So now we have two things to take into consideration. The first for track was facilities and in softball coaching. So I ask the question again is LU committed to having the facilities to compete and committed to keeping good coaches? I know that there must be an adjustment period to the level of competition in the Valley, My question is now that LU knows what that is...are we going to make the commitment in terms of facilities , coaches, schedules etc.?

Loyola hasn't made any commitment. Athletics is subsidized by the students. I think I remember Tom Kelly (he's not a Dr. the other one Rob Kelly, who left was a phd) telling me each student pays about 1600 year as part of their tuition bill to underwrite athletics. I guess you could say the university paid for the Gentile, since Joe didn't fully fund his pledge before his passing. Georgia recently passed a bill in the state legislature capping the amount students have to pay to athletics. I wonder if current Loyola students really know how much they pay to supports athletics.

I tend to agree with your first statement. The level of commitment isn't yet where it needs to be, despite various improvements. (More charter flights, etc.)

I'd imagine it's only undergrads who pay the fees, but if it were $1,600 per year per student, that would amount to more than $15 million per year for athletics. I think the student fees is are more like $200.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

First, we should all acknowledge the progress we've made in the past several years.

1. We are now in a conference where we have better competition in most sports, better and more professional marketing/organization, and much more assurance and expectation that we are being treated fairly.
2. Six or eight years ago, we had very few assistant coaches in non-revenue sports. We were way, way behind almost every team in the HL. We are now at least on par with the staffing numbers, if not the salary and cost of living for the market we're in.
3. We've won a CBI title, two national championships in men's volleyball, and we've performed OK in conference tournaments since joining the MVC.
4. The quality of our recruiting is much better in many key sports, especially men's and women's basketball, men's volleyball, track/field, and men's soccer. I don't know as much right now about women's volleyball, softball, and golf.
5. There is a clear and much more serious commitment to athletics from upper administration, perhaps at the highest level in university history since World War II or Great Depression; whether it will be sustained and followed through on by the new administration is unknown.

This is not to say that everything's great. Besides men's basketball, the MVC is a much stronger conference than the HL in women's volleyball and track, and somewhat weaker in women's basketball, so it may take us some time to ramp up to success in the MVC from the HL. A lot of-- how would you say it, daring? controversial? gutsy? unexpected?-- moves were made by the athletic department over the past several years, and a few of them paid off big, while some may have fizzled. Along with the bigger stage of being in the MVC comes more attention when there are problems or thorny issues (Swoopes might have gotten attention anyway...). Also with playing 3 years in the MVC, some problems that we didn't know we had have emerged more clearly, and now most of our big problems are pretty well known:

1. Attendance/fan engagement
2. Revenue
3. Marketing/Publicity/Press Coverage/Broadcasting
4. Lower than expected improvement in scheduling, retaining good coaches, and retaining student athletes
5. Leveraging athletics to benefit other areas of the university (e.g. enrollment, donations, academics, student life, etc.)

Just my opinion. Overall, I'm really happy with where we are and the progress we're making. Can't wait to see the new players take the court this fall.