Youngstown Cardinal Mooney in 2022

Heard a new president is coming into Cardinal Mooney. Could this shake things up over there maybe?
 
gotti544 said:
Debartolo/York are the only ones that can shake things up
Click to expand...
My understanding is a new principal. Both the current president (Roger Bacon grad) and principal are heavy hitters--- top shelf people put there by the Diocese (Bishop Murry) to try to bring the school back. Recent letter to parents by Pres. Maj suggests he sees "thinking outside the box" as the way to do it. This Ursuline grad wishes them only the best.
 
Cinciirish said:
It looks like new Bishop Bonnar is abandoning the Jesuit president/principal model brought to the high schools by the late Jesuit Bishop George Murry.
Click to expand...
I was never fully convinced why this model was originally needed. I can only assume this re-organization in leadership is a cost-saving strategy as the school continues to shrink. Any CM insiders have insight?
 
Gardens35 said:
The new President/Principal

Click to expand...
I know Nick and he is a good guy, was at Benedictine for a while and then moved over to Beaumont where I interacted with him while my daughters attended. Very solid academic credentials and you will like him a lot when it comes to that side of the business, I would say OK on the fund raising side but he will not hurt you there either. As for sports he is a more of don't cause me any problems and I will let things roll along as is type Principal, he didn't appear to like the parent drama aspect, (who does?) and he really doesn't go for bad pub when it comes to athletics. Also don't look for him to be super rah rah and look to bring in big names that will bring sports glory to Mooney at a potential cost. If dubious things are going on behind the scenes he will put a kibosh on them right away.

Bottom line is all is OK and you will like him.
 
Auggie said:
I know Nick and he is a good guy, was at Benedictine for a while and then moved over to Beaumont where I interacted with him while my daughters attended. Very solid academic credentials and you will like him a lot when it comes to that side of the business, I would say OK on the fund raising side but he will not hurt you there either. As for sports he is a more of don't cause me any problems and I will let things roll along as is type Principal, he didn't appear to like the parent drama aspect, (who does?) and he really doesn't go for bad pub when it comes to athletics. Also don't look for him to be super rah rah and look to bring in big names that will bring sports glory to Mooney at a potential cost. If dubious things are going on behind the scenes he will put a kibosh on them right away.

Bottom line is all is OK and you will like him.
Click to expand...
 
golden dawn said:
I was never fully convinced why this model was originally needed. I can only assume this re-organization in leadership is a cost-saving strategy as the school continues to shrink. Any CM insiders have insight?
Click to expand...
It has been highly successful in Jesuit High Schools and that's why Murry brought it to the Youngstown Diocese. It runs smoothly at Ursuline, I don't know about the others. The idea essentially is that the principal runs the school and the president raises the cash. The president is also the face of the school. Most Jesuit high schools in the US are in major cities much bigger than Youngstown. I am familiar with the system in the Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus. But a St. X or St. Ignatius has a lot more money to be raised than schools like Mooney. Deeper pockets and more of them.
 
Cinciirish said:
It has been highly successful in Jesuit High Schools and that's why Murry brought it to the Youngstown Diocese. It runs smoothly at Ursuline, I don't know about the others. The idea essentially is that the principal runs the school and the president raises the cash. The president is also the face of the school. Most Jesuit high schools in the US are in major cities much bigger than Youngstown. I am familiar with the system in the Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus. But a St. X or St. Ignatius has a lot more money to be raised than schools like Mooney. Deeper pockets and more of them.
Click to expand...
Double-edged sword. The model may be successful with the Jesuits, for all the reasons you mention -- it's commonly used in schools, too, that aren't affiliated with a religious order (e.g. Diocesan operations.) Issue though is at many schools (e.g. smaller schools, where Mooney is steering toward) where it gets introduced, it ends up being pointless and counterproductive. One dilemma this model faces at schools is they get implemented before they know who specifically is best suited for the gig (and that someone has to WANT to be there.) Where it crashes and burns is when you get someone who isn't qualified to really be the "president" of the school: they may have generally good business practices and the wherewithal to attract fundraising, but they are otherwise incapable of interacting with the wide range of stakeholders it takes to make the gears turn at a Catholic school of any enrollment.

cc'ing @Mr. Slippery and my pal @Forepar , if they have anything they want to add on the topic.
 
Benedictine just moved on from a President/Principal combo, a two year experiment. The guy that had the dual role is dynamic and is now exclusively President looking to be the face and fund raising arm of the school; he should do well. As for Mooney it will be interesting to see how Nick does with the President side of the job.
 
