What rumors are you hearing? What makes you think such a move is imminent? If Fr. McShane does decide to act I personally think he would give Frank the chance to retire honorably instead of getting bounced out. The unfortunate reality is that alumni support is not so high that threats of "loss of support" would tend to ring rather hollow. If we were ND (approx 50% giving rate) with huge alumni dollars at stake it would be a different story. I hope there is a change but it doesn't need to be messy or humiliating, especially if we're hoping to attract quality replacements. -- FORDHAM RAMS FOOTBALL FORUM

>

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: What rumors are you hearing? What makes you think such a move is imminent? If Fr. McShane does decide to act I personally think he would give Frank the chance to retire honorably instead of getting bounced out. The unfortunate reality is that alumni support is not so high that threats of "loss of support" would tend to ring rather hollow. If we were ND (approx 50% giving rate) with huge alumni dollars at stake it would be a different story. I hope there is a change but it doesn't need to be messy or humiliating, especially if we're hoping to attract quality replacements.

Author:
DamnRam
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 15:51:32 05/06/05 Fri
In reply to: FC 's message, "When Do We Get a New AD/VP?" on 12:10:31 05/06/05 Fri

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

"not so high, which means threats" (NT) DamnRam 15:54:34 05/06/05 Fri

The rumors have been around for a while. The athletic department "problem" is well known among faculty, administrators, alums and students. It is arguably the biggest problem within Fordham's administration. Clearly if Fr. McShane is to achieve his goal of taking Fordham to international prominence as an institution, wholesale changes are necessary relating to athletic administration. The poster above is correct when he states that many are watching this situation. (NT) -- Faculty Member, 11:13:16 05/07/05 Sat

If Fr. McShane is to maintain a high level of credibility moving forward, he must make a change and hire a professional AD/VP that reports to him without a "filter"(Jeff Gray) for athletics to be successful. That "filter" was created due to the incompetence of the current AD, not for any other reason. There's no question that we can attract high quality candidates for this position, but only if the position reports directly to the President. If the reporting structure doesn't change, no good candidates will apply. This is an important decision for Fr. McShane - let's hope he's up to the task. (NT) -- Faculty Member, 11:16:40 05/07/05 Sat
I thought your first message was dead on. The second one ... not so much. (NT) -- Ramalamadingdong, 11:23:00 05/07/05 Sat
Just to clarify, the "rumors" are that Fr. McShane is going to make a change in the AD, or that McShane thinks there is a problem with the AD? The first would be significantly new news, the second would not necessarily be a sign that change is imminent. It is possible that McShane is just waiting out the situation, or that he's put it on his longer-term horizon. Does anyone know McShane's thoughts on this? (NT) -- DamnRam, 14:29:42 05/07/05 Sat

From a fund-raising perspective, the point ISN'T that Fr. McShane should fear a precipitous loss of support if he doesn't make changes for the better in Fordham athletics. (Our pitiful alumni support couldn't go much lower.) The point IS that by upgrading the University's athletic profile, Fr. McShane would be taking an important step toward reconnecting Fordham with its many disaffected alums, and--in the process--starting to cultivate more interest, involvement, and support among them. More.... (NT) Ram'69 20:32:02 05/07/05 Sat

....I don't know if better sports would cause a surge in contributions, but it might help turn around a bad situation. FU's recent appeal mentions how alumni giving is much better at ND, BC, and GT. Is it just a coincidence that those schools were EMPHASIZING athletics during the same years we were DE-EMPHASIZING them? Is it a coincidence that their applicant pools and academic selectivity went up dramatically during those years, while ours barely crept forward? The issue here isn't "threatening" anyone, but showing them important opportunities that we shouldn't overlook. (NT) Ram'69 20:53:41 05/07/05 Sat

Its a morale issue and an identity issue. What kind of a message is Fordham sending to its students, its alums, its peers when it is complacent with the worst AD inc ountry? Losing in every sport every year? We deserve better than Frank, plain and simple. (NT) -- Liberty Ram, 11:01:03 05/08/05 Sun

