Empire 8

[bomber3]

E8GUY:

In response to: "Ithaca better watch their back"

There might be other teams improving but you are forgetting this is a 20 win team last year that is returning most of their offense (heard one bench player/marginal starter probably isn't playing).  They have one of the best young point guards in the nation and a preseason all-american at forward.  I promise you they are not preparing for the season with Elmira even on their radar.  Utica might be because I thought they underachieved a bit last year and also heard they're bringing in some studs.  Elmira has won 23 games over the past SIX years.  Ithaca is averaging 22 wins a season over the past two.
Until they beat a top 6 E9 team they aren't much of a threat.

Although their schedule hasn't been published Ithaca has a very tough schedule I'm told.  Their non-conference schedule includes several ranked teams as well as several other NCAA teams from last year.

Will post a video for one of IC's freshman recruits later.  

Talked to a Bomber assistant coach and told him jokingly that I expected at least 20 this year. His response: "Come on man, give me a break." The schedule is very tough, even for a Bomber team that figures to have talent.

Word is Jordan Marcus lost 20 pounds, and Phil Barera gained 20. Both those things figure to be good.

Bottom line, and Bomber3 will hate this: I really don't care how the team does in the regular season. I mean, I want them to do well, and they probably will. But there's a stigma attached to this program right now, of their own doing. The program, as a whole, has never won an E8 tourney game and hasn't won an NCAA Tourney game since the very early 90's. Does that mean I won't come watch them shoot the lights out in February and be happy when they do? Of course not.

It does mean that I consider this team talented enough to be one of the Top 4 in the league, and at that point, I want to see them put it together when it matters. They're going to be good, but it's time for them to fulfill their potential. We've had three great regular seasons, but it's time to take the next step

You're right, I don't like it.  You know me too well  .  So basically what you're saying is that the regular season is relatively pointless?  Winning two out of three E8 regular season titles, reaching the second round of the NCAA's, reaching #7 ranking in the nation, and an ECAC title last year doesn't matter?  Yes, I will admit IC's postseason struggles need to be improved upon but it's not like they haven't experienced any success.   They have the most wins in the East Region over the past three years:

Ithaca - 61
Medaille - 60
PLattsburgh - 56
SUNY IT - 56
Fisher - 56
St. Lawrence - 55
Stevens - 54
Nazareth - 51

Over the past three years Ithaca has jumped from the middle of the East to one of their premier programs in the region.  Would some postseason success be nice? Absolutely, but with or without past or future NCAA/E8 success they have undoubtedly become one of the premier teams in the region.  I guarantee you almost all the teams in the region would trade their past three years for Ithaca's.

And as for this year, mark it down they will reach 20 wins and will be ranked by the end of the year.  This is their new guard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHw3ianWB5U

Of course the regular season matters, but after three consecutive years of very high-quality teams flaming out in the postseason, it's not like this is a one-time thing.

And remember, I'm not asking for a Final Four run here. How about one E8/NCAA Tournament game win? I mean, the regular seasons have been great, but for three years, this team has failed to play to its full potential, and that's disappointing.

It's frustrating to watch last year's team run Nazareth out of the gym in January, but then lose to them six weeks later.

Just like it was frustrating that the Golden Flyers were the team that adjusted their play in the 2009 playoffs after the Bombers killed them twice in the regular season.

Or to watch them lose at home by 20 to a Fisher team they had beaten on the road by double-digits 13 days earlier.

No-one's saying forget the regular seasons. That 2008-2009 team was special, but no matter how many times I look at the Burton to Cruz alley oop against RIT, I keep thinking about what that team could have, (and frankly should have) done.

It's not me just picking on the basketball team. It's symptomatic of the entire athletic program. The football team puts together great seasons, but hasn't won an NCAA playoff game since 2003. The Men's Lax team has gone 40-5 in the E8 regular season over the last six years and 4-5 in the conference tournament. Men's soccer hasn't won an E8 tournament in who knows how long, and were lost in the first round numerous times after running the table in the regular season.  Baseball flames out in the regionals all the time.