The Dock said:
Double-edged sword. The model may be successful with the Jesuits, for all the reasons you mention -- it's commonly used in schools, too, that aren't affiliated with a religious order (e.g. Diocesan operations.) Issue though is at many schools (e.g. smaller schools, where Mooney is steering toward) where it gets introduced, it ends up being pointless and counterproductive. One dilemma this model faces at schools is they get implemented before they know who specifically is best suited for the gig (and that someone has to WANT to be there.) Where it crashes and burns is when you get someone who isn't qualified to really be the "president" of the school: they may have generally good business practices and the wherewithal to attract fundraising, but they are otherwise incapable of interacting with the wide range of stakeholders it takes to make the gears turn at a Catholic school of any enrollment.

cc'ing @Mr. Slippery and my pal @Forepar , if they have anything they want to add on the topic.
Click to expand...
Since you cc'ed me.

I agree with Dock's general observation that whomever the person is, they have to communicate with a WIDE range of stakeholders (and create new stakeholders).

In the large school/metro area, I see the two-person model working. Both positions are more than full time at the larger schools, and the larger schools can afford and in fact acknowledge the need for both. They pay the positions, not what they "can afford." Those schools generally are in large metro areas accustomed to paying salaries that are commensurate with talent and position, with large alumni bases close to home base - and they have the resources to do their jobs well (well-funded foundations, higher tuition revenue based on # of students and higher tuition levels, adequate support staffs, etc.)
Great CEO's get paid a lot to do a great job, and are also given the resources to do a great job. Most smaller Catholic HS's have had middling-to- good CEO's over time, but expect those CEO's to accomplish the task without adequate resources (i.e. staff) - but those schools don't need good CEO's in this environment, they need GREAT CEO's who recognize and can address all the nuances on every issue.

In the smaller school setting, while there is some potential for the bifurcated President/Principal model to work, here are the discussion points as I see them:

1. The smaller school/smaller city group has a difficult time investing enough funds in either position, let along BOTH positions, to get A+ talent in both positions to get the job done. Historically the smaller schools have exceedingly lean budgets, both for leadership and faculty. So paying a larger chunk for outstanding leadership is harder to stomach - any extra cash, in many minds, ought to be paid to the faculty, and there is no extra cash in the first place. And the pay may be high in relation to pay for jobs in the community. And yet the smaller schools are the ones that need the A+ leadership talent the most. The smaller schools need enough $$$ and support to not only attract but also keep the A+ talent they initially attract (whatever model they use). The B talent pool isn't going to turn things around into a dynamic organization - B talent might very well do a good job and prolong the inevitable for a longer period, but they won't get things moved to where the HS is thriving. That is a herculean task requiring a vast array of skills. The various past models need turned on their heads by a A+ talent (the talent being more at getting support for the change than actually structuring the change), to grow endowments and community support so that the best (and happiest) faculty teaches at said school, which will drive a host of other positive changes. Otherwise, YCM (or insert any other smaller Catholic HS here) has nothing to differentiate itself from the generally much-improved public school down the street (maybe less so in metro areas but absolutely the case in Central/Southeastern Ohio with new buildings, new technology and better faculty overall). So that parents feel like there is no choice BUT to send their child to said school. So that kids want to and are proud of being there. And sports success then follows, not important by itself but as part of the overall package. Being "ok" is not "OK" in the school world any longer.

As a sidenote, if there is a hypothetical extra $75,000 on the table to be split among 15 faculty members, that just isn't enough of a hit ($5,000 each). The gap between public school compensation is truly 7 or 8x that $5,000, maybe more when factoring in STRS, health insurance, etc. At the administrative level, B talent will tend to continue what is, as best they can, so as to not rock the boat and keep the school open and breathing. A+ talent is more interested in creating the absolute best environment, is not afraid of change, doesn't care about losing their job -- because they are confident in their abilities, in their vision, in their ability to communicate that vision to all constituencies. They know they will be snapped up after this job if it doesn't work out - they administer to create the best organization possible, not to preserve what is already known (and for the most part not working). And they know how to actively LISTEN all the while. They look for THE way, not their way. So in my mind, the investment starts there. Because it has to. It would be great to double faculty salaries overnight- there is not enough $$$ to do that first. That is a later and progressive step.