These comments are being made when several sports teams are turning in better records and showing more promise for the future than they have in the last decade. Men's basketball, football, baseball, and softball are in much better condition. Perhaps the problem was Fr. O'Hare, not Frank. I had come to the position that Frank should go, just so that we could turn the page, but I have always suspected that Fr. O'Hare was more the problem than Frank. Consider a non-athletic problem like the WFUV transmitter. How long did it take Fr. McShane to fix that one? Why didn't Fr. O'Hare fix it? (NT) -- Rambow, 07:25:11 05/09/05 Mon

Interesting point, Rambow, but how do you explain the extra layer in between the President's office and the AD that we have? I can't understand the rationale for that move other than the fact that O'Hare felt he needed to be carefully watched and wasn't capable of running the dept. as others in other institutions are. Is there an explanation for that, that I'm missing? (NT) -- PA Ram, 08:43:19 05/09/05 Mon

There is an additional possibility - that putting in that extra layer was also a way to deliberately keep the AD from becoming too powerful, and thus siphoning off donations that the University wanted to steer towards the General Fund and projects it regarded as more pressing. The University does like to do everything centrally, as opposed to decentralized like the Ivies ("where every tub rests on its own bottom" as they like to say at Harvard). (NT) -- DamnRam, 09:04:57 05/09/05 Mon

I'm inclined to think DamnRam has a point: FU has run scared of athletics for 51 years (since 1954). I've always believed that Frank was a useful scapegoat for Fr. O'Hare. FU has had the Athletic Department and AD it has wanted. This choice has been misguided from the academic point of view as we have watched other Jesuit schools improve their academic reputations while doing well in sports. (NT) -- Rambow, 12:31:26 05/09/05 Mon

Allow me to provide some insights. The Board of Trustees Athletic Committee recommended to Fr. O'Hare a number of years ago that Frank McLaughlin be fired. Fr. O"Hare let it be known that he would be happy to see FM go, but let him hang on by the skin of his teeth when he tried to call Fr. O's bluff with an offer from Northeastern. There was much knashing of teeth by the Board at that point. But McLaughlin somehow survived when everyone wanted him out. (NT) -- FmrBDMember, 12:50:23 05/09/05 Mon

Since O'Hare had no faith in FM, Gray was allowed to run roughshod over athletics - the blind leading the blind. One needs to look no further than attendance at games for our better teams(football, etc.), the amateurish game event environment and lack of marketing/pr. and our poor facilities to see the ineptitude and lack of power of our athletic management. We need a new AD/VP that reports to McShane ASAP to right this ship. Many are watching to see how this is handled. (NT) -- FmrBdMember, 12:57:03 05/09/05 Mon

In short, I think you're saying I'm right: Fr. O'Hare kept Frank around. Fr. O'Hare got what he wanted, Board be damned. You almost make it seem as if Gray has been the bigger problem. (NT) -- Rambow, 13:07:30 05/09/05 Mon
The question remains Former Board Member: What was then and what is now the Fordham Administration's view of athletics (the Frank question aside) - Is it a strategic vehicle to be maximized, or a budgetary headache to be kept in check? I've sensed nothing but ambivalence on the subject since my freshmen year and even now still wonder whether they regard athletics as just some necessary evil without a true mandate to provide a real ROI. (NT) -- DamnRam, 18:50:06 05/09/05 Mon

Here's something that's amazing: 2 of our best coaches, Softball Coach Bridget Orchard & Dereck Whittenburg are both working with outdated contracts. I hear that Orchard's contract expires at the end of the season! Here we have a fast-rising young coach who could be snatched away from us & she's without a contract? You've got to be kidding. And what the heck is taking so long with DW's new contract? What's complicated, that someone actually has to do something? This situation, more than anything, is reflective of the incompetence in our athletic dept. How can Fr. McShane NOT recognize this? (NT) -- Rambacker, 16:09:39 05/10/05 Tue

my question in my first e-mail to mcshane was "Has not fund raising caught up" to get away from this orphanage mode way of doing things. (NT) -- pjd, 16:09:34 05/09/05 Mon