I know you think I'm negative, but I'm probably the biggest Bomber fan there is. I hate it when the teams lose. Nothing would please me more than to see the football team win playoff games, or the basketball team make a deep run. And so, when the teams, who we KNOW can do that--like the 2009 Basketball/Lacrosse teams or the 2008 football team, I am going to be hard on them. The program shouldn't be satisfied with a bunch of regular season trophies. They should be striving for more.

We just built a 60-million dollar athletic and events center. If we're going to make that kind of investment in the athletic dept at the expense of the rest of the college (which I didn't think we should have but that's another issue) then, frankly we should be demanding excellence. We should be questioning why our teams can't win the big games, and why Fisher's football team owns us, and why Cortland's program has passed us completely.

Remember, "to whom much is given, much is expected"

Ok couple things here.  The 2009-2010 Bomber basketball team might not have won a game but they earned a bye to the second round with their performance in the regular season.  I know they didn't win a game but technically they were one of the last 32 teams.  Random side note; I think the bye actually hurt that team.  They probably would have been better off facing a lesser talented team in the first round and get the "haven't won a playoff game monkey off their backs" and gone from there after just losing to Nazareth.  I think 3 of 4 teams that got a bye lost in the second round that year (it was at least 2).  Look at the Big East coaches trying to do away with the bye/double bye in the Big East tourney - they don't like having the games off when their opponents are staying sharp and playing the day before.  But I digress...

In regard to the multiple programs postseason failures -- it is not easy to win NCAA games.  Plain and simple.  Football only has 32 teams in the playoffs so only 16 programs will win a game.  With 240+ programs in D3 football only about 6% of programs will win an NCAA game in one season. This correlates to a win about every 15 years; which it just proves how hard it is.  With basketball there are 330+ teams and 32 teams will win NCAA games, which correlates to about 10% and a win per decade.  I'm not familiar with Lacrosse so I won't speculate but my guess is
it's along the same lines. 

I know Ithaca's athletics are held to a higher standard and I am not condoning settling for mediocrity but I don't think losing a few playoff games necessarily means something is wrong.  My theory is that wins are not easy to come by and perhaps some Ithaca teams spoiled the fan base. 

The athletics and events center is a needed addition to the campus and will only add to the prominence of the athletics department.  How do you want Ithaca to be the best and not have the top of the line facilities?  If you want the basketball, football, baseball, and lacrosse programs to meet your standards how can you question building this facility?  There is no such thing as free lunch and you can't have your cake and eat it too.  If you want them to maintain their athletic excellence you need to provide the facilities for the athletes.  Look how Fisher transformed their campus and now look at their programs.  The football center is outdated, Hill Center is 50 years old, football/softball/baseball teams have to commute 3 miles to Cornell to use their indoor facilities, and basketball/baseball/softball often have to practice at 6 am in the second semester to get in the gym.  Also if I'm not mistaken, the majority of the $60 million came from private donations and external grants.  Also, despite the postseason issues Ithaca still placed first in the Empire 8 commissioner's cup last year and is one of the only teams to be ranked in the top 25 of every poll of the Division 3 Director's Cup.  Ithaca finished 21st to Cortland's 17th place last year so it's not like they are head and shoulders above IC.  Overall, the athletics center will be a much needed addition to the campus.

Here's the problem with your postseason assessment: Often times, the Bombers lose in the conference tournaments to the same teams they beat in the playoffs. That's telling. That's what the lacrosse team and soccer teams do. That's what the '09 basketball team did. As for the football team in 2008, zero people outside of Curry gave them a chance in that game. Baseball's been the #1 team in the regionals and lost. It's harder to win postseason games, but Naz, Fisher and Cortland seem to do it.

Yes, this year the Director's Cup gap was small. But Cortland's finished 3rd in recent years. They've won national titles in lacrosse and gone to national titles in baseball. They've won NCAA playoff games in football and conference playoff games in basketball.

Yeah, the sports facilities are outdated. So is the Park School. So why aren't we soliciting donations for that? Why didn't we say, "Ok, donate to the A&E center, but please donate to our general fund, or contribute to the Park Foundation."?That's only the school's flagship academic program, and they're short on space and professors. But hey, let's hit people up for an indoor track! The college is facing a lawsuit because they're not compliant with the ADA, but we better have a place for field hockey to play. Federal laws and academics definitely should come behind that at a $40,000 a year college.

