2015 Spring Practice

[twballgame9]

Ticket revenue differences are almost negligible. BC's stadiums are too small and prices too low to make any noticeable difference on a $70 million budget from one year to the next.

[eagle9903]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Cash expended is about to go up, too, with recent legislation BC opposed. That said, the scholarship accounting is a farce.

Given that over a third of the revenue end is a giant payout from the ACC, I'm not sure that total revenue is down a hell of a lot. Maybe.

Of course, if BC is struggling, they could do what everyone else does and cut bullshit like fencing. I suspect they aren't struggling that much.

This is where I think the administration misses the boat so completely. I realize there is some theoretical value to having 7200 non-revenue sports including fencing and hansening, but no one who does not participate in those things would notice they were gone and even moreso no one would care if they were reduced to club level.

[b0mberMan]

Just saw what I assume will be the first of many at BCI:

"Darius Wade is a runner with some throwing abilty. Flutie is a passer who can also run."

Best part about this is that it is actually the other way around.

Yes. This is inevitable, however, as many people there and at EA and probably here, too, have not actually seen Wade or Flutie play, and essentially have "Lenny = White, Carl = Black" scribbled on their palms for reference when talking about our QBs

[DavidGordonsFoot]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Revenues are higher now than in 2008. The loss of ticket revenue from football and basketball in those years has been made up for by more TV money and richer uniform deals.

BUT WHAT ABOUT TRAVEL COSTS!!!1!

[b0mberMan]

I think TRE must've contracted osteopenis.

[eagle9903]

Just saw what I assume will be the first of many at BCI:

"Darius Wade is a runner with some throwing abilty. Flutie is a passer who can also run."

Best part about this is that it is actually the other way around.

Yes. This is inevitable, however, as many people there and at EA and probably here, too, have not actually seen Wade or Flutie play, and essentially have "Lenny = White, Carl = Black" scribbled on their palms for reference when talking about our QBs

That scribble had gotten eepstein through 10,000 plus posts.

[eepstein0]

Just saw what I assume will be the first of many at BCI:

"Darius Wade is a runner with some throwing abilty. Flutie is a passer who can also run."

Best part about this is that it is actually the other way around.

Yes. This is inevitable, however, as many people there and at EA and probably here, too, have not actually seen Wade or Flutie play, and essentially have "Lenny = White, Carl = Black" scribbled on their palms for reference when talking about our QBs

That scribble had gotten eepstein through 10,000 plus posts.

Not quite but don't let facts get in the way

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

Just saw what I assume will be the first of many at BCI:

"Darius Wade is a runner with some throwing abilty. Flutie is a passer who can also run."

Best part about this is that it is actually the other way around.

Yes. This is inevitable, however, as many people there and at EA and probably here, too, have not actually seen Wade or Flutie play, and essentially have "Lenny = White, Carl = Black" scribbled on their palms for reference when talking about our QBs

That scribble had gotten eepstein through 10,000 plus posts.

Not quite but don't let facts get in the way

yeah siriuzk33per. eepstein's never once made a post that we need to recruit more black wr/db because they are better than white wr/db. i don't know where you get off on this sort of slander

[eepstein0]

Just saw what I assume will be the first of many at BCI:

"Darius Wade is a runner with some throwing abilty. Flutie is a passer who can also run."

Best part about this is that it is actually the other way around.

Yes. This is inevitable, however, as many people there and at EA and probably here, too, have not actually seen Wade or Flutie play, and essentially have "Lenny = White, Carl = Black" scribbled on their palms for reference when talking about our QBs

That scribble had gotten eepstein through 10,000 plus posts.

Not quite but don't let facts get in the way

yeah siriuzk33per. eepstein's never once made a post that we need to recruit more black wr/db because they are better than white wr/db. i don't know where you get off on this sort of slander

I must've missed that one as well. All our WRs and DBs have been horrific lately with the exception of Amidon.

My complaint about the WRs and DBs being not athletic enough still stands though.

