Quote from: UfanBill on November 11, 2019, 12:46:01 PMHaving the RPI-Union game same day is not a bad idea.  One game at 1, next at 4.  Would make more of a spectacle, cut down on the cost, draw 4 teams fans, and probably a lot more D3 fans, who just would want to spend a day tailgating and watching football.  Never going to happen, but is an intriguing idea....

I would be OK with that double header scenario BUT how about playing it in the state of New York at the Carrier Dome...Again...never going to happen.
[/quote]

Six (or three) years later, because I was just talking about this with a buddy of mine who suggested the same thing if they were to do it again.

This would likely be a 100% non-starter for Ithaca, who competes with Syracuse directly for students, in the Communications school in particular. There's so much value in the media publicity of this, and every article mentioning a school you're competing with — not to mention sending students to the school itself on game day — defeats the purpose. It sends the message that to do something big, they rely on Syracuse to pull it off.

Interesting to see Ithaca's season so far. The pitching has struggled and overall, the hitting isn't drastically improved.

But the Bombers have cranked up the power significantly. After hitting 27 HR in 42 games last year, the Bombers have 24 in 20 games so far this season. They've also hit 13 triples already after hitting 11 all last season.

As a result, though they are hitting 9 points better as a team, they are slugging 68 points higher.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 26, 2025, 01:12:15 PM

Quote from: IC798891 on February 26, 2025, 12:48:51 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2025, 04:32:23 PM

Quote from: IC798891 on February 25, 2025, 03:52:21 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2025, 02:21:31 PMIn short, if it was possible in the past to study pre-med or engineering and still play a sport, and that's now impossible in spite of the fact that the school's academic demands haven't changed, then there is a problem with that sport from an academic (i.e., the paramount objective of being a college student) point of view.

I disagree with the idea that seems to be getting floated here, namely "If every single major a school offers isn't possible for all student-athlete then it proves that the school's emphasis on that sport reflects a fundamental problem that must be fixed."

That's not what I said, though. I've already stated that some majors (e.g., music) are historically incompatible with athletic participation because of time management and resource inflexibility.

Quote from: IC798891 on February 25, 2025, 03:52:21 PM2, Certain majors may be largely incompatible with other time-intensive activities, such as athletics, but that is not, in and of itself, indicative of misguided athletic-centric priorities by the institution.

I guess that we have to agree to disagree, then, because where there's one major that all of a sudden becomes a no-go due to a coach-mandated increased demand upon a student-athlete's time, there's more. Next thing you know, you've got a team filled with business majors and communications majors because the student-athletes ran out of viable options for balancing schoolwork and athletics (and because they're steered into those choices by the coaches and by their older teammates).

This is just slippery slope crap.

If you can't see the difference between someone pointing out that being pre-med may be difficult to pull off because and "The entire team is all business majors because what else could they possibly study?" then you're not discussing the problem in good faith.

If I wanted to engage in such bad faith arguments, I could point out that Myron Rolle completed his pre-med requirements in 2.5 years, earning a Rhodes scholarship in the process, while playing All-American football for Florida State, so prove to me that a backup D3 shortstop not wanting to major in engineering comes down to coach pressure, rather than a personal skill issue with regard to studying inefficiently.

I resent your insinuations. I don't see why I have to defend my integrity to you. If you can't discuss this politely without impugning my honesty, then this conversation is over.

You're unwilling to engage in good-faith discussions, you deserve every bit of criticism.

Go spew your false equivalency of the workloads of pre-med majors and business/comms majors to someone who might be naive enough to be fooled by it.

Quote from: jknezek on March 27, 2025, 09:19:46 AMI'm also kind of shocked that the club teams don't pay for themselves. I know we did at W&L. I think the club rugby and soccer teams got a whopping $1000 each from the school every year, but everything else the players paid for.

But it's hockey, which means a rink/facility that is probably not multi use.

Quote from: Ron Boerger on March 17, 2025, 09:38:23 AMLOL, it's been nearly four years since anyone posted here, but still worth noting that Johnson and Wales (RI) tied for the men's national championship with Wartburg last weekend after both scored 83.5 points.  That's the first time since 1994 that a school besides Wartburg or Augsburg claimed a national title. 

Ithaca the last not Wartburg/Augsburg team to win it outright

Makes sense. I think there comes a point where you need it just to save arms.

The IC-St. Lawrence game seems like what it was built for. Saints relievers just could not get the ball over the plate. In just 2 1/3 innings they issued 10 walks and threw 7 wild pitches. Feels like running through a bullpen just to try to scrounge up six more outs benefits no one.

Has the LL always had a mercy rule for baseball or is that new? Maybe I never noticed because I can never remember when games are 7 vs. 9 innings anyway, but I noticed it today when IC walked off vs. St. Lawrence in the 7th on a wild pitch that made it 18-8

A wise friend once told me that there was nothing wrong with bowing out with dignity against a better team. I think that sums up Ithaca tonight. They fought and battled and played well, but their opponent was just a little better.

Great season, Bombers!

To put this game into perspective:

Ithaca jumped out to a 16-9 lead eight minutes into the game, and it never got closer than that the rest of the game. Ithaca got up by as much as 22 in the second half, and it never got especially close again.

Stockton was done in largely by going just 3-for-23 from three. Sometimes the shots just don't fall.

Still, Ithaca was picked to finish 7th in the conference this year. They have played in three straight "win or go home" postseason games and trailed for a grand total of 30 seconds combined. Playing their best basketball this time of the year is what every program wants, and it's what Ithaca is doing. Great season for the Bombers

I don't think RPI blew anything. I think Ithaca shot 9-of-12 from three in the first half, and even if you're getting wide-open looks, that's unlikely.

