LaxPower Back-Up Stick

nyjay wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:54 pm But were they were dirty sweatpants, Doc? And talking only to each other? Those are the questions we need answers to.

If you read greg doyel or pete fiutak who both cover major d1 sports nationally, doyel is in indy, both support getting rid of non revenue sports and explained stanford/dartmouth/browns decisions to get rid of the ones they axed recently for the same reasons. The athletes don't do anything on campus other than play sports no one watches-especially now, don't contribute anything on campus, and basically take up hundreds of spots which should go to students who are actually there to fulfill the mission of the school.

jhu06 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 12, 2020 10:10 am

nyjay wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:54 pm But were they were dirty sweatpants, Doc? And talking only to each other? Those are the questions we need answers to.

If you read greg doyel or pete fiutak who both cover major d1 sports nationally, doyel is in indy, both support getting rid of non revenue sports and explained stanford/dartmouth/browns decisions to get rid of the ones they axed recently for the same reasons. The athletes don't do anything on campus other than play sports no one watches-especially now, don't contribute anything on campus, and basically take up hundreds of spots which should go to students who are actually there to fulfill the mission of the school.

By revenue sports, do they mean those that are net revenue positive? Because that is basically football and men’s basketball at most places (and football loses money at plenty of schools). I don’t know the finances of Hopkins but even if their lax team makes money, it would not do so for long if all of their opponents who lose money drop the sport. More broadly, the “don’t do anything other than play sports and don’t contribute anything to campus” canard is really myopic and offensive. It’s true not many people watch tennis or gymnastics (though at big D1 schools they draw as many or more than most lax teams). How many however attend recitals of music majors? Other than sitting in a studio and potting, what else does an art major contribute to campus? It is impossible to speak intelligently in such broad generalities. There are individuals across sports and activities/majors who do nothing else and those that are involved in numerous groups. If you want to eliminate all sports and extracurricular and basically go to tech/pre-professional schools ok but it makes no sense to eliminate some and not others based on the alleged lack of well-roundedness of its participants. For your Sunday musical enjoyment, here is a former Williams lacrosse captain to sing you on your way, showing off the cardio near the end.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVv_xhqpOhQ

Stanford was always something of an outlier in my view - relatively small and extremely selective school, but with tons of D1 athletic teams (including football, with its 90 man roster). I haven't done the math, but the proportion of students who were athletes had to be among the highest in the country. So admission for non-athletes was damn near impossible. So I guess I'm not surprised that they cut back sports and figure it was a long time coming.

For the Browns of the world, every sport is non-revenue. And I tend to believe that athletes are relatively engaged in campus life. I also do think that having students who do things other than academics makes for a better undergraduate experience for everyone. I also do truly believe that intercollegiate sports are an enormous learning experience for those who participate, time management, leadership, etc. Their college experience is much more of a preparation for life that just doing school. The bonds among the teams really matter as well. All in all, I believe that sports actually as an important part of advancing a school's core mission and so I wouldn't be inclined to them. And I say that as a guy who didn't play anything past HS.

Joey and Cole say wear a mask so we can watch lacrosse in the spring: https://twitter.com/jhumenslacrosse/sta ... 7755747328

Seems to me lacrosse is a non-revenue generating sport. Between the 12.5 scholarships, coaches salaries, travel and gear for 45+ players and lack of full game attendance. Football and basketball are the money makers, and if those don’t happen it seems to me there is little funding for lacrosse and other sports. Most lacrosse programs certainly seem to be at risk to me.

On Stanford there is a lot of moving parts.

First, the stated they won't bring the sports back even if there was money from alumni to support those programs. That basically tells you this was more than just money. Just looking at the sports listed, sailing, golf, synchronized swimming, etc. - Most are very affluent sports and also very white. And also given the college scandals from a year ago, very easy to manipulate.

Second, this is a way to allow for more diversity (racial and economical) into the school fill those spots.

Third, Stanford was already limiting the number of students on campus this year because of COVID. This is another easy way to force students to make a choice not to come on campus. i.e. If I can't play my sport, why do I need to be on campus.

Regarding " diversity " at JHU I noted the just slightly left leaning Sunpapers had coverage with photos of a group of student " activists " marching down York Road carrying the same signs seen everywhere these days.
Quite diverse to march in lockstep with other sloganeers from universities all over the country is it not ?

BlueJaySince1947 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:40 pm Regarding " diversity " at JHU I noted the just slightly left leaning Sunpapers had coverage with photos of a group of student " activists " marching down York Road carrying the same signs seen everywhere these days.
Quite diverse to march in lockstep with other sloganeers from universities all over the country is it not ?

If you were a Blue Jay in 1947, that means you must be over 90, no?

First of all, congrats. Most people don't make it that far.

But, second, that also means you won't have to worry for much longer about how the world is changing. It's not 1947 anymore.

Respect varied opinions and your elders.

BlueJaySince1947 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:40 pm Regarding " diversity " at JHU I noted the just slightly left leaning Sunpapers had coverage with photos of a group of student " activists " marching down York Road carrying the same signs seen everywhere these days.
Quite diverse to march in lockstep with other sloganeers from universities all over the country is it not ?

At least, they're active. In the mid-'60s there was talk about how much apathy there was in the student body. A get together was arranged to discuss the problem but, no one showed up.

WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:08 pm Respect varied opinions and your elders.

How much respect is he giving students exercising their first amendment rights? You get respect when you give it.

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... -ways.html

Not sure if this has been discussed here, but it looks like JHU needs a new uniform and gear provider. Maryland just announced that they are going to Maverik (along with PSU and OSU, I believe).

primitiveskills wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:05 pm https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... -ways.html

Not sure if this has been discussed here, but it looks like JHU needs a new uniform and gear provider. Maryland just announced that they are going to Maverik (along with PSU and OSU, I believe).

