Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
07-29-19 10:23 AM - Post#286374
I saw a piece today about Yale’s efforts to recruit a big time recruit with major offers from D1 powerhouses. This is not unlike other tidbits on twitter about efforts by Amaker and Jones primarily to go after major talent. And the key element of the Yale story was the persistence of Jones in going after this one particular recruit. So the question becomes, why not us? I never see any stories about us going for big time talent and am tired of hearing about the shortcomings of Levien, etc. If Bagnoli can do it for football, why are we chronically never in the hunt for guys that Jones is recruiting, for example? And you can’t tell me that New Haven is a better place to play basketball than New York.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32870
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: cruiting note
07-29-19 10:32 AM - Post#286377
In response to Chet Forte
You've posted this same theme many times before. Bagnoli is not recruiting top Division 1 talent for Ivy Football. It's apples and oranges. And Columbia neither has the Harvard brand (I regret to say it even as a Columbia Law grad--which in my year was ranked even with Harvard) nor the coach as recruiter to compete with Harvard for top Division 1 talent. Yale is not in Harvard's league when it comes to recruiting in basketball, but it has a long established coach who has upped his game over the years and clearly has connections that can only be matched in time. I don't think Columbia's facilities are severely lacking in comparison to anyone but Penn and Princeton, but the combination of facilities, brand and coach all make it harder to bring in recruits. It's all about money---if Columbia wants to pay a coach a package in excess of $1 million like Harvard does, they might be able to get a big name coach to Morningside Heights. If they are willing to build a $50 million building on the Manhattan Valley property, it might help too. But NYC, by itself, doesn't recruit players. This isn't CCNY or NYU in 1958.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
07-29-19 11:30 AM - Post#286382
In response to palestra38
Palestra38, what information is out there on the pay scale for Ivy MBB coaches?
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32870
Reg: 11-21-04
|
07-29-19 12:25 PM - Post#286386
In response to Chet Forte
https://www.thecelebworth.com/50-highest-paid-coll...
Amaker is No 42, but that does not include the house, summer camp income or job for wife. His total package is well in excess of $1 million
|
Tod Howard Hawks
Freshman
Posts: 64
Age: 79
Reg: 03-17-14
|
Recruiting note
08-01-19 05:56 PM - Post#286632
In response to palestra38
I myself feel Columbia BB needs to do a number of things to go to the top of Ivy basketball.
First, Bollinger needs to tear down Dodge Physical Fitness Center, which at best is cramped and at worst antiquated, and have a much larger, state-of-the-art facility built, either on the original campus or the Manhattanville campus, that befits the increasingly growing stature of Columbia worldwide. Such a new athletic facility would be a quantum leap, both architecturally and psychologically, not only to Columbia BB, but also to all the other teams that call that embarrassing place home. (As most of you know, Columbia College and SEAS combined 2019 admit rate was 5.1%, making these two schools combined the 2nd most selective in the Ivy League. They admitted a little over 2,000 applicants out of a worldwide total of slightly more than 42,000. That's about one out of 20, folks.) Frankly, however you spin it, the current athletic facility, is, in a word, depressing, consciously as well as subliminally. If Bollinger can choose to spend 4-to-5 billion on the Manhattanville campus, he can choose to spend millions, not billions, on a brand new, stellar athletic facility. If that doesn't happen, much sooner than later, look for Columbia BB to remain a pretender, not a contender, ad infinitum.
Edited by Tod Howard Hawks on 08-01-19 05:58 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32870
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: cruiting note
08-02-19 11:42 AM - Post#286654
In response to Tod Howard Hawks
I agree with you, although I always find it interesting that CU undergraduate alums never include Barnard (which has reduced admit rate substantially but not to those schools' levels) but include other CU undergraduate schools. Obviously, that would increase the admit rate for all undergraduates at CU. Not taking anything away from CU, but it's kind of artificial.
And none of the schools include the early admission numbers, which are very much higher for everyone:
https://www.toptieradmissions.com/resources/colleg...
It's all the US News game.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
08-02-19 02:06 PM - Post#286661
In response to palestra38
Barnard is a separate institution, with a separate admissions department. Barnard had a chance to merge, but turned Columbia down, in the early 80s. As far as Tod’s point, what it will take is a heavy hitter willing to make a leadership gift of 100 million, IMHO, before a state of the art facility is built. If I were a Bob Kraft or one of our other billionaire alums, it would be my first major gift. I wonder if our basketball alum and former board chair, who may not be a billionaire but is plenty rich, would be willing to lead a fund raising drive for this purpose.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32870
Reg: 11-21-04
|
08-02-19 02:21 PM - Post#286663
In response to Chet Forte
I hear you, but they get a Columbia University degree. As do the early admits. I just get a kick out of guys from our generation (when admit rates were in the 40% vicinity) bragging about the numbers from US News.
And as far as a new arena goes, I have strongly felt that CU should build a 5000 (more or less) seat arena facing Riverside Drive for years. That would change things more than anything else.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
08-02-19 04:38 PM - Post#286672
In response to palestra38
The Morningside Park gym would have been great for the neighborhood and for Columbia. The arguments were bogus. And the plans were ready to go in 1963, but a short-sighted administration waited to break ground for five years, and the consequences were tragic.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
08-02-19 04:38 PM - Post#286673
In response to Chet Forte
I meant f course that the arguments against the gym in the park were bogus.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32870
Reg: 11-21-04
|
08-02-19 04:48 PM - Post#286675
In response to Chet Forte
Well, now it has an opportunity to build it along side the Riverside Drive Viaduct (about 132nd Street) and have a giant window to the Hudson. There is no facility in NYC that is in the 5000 seat vicinity and it could be used for many things. The Monmouth arena (but more City-fied) is what I would have in mind.
|
Columbia 37P6
Postdoc
Posts: 2180
Reg: 02-14-06
|
08-02-19 09:36 PM - Post#286685
In response to palestra38
We are wasting our time talking about building a new gym. President Bollinger doesn't have the guts to take on the far left-wing Democrats who have ruled the Upper West Side of Manhattan since World War II.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 2974
Reg: 03-02-08
|
08-03-19 10:48 PM - Post#286698
In response to Columbia 37P6
The way to get it done is for a mega-donor to make it happen.
|
