Andy Noel's contract extended for 6 years (http://cornellbigred.com/news/2016/11/30/general-andy-noel-to-lead-the-big-red-for-six-more-years.aspx).
Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
Must be the rush to get it done before the new person has a chance to kill the deal.. but why a 6 yr deal? Athletics as a whole are so screwed up its crazy
Maybe it should be a tenured position so we have him forever::yark::
Quote from: upprdeckMust be the rush to get it done before the new person has a chance to kill the deal.. but why a 6 yr deal? Athletics as a whole are so screwed up its crazy
Maybe they looked at what he's accomplished. Much of our complaints are like those of the former AD at SU.
If we, for now, set aside the legitimate complaint of the NCAA problems, for which Gross lost his AD job, the complaints centered on the lousy football team. Now if that's what you care about, it's major. However if you care about the totality of the student-athlete population, he did a wonderful job. His success in other sports was major. From women's b'ball Final Four to men's soccer NCAA semis to championships in field hockey, he put the non-revenue sports on solid footing.
Much of the same can be said of Noel. Sure he has a wrestling bent, that should not be a surprise. Sure we want better football and b'ball, but he has also helped the "other" sports.
I suspect when administration looks at his performance they look at all student athletes, those in NCAA sports and those who just want to play and get exercise. They must have felt that the totality of work was good.
I think he just comes cheap. Don't over think it.
Cornell has 37 teams. Which "other" sports has Andy helped, and in what way? Of the higher profile teams (football, hockey, basketball, lacrosse), how have we performed in the last 5 years? Is there any evidence the administration cares about athletics?
Quote from: CASCornell has 37 teams. Which "other" sports has Andy helped, and in what way? Of the higher profile teams (football, hockey, basketball, lacrosse), how have we performed in the last 5 years? Is there any evidence the administration cares about athletics?
It's not hard to get the info. From his bio:
"The Big Red teams have parlayed Noel's accomplishments into success on and off the playing field. Cornell's athletic teams have won 92 Ivy League team titles and 30 national championships (14 team, 16 individual) during his tenure. The program captured 31 Ivy titles during a four-year span from 2002-03 through 2005-06, setting a Cornell record dating back to the inception of the Ivy League, including a record nine in 2005-06.
Cornell has won at least six Ivy titles in 11 of the last 14 seasons after hitting that mark just three times in the first 46 years of Ancient Eight competition."
I think that speaks for itself. And no, I'm not going to look back and name each of the teams. I think the last sentence is enough evidence. If he's done better for total team titles than prior ADs, it seems that should be enough info.
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: CASCornell has 37 teams. Which "other" sports has Andy helped, and in what way? Of the higher profile teams (football, hockey, basketball, lacrosse), how have we performed in the last 5 years? Is there any evidence the administration cares about athletics?
It's not hard to get the info. From his bio:
"The Big Red teams have parlayed Noel's accomplishments into success on and off the playing field. Cornell's athletic teams have won 92 Ivy League team titles and 30 national championships (14 team, 16 individual) during his tenure. The program captured 31 Ivy titles during a four-year span from 2002-03 through 2005-06, setting a Cornell record dating back to the inception of the Ivy League, including a record nine in 2005-06. Cornell has won at least six Ivy titles in 11 of the last 14 seasons after hitting that mark just three times in the first 46 years of Ancient Eight competition."
I think that speaks for itself. And no, I'm not going to look back and name each of the teams. I think the last sentence is enough evidence. If he's done better for total team titles than prior ADs, it seems that should be enough info.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I can see a lot of ways to hide unflattering results in those sentences. Just off the top of my head I'd prefer to see ratios of titles rather than absolute numbers, and I'd like to see the numbers cross-tabbed by sport. For all we know most of that success has come on the mat (mats?).
Personally I just want to see hockey win. Compared to that, the rest of athletics (the entire school, to be honest) means fuck all to me. ::cheer::
In the last 2 years, Cornell has won a combined total of 5 Ivy titles. Only Columbia has won fewer. Have we won in something other than wrestling or track? And no titles in the sports most of us care about.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaQuote from: CASCornell has 37 teams. Which "other" sports has Andy helped, and in what way? Of the higher profile teams (football, hockey, basketball, lacrosse), how have we performed in the last 5 years? Is there any evidence the administration cares about athletics?