Fisher got money from the Bills. Cortland gets money from the state. Ithaca is on their own, and there were (and still are) more important things for the school to collect money for than athletic facilities. But since we did put that money into athletics, they should be held accountable for their performances.

I'm a big sports fan, and the biggest Bomber fan you'll meet, but we're a D-III school. The athletic program is a nice addition to the school, but at the end of the day, prioritizing athletics over the overall academic experience at a D-III school is flat out the wrong decision. I could care less if the football or basketball team goes in the toilet due to outdated facilities. Better them than the Communications school. (Or any other school on campus)

But we're stuck with it. So no, I'm not going to take it easy on them. As I said before "To whom much is given, much is expected"

Yes, the college is spending a great deal of money on the athletics center but you are conveniently excluding a number of large academic and student expenditures the college has undertaken the past 5 years:

$20+ million brand new LEED certified business school that I had the pleasure of learning in for 1.5 years.  It is a spectacular building and was a much needed addition to the campus.

$10+ million Dillingham renovation for the college's top-notch theatre and music schools

$20+ million to build the state of the art administration building (Peggy Williams Building)

$45+ million to purchase the Circles apartments

The Park School may not be state of the art anymore but it is certainly not outdated and serves its purpose.  In my opinion it would be a waste of resources to build a new Park School.  This athletics center is much needed and they are not sacrificing any academic funding through its construction.  Look at other area schools and their facilities;  U of R has a great full service athletics building, Hamilton has a top notch indoor facility, Cortland and Fisher have both significantly expanded their facilities, and Hartwick just completely renovated their basketball facilities.  The athletics center is just keeping up with the Joneses.  The basketball program has probably the worst facilities in the E9, the pool is outdated, teams have to share indoor facilities between about 6 programs at times, and there are limited intramural facilities.  Anyway you put it this was not an extravagant expenditure in my opinion and it is completely justified.

[Bombers798891]

Yes, the college is spending a great deal of money on the athletics center but you are conveniently excluding a number of large academic and student expenditures the college has undertaken the past 5 years:

$20+ million brand new LEED certified business school that I had the pleasure of learning in for 1.5 years.  It is a spectacular building and was a much needed addition to the campus.

$10+ million Dillingham renovation for the college's top-notch theatre and music schools

$20+ million to build the state of the art administration building (Peggy Williams Building)

$45+ million to purchase the Circles apartments

The Park School may not be state of the art anymore but it is certainly not outdated and serves its purpose.  In my opinion it would be a waste of resources to build a new Park School.  This athletics center is much needed and they are not sacrificing any academic funding through its construction.  Look at other area schools and their facilities;  U of R has a great full service athletics building, Hamilton has a top notch indoor facility, Cortland and Fisher have both significantly expanded their facilities, and Hartwick just completely renovated their basketball facilities.  The athletics center is just keeping up with the Joneses.  The basketball program has probably the worst facilities in the E9, the pool is outdated, teams have to share indoor facilities between about 6 programs at times, and there are limited intramural facilities.  Anyway you put it this was not an extravagant expenditure in my opinion and it is completely justified.

That's certainly true, but here's my question: How much will the A&E center help all our teams? Does it help football? Aren't their locker rooms still going to be in the art building? Baseball? Wrestling? Won't they still only have one full-time paid coach? Basketball? Won't the gym still be a disaster? I know it can be a bit of addition by subtraction when it comes to overcrowded indoor facilities, but I just question if, overall, it will have the impact we want it to.

Here's my thinking:

1) There's only so many athletes on campus, and as such, only a small amount who benefit from the A&E center.

2) There's no guarantee that improved facilities will help the athletic program. It's a possibility, but there's not as direct a correlation as there is to improved facilities for students helping academic performance.
2a) Even if there is an impact, how great can it be? We're, as you pointed out, already in the top group of the Director Cup Standings and we win the E8 cup every year. There's only so much higher to go
2b) That same argument could be said for Park–that we're already close to the top–but that leaves out a critical part of the equation: How does the improvement help the college? If the basketball team has great facilities and goes to the Final 4 as a result, does the college see any benefit from that?

