|
Post by peacockpride on Dec 21, 2016 7:50:21 GMT -5
Actually reading your e-mail excerpt I feel the school made the right decision to stay afloat at the moment and balance the budget. SP has always been an enrollment driven institution and needs to do whatever it can to maintain the enrollment. Athletics will always bring a steady enrollment so they are not worried about that number decreasing - it's only the quality of athlete that decreases with more cuts and that doesn't effect the bottom line so Cornacchia could care less. 85% of the students are not athletes and judging by most of our home game attendance, they could care less how the teams do. That's the student population that the higher ups are focused on, not the 15% of athletes that they don't have to worry about recruiting to the school. It's not where they are cutting money from that bothers me, it's the ineptitude that led us to this point that bothers me. Also, notice that the e-mail says reduced by AT LEAST 7%.
I have never been impressed by Cornnachia. He comes off as very unimpressive and waddles around like a little troll. But despite the anger at the moment, it's not fair to say he's no better than Loughran. The Athletics department and the University is in a lot better place than it would have been if Loughran were still here.
With the quality of the candidates from the last AD search, I'm not that optimistic. Some people I speak with at the university were not fans of Boe and will be excited by her resignation. Personally, I had my doubts when she was hired but it was evident that she meant business and was starting to make needed changes. I don't agree with some of the staff she let go, but overall the department was going in the right direction for once. My only hope, as with the last search, is that we hire someone with a background in fundraising- this was my main disappointment with Boe as I felt the candidate from the other MAAC school (Marist or Quinnipiac?) would have been a better fit. At this point, our only hope for success seems to stop being dependent solely on the operating budget and bring in new forms of revenue. Obviously a lot easier said than done but hopefully someone out there can do it.
|
|
|
Post by macb59 on Dec 21, 2016 8:33:45 GMT -5
For what it is worth, here is a copy of the agenda from that December 14th meeting which probably led to the resignation of Boe Pearman yesterday. Check out item #5 to get your blood boiling.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer1 on Dec 21, 2016 9:54:44 GMT -5
pride...the problem with our enrollment statistics is that they are grossly misleading. While those in power brag about our increase enrollment and retention statistics, the truth is that we are paying for those increases thru the nose. To cite one example. Recently one potential student athlete that I was recruiting went thru the standard process of submitting for admission which usually occurs before we offer an athletic scholarship. Well this young man was an outstanding student, great GPA, good test scores and currently taking AP courses. I was hoping for a substantial scholarship offer. When he was reviewed and admitted I was informed that his academic scholarship would be $25,000 per annum. That was great for me but the same young man ( or someone with similar academic credentials ) would have received a little more than half that only a few years ago. Last year ( this years freshman class ) saw awards of $20,000 and $22,000 compared with substantially less in the past.
This is not a knock on Admissions. Those I deal with are great people and some of the best in the University. However, they work out of a schematic that has been increased every year. So yes, I believe that it's a good idea to increase the amount of academic scholarships offered but now it has probably reached the point of diminishing returns...financially. Point is that when I hear the powers that be brag about increased enrollment in conjunction with budget defecits I understand the shell game that is being played. Given my background in Finance I would suggest that we could get the same results by offering increased but more reasonable scholarships offered. That in conjunction with some inreased staff ( one or two) so we could visit more high schools and college fairs to recruit.
Bottom line is that the statistics look good but with a substantial cost. What the right schematic isI cannot say but a simple cost/benefit analysis should be undertaken. Admissions does a good job but those who brag about increased enrollment need to understand why. Can't offer a definitive solution because I don't know all the numbers and details but I fear that, on net, we are paying quite a bit for what we tout.
PS Thanks macb59...good work
|
|
|
Post by loyal on Dec 21, 2016 10:14:53 GMT -5
Interesting perspective. Measuring incremental revenue generated by these students paying a reduced tuition vs. the incremental costs of administratively supporting these students should be a straightforward exercise, albeit a bit more complex than calculating depreciation expense.