It's not hard to get the info. From his bio:
"The Big Red teams have parlayed Noel's accomplishments into success on and off the playing field. Cornell's athletic teams have won 92 Ivy League team titles and 30 national championships (14 team, 16 individual) during his tenure. The program captured 31 Ivy titles during a four-year span from 2002-03 through 2005-06, setting a Cornell record dating back to the inception of the Ivy League, including a record nine in 2005-06. Cornell has won at least six Ivy titles in 11 of the last 14 seasons after hitting that mark just three times in the first 46 years of Ancient Eight competition."
I think that speaks for itself. And no, I'm not going to look back and name each of the teams. I think the last sentence is enough evidence. If he's done better for total team titles than prior ADs, it seems that should be enough info.
I don't have a dog in this fight but I can see a lot of ways to hide unflattering results in those sentences. Just off the top of my head I'd prefer to see ratios of titles rather than absolute numbers, and I'd like to see the numbers cross-tabbed by sport. For all we know most of that success has come on the mat (mats?).
Personally I just want to see hockey win. Compared to that, the rest of athletics (the entire school, to be honest) means fuck all to me. ::cheer::
I'm not sure what you mean by ratios of titles. Do you mean #titles/#sports? If so, we do have more teams now, especially more women's sports compared to the dark ages. So that could double the sports, not likely, but it would take more work than I want to put into this.
But here's another quote from the bio: "Cornell's athletic teams have won 92 Ivy League team titles and 30 national championships (14 team, 16 individual) during his tenure."
The idea is that the overall athletic program hasn't done poorly under him, even if you don't want to say it has done well.
Yes I want the hockey program to do well, that's why I support it in many ways. But if I had to choose between having many students in many sports, most of which I don't care about, do well and the major ones lagging, versus the opposite; well I'd have to go with the former. I'd guess that many, if not most, of the board members feel in a similar way.
Quote from: CASIn the last 2 years, Cornell has won a combined total of 5 Ivy titles. Only Columbia has won fewer. Have we won in something other than wrestling or track? And no titles in the sports most of us care about.
I spoke to some of this already, but taking a sample of 2 is hardly valid.
If you want to know what titles we have won, you can look them up. It can't be that hard.
Quote from: Jim HylaI'm not sure what you mean by ratios of titles. Do you mean #titles/#sports?
Here's a metric I'd like to see. Firstly, drop individual titles. For every team that competes at varsity, take the number of all the teams that could win the "championship" and add it to the denominator. If you win the championship, also add it to the numerator. Do that for every school in the NC$$.
So, for example, Cornell hockey competes for two championships (sorry, Ivies): ECAC (12) and NCAA (60, I think?). Cornell football only competes for Ivy (8). Cornell basketball competes for Ivy (8) and NCAA (240-something I think). And so on.
Now obviously we're going to get destroyed compared to factory schools like Stanford, but if we just take the Ivies all those NCAA zeros are going to wash out.
11 consecutive losing Ivy football seasons. 6 consecutive losing basketball seasons. 4 consecutive hockey seasons without an NCAA tourney bid. An incredible 1-win Ivy lacrosse season. Yes we have some successful programs in sports other Ivies don't care much about. But don't know how you can spin the performance of our athletic dept as being acceptable.
Quote from: CAS11 consecutive losing Ivy football seasons. 6 consecutive losing basketball seasons. 4 consecutive hockey seasons without an NCAA tourney bid. An incredible 1-win Ivy lacrosse season. Yes we have some successful programs in sports other Ivies don't care much about. But don't know how you can spin the performance of our athletic dept as being acceptable.
"But the money kept rolling in (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tpvxsJAZPk)."
And I think that's probably the sole criterion.
Quote from: CAS11 consecutive losing Ivy football seasons. 6 consecutive losing basketball seasons. 4 consecutive hockey seasons without an NCAA tourney bid. An incredible 1-win Ivy lacrosse season. Yes we have some successful programs in sports other Ivies don't care much about. But don't know how you can spin the performance of our athletic dept as being acceptable.