[eepstein0]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

[BCEagles66]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Cash expended is about to go up, too, with recent legislation BC opposed. That said, the scholarship accounting is a farce.

Given that over a third of the revenue end is a giant payout from the ACC, I'm not sure that total revenue is down a hell of a lot. Maybe.

Of course, if BC is struggling, they could do what everyone else does and cut bullshit like fencing. I suspect they aren't struggling that much.

This is where I think the administration misses the boat so completely. I realize there is some theoretical value to having 7200 non-revenue sports including fencing and hansening, but no one who does not participate in those things would notice they were gone and even moreso no one would care if they were reduced to club level.

I still don't get why people don't discuss this more. Everyone wants to cut baseball for lacrosse...how about swimming, skiing, cross country, tennis and fencing? If the argument is that we should drop baseball because we can never compete with the rest of the ACC, why are these teams safe? Are we producing Olympian swimmers? World class jedi? 31 teams is too many

[eepstein0]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

BC gets more applications and can be more selective due to its having a sometimes nationally relevant football team. Again kids see the USC deal from last year and say that looks fun.

Read the article from the sports economics journal if you don't believe me or look at a school like George Mason and their application spike after the Final Four.

I'm defining better academic institution as US World News/Report Rankings. If you have a different definition then this is going to be tougher to quantify

[eepstein0]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Cash expended is about to go up, too, with recent legislation BC opposed. That said, the scholarship accounting is a farce.

Given that over a third of the revenue end is a giant payout from the ACC, I'm not sure that total revenue is down a hell of a lot. Maybe.

Of course, if BC is struggling, they could do what everyone else does and cut bullshit like fencing. I suspect they aren't struggling that much.

This is where I think the administration misses the boat so completely. I realize there is some theoretical value to having 7200 non-revenue sports including fencing and hansening, but no one who does not participate in those things would notice they were gone and even moreso no one would care if they were reduced to club level.

I still don't get why people don't discuss this more. Everyone wants to cut baseball for lacrosse...how about swimming, skiing, cross country, tennis and fencing? If the argument is that we should drop baseball because we can never compete with the rest of the ACC, why are these teams safe? Are we producing Olympian swimmers? World class jedi? 31 teams is too many

I agree 100% with this also. Unless we're constructing an indoor baseball stadium it should have been made a club sport long ago.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

BC gets more applications and can be more selective due to its having a sometimes nationally relevant football team. Again kids see the USC deal from last year and say that looks fun.

Read the article from the sports economics journal if you don't believe me or look at a school like George Mason and their application spike after the Final Four.

I'm defining better academic institution as US World News/Report Rankings. If you have a different definition then this is going to be tougher to quantify

so our football and basketball teams have sucked foot's wife's dick for 4 - 5 years but the USNWR rankings kept getting better over that same 4 - 5 year span. how does that relate to your 21 year old economics article?

[eepstein0]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

BC gets more applications and can be more selective due to its having a sometimes nationally relevant football team. Again kids see the USC deal from last year and say that looks fun.

Read the article from the sports economics journal if you don't believe me or look at a school like George Mason and their application spike after the Final Four.

I'm defining better academic institution as US World News/Report Rankings. If you have a different definition then this is going to be tougher to quantify

so our football and basketball teams have sucked foot's wife's dick for 4 - 5 years but the USNWR rankings kept getting better over that same 4 - 5 year span. how does that relate to your 21 year old economics article?

They've been awful sure.

Having said that they've still generated a few SportsCenter type moments (Duke court storming, USC victory, Hockey National Championships, etc.) along with a Heisman candidacy which keeps BC moderately relevant.

Having a football and basketball team that plays in the ACC on national TV helps with application quantity from across the country which helps with selectivity numbers.

Denying athletics doesn't help BC draw students is blindly ignoring the facts and other schools which have had a similar impact (GMU, Gonzaga, etc.)

[DavidGordonsFoot]

[eepstein0]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

BC gets more applications and can be more selective due to its having a sometimes nationally relevant football team. Again kids see the USC deal from last year and say that looks fun.