The impact of having good teams at colleges and it's impact on enrollment has been studied, and largely debunked. It's term is "The Flutie Effect". And it's only going to be less impactfull for a D-III school with less media coverage of their sports. It may help recruiting, but that's a very small subset of people every year. A non-athlete student living in Rochester is not going to pick Fisher over Naz because the football stadium is nicer. Nor do I think big-time donors to a D-III school care about athletic facilities as much as they do academics. Nor is a kid going to pick IC because the new A&E center means better resources for the intramural floor hockey team he wants to join (and if he is, that kid has issues)

That's not to say we shouldn't spend any money on athletics. But that 65 million is 15 million less than it cost to upgrade the administration buildings, business, theater and music schools. Less money + bigger impact = better investment.

I don't know what it would cost to upgrade park, but I suspect it would be much less than 65 million. I also suspect it would impact more people–there are 1,350 park students–and therefore, more alumni, etc. Which makes it a better investment which should have been prioritized.

[slickyquick]

I'll have to agree with you Bombers as far as that kid from Rochester who doesn't get two hoots about athletics BUT...

1) Any time athletics does well, it gives the school free and positive publicity
Example: What if a kid from Pittsburgh sees in the Post Gazette (Pittsburgh's paper) that Maravich has been successful at Ithaca and it might actually get some interest from that area. Obviously not to the extent of school like Gonzaga and Butler but it still will help.

2) As far as alums donating money to the based off of academics, I think it differs from school to school. At certain schools athletic alums are the ones that still feel the most connections thru teammates, coaches, and players. Take Homecoming weekend for example, who do you see on campus the most, my best guess would be former athletes.

3) At a school like Ithaca, it looks like (doing minor research and estimating things) there are about 6,000 undergrads at the school and roughly 1,000 student athletes (might be a little high). That's 1/6th of the student body. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me. I would imagine numbers are somewhat similar and maybe higher at other Empire 8 schools. Athletics play a very important role in kids' decisions and retention (huge in this economy) at the school. On top of that, new fitness facilities are always helpful because believe it or not, that's important for prospective students.

As much as the people in academia want to say kids come to the school because of academics, if it wasn't for these coaches in the Empire 8 (and most conferences for that matter) these kids wouldn't be at their respective schools.
   

[maxpower]

Yes, the college is spending a great deal of money on the athletics center but you are conveniently excluding a number of large academic and student expenditures the college has undertaken the past 5 years:

$20+ million brand new LEED certified business school that I had the pleasure of learning in for 1.5 years.  It is a spectacular building and was a much needed addition to the campus.

$10+ million Dillingham renovation for the college's top-notch theatre and music schools

$20+ million to build the state of the art administration building (Peggy Williams Building)

$45+ million to purchase the Circles apartments

The Park School may not be state of the art anymore but it is certainly not outdated and serves its purpose.  In my opinion it would be a waste of resources to build a new Park School.  This athletics center is much needed and they are not sacrificing any academic funding through its construction.  Look at other area schools and their facilities;  U of R has a great full service athletics building, Hamilton has a top notch indoor facility, Cortland and Fisher have both significantly expanded their facilities, and Hartwick just completely renovated their basketball facilities.  The athletics center is just keeping up with the Joneses.  The basketball program has probably the worst facilities in the E9, the pool is outdated, teams have to share indoor facilities between about 6 programs at times, and there are limited intramural facilities.  Anyway you put it this was not an extravagant expenditure in my opinion and it is completely justified.

That's certainly true, but here's my question: How much will the A&E center help all our teams? Does it help football? Aren't their locker rooms still going to be in the art building? Baseball? Wrestling? Won't they still only have one full-time paid coach? Basketball? Won't the gym still be a disaster? I know it can be a bit of addition by subtraction when it comes to overcrowded indoor facilities, but I just question if, overall, it will have the impact we want it to.

Here's my thinking:

1) There's only so many athletes on campus, and as such, only a small amount who benefit from the A&E center.