I'm not spinning it. Rather I've been saying that there is another way of looking at the athletic department, than just the "big 4" that you mentioned. Many Ivy alums, students, and those that started the Ivy League believed that what was important was athletic participation for many, in many areas and not overemphasis on the "big time" sports.
I understand that others disagree, but I'm relatively happy with the Ivy idea and how Cornell is implementing it. Would I like those sports you mentioned to be a lot stronger, by all means. But, not if it meant the deterioration of the other sports that have been able to improve. As I've said before, I'm generally an optimistic person, and I expect they will improve. Especially the hockey team.;-)
Much easier to raise money for a winning program than an uncompetitive one. Also there's no reason you can't be successful in both the "big 4" & the other teams. Look at Princeton & Harvard.
cornell won some titles in spite of how poorly the AD is being run.. disorganized would be saying it mildly. Hockey which brings in more money than anything gets the shaft and that is one reason they havent done as well as in the past. we are not keeping up and that is the ADs fault.
Quote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaI'm not sure what you mean by ratios of titles. Do you mean #titles/#sports?
Here's a metric I'd like to see. Firstly, drop individual titles. For every team that competes at varsity, take the number of all the teams that could win the "championship" and add it to the denominator. If you win the championship, also add it to the numerator. Do that for every school in the NC$$.
So, for example, Cornell hockey competes for two championships (sorry, Ivies): ECAC (12) and NCAA (60, I think?). Cornell football only competes for Ivy (8). Cornell basketball competes for Ivy (8) and NCAA (240-something I think). And so on.
Now obviously we're going to get destroyed compared to factory schools like Stanford, but if we just take the Ivies all those NCAA zeros are going to wash out.
This is sort of what the Directors' Cup attempts to do, although there's still a big edge given to schools that finish first or second in a sport with a small number of participating teams. Last year (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf), Stanford finished first. Princeton was the top Ivy at No. 33, and Cornell was No. 81 out of 295 (fifth-best showing by an Ivy).
Quote from: TrotskyI don't have a dog in this fight but I can see a lot of ways to hide unflattering results in those sentences. Just off the top of my head I'd prefer to see ratios of titles rather than absolute numbers, and I'd like to see the numbers cross-tabbed by sport.
Quote from: upprdeckcornell won some titles in spite of how poorly the AD is being run.. disorganized would be saying it mildly. Hockey which brings in more money than anything gets the shaft and that is one reason they havent done as well as in the past. we are not keeping up and that is the ADs fault.
sl
Shafted how exactly?
(Not arguing against the point. More in the vein of please elaborate with details)
Eh. The guy is a jerk.
Quote from: abmarksQuote from: upprdeckcornell won some titles in spite of how poorly the AD is being run.. disorganized would be saying it mildly. Hockey which brings in more money than anything gets the shaft and that is one reason they havent done as well as in the past. we are not keeping up and that is the ADs fault.
sl
Shafted how exactly?
(Not arguing against the point. More in the vein of please elaborate with details)
maybe you should ask why recruiting isnt as good as we would like. you think alabama football generates 90% of the athletic revenue stream and then puts nobe of it back into the fball program.
Folks - no matter what else you might think of him or his "job performance" in terms of championships, the guy's a world-class fundraiser. That's a very important factor to those making the decisions about whether he stays or goes.
Beeej, do you know how out athletic fundraising compares with the other Ivies? Given we have the highest undergrad enrollment in the Ivies, do we raise more money for athletics than these schools? Given the state of our football facilities & some of what Dave Archer has said about the material underfunding of football, I doubt it.
Quote from: CASBeeej, do you know how out athletic fundraising compares with the other Ivies? Given we have the highest undergrad enrollment in the Ivies, do we raise more money for athletics than these schools? Given the state of our football facilities & some of what Dave Archer has said about the material underfunding of football, I doubt it.
Hell, considering our alumni numbers we should always out fund-raise the other Ivies in all areas. But we don't. I often wonder how many people who complain actually get involved and try and make things better.
Much like elections, where 50% don't vote, but man I sure know some that can complain.
I've seen some athletic fundraising numbers for smaller Ivies who raise more money than we do. If you don't make changes to something where you've materially underperformed over a long period, how do you expect to improve? Of couse nothing on elynah changes anything. But thank you Age anyway!