2. Even if you somehow initially attract a great talent (be it leadership or faculty) without fully competitive pay, if you don't pay them enough over time for great leadership, you will ultimately continue with mediocrity - most great adminstrators will eventually be swept up by other schools or other businesses. Same with faculty. Money talks - not exclusively but it is a big part of the equation. 4 years at tOSU costing north of $100,000, without factoring in Masters and Doctorated programs, school loans, housing costs at $2K plus per month, etc. Smaller Catholic schools need to get past the "little engine that could" mentality, especially when it comes to leadership and faculty -- IF those schools want to thrive in the future. That mantra worked in the 60's and 70's, it treaded water for another 20-30 years but is now a direction toward extinction. Those same schools that exhort their students to be confident, vibrant leaders, to go away to college, etc., want to remain that little engine - it's an inconsistent message at best. It's not the message that the St. X's and Iggy's espouse - they exude confidence and swagger (maybe too much for my personal taste at times, but they are MAKING IT HAPPEN!). Maybe the smaller schools are headed toward closure anyway, given societal moves away from the Catholic Church generally, but that's another story. The only way to survive generally in the future is to thrive, not tread water. Getting passed is a good way to get left in the dust; treading water ultimately means closure. So if you have the vision of the future including avibrant Catholic HS, you start with someone(s) in the leadership position(s) who has the skillset, the energy and the commitment to grow the entire operation - you can't raise faculty salaries enough overnight (see above) without the cash/endowment to do so. But if you have $75,000 "extra," that might be best spent to attract the best talent at the leadership position, with the expectation that such a move will grow the pie to increase enrollment, endowments, faculty salaries, etc. While investing in the right leadership structure has importance, investing in the right leader(s) to grow the operation at all levels is of GREATER importance, imo.

The days of relying upon GREAT teachers (or administrators) staying at a small (or even large) Catholic HS for pay and benefits that are 50% or less than what they can earn in the public school system are over if success is the goal. The disparity in compensation is just too great at the schools I am familiar with. Some level of disparity is fine, as there is a benefit/value to some to teaching in a small Catholic high school environment - but that isn't true for enough teachers and the level of disparity in the smaller Catholic schools is unrealistic and unreasonable to consistently attract new/young talent. Continuing to pay homage to teachers who have been at the same school for 40 years, when paid 50% or less and stay their entire career out of "loyalty" to their school, with nominal retirement and insurance benefits is not helping matters either. It's not the healthiest environment for improving faculty overall, and/or instilling a drive to be the best in one's field. You've got to have people who want to be the best - period. And to do that, you've got to pay them a competitive salary with competitive benefits. Not necessarily equal, but also not less than half. You cannot reasonably expect a talented teacher with a minimum 4-year degree and a family to want to teach in a Catholic HS, no matter how great the environment, for a $40,000-50,000 per year salary and limited retirement benefits. There may be a few who still will, but not enough to move the needle. Look at those numbers and then consider that something between $16K and $24K is the annual mortgage/rent payment.

2. The President in the separate P/P structure cannot be primarily about fund-raising, especially in the smaller school setting. It's a broader role. The President needs to be lock-step with the Principal philosophically on academics, extra-curricular, sports, parents, alumni, creating long-time business boosters, etc. Both the President and Principal can and should bring different ideas to the table in private, and they may divide the tasks, but once the ideas are vetted and a course of action decided, that course of action, that philosophy, needs to be THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE ALL THE TIME from both. That is hard to do in the larger school setting, and even harder to do in the small school setting - there just does not seem to be enough time for the level of internal communication needed to accomplish that level of consistency. And there tends to be just too much ego and/or defensiveness about positions when there is a division of duties but the lines between the roles aren't always black and white (they can't be). As President you can't sidestep an academic or student/parent issue in a smaller community Catholic HS simply by saying that a particular issue is under the Principal's domain -- not if you want to maintain and grow relationships (not just $) with your business and alumni constituency. And yet you sure better be exactly consistent with the Principal's position. That takes more communication among/between those leaders on a DAILY basis than most are accustomed to (or comfortable with). But that is precisely what GREAT leaders do - they communicate, they LISTEN, they send a consistent message. It is probably a tad bit easier for a President in a larger school to defer to the Principal (and vice versa), as they have assistants that help them find the time for communicating with one another. But even then they have to work hard at creating and maintaining that great level of support and consistency.