2) There's no guarantee that improved facilities will help the athletic program. It's a possibility, but there's not as direct a correlation as there is to improved facilities for students helping academic performance.
2a) Even if there is an impact, how great can it be? We're, as you pointed out, already in the top group of the Director Cup Standings and we win the E8 cup every year. There's only so much higher to go
2b) That same argument could be said for Park–that we're already close to the top–but that leaves out a critical part of the equation: How does the improvement help the college? If the basketball team has great facilities and goes to the Final 4 as a result, does the college see any benefit from that?

The impact of having good teams at colleges and it's impact on enrollment has been studied, and largely debunked. It's term is "The Flutie Effect". And it's only going to be less impactfull for a D-III school with less media coverage of their sports. It may help recruiting, but that's a very small subset of people every year. A non-athlete student living in Rochester is not going to pick Fisher over Naz because the football stadium is nicer. Nor do I think big-time donors to a D-III school care about athletic facilities as much as they do academics. Nor is a kid going to pick IC because the new A&E center means better resources for the intramural floor hockey team he wants to join (and if he is, that kid has issues)

That's not to say we shouldn't spend any money on athletics. But that 65 million is 15 million less than it cost to upgrade the administration buildings, business, theater and music schools. Less money + bigger impact = better investment.

I don't know what it would cost to upgrade park, but I suspect it would be much less than 65 million. I also suspect it would impact more people–there are 1,350 park students–and therefore, more alumni, etc. Which makes it a better investment which should have been prioritized.

Great post Bombers. And what you're leaving out is that Ithaca is a campus that largely does not care about the athletics. The attendance numbers at all-non Cortaca/Homecoming events speak to that.

[AUPepBand]

Great post Bombers. And what you're leaving out is that Ithaca is a campus that largely does not care about the athletics. The attendance numbers at all-non Cortaca/Homecoming events speak to that.

Pep was curious about attendance at the 'wick-IC football game. The IC website boxscore did not include a number for attendance. A look at the Hartwick website boxscore, however, states that attendance was 500.

Now 500 is a pretty rounded-off number so Pep is assuming that was a ballpark figure estimated by the Hartwick SID. Was attendance really that low?

[Bombers798891]

Great post Bombers. And what you're leaving out is that Ithaca is a campus that largely does not care about the athletics. The attendance numbers at all-non Cortaca/Homecoming events speak to that.

Pep was curious about attendance at the 'wick-IC football game. The IC website boxscore did not include a number for attendance. A look at the Hartwick website boxscore, however, states that attendance was 500.

Now 500 is a pretty rounded-off number so Pep is assuming that was a ballpark figure estimated by the Hartwick SID. Was attendance really that low?

No. Probably near 2K. But we don't sell tickets (Students and Faculty just show ID and walk in) so there's no way to get a head count

[Bombers798891]

I'll have to agree with you Bombers as far as that kid from Rochester who doesn't get two hoots about athletics BUT...

1) Any time athletics does well, it gives the school free and positive publicity
Example: What if a kid from Pittsburgh sees in the Post Gazette (Pittsburgh's paper) that Maravich has been successful at Ithaca and it might actually get some interest from that area. Obviously not to the extent of school like Gonzaga and Butler but it still will help.

2) As far as alums donating money to the based off of academics, I think it differs from school to school. At certain schools athletic alums are the ones that still feel the most connections thru teammates, coaches, and players. Take Homecoming weekend for example, who do you see on campus the most, my best guess would be former athletes.

3) At a school like Ithaca, it looks like (doing minor research and estimating things) there are about 6,000 undergrads at the school and roughly 1,000 student athletes (might be a little high). That's 1/6th of the student body. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me. I would imagine numbers are somewhat similar and maybe higher at other Empire 8 schools. Athletics play a very important role in kids' decisions and retention (huge in this economy) at the school. On top of that, new fitness facilities are always helpful because believe it or not, that's important for prospective students.

As much as the people in academia want to say kids come to the school because of academics, if it wasn't for these coaches in the Empire 8 (and most conferences for that matter) these kids wouldn't be at their respective schools.
   

Hmmm....maybe. I think your athlete figure may be high (double-counting track maybe?), and remember, that A&E center doesn't help all of them. I'm not sure, for example, how the football team benefits from this.

