in football from 1991 until 2011 when Dabo finally broke thru. They currently have a very pro athletics President who is extremely active with recruiting in all sports (Sounds like Crutcher is also supportive of athletics especially compared to Ayers). You need the administration on board and supportive as well. Thats why you see Clemson becoming a national power in football and making the Sweet Sixteen in basketball last year. Everyone is pulling in the same direction instead of creating internal barriers for success. Hopefully under Crutcher and Hardt we will start seeing progress. We really need some kind of positive win streak or momentum right now in one of the two major sports. It would really help galvanize the University, students., alums, fans. Right now we are stagnant.