Under Armour and Hopkins have a history of collaboration. Earlier this year, they agreed to a research collaboration for the brand’s tech-enabled fitness line, and in 2014, Under Armour donated $10 million to Johns Hopkins Hospital’s Kimmel Cancer Center. Both Hopkins and Under Armour are also member businesses in the city-centric BLocal hiring initiative, launched in 2016.

baker came from under armour but she was at cornell before which like us had a nike contract. while at cornell she and nike had a scrape though.
https://cornellsun.com/2017/07/13/corne ... -contract/

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:14 pm

WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:08 pm Respect varied opinions and your elders.

How much respect is he giving students exercising their first amendment rights? You get respect when you give it.

Your post had a sound to it of looking forward to him dying off.

That’s how I took it. You can do better.

primitiveskills wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:05 pm https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... -ways.html

Not sure if this has been discussed here, but it looks like JHU needs a new uniform and gear provider. Maryland just announced that they are going to Maverik (along with PSU and OSU, I believe).

UA is still Maryland uniform provider. Maverick will provide the Lacrosse equipment.

UA will still supply uniforms though I suppose this gives the school an opportunity to reassess the entire relationship if they see fit. I know it doesn't matter much to a lot of people here but recruits these days really like the UA uniforms. I for one *greatly* prefer them to the Nike ones they were wearing circa 2016-2017. Hopefully they continue wearing the Cascade helmets (owned by Maverik, which was founded by John Gagliardi though he's since sold the company). As always—if you don't care about any of this, and I know many of you don't, feel free to just ignore it.

Owen McManus was named a Big Ten Distinguished Scholar, the first time ever for a sophomore at Hopkins. He had a 4.0 GPA this fall https://hopkinssports.com/news/2020/7/1 ... holar.aspx

Drcthru wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:56 pm

BlueJaySince1947 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:40 pm Regarding " diversity " at JHU I noted the just slightly left leaning Sunpapers had coverage with photos of a group of student " activists " marching down York Road carrying the same signs seen everywhere these days.
Quite diverse to march in lockstep with other sloganeers from universities all over the country is it not ?

At least, they're active. In the mid-'60s there was talk about how much apathy there was in the student body. A get together was arranged to discuss the problem but, no one showed up.

In the 60s the student sections at Homewood were packed with rabid Blue Jay fans.

WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:54 am

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 9:14 pm

WOMBAT, Mod Emeritus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 8:08 pm Respect varied opinions and your elders.

How much respect is he giving students exercising their first amendment rights? You get respect when you give it.

Your post had a sound to it of looking forward to him dying off.

That’s how I took it. You can do better.

That was the implication I took from HopFan16's post as well. I found it grossly inappropriate.

I would add a couple other things, directed at HF16:

I find only marginally less distasteful the broader suggestion that any poster's presumed age should somehow discredit his opinions as invalid or irrelevant. Unfortunately this seems to be an undercurrent I've noticed running through a number of your (generally extremely high-quality) postings on various subjects over the years.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:50 pm If you were a Blue Jay in 1947, that means you must be over 90, no?

First of all, congrats. Most people don't make it that far.

But, second, that also means you won't have to worry for much longer about how the world is changing. It's not 1947 anymore.

One might point out that younger people, having had the least concrete experience of the status quo ante, are in a sense the least well equipped to judge whether any given change is in fact good, bad, or neutral. Does that mean I should be openly dismissive of anything they have to say? Or might it actually be that no particular age has any specially privileged insight into the public good, and maybe you should stop treating "It's not [year] anymore" as if it were an actual argument, and just stick to disagreeing on the merits?

As far as I can tell, BlueJaySince1947 -- in a rare non-Quint-bashing effort -- raised a substantive point. It may not be one you agree with, and a lacrosse forum may not be the place for a full exploration of its implications. Simply ignoring it would be perfectly fine. But what I see from you is no attempt to engage on, or even to acknowledge, the substance at all. Just ad hominem snark. I agree with Wombat: you can do better.

Feel like I'm taking crazy pills. If anyone was being ageist it was the guy summarily writing off the concerns of young people—out of absolutely nowhere, I might add—with scare quotes to invalidate their constitutional right. His post was absolutely dripping with condescension toward students whose peaceful assemblage, I'm pretty confident in saying, doesn't really impact him or have anything to do with lacrosse. What exactly was the substantive point? That it is not diverse to protest for equality using popular slogans? What does that even mean? I did not engage with the substance of the post because there wasn't any. It's pretty telling you deemed only one post to be "openly dismissive" in this instance. If I attempted to dismiss his opinion it was because he tried to do the same to an entire group of young people. Of course he is entitled to it—whether or not it's relevant I guess we're just going to have to disagree on.

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2020 10:30 am Feel like I'm taking crazy pills. If anyone was being ageist it was the guy summarily writing off the concerns of young people—out of absolutely nowhere, I might add—with scare quotes to invalidate their constitutional right. His post was absolutely dripping with condescension toward students whose peaceful assemblage, I'm pretty confident in saying, doesn't really impact him or have anything to do with lacrosse. What exactly was the substantive point? That it is not diverse to protest for equality using popular slogans? What does that even mean? I did not engage with the substance of the post because there wasn't any. It's pretty telling you deemed only one post to be "openly dismissive" in this instance. If I attempted to dismiss his opinion it was because he tried to do the same to an entire group of young people. Of course he is entitled to it—whether or not it's relevant I guess we're just going to have to disagree on.

+1

Crazy pills indeed.