Quote from: Jim HylaQuote from: CASBeeej, do you know how out athletic fundraising compares with the other Ivies? Given we have the highest undergrad enrollment in the Ivies, do we raise more money for athletics than these schools? Given the state of our football facilities & some of what Dave Archer has said about the material underfunding of football, I doubt it.
Hell, considering our alumni numbers we should always out fund-raise the other Ivies in all areas. But we don't. I often wonder how many people who complain actually get involved and try and make thinks better.
I strongly suspect the lower giving rates overall from Cornell alumni are a structural problem that is much larger than athletics. I don't regard my own behavior (never given money to Cornell outside of the hockey team or pep band because of dissatisfaction with profit-driven higher education in general) as representative of attitudes toward giving in general, but I do occasionally wonder what sets of things Cornell does to its students that result in so many people throwing the fund drive letters into the recycle bin without opening them up.
Quote from: WederQuote from: TrotskyQuote from: Jim HylaI'm not sure what you mean by ratios of titles. Do you mean #titles/#sports?
Here's a metric I'd like to see. Firstly, drop individual titles. For every team that competes at varsity, take the number of all the teams that could win the "championship" and add it to the denominator. If you win the championship, also add it to the numerator. Do that for every school in the NC$$.
So, for example, Cornell hockey competes for two championships (sorry, Ivies): ECAC (12) and NCAA (60, I think?). Cornell football only competes for Ivy (8). Cornell basketball competes for Ivy (8) and NCAA (240-something I think). And so on.
Now obviously we're going to get destroyed compared to factory schools like Stanford, but if we just take the Ivies all those NCAA zeros are going to wash out.
This is sort of what the Directors' Cup attempts to do, although there's still a big edge given to schools that finish first or second in a sport with a small number of participating teams. Last year (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/D1StandJune30.pdf), Stanford finished first. Princeton was the top Ivy at No. 33, and Cornell was No. 81 out of 295 (fifth-best showing by an Ivy).
Cool. The next step is to look at how Cornell did without Andy and then with him. That will give some indication whether he's producing successful teams.
I would wager the recent Ivy Championships vaguely mentioned are not so much skewed by sport as by gender. Equality is not a bad thing nor is excellence, in both academics and sports.
I would wager recent unidentified Ivy League sports titles are skewed more by gender than by sport. Equality is a good thing and so is excellence, in both academics and sports.
I would wager those vaguely identified Ivy League sports championships are skewed more by gender than by sport. Equality is a good thing and so is excellence, in sports as well as academics.
Quote from: HookingI would wager those vaguely identified Ivy League sports championships are skewed more by gender than by sport. Equality is a good thing and so is excellence, in sports as well as academics.
Earlier this month, I posted tables showing Cornell Ivy Championships by sport for men and women.
They show that from 2000-01, Cornell men won or shared 60 Ivy Championships, or 22 percent of the 272 available. Five sports out of 17, wrestling (15), lax (12), outdoor (10) and indoor (7) track and field (who knew?), and hockey (6) accounted for 83 percent of these championships.
Over the same period, Cornell women won or shared 31 Ivy Championships of the 256 available (12 percent). Three sports out of 16, outdoor (10) and indoor (7) track and field, and hockey (4) accounted for nearly 68 percent of these.
So, our men do better than our women, and, as we all know, our athletic strengths are concentrated in a few sports.
Today, as it's too cold to do anything more constructive, I calculated Gini coefficients (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient) for Cornell Ivy Championships by gender and sport. The Gini coefficient is a measure of concentration with 0 indicating that income, or whatever, is equitably distributed across a population, and tends to 1 as the variable of interest becomes less equitably distributed. The Gini coefficient for gender came out to .141. By way of comparison, in the US in 2013, the top 1 percent earned 20.1 percent of all income, for a coefficient of .191.
Men's championships were much more concentrated (G = .669) than the women's (G = .238). If our wrestling team had won 16 championships instead of just 15 and no other men's team won any, the coefficient would have been . 941.
There's probably a better way to do this kind of analysis, nonetheless, it suggests that sport
trumps beats out gender when it comes to the inequitable distribution of championships.