I'm sure athletes come to schools because of athletics. What I'm not sure on is how the quality of athlete will improve thanks to this investment and what, if any, greater impact will a slight improvement in athletics be for the school. Does moving from 20th to 12th in Director's Cup mean anything?

[maxpower]

Great post Bombers. And what you're leaving out is that Ithaca is a campus that largely does not care about the athletics. The attendance numbers at all-non Cortaca/Homecoming events speak to that.

Pep was curious about attendance at the 'wick-IC football game. The IC website boxscore did not include a number for attendance. A look at the Hartwick website boxscore, however, states that attendance was 500.

Now 500 is a pretty rounded-off number so Pep is assuming that was a ballpark figure estimated by the Hartwick SID. Was attendance really that low?

When I was in school, 2K was high for a football game... but this was homecoming, part of my caveat...

[maxpower]

"When I was in school....", jeez I'm startin to sound like pep!

[sjfcards]

I'll have to agree with you Bombers as far as that kid from Rochester who doesn't get two hoots about athletics BUT...

1) Any time athletics does well, it gives the school free and positive publicity
Example: What if a kid from Pittsburgh sees in the Post Gazette (Pittsburgh's paper) that Maravich has been successful at Ithaca and it might actually get some interest from that area. Obviously not to the extent of school like Gonzaga and Butler but it still will help.

2) As far as alums donating money to the based off of academics, I think it differs from school to school. At certain schools athletic alums are the ones that still feel the most connections thru teammates, coaches, and players. Take Homecoming weekend for example, who do you see on campus the most, my best guess would be former athletes.

3) At a school like Ithaca, it looks like (doing minor research and estimating things) there are about 6,000 undergrads at the school and roughly 1,000 student athletes (might be a little high). That's 1/6th of the student body. That's a pretty high percentage if you ask me. I would imagine numbers are somewhat similar and maybe higher at other Empire 8 schools. Athletics play a very important role in kids' decisions and retention (huge in this economy) at the school. On top of that, new fitness facilities are always helpful because believe it or not, that's important for prospective students.

As much as the people in academia want to say kids come to the school because of academics, if it wasn't for these coaches in the Empire 8 (and most conferences for that matter) these kids wouldn't be at their respective schools.
   

Hmmm....maybe. I think your athlete figure may be high (double-counting track maybe?), and remember, that A&E center doesn't help all of them. I'm not sure, for example, how the football team benefits from this.

I'm sure athletes come to schools because of athletics. What I'm not sure on is how the quality of athlete will improve thanks to this investment and what, if any, greater impact will a slight improvement in athletics be for the school. Does moving from 20th to 12th in Director's Cup mean anything?

Does IC have a Physical Education Major? I am assuming an improvement to the facilities for those students would play a roll in the decision making for the new athletics building.

Honestly, I think it all comes down to prestige of the campus. Regardless of what the building is used for, the more impressive your campus (and IC's is impressive) the more pride that is built in the alumni base (a.k.a. more alumni giving), and the better recruiting tools you have (a.k.a. more tuition). I don't think that is the sole reason for building an athletics facility as impressive as what IC will have, but if you have the money to pay for it, you can find several areas to be improved by it, and the general quality of campus life will increase, why wouldn't you build. Kids go to school for all different reasons, and alumni take pride in and give because of all different reasons. Why not create the most impressive buildings and programs in your reasonable means to cover all your bases.

[maxpower]

One reason would be that you spend millions of dollars and then hit a recession, have no money left, and start cutting programs.

This sounds like a joke, or hind-sight-y, but having been at music institutions that like to build buildings, I've noticed that for me it's never the quality of the facility but what you can DO in the facility. When I was at UCSD we had a terrible concert space, but we could use it all the time for whatever we wanted. Then they built a huge, admittedly beautiful new building to impress donors, and they put all the halls on lockdown for signout and approval, etc, and forgot to put a lounge in so we actually had to hang out in a different building. That engendered a lot more bitterness in me as an alumnus than it did pride.