Read the article from the sports economics journal if you don't believe me or look at a school like George Mason and their application spike after the Final Four.

I'm defining better academic institution as US World News/Report Rankings. If you have a different definition then this is going to be tougher to quantify

so our football and basketball teams have sucked foot's wife's dick for 4 - 5 years but the USNWR rankings kept getting better over that same 4 - 5 year span. how does that relate to your 21 year old economics article?

This was written a few years ago. Continue to ignore facts and numbers if you want but athletics matters.

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09330.pdf

Again though BC would be a good school either way. It's just better because it had the ACC athletics

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

http://www.cmaxxsports.com/misc/MurphyTrandel.pdf

Written by economics professors at BC and UGA

Whether you can correlate an indoor football facility and being better at football is up for debate I suppose, but TREs notion that BCs success at football has nothing to do with its academic ranking (which applications and selectivity go into) is complete BS

are you saying this backwards or do you really mean that bc is a better academic school because it has a football team?

BC gets more applications and can be more selective due to its having a sometimes nationally relevant football team. Again kids see the USC deal from last year and say that looks fun.

Read the article from the sports economics journal if you don't believe me or look at a school like George Mason and their application spike after the Final Four.

I'm defining better academic institution as US World News/Report Rankings. If you have a different definition then this is going to be tougher to quantify

so our football and basketball teams have sucked foot's wife's dick for 4 - 5 years but the USNWR rankings kept getting better over that same 4 - 5 year span. how does that relate to your 21 year old economics article?

This was written a few years ago. Continue to ignore facts and numbers if you want but athletics matters.

http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09330.pdf

Again though BC would be a good school either way. It's just better because it had the ACC athletics

that's all well and good. i was really just going for a "foot's wife's dick" comment and crafted the rest of my message around it.

my real question to your statement that athletics-are-the super-importantest-factor-to-a-kid-choosing-bc is how does the lack of student attendence/support coincide with your assertion? continue to ignore the facts and numbers of football and basketball being an afterthought to the vast majority (i won't use estimated percentages because teddy will get all butthurt) of the fucking millenial nerds on campus if you want to continue your athletics matter campaign

[StratEagle]

Not that there isn't some truth to that statement, but personally I missed many more games living 100 yards away from Alumni as a student in the depths of the Spaz years then as a kid growing up. It was directly related to the product on the field. Much of the student body does not care as much as we do, sure, but if the team is good they will come.

Athletics are definitely not the most important factor to BC's appeal these days, but if they win it definitely makes it more appealing. I don't have any stats, but I'd say that we compete with the academic/sports schools more so than the ivies for kids. Being better in sports further closes that gap with the below ivy tier of ND's, Georgetown's, or whoever's of the world.

[eepstein0]

Not that there isn't some truth to that statement, but personally I missed many more games living 100 yards away from Alumni as a student in the depths of the Spaz years then as a kid growing up. It was directly related to the product on the field. Much of the student body does not care as much as we do, sure, but if the team is good they will come.

Athletics are definitely not the most important factor to BC's appeal these days, but if they win it definitely makes it more appealing. I don't have any stats, but I'd say that we compete with the academic/sports schools more so than the ivies for kids. Being better in sports further closes that gap with the below ivy tier of ND's, Georgetown's, or whoever's of the world.

This is pretty close to it. They suck, so the students don't go. Hockey draws extremely well from the students (so much the they gave them one side of the upper deck). I don't blame students for not attending basketball games, I love BC Basketball and those were a chore to attend.

I think football student attendance is slowly coming back and will continue to do so as long as Daz continues to win more games than he loses. I will say that a crappy home schedule does nothing to get students to games. They were there for the USC game in large numbers.

