FB: Old Dominion Athletic Conference

[Llamaguy]

Just to keep the conversation rolling, check out this website: http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY05NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssets.pdf if you are interested in seeing where your school's endowment ranks among all reporting schools in the USA.  This is fairly up-to-date information (Fiscal Year 2005) and shows how much it grew (or declined) from 2004 to 2005.  Through FY 2005, the 14 ODAC schools, by rank and dollars in thousands, are:

98.   W&L  $531,992
249. CUA  $160,449
288. RM WC $133,536
315. HSC $113,236
331. HU $101,150
338. RMC $98,614
340. RC $97,449
350. SBC $91,762
384. E&H $72,400
392. LC $70,108
439. GC $57,576
482. BC $48,817
523. VWC $39,678
660. EMU $18,369


 

Good stuff Hasanova!

I'm just glad this is D3 sports. If it were D1 or Professional Baseball I guess the Yankees (aka W&L) would buy all those smart / excellent athletes off with the unspoken, "legal scholarships / gifts form the program"!

On another note, it looks like going into the 2006 season Bridgewater & Guilford are getting the best bang for their endowment buck.  Or is it the plebian admission standards that are taking these schools to the top? LOL

[hasanova]

Good stuff Hasanova!

I'm just glad this is D3 sports. If it were D1 or Professional Baseball I guess the Yankees (aka W&L) would buy all those smart / excellent athletes off with the unspoken, "legal scholarships / gifts form the program"!

On another note, it looks like going into the 2006 season Bridgewater & Guilford are getting the best bang for their endowment buck.  Or is it the plebian admission standards that are taking these schools to the top? LOL

Thanks.  I've been a very interested "observer" in some of the conversations the past few days about admissions standards and endowments.  I won't speak about the other schools, but I do think I can give some knowledgeable insight about what has shaped Guilford and where they're headed.

First, Guilford was founded by the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, in 1837.   It has been a coeducational school since day one - in fact, the 3rd oldest coeducational college in America.  Quakers, by definition, were generally austere people with simple tastes and a firm religious belief that is was wrong to be ostentatious and "blow your own horn."  They did not, therefore, try to accumulate wealth or ask others to contribute great sums to the college.  They usually did what was the bare minimum to operate the college - nothing more, nothing less - and anything extra went to charity.  In fact, a graduating Guilford Senior last weekend was the 6th consecutive generation of women in her family to attend Guilford.  Much was made of the story that her great-great-great-great-grandfather paid his daughter's tuition with chickens and "all the potatoes he could spare."  lol  I think this helps explain some of the reasons why Guilford's endowment lags behind other schools with comparable histories and academic credentials.  The current President (Kent Chabotar, a Catholic and the first non-Quaker to hold the post, by the way) came to Guilford from Bowdoin in 2002.  Coupled with the fact that Guilford had already severed financial ties with the Society of Friends (although they still "operate with influences of the Friends Meetings") and his desire to raise the edowment, Guilford is aggressively (a new word in the Guilford lexicon!) trying to reach a $100,000,000 endowment and I think they will relatively soon.  I happen to know that a capital campaign to raise $75,000,000 is forthcoming.  It is also a published goal (by 2010) of the college to raise its position from its current US News & World Report tier three ranking to tier two.  Excellent progress has been made there as well in raised SAT scores (now averages about 1160), academic reputation and acceptance levels versus applications (considerably lower percentage the last few years).

Second, Guilford is, to use Llamaguy's word, plebeian.  It has been truly a school of the common people - men and women, although it now gets its share of the nouveau riche.   I, for example, will always be emotionally indebted to Guilford because they helped me attend college even though I didn't think I could financially.  I am a farm boy that grew up very poor, but I was smart.  lol  Guilford truly is need blind when it looks at academic achievement.  Once you are accepted, then the college finds a way you can afford it.

Third, because of its reputation for political activism and social conscience, a disproportionate number of Guilford graduates enter nonprofits such as the Peace Corps, Amnesty International, Social Services and local charitable organizations, just to name a few.  They are creating social wealth, of course, but often their salaries are insufficient to make sizeable contributions to the college.  Some of this is changing, but taken in an overall historical perspective, it has greatly influenced where the college is today.

Now, back to football - I think Coach Kiesel has recruited some plebeian football players that will be very un-Quaker-like in their penchant for knocking heads.  It's difficult to believe in nonviolence and knock someone's helmet off at the same time, but "the times they are a-changing."  lol   Peace

[Menowannalickee U.]

What name calling?  Rightdownthehall, my problem with you is the "drug abuse" allegations you made about W&L.  You still haven't owned up to that. 

When you cast aspersions and slander it will get some folks riled up.  I am one of them.

"Alcohol abuse and illegal drug use adversely affect the learning environment at Washington and Lee University."//

[Menowannalickee U.]