Sometimes teams just get hot and you can't do anything but tip your cap.

I'm curious what the atmosphere was at RPI. It was really subdued at Ithaca for the women's final, and I think the 3 p.m. Sunday start time was to blame. I feel like Sunday afternoon is the time where you're getting ready for the week, and you're sort of asking people to interrupt that. But playing 6/7/8 at night on a Saturday? That's nothing for college students. It's usually the time you're sitting around waiting for something to do.

I am guessing that having it be a Top seeds host tournament, as opposed to a #1 seed hosts everything is driving it. If you don't know where the title game is going to be, there needs to be an off day so teams can arrange travel/hotels. But I think it would be a much better atmosphere if it was held on a Saturday

Ithaca has played two very different games vs RPI. Will be interesting to see which version shows up Sunday

This is something I struggle with.

I went to one of the best communications schools in the country (tuition free, I should point out) for my journalism degree. Graduated Magna Cum Laude, went to grad school for a masters; graduated with a 3.7. I work in college communications at Ithaca College

My ex-wife went to DeSales for a film degree (completely uninterested in film, but her parents wanted her to go to college, also with a tuition discount). She had like a 1.8 GPA, so she got into sales. She quit that and became an administrative coordinator at a local non-profit here in Ithaca. Worked her way up the chain to marketing specialist, then moved to higher ed. Now works in communications for Cornell. It would be accurate to say she has a better job than me. And I'm not sure her degree has come in handy for her beyond it getting her past an automated screening process that checks a box —and I think she agrees.
 
It's anecdotal, but I think it points out a fundamental flaw, which is that while college degrees can be absolutely useful, they also can serve as a (very expensive) gatekeeper. And we need to re-think our processes here. I think, too often, the "College isn't the right path for everyone" gets bandied about when we talk about blue collar jobs, or going into trades, etc. But it doesn't go far enough, IMO. Not every professional career job needs to have a bachelor's degree requirement attached to it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, (math and economics was never my strong suit) but this says it will only apply to places with "aggregate fair market value of assets of at least $500,000 per student."

So like, at Ithaca, which has 4,200 students, this would mean they would need assets of at least $2.1 billion for this increase to take place?

Now, maybe "assets" includes other stuff, but Ithaca's got a $373 million endowment and another $100 million is cash reserves, so well under the $2.1 billion.

Ithaca's not every institution, obviously. And again, maybe there's something more that go into assets (value of the buildings/land?). But they wouldn't even appear to be especially close. Obviously, the endowments will grow, so they may get there eventually, but it seems like this might be more targeted towards places with endowments in the 10s of billions than the smaller, liberal arts colleges and state schools that comprise most of d3.

This is not a partisan post based on anything, I'm merely trying to see if I'm interpreting this correctly

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2025, 04:32:23 PM

Quote from: IC798891 on February 25, 2025, 03:52:21 PM

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2025, 02:21:31 PMIn short, if it was possible in the past to study pre-med or engineering and still play a sport, and that's now impossible in spite of the fact that the school's academic demands haven't changed, then there is a problem with that sport from an academic (i.e., the paramount objective of being a college student) point of view.

I disagree with the idea that seems to be getting floated here, namely "If every single major a school offers isn't possible for all student-athlete then it proves that the school's emphasis on that sport reflects a fundamental problem that must be fixed."

That's not what I said, though. I've already stated that some majors (e.g., music) are historically incompatible with athletic participation because of time management and resource inflexibility.

Quote from: IC798891 on February 25, 2025, 03:52:21 PM2, Certain majors may be largely incompatible with other time-intensive activities, such as athletics, but that is not, in and of itself, indicative of misguided athletic-centric priorities by the institution.

I guess that we have to agree to disagree, then, because where there's one major that all of a sudden becomes a no-go due to a coach-mandated increased demand upon a student-athlete's time, there's more. Next thing you know, you've got a team filled with business majors and communications majors because the student-athletes ran out of viable options for balancing schoolwork and athletics (and because they're steered into those choices by the coaches and by their older teammates).

This is just slippery slope crap.

If you can't see the difference between someone pointing out that being pre-med may be difficult to pull off because and "The entire team is all business majors because what else could they possibly study?" then you're not discussing the problem in good faith.

If I wanted to engage in such bad faith arguments, I could point out that Myron Rolle completed his pre-med requirements in 2.5 years, earning a Rhodes scholarship in the process, while playing All-American football for Florida State, so prove to me that a backup D3 shortstop not wanting to major in engineering comes down to coach pressure, rather than a personal skill issue with regard to studying inefficiently.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on February 25, 2025, 02:21:31 PMIn short, if it was possible in the past to study pre-med or engineering and still play a sport, and that's now impossible in spite of the fact that the school's academic demands haven't changed, then there is a problem with that sport from an academic (i.e., the paramount objective of being a college student) point of view.

I disagree with the idea that seems to be getting floated here, namely "If every single major a school offers isn't possible for all student-athlete then it proves that the school's emphasis on that sport reflects a fundamental problem that must be fixed."

Not everything is compatible with everything else.

To use an example: many of you know that I use a wheelchair. When it comes to disability advocacy, we talk about the idea of universal access. But universal doesn't mean the dictionary definition "applicable to all cases" (emphasis mine). I've worked on committees to build accessible playgrounds. You can't build one where every element of that playground is usable by people with every possible disability. That's not what universal access means. 

As it relates to our current conversation, I think two things can be true at the same time:

1. Funneling student-athletes to "easier" majors and classes in order to interfere as little as possible with their focus on athletics is bad.

2, Certain majors may be largely incompatible with other time-intensive activities, such as athletics, but that is not, in and of itself, indicative of misguided athletic-centric priorities by the institution.