Perhaps, with the right PR person, that is why one person possibly can/should effectively fill both roles for a smaller Catholic HS. Not because of cost-savings per se (though that is a consideration), but because of the need for absolute consistent message, and perhaps because the need for longevity is easier to achieve with one person than two. The smaller school needs to commit to that person (financially and for term) and the individual needs to commit to the school (long-term) - not just contractually but philosophically. That person has to be STRONG at everything, not just some or most of the parts of the job. EVERYTHING. Maybe some find it is unrealistic to think that one person will have the talents and time to communicate effectively with all constituencies, fundraising and have a grasp of the academic/extra- curricular side as well. All too often a Principal (or singular President/Principal) of a Diocesan HS focuses on the academic side to the detriment of all else. That's how school administration generally is taught/trained - focus on academics. For the public school setting, that is generally a correct line of thinking - fund- raising is in large part a tax issue, with tax levies being more in the bailiwick of the Board and Superintendent and most fundraising by sports/booster clubs. But that school of though isn't effective in a private school setting - you must not just be a jack of all trades, you need to be a master of all trades. A principal at a public HS has assistant principals reporting to him/her, and reports to a Superintendent and a governing Board with authority to act. There are curriculum specialists, etc... The Diocesan HS Principal has NONE of those supports - in the smaller schools, the assistant principal (if any) has a full teaching load and is not part of the planning process. They simply are there "just in case..." The Superintendent is far away in Columbus at the Diocesan level, attempting to deal with 52 other schools (per the Diocesan website), not the limited number of 8 or so schools that make up a typical non-metro school district.

3. The movement of leadership every 3-4 years might work in big corporate America, because at least some mid-level and upper-level management leadership teams remain in place. That much movement, however, does not work for a smaller Catholic high school community, where the parent/core group itself changes dramatically every 3-4 years, and the faculty is trained to teach not administer/lead. Thus, imo, there needs to be even greater stability in the leadership role(s). Shoot, the Columbus Diocese recognized that with pastors having 10-year assignments (although that may be subject to adjustment for reasons beyond this response). But some of the smaller Catholic HSs experiencing the more extreme difficulties recently have had a different leader every 12-18 months (Newark Catholic being the obvious exception until recently).

4. Both roles (P/P) are mission-critical to the success of any organization, especially a private Catholic HS. Both roles need A+ talent and effort, even moreso in a small Catholic HS in a relatively small city/community. Whether both roles need separate persons or one EXTREMELY talented individual is a unique question for each school. But the mantras that "if we build it, they will come," "we just need to get our message out" and "we have such great faculty who are willing to teach for next to nothing" are just not getting it done, and haven't for quite awhile. The bifurcated model of P/P may bide time for a Youngstown school - but the creation of the roles themselves is not the primary answer. The answer is filling those roles with the right A+ talent, and keeping them in place long enough to create real progress, and a direction toward thriving and not just existing. Otherwise, just close the doors now.

Apologies for length...stream of consciousness.
I realize TLDR may be an appropriate response on a message board.
Probably wrong place to address these complex and nuanced issues, but they aren't getting fixed anywhere else!
Hoping for the best for YCM - am seeing many (but not all) of the issues at my alma mater that YCM is facing, the primary one being dramatic decline in enrollment.
 
Last edited:
The change in leadership is a nice start but the school needs to do other things to stay afloat.
Find land in North lima and build the new school. They will lose a few students at first but gain many more in the future. Erie street location will be the anchor on the school until it closes or combines with Ursuline.
 
neofootball10 said:
The change in leadership is a nice start but the school needs to do other things to stay afloat.
Find land in North lima and build the new school. They will lose a few students at first but gain many more in the future. Erie street location will be the anchor on the school until it closes or combines with Ursuline.
Click to expand...
Not gonna happen. Wishful thinking that ship has sailed a couple years ago
 
Then they should just start planning on joining Ursuline or get ready for the closing plan within 5 years then. No one is sending their kids into that war zone area no matter how great the new principal is. The school will just keep getting smaller and smaller until it fades away. All great things come to an end. Grab the state trophies when you shut it down.
 
neofootball10 said:
Then they should just start planning on joining Ursuline or get ready for the closing plan within 5 years then. No one is sending their kids into that war zone area no matter how great the new principal is. The school will just keep getting smaller and smaller until it fades away. All great things come to an end. Grab the state trophies when you shut it down.
Click to expand...
People are delusional. Especially some Mooney grads regarding the neighborhood. Ursuline is a block away from YSU. It’s safe enough.
 
neofootball10 said:
Then they should just start planning on joining Ursuline or get ready for the closing plan within 5 years then. No one is sending their kids into that war zone area no matter how great the new principal is. The school will just keep getting smaller and smaller until it fades away. All great things come to an end. Grab the state trophies when you shut it down.
Click to expand...
It has been a war zone for a long time now. But when you start losing, the complaints go up. When they were winning you didn't hear much about it
 
YSU has bought many of the nearby area of Ursuline and it has become a much nicer and safer area than Erie street. How many shootings does it have a night over there. No one wants to have bullets whizzing by their kids at 700 pm on a Wed night. The enrollment numbers say it all. Dropping like a rock.
 
