Re: I guess -- CROSSPORTS: Holy Cross Crusaders Sports Message Board

[ 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):

Friday, April 25, 09:41:38am [ 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 ]

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

Date Posted: 16:47:28 07/23/04 Fri
Author: Debatable
Subject: Re: I guess
In reply to: HC was/is Loyal to the PL 's message, "Re: I guess" on 12:58:29 07/23/04 Fri

"Holy Cross may have threatened to leave if no scholarships were granted, but it was done in the open and with the knowledge of each institution. That's not blackmail."

Of course the institutions knew, they were the victims. Whether outsiders knew or not isn't important. We're not talking legal definition here. "Give us A, or we'll do B, which leaves you with situation C that you can't survive" sounds like extortion and doesn't pass the "true friend" test.

"By not just making their scholarship decision and then deciding to bolt, HC was loyal to the PL."

Not doing something (making the decision and bolting) that would have been universally condemned doesn't make one loyal. Do you want kudos for getting what you wanted and then staying? It seems to have worked out pretty well, no? Three straight trips to the dance before the rest of the league caught up.

"The league (i.e. every institution)had an opportunity to stand on their principles, reject the HC proposal, stand together, tell HC to take a hike, recruit other schools that wanted to drink the Ivy League Kool Aid and continue to operate. The league discussed and debated the issue and

We know what the league decided."

The league discussed and debated the issue while under the gun, the decision was one for survival. Once the decision was made, the others eventually going scholarship was inevitable as they are, after all, members of a league and competitors. Letting HC run away with the title every year is not their way. One can assert that following suit on the issue was an endorsement, but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of PL alumni, faculty, and administrators don't believe that giving scholarships to rich kids with jump shots to get that 13 seed is the right thing to do. But, we've beaten that topic to death. I just think that HC's tactics in '96 should preclude it from pointing fingers at Colgate today.

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

Replies:

[> [> [> [> Women's progam is red herring -- 'gate88, 10:05:27 07/26/04 Mon

the problem is the arena. The ECAC does not want to play in front of 10,000 empty seats at the Centrum. That's part of your BigEast/Atlantic10 fantasy -- keep it straight.

As for the ladies -- what's so hard about just declaring "we're d-1," with the same players and growing into it?

Bottom line: HC promises to expand Hart then ECAC should back them 100%. Otherwise, it's a tough sell.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[ Edit | View ]