We can agree to disagree TRE, but big time athletics is part of the reason kids want to go to BC.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

We can agree to disagree TRE, but big time athletics is part of the reason kids want to go to BC.

for the record, i'm not saying athletics don't matter but i would also say it's not #1 on the kids' lists.

maybe from the population that you sampled would put athletics of high import but i would say the asses in the seats tell a different story. and i'm not just talking about last year but for several years now. when students are saying they don't want to watch jared dudley play basketball because they have a yoga class or want to watch a matinee i'd say there is a less than casual interest in the university's athletics.

to say the students were anything but abysmal this year is much more of an ostrich moment than what tedwardo accused me of earlier

[eepstein0]

We can agree to disagree TRE, but big time athletics is part of the reason kids want to go to BC.

for the record, i'm not saying athletics don't matter but i would also say it's not #1 on the kids' lists.

maybe from the population that you sampled would put athletics of high import but i would say the asses in the seats tell a different story. and i'm not just talking about last year but for several years now. when students are saying they don't want to watch jared dudley play basketball because they have a yoga class or want to watch a matinee i'd say there is a less than casual interest in the university's athletics.

to say the students were anything but abysmal this year is much more of an ostrich moment than what tedwardo accused me of earlier

I agree athletics isn't #1, but BCs abysmal invest of $ in athletics isn't doing Daz or JC any favors.

On attendance, it was pretty good when Dudley was there. BC could be the #1 team in the country and they wouldn't draw well for 9 pm midweek games or have an early arriving crowd for midweek 7 pm games. I know TV dictated these times for a TV doubleheader but the games should start at 8 pm midweek or at least 7:30.

[hansen]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Cash expended is about to go up, too, with recent legislation BC opposed. That said, the scholarship accounting is a farce.

Given that over a third of the revenue end is a giant payout from the ACC, I'm not sure that total revenue is down a hell of a lot. Maybe.

Of course, if BC is struggling, they could do what everyone else does and cut bullshit like fencing. I suspect they aren't struggling that much.

This is where I think the administration misses the boat so completely. I realize there is some theoretical value to having 7200 non-revenue sports including fencing and hansening, but no one who does not participate in those things would notice they were gone and even moreso no one would care if they were reduced to club level.

I still don't get why people don't discuss this more. Everyone wants to cut baseball for lacrosse...how about swimming, skiing, cross country, tennis and fencing? If the argument is that we should drop baseball because we can never compete with the rest of the ACC, why are these teams safe? Are we producing Olympian swimmers? World class jedi? 31 teams is too many

I agree 100% with this also. Unless we're constructing an indoor baseball stadium it should have been made a club sport long ago.

A couple of reasons the teams are safe:

1. All the women's sports Must be fully funded to counter the effect of the 85 unmatched football scholarships thanks to Title IX. So that's 15 sports already that are safe plus men's bball, hockey, football = 18.
2. Most of the remaining 13 sports don't cost very much to run. Most of these Olympic sports don't offer scholarships or if they are do they are below the maximum allowed by the conference. Men's non-rev Recruiting budgets and travel costs have been cut significantly during the GDF regime. The extent of the costs is now travel but the majority of the it for non-revenue sports is local with the occasional trip to an ACC event or a distant opponent.
3. BC prides itself on the fact that it is second to only Harvard in total number of sports. bC has a ridiculously high percentage of student participation in athletics. this is a nice tie-breaker when it comes students deciding between BC and another comparable school.

As much as I would like a nice practice facility for the team, I think it would be silly to cut non-rev sports to accomplish this. Of course, this is not the reason we don't have a facility and its to bring it up. The reason is the tyrants of Boston/Newton who basically control what we can build and when we can build it. If this wasn't the case, we probably have multiple ongoing projects in a different order than what is now scheduled.

[2001Eagle]

TRE, take your tampon out. I think you have toxic shock syndrome. (P.S. I think the tampon is in your butt).

[eagle9903]

Back to a more relevant point, do you honestly believe that athletics is a net loss? In 2008, ESPN made an educated guess that BC revenue and expenses each accounted for about $61 million, with the school running at a slight profit (which is all numbers magic anyway, since the goal is to make the whole thing a wash). That said, of that $61 million in expenses, $13 million was attributable to tuition, the one category that they did not have to guess. Texas had a $7 million hit.