I was a bit surprised at the game recap and the score of last night's game against Boardman. Is Mooney better than we thought, Boardman worse than we thought, or was this just a typical steel valley grudge match? Anyone attend this have insight? I thought Mooney would lose by 21.
 
golden dawn said:
I was a bit surprised at the game recap and the score of last night's game against Boardman. Is Mooney better than we thought, Boardman worse than we thought, or was this just a typical steel valley grudge match? Anyone attend this have insight? I thought Mooney would lose by 21.
Click to expand...
Watched the 2nd half on YSN. Mooney was poised to win after stopping Boardman inside the 10yd line early in the 4th quarter while leading 7-0. I believe on the next drive Mooney hit a big pass play into Boardman territory... at that stage they had all the monentum. Rather than running the ball to chew up the clock, Mooney threw an INT a couple plays later and Boardman scored. Mooney threw a 2nd INT on the next drive that setup Boardman's game winning FG.

Neither team looked all that impressive offensively. Not sure if it was due to two weak offenses or two decent defenses.
 
golden dawn said:
I was a bit surprised at the game recap and the score of last night's game against Boardman. Is Mooney better than we thought, Boardman worse than we thought, or was this just a typical steel valley grudge match? Anyone attend this have insight? I thought Mooney would lose by 21.
Click to expand...
I think it is a little bit of both. They both shot themselves in the foot with penalties and/or turnovers.

Mooney could not run the ball at all against the Spartan defensive front but they passed pretty well when the OL gave their QB time, which was not that often. The Cards had all the momentum after taking the 7-0 lead. They forced a Spartan punt of the next possession but they muffed the punt and Boardman recovered. The Cards stopped them deep in their territory and drove inside the Boardman 10 where after a completed pass, the receiver fumbled with Boardman recovering at their 10. Mooney then intercepted a pass at the Spartan 35 but also threw an INT at the Spartan 10. Boardman then took over and drove 90 yards to tie the game. Mooney then had a very short punt that gave the Spartans good FP and they managed to kick the game winning FG.

This Mooney team no longer knows how to win games like this but I do think they are improved over last year. I think the defense may be OK if the offense can give them a break and keep them off the field a little bit. They have to be able to run the ball better.
InTheYo said:
Watched the 2nd half on YSN. Mooney was poised to win after stopping Boardman inside the 10yd line early in the 4th quarter while leading 7-0. I believe on the next drive Mooney hit a big pass play into Boardman territory... at that stage they had all the monentum. Rather than running the ball to chew up the clock, Mooney threw an INT a couple plays later and Boardman scored. Mooney threw a 2nd INT on the next drive that setup Boardman's game winning FG.

Neither team looked all that impressive offensively. Not sure if it was due to two weak offenses or two decent defenses.
Click to expand...
IMO they didn't run the ball because they couldn't. I may be wrong on this but I think the punter was their leading rusher with 1 carry for 14 yards.
 
Buckeye Elite said:
I watched the second half, I don’t see Boardman winning many more games
Click to expand...
They should beat East and Howland. Other than that it’s a pretty tough list of opponents even for a good team.

The D looked good, especially up front getting after QB and stopping the run. The offense is another story. They need to develop a pass game or they are going to struggle to put any points on the board.

Both teams shot themselves in the foot several times and will need to cut out those mistakes going forward to have halfway decent seasons.
 
SteelValley said:
They should beat East and Howland. Other than that it’s a pretty tough list of opponents even for a good team.

The D looked good, especially up front getting after QB and stopping the run. The offense is another story. They need to develop a pass game or they are going to struggle to put any points on the board.

Both teams shot themselves in the foot several times and will need to cut out those mistakes going forward to have halfway decent seasons.
Click to expand...
I guess I gotta give dota a few games. Offense has never been his strong suit, I figured the line play would be a lot better. I agree they get those 2 tho
 
I can't believe Mooney threw themselves into a defeat. I just couldn't understand why the kept chucking the ball around when they clearly had all the momentum and were *any* more points away from ending it.

But more than that I was just a little depressed, thinking about the history of this great rivalry, how much talent for example when the series resumed in 2009 was on the field for that game and how big the crowd was and that now 13 years later we're watching 2 teams who may combine for 5 wins this year.

I can't believe Boardman didn't change QBs, or at try a more pocket oriented passer. But you can't blame the best HS QB in Boardman for going to school/playing at Ursuline now lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top