Oops, forgot the link.  Must be my Bridgewater Education.
http://studentaffairs.wlu.edu/deanofstudents/UISA.htm
Guess someone thinks they have a drug problem.

[Ralph Turner]

Just to keep the conversation rolling, check out this website: http://www.nacubo.org/documents/research/FY05NESInstitutionsbyTotalAssets.pdf if you are interested in seeing where your school's endowment ranks among all reporting schools in the USA.  This is fairly up-to-date information (Fiscal Year 2005) and shows how much it grew (or declined) from 2004 to 2005.  Through FY 2005, the 14 ODAC schools, by rank and dollars in thousands, are:

98.   W&L  $531,992
249. CUA  $160,449
288. RM WC $133,536
315. HSC $113,236
331. HU $101,150
338. RMC $98,614
340. RC $97,449
350. SBC $91,762
384. E&H $72,400
392. LC $70,108
439. GC $57,576
482. BC $48,817
523. VWC $39,678
660. EMU $18,369   

Another way to analyze the Endowment figures is to judge the growth of the endowment in numbers of generations completed.  If we assume that a healthy endowment will double every 20 years (nice round number), then that gives us the perspective of the endowment.

Brigdestone's $48M to RMC $98M might be explained by one generation or 20 years of donors.

VWC is the one that looks intriguing.

[Jeremybozz]

www.dnronline.com/sports_details.php?AID=4364&CHID=3//

[Bwana]

When playoff time comes for D3Football each year we-and especially our compadres in Texas-bemoan the contortions the NCAA goes through in pairing the schools due to travel considerations.

Seems this problem is not limited to D3 Football...see this report on the D1 Lacrosse Tournament starting today...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201641.html

...which says in part regarding the pairing of #1 seed  UVa:

Ostensibly, the Cavaliers should have played one of the two last teams to make the playoffs -- either Providence (10-6) or Harvard (6-6). However, NCAA rules allow for only two teams to fly to their first-round games; the others must take a bus ride of no longer than 300 miles, according to Jon Hind , the tournament selection committee chairman. Thus, Harvard and Providence were ruled out because they are more than 300 miles from Charlottesville, and Denver and Notre Dame had taken the two flights.

I guess things are tough all over...

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Welp, looks like perhaps another case of playing right away with the Valley District's second-leading rusher, Andy Owah, choosing Ferrum over Bridgewater;

"It's not real big," he said of Ferrum. "I'll be able to get a lot of help down there with work and stuff. It's not a real big school and I liked the coaches. .... The coach said I have a good chance of playing this year because their starting running back is gone."

I think Sanchez (OL) and Little (DB) are really lucky, seeing they picked a school that got hit the hardest with graduation at the offensive line and defensive back positions.  If they are as good as they are on paper (being Group AA All-State first teamers), then they quite possibly could see the field right away.

This year's BC recruiting class is looking as good (on paper) as the one we will graduate tomorrow, and the group of rising juniors we have.  Not counting the class of 2010, I would say the top three recruiting classes BC has ever had were;

1) class of 2002; Lutz, Cruz, Richardson, Parker, and Huffman to name a few
2) class of 2006; The recruiting class that came in after the 2001 Stagg Bowl
3) class of 2008; The likes of Highfill, Copeland, Cotton, Campo and Chaptman

[Matt Barnhart (kid)]

Oops, forgot the link.  Must be my Bridgewater Education.
http://studentaffairs.wlu.edu/deanofstudents/UISA.htm
Guess someone thinks they have a drug problem.

To be fair, Bridgewater released this a week ago;

Bridgewater Promotes Non-Use Behavior In Student Athletes

[wrighthall220]

Like I said there ARE drug problems on many of school grounds in the ODAC.. it's not suprising that BC and W&L are cracking down.. I've heard stories and witnessed abuse.. but hey it's college.. kids experiment.. I doubt it didn't happen in  the 60's or 70's but then again  I wasn't around!    It is about time the fine schools of the  ODAC started to truly crack down... the number of students and student athletes throwing away their lives and education is a shame.  But again you don't have to trust me or listen to me... I'm a dumb BC alum that is worried about the ODAC's rep and  the welfare of a group of students. I was merely asking what W&L was going to do about their drug and alcohol problem..I'm glad to have read their press release/web release.. it makes me feel better!    Thanks all for the info. 

I am officially done with this topic.. sorry WLU78.. I think I and a few others made our points pretty well.. considering we didn't go to W&L!

[religion_major]

"...I'd be better off."