Stepping back, looking at the "the big picture".....if SPU's financial situation is indeed problematic, both a very strong CFO, as well as a CEO with demonstrated business acumen (has overseen successful fund raising at a small private U.) need to be in place. Tomorrow. We appear to employ neither profile at the present time.
The responsibility for that lies squarely with the BOD. Full stop. Period. In all seriousness, without being flippant, our BOD should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
|
Post by peacockpride on Dec 21, 2016 10:43:14 GMT -5
OT1 - I completely agree with your perspective on the misleading statistics of the increased enrollment. I believe we discussed this is the college finance thread. My point wasn't to compliment the school on increasing numbers - I agree that while enrollment has increased, the school is probably still netting the same amount per student because of the increase in scholarship. It probably now takes 1.5 students to yield the same revenue that it could get out of 1 student 10 years ago.
My point was to say that the 15% of the students that are athletes do not fluctuate all that much in terms of total numbers. Coaches have recruiting needs and will meet them because there are always kids that will take the opportunity to play D1 even if they are D2 or D3 talent. I'm sure that you turn away plenty of kids for your team on a yearly basis that could easily increase your roster with kids looking to play in college but don't have the talent to do so. The quantity of student-athletes isn't an issue for the university, it's getting quality in those numbers for the coaches that's the problem. The schools concern is the other 85% of the student body that comes to Saint Peter's for the academic offerings. That is the group that the powers that be are concerned about dropping. So therefore they are always going to prioritize areas to attract those students and unfortunately with the current state of the university that is coming at the expense of athletics.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer1 on Dec 21, 2016 12:46:39 GMT -5
Agree with the points you made. Basketball, as you know, is a different animal as players are on full scholarship. Yet both mens and woman basketball are severly hampered in several ways by inadequate funding. As spcfan points out, having the lowest budget in the MAAC begs the question if we can continue to compete. That's why macb59's document was of great interest. Now on paper what has been discussed for years.
PS No update or even mention of what happened yesterday. Typical slow and somewhat hidden response. And by the way, what is happening with the more than rumored new Capital Campaign which was supposed to be announced in December.
Like loyal's take on the whole thing. Believe loyal has a substantial accounting anf finance background.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Dec 21, 2016 12:47:01 GMT -5
It is with distress that I read about her resignation (or firing) but also with the posters on this board who bury the discussion in the Elon thread. Two factors show up, Fans who have no clue how to get their message across and egotistic fans who attempt to relate this to their perspective on the state of the basketball program. They are related but not necessarily to their rationalizations.
So I ask one and all to copy their post and copy them to this section. There is a need to plaster the outrage up front for the idiots to see. Also recommend you send a letter to the Chairman of the BOT about your feelings. I don't doubt that there will be spin that Boe was overspending but for my self I will cease sending any more contributions to the school. I only regret that I had already contributed for this year.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer1 on Dec 21, 2016 13:19:16 GMT -5
Stupid and borderline paranoid implications about posters and their intentions posted by Peacock but switchinjg over to this thread anyway. Just received the formal announcement a few minutes ago. Email was addressed to all employees. Couldn't really get by the first sentence that "Boe Pearman is no longer employed by the University..." came across as sort of nasty and self serving. Contrary to what I was told that Boe had resigned. Makes one possibly think that she was fired ! While the following sentence thanked Boe for her contributions one can only read between the lines. To my mind there is no doubt that something occurred in Boe's meeting with Cornacchia which brought things to a head. However to put the above implication and spin on it comes across as just another slap in the face.
|
|
|
Post by oldtimer1 on Dec 21, 2016 13:33:09 GMT -5
Switched over to Peacock's thread
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Dec 21, 2016 13:45:08 GMT -5
Jus think, four ADs in 6-7 years. Stein, Elliot, Conlin and now Boe. Soon to be 5. Wonder what kind of puppet they will get.
|
|
|
Post by peacockpride on Dec 21, 2016 13:50:43 GMT -5
Really hard to read into what actually happened at this point. The University could have used that wording to make it look like they were the ones who initiated the action and try to save face. The specifics of resignation or termination matter very little at this point. To be honest, this may end up being the best thing for Boe in her career. I think most people that work in athletics have they mentally of I don't care how bad something is, I can come in and fix it. What she was promised and what she walked into were clearly two different things. While she clearly stepped on some toes along the way, everything that OT1 has told us as an "insider" and everything that we as "outsiders" have seen is that the department was going in the right direction - not as fast as it needed to in order to keep up, but that's not on Boe. She seems well connected and hopefully will land on her feet. I'm sure that plenty of her colleagues advised her against taking this job and I'm sure that plenty of employers know the reputation of SP in the athletics community.