Not sure if this translates to sports, but what I'm saying is that if you examine the priorities of the students involved, facilities won't always be at the top of the list. In certain extreme cases, like pre-Growney SJF, maybe it's different. But what does the new business building do that Smiddy Hall didn't, besides look and feel impressive?


EDIT: I worked in the Sports Info department at Ithaca, and my junior year we moved from the really nice Alumni Hall building to the temporary Boardman place. Boardman Place was an over-sized port-o-potty from the outside, but we finally had a separate office for the ASID, it was closer to all the fields/gyms, and the staff was ecstatic about it.

[Bombers798891]

Does IC have a Physical Education Major? I am assuming an improvement to the facilities for those students would play a roll in the decision making for the new athletics building.

Honestly, I think it all comes down to prestige of the campus. Regardless of what the building is used for, the more impressive your campus (and IC's is impressive) the more pride that is built in the alumni base (a.k.a. more alumni giving), and the better recruiting tools you have (a.k.a. more tuition). I don't think that is the sole reason for building an athletics facility as impressive as what IC will have, but if you have the money to pay for it, you can find several areas to be improved by it, and the general quality of campus life will increase, why wouldn't you build. Kids go to school for all different reasons, and alumni take pride in and give because of all different reasons. Why not create the most impressive buildings and programs in your reasonable means to cover all your bases.

I agree with this sentiment. I just believe there is a pecking order, and at a D-III school. athletics comes behind a the top academic program in the school (Sorry Max!).

[AUPepBand]

"When I was in school....", jeez I'm startin to sound like pep!

Pep resembles that! 

[sjfcards]

One reason would be that you spend millions of dollars and then hit a recession, have no money left, and start cutting programs.

This sounds like a joke, or hind-sight-y, but having been at music institutions that like to build buildings, I've noticed that for me it's never the quality of the facility but what you can DO in the facility. When I was at UCSD we had a terrible concert space, but we could use it all the time for whatever we wanted. Then they built a huge, admittedly beautiful new building to impress donors, and they put all the halls on lockdown for signout and approval, etc, and forgot to put a lounge in so we actually had to hang out in a different building. That engendered a lot more bitterness in me as an alumnus than it did pride.

Not sure if this translates to sports, but what I'm saying is that if you examine the priorities of the students involved, facilities won't always be at the top of the list. In certain extreme cases, like pre-Growney SJF, maybe it's different. But what does the new business building do that Smiddy Hall didn't, besides look and feel impressive?


EDIT: I worked in the Sports Info department at Ithaca, and my junior year we moved from the really nice Alumni Hall building to the temporary Boardman place. Boardman Place was an over-sized port-o-potty from the outside, but we finally had a separate office for the ASID, it was closer to all the fields/gyms, and the staff was ecstatic about it.

Valid point Max, I think your side and mine is the conversation IC would have had to discuss when they explored the idea of the new building. Hopefully they have explored both sides and determined that the positives of building outweighed the negatives of not. Otherwise, IC may run into the same situation you described above.

[Ethelred the Unready]

One reason would be that you spend millions of dollars and then hit a recession, have no money left, and start cutting programs.

This sounds like a joke, or hind-sight-y, but having been at music institutions that like to build buildings, I've noticed that for me it's never the quality of the facility but what you can DO in the facility. When I was at UCSD we had a terrible concert space, but we could use it all the time for whatever we wanted. Then they built a huge, admittedly beautiful new building to impress donors, and they put all the halls on lockdown for signout and approval, etc, and forgot to put a lounge in so we actually had to hang out in a different building. That engendered a lot more bitterness in me as an alumnus than it did pride.

Not sure if this translates to sports, but what I'm saying is that if you examine the priorities of the students involved, facilities won't always be at the top of the list. In certain extreme cases, like pre-Growney SJF, maybe it's different. But what does the new business building do that Smiddy Hall didn't, besides look and feel impressive?


EDIT: I worked in the Sports Info department at Ithaca, and my junior year we moved from the really nice Alumni Hall building to the temporary Boardman place. Boardman Place was an over-sized port-o-potty from the outside, but we finally had a separate office for the ASID, it was closer to all the fields/gyms, and the staff was ecstatic about it.

Mind if I ask when that was?