How does one measure that?  Obviously the first thought would be financially as a pretty objective way to measure "better off"

Since charitable giving is a function of ones financial means (since you cannot give more than you have) let's look at the two schools using that criteria:

Washington and Lee
Private institution
Year founded: 1749
Religious affiliation: None
Academic calendar: Other
Undergraduate student body: 1,760
Setting: Rural
Endowment: $477,504,000

Bridgewater College
Year founded: 1880
Religious affiliation: Church of the Brethren
Academic calendar: 4-1-4
Undergraduate student body: 1,532
Setting: Rural
Endowment: $51,038,527

Now, granted that W&L has been around some 131 years longer than BC and that might account for some of the difference in the size of the endowments.
Remember, no matter what "they" say, size matters when it comes to being endowed!

One could suppose the diffence in size might be related to gifts made to the school by alumni.  Or to paraphrase Patrick Ewing- we give more because we make more.

Now this more data is from US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT COLLEGE RATINGS, so
as far as all the BC posters who are now worried about being dumb, don't.  If you hadn't noticed until my earlier posts, you shouldn't worry about it now and just go on your merry little way.

Have a great weekend everybody!!

W&L 78,

It seems exceedingly odd that you neglect to mention that Bridgewater is also a private college.  In my opinion there are several reasons why Bridgewater College has a smaller endowment than Washington and Lee.  First, W&L as you mention has been in existance for 131 years longer than BC has.  The second major reason has to do with the foundation of Bridgewater and the comparison of student populations.  Bridgewater was founded by DC Flory, a member of the Church of the Brethren, in 1880.  Like the Society of Friends, the Brethren were at that time a simple people who did things in a simple manor.  For the first 80 or so years of Bridgewater's existance, the college maintianed close ties to the church and most of the students were Brethren.  Since that time, Bridgewater's enrollment has been dominated by middle class students who after leaving college will presue middle class occupations.  W&L on the other hand has connections to the old Virginia aristocray and has maintained an upper class student population since that time.  The third major reason for the difference in endowments comes from the academic programs that have both campuses have emphisized.  Bridgewater, past and present, graduates many students that are prusuing underpaid but important professions such as teaching and ministry.  BC has a strong Biology department, which as produced its fair share of doctors to balance the economic worth of graduates a bit.  W&L on the other hand has a Law School as a part of its campus and tends to graduate students that are headed for higher paying professions.  Do I as a Bridgewater student have endowment and academic standards envy?  I do not believe so.  I rather like that simple atmoshpere that is Bridgewater.  I am also happy to be a part of a school that will give students from a different backgrounds and levels of achivement an opportunity to better themselves with a college education.  And by the way, my high school GPA was 3.82 and my combined SAT score was a 1360, so do not even bother to attempt the comeback that I could not have been admited to Washington and Lee.

[HeardEnough]

Just read on www.footballscoop.com that the head coach at Guilford was fired. Anyone know what that's about?

[Trenches]

i just saw that but I dont think there is any truth to it. I know the women's volleyball coach was fired but i see no reason why kiesel would have been fired. Unless some really shocking news comes out, i would blow it off as a rumor.

[HeardEnough]

Can they just put out rumors like that or do they have to have some proof? If not true seems like that should be illegal.

[WLU78]

Happy Mother's Day!  and by the squealing of the retorts I imagine some of you little girls might be mothers.  

Now, if you remember on Friday there was the strutting and chest banging about the BCAC, so I posted data from the ODAC site, and all I got was whining,"it isn't fair to use that list"  yadda yadda yadda.  And then the snarky comments about tennis etc, and the koolaide.  So I posted more data from a third party that up to now I thought was well regarded, US NEWS AND WORLD REPORTS COLLEGE RATINGS.  I guess I hurt your little feelings with that.  And you have to remember, I have yet to say anything negative about Bridgewater College, I just posted third party data. (But I would like to say to you posters that had no idea you were that dumb, congrats to recognizing your problem, it is the first step to recovery!!  And remember you said it, not me!!)  But the squeals of protest finally got to the point of DIVERSITY?  Come on, you guys post like a bunch of DNC operatives.  Anytime facts are introduced into a conversation it becomes percieved as a personal attack.  I guess nobody every challenged some of the nonsense posted here.

Now, before I left for the weekend, I left you a task:

So I pose the question that needs to be asked; is Bridgewater's recent success, especially measured against W&L in football, a component of admission standards?  That is to say, is the pool of players larger for Bridgewater than for W&L and maybe other ODAC schools?

You girls need to not let this get so personal, all I have done is introduce some data to the conversation and you would think I wee-wee'd in your cornflakes.  If you need a panty dewadder I will send you one.  On one hand you girls want to act like it is a level playing field, and when somebody says something different it sets off a firestorm of "it's not fair" foolishness.  So don't answer it if you are going to post feel good gobbledegoop instead of plain and frank discussion.

As for Rightdownthehall, if that is as close to an apology as I am going to get I will accept it.  You know what you posted, and you know it was outrageous and slanderous and that is why you deleted it later.  You snarky posts about character and maturity ring a little less hollow after your half-hearted apology.