I echo Peacock's suggestion that the BOT needs to hear from those that post on this board and would urge everyone to get the word out to any alums you may be in contact with. My hope is that now may possibly be the time that Tom MacMahon finally sees enough to step up and put his foot down as the most influential supporter of athletics and with a big capital campaign in the works. It has never seemed that it's been his style to want to be actively involved. I don't fault him for that, he has no obligation to throw his weight around as a big donor. Unfortunately I don't think the likes of a few message board posters who donate a few hundred dollars each year will have much of an impact on the powers that be. Not donating is like cutting your nose off to spite your face - It may send a message to the school but it also takes away money specifically from the athletic teams that we root for that need it.
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Dec 21, 2016 13:53:45 GMT -5
Stupid and borderline paranoid implications about posters and their intentions posted by Peacock but switchinjg over to this thread anyway. Just received the formal announcement a few minutes ago. Email was addressed to all employees. Couldn't really get by the first sentence that "Boe Pearman is no longer employed by the University..." came across as sort of nasty and self serving. Contrary to what I was told that Boe had resigned. Makes one possibly think that she was fired ! While the following sentence thanked Boe for her contributions one can only read between the lines. To my mind there is no doubt that something occurred in Boe's meeting with Cornacchia which brought things to a head. However to put the above implication and spin on it comes across as just another slap in the face. You are always pissing in the wind.
|
|
|
Post by peacockpride on Dec 21, 2016 13:54:37 GMT -5
According to the Athletics staff directory, Dave Bryngil of the Rec Center is now the interim director of athletics....can't make this stuff up.
|
|
|
Post by youngalum on Dec 21, 2016 14:02:51 GMT -5
Really hard to read into what actually happened at this point. The University could have used that wording to make it look like they were the ones who initiated the action and try to save face. The specifics of resignation or termination matter very little at this point. To be honest, this may end up being the best thing for Boe in her career. I think most people that work in athletics have they mentally of I don't care how bad something is, I can come in and fix it. What she was promised and what she walked into were clearly two different things. While she clearly stepped on some toes along the way, everything that OT1 has told us as an "insider" and everything that we as "outsiders" have seen is that the department was going in the right direction - not as fast as it needed to in order to keep up, but that's not on Boe. She seems well connected and hopefully will land on her feet. I'm sure that plenty of her colleagues advised her against taking this job and I'm sure that plenty of employers know the reputation of SP in the athletics community. I echo Peacock's suggestion that the BOT needs to hear from those that post on this board and would urge everyone to get the word out to any alums you may be in contact with. My hope is that now may possibly be the time that Tom MacMahon finally sees enough to step up and put his foot down as the most influential supporter of athletics and with a big capital campaign in the works. It has never seemed that it's been his style to want to be actively involved. I don't fault him for that, he has no obligation to throw his weight around as a big donor. Unfortunately I don't think the likes of a few message board posters who donate a few hundred dollars each year will have much of an impact on the powers that be. Not donating is like cutting your nose off to spite your face - It may send a message to the school but it also takes away money specifically from the athletic teams that we root for that need it. Agree almost entirely and had the same thoughts. Well said. I'm pressed on time but will make one disagreement on thoughts of donation. Why donate when the school is going to take any excess money away anyhow. Also stand by my statement that Cornacchia has been just as bad as Loughran
|
|
|
Post by youngalum on Dec 21, 2016 14:08:12 GMT -5
Will add that they day we go to the Ne-10 or some other BS conference is the day I will no longer be a Peacock. No donations, no apparel, no functions, just a diploma that hangs on the wall. Can't believe the ineptitude of those in charge
|
|