The accounting myth that BC loses money by handing out scholarships is one of my favorite pieces of bullshit.

i'd say our revenue sports are much deeper in the shitter today than they were in 2008. i also think we're paying larger marketing firm fees now than we did then. whether that makes up the $13 million of fake tuition or not is a debate for the "spend money, sports" guys. my one guarantee is athletics brings in far fewer profits than the students paying the overvalue $60k/year generate for the school.

it would be interesting to know if the $13 million includes food that is given away or "rent" on dorm rooms. i agree with you on the scholarship aspect of the cost being bullshit but less so on the cash being expended (food, utilities, etc. on the dorms)

Cash expended is about to go up, too, with recent legislation BC opposed. That said, the scholarship accounting is a farce.

Given that over a third of the revenue end is a giant payout from the ACC, I'm not sure that total revenue is down a hell of a lot. Maybe.

Of course, if BC is struggling, they could do what everyone else does and cut bullshit like fencing. I suspect they aren't struggling that much.

This is where I think the administration misses the boat so completely. I realize there is some theoretical value to having 7200 non-revenue sports including fencing and hansening, but no one who does not participate in those things would notice they were gone and even moreso no one would care if they were reduced to club level.

I still don't get why people don't discuss this more. Everyone wants to cut baseball for lacrosse...how about swimming, skiing, cross country, tennis and fencing? If the argument is that we should drop baseball because we can never compete with the rest of the ACC, why are these teams safe? Are we producing Olympian swimmers? World class jedi? 31 teams is too many

I agree 100% with this also. Unless we're constructing an indoor baseball stadium it should have been made a club sport long ago.

A couple of reasons the teams are safe:

1. All the women's sports Must be fully funded to counter the effect of the 85 unmatched football scholarships thanks to Title IX. So that's 15 sports already that are safe plus men's bball, hockey, football = 18.
2. Most of the remaining 13 sports don't cost very much to run. Most of these Olympic sports don't offer scholarships or if they are do they are below the maximum allowed by the conference. Men's non-rev Recruiting budgets and travel costs have been cut significantly during the GDF regime. The extent of the costs is now travel but the majority of the it for non-revenue sports is local with the occasional trip to an ACC event or a distant opponent.
3. BC prides itself on the fact that it is second to only Harvard in total number of sports. bC has a ridiculously high percentage of student participation in athletics. this is a nice tie-breaker when it comes students deciding between BC and another comparable school.

As much as I would like a nice practice facility for the team, I think it would be silly to cut non-rev sports to accomplish this. Of course, this is not the reason we don't have a facility and its to bring it up. The reason is the tyrants of Boston/Newton who basically control what we can build and when we can build it. If this wasn't the case, we probably have multiple ongoing projects in a different order than what is now scheduled.

Shut up Hansen subsidizing your circle running is why we don't have a indoor practice facility!

[DavidGordonsFoot]

Holy s.u.h.

Tl;dr

[hansen]

Holy s.u.h.

Tl;dr

Next time, Ill just post a picture of a shemale.
Wound tat be better lbl?

* I respeck you

[commavegarage]

"3. BC prides itself on the fact that it is second to only Harvard in total number of sports. bC has a ridiculously high percentage of student participation in athletics. this is a nice tie-breaker when it comes students deciding between BC and another comparable school."

who in the world decided on BC because it has a high % of student participation in non-revenue athletics????

[hansen]

"3. BC prides itself on the fact that it is second to only Harvard in total number of sports. bC has a ridiculously high percentage of student participation in athletics. this is a nice tie-breaker when it comes students deciding between BC and another comparable school."

who in the world decided on BC because it has a high % of student participation in non-revenue athletics????

10% of BC students are varsity athletes.
For those 10%, im sure this was a relevant fact.
In an age where it is hard to differentiate between schools which are peers, I am sure this is a meaningful statistic.

I assume similar logic applies to the talented cultural, religious, and volunteering activities that BC is known for. The whole point is to get the best students on campus by appealing to what these students so desire. And, For this reaason, I'm actually surprised today's nerds haven't created a Saturday matinee club, a Friday night library study team, or a varsity Apple picking team.