Wow. Just...wow.

How did Tom Kelly get in a position to have such a negative impact on athletics? Is there anything that can be done?

I hope this does not happen but what if the new president devalues athletics? If the majority of the student body and alums do not like athletics could one argue it is not an important part of student life? Could it be said we tried to pump more money into athletics and it did not work? That our values and who we are as a university does not equate with D1 athletics? Could the new president say we should be D3? Given our student's non-passion for sports they may not be wrong. I hope not but who knows. Is the current Loyola philosophy really that of a d1 school? This would be terrible but we never know. We would be a good geographic fit in the GLVC.

My take is that the new President should NOT devalue Athletics. He should look at it as a positive slice of BIG TIME University life at a nationally known house of learning. He should look at our fellow Jesuit schools such as Marq. X, Gtn, et al---Tops in Hoops ( Men's) and nationally known as well. He should NOT look fondly at the lesser of the "Brotherhood" --See Spring Hill et al-- If he does this and moves Kelly, he will stand a chance of bringing LUC back on top without hurting , but only enhancing the Scholastic end. He also owes to Chicago NOT to relegate LUC to the ranks of say John Carroll ( great in the CLEVELAND area but where else? )As an aside, I was taught at LUC and it was confirmed later in Life that , with all respect to Accountants Paper pushers and Attorneys , they should NEVER be in Leadership.
THAT should be left to Sales and Production folks ( forward thinkers) The others btw are by nature negative , as they should be BUT NOT in positions of Leadership---eg FR Garanzini)
If 86's views are at all on point. KELLY must be moved to another spot at LUC.

LOYOLA OF CHICAGO MUST get back as one of what is sorely needed for CHICAGO !!

INVEST--how's that for a Liberal word --in bringing LUC back to the top, where it belongs .

---Again, Brot means no dis-respect to anyone--BUT square pegs in square holes so to speak !!

First, let me say that I respect everyone's opinion on this board. Reading your comments gives me "food for thought." Yes, it could and might be worse. We could hire Porter back in 8 years ala DePaul. The chances are, if we fired Porter, we will get a 2nd rate coach and actually take a step backwards. BUT, a coach must win. Period. I actually love Porter. I've spoken to him many times. Great representative of the university. I am sick of losing. I was there last night. No disrespect to other's but as I was riding home, I could not think of one positive. We were favored, we led at half, we were up 9 in the 2nd half and lost. This isn't t-ball where everyone gets a pat on the back. We lost to a team we needed to beat again. Were there highlights? Yes. We need to win home games against ISU.

Btw, I agree Tom Kelly will not eat Porter's contract so I am just blowing off steam. I want wins, top 4 MVC team, scores read on sportscasts, etc. Tired of this losing atmosphere.

Sam, that is MY point --Kelly should NOT be in a position to eat or not eat PMs contract--THAT in my view is the AD's task--for good or bad.

Contrary to popular belief, Porter was extended through the 2017-18 season, which means 2 years left on his deal after this year. I do still think the jury is definitely out (i.e. we have a big month of basketball left), but if it's leaning either way, it has to be leaning towards firing if money wasn't an issue. Conventional wisdom says that the powers that be take the contract and $ into account, even with an abysmal win-loss record. But in 3 months (after the season & spring recruiting), we will know a lot more about whether or not Porter goes into next season solely focused on continuing to develop the program or with a seat that is practically engulfed in flames.

I am curious to where the University is with athletics? What is the directive? There has definitely been an uptick towards athletics lately but are they all in at this point
or d0 they still have a play to make. At some point they will have to judge the results of their efforts and must expect a return. There are non-monetary results, just the intrinsics of part of the student body participating in competitive sports...which could probably be done at DIII..so we can assume that is not currently their goal...they want something more. SO that can be a monetary gain ( TV,tickets,donations, ads etc) or an indirect monetary gain( admissions,alumni involvement,school reputation, larger national attention)
If they are already all in they have got to be saying "what did we get ourselves into? there seems to be little or no uptick in interest from students or alums.At the games I kind of look around at the crowd and feel depressed. No radio , little publicity anywhere....
From the other aspect we have done a great job with championships (2 volleyball, 1 basketball) a couple of All-Americans in track and a tremendous academic accomplishment.
But is there more to come.....are they not yet all in? But I think at some point they have to see a return on their investment Or are they already where they want to be ...just kind of settling for some mediocrity. I think what the University expects will have more to do with whether Porter stays or not.
I try and keep this in mind and contribute where I can as well as email a lot to the powers that be.

brot4britu, COMPLETELY agree with you. Maybe some of you can name another school like Loyola, but in 99% of the athletic programs I know of, the AD reports directly to the President of the university. If I had a choice between firing Porter of Kelly, I would pick Kelly.

"The University," much like most universities, hinge on leadership. Obviously we were blessed with Father Mike, but where the new leader stands is definitely up in the air. It would be interesting to hear what some of the questions the search committee is asking to potential President candidates. It would certainly be illuminating to hear what some of those people think about athletics.

My guess? D1 has to be the way to go. We invested too much money in Norville/Gentile renovations (and to start the Reimagine campaign, which shows a ton of symbolism) and a move to the Valley that it'd be an incredible waste of sunk cost resources to start penny-pinching now. And again, if PM can salvage something of this season (a winning record from here on out, an Arch Madness win or two, a wildly successful spring recruiting signing period), he should stay. Money can't buy championships, and I don't think it would kill the program to give him 1 more year. 2-4 or even 1-5 and a Thursday loss, and you could definitely make a case for other options. Porter's conference win percentage is currently under .300 (it's too late for me to calculate the exact number, but Wikipedia has it at .257 as of a few games ago). Yes, we could do worse, but how low of an opinion does someone have to have of Loyola basketball to think we can't honestly do better than that?