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). -- 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: 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).

Author:
DamnRam
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09:04:57 05/09/05 Mon
In reply to: PA Ram 's message, "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?" on 08:43:19 05/09/05 Mon

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

Replies:

Subject Author Date

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