EagleOutsider.com

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:Overall, I'd say this Shamrock Series event at Fenway was an embarrassment to BC. When it was first scheduled, I tried to look at the positives - away game without the travel hangover making a victory more likely - but it was not worth it.

Were you there? I'd be interested to know what it was like.

No agenda here I promise

I did not go. The night before I almost pulled the trigger on a $165 SRO ticket, but decided against it.

I can't imagine USC would ever agree to a Shamrock Series at Dodger Stadium with all of that ND pageantry. It just perpetuates the BC "small-time" problem.

I think the choice is play ND like this or insert generic MAC team here. I'd prefer to play ND at Fenway but can see the other side.

Notre Dame is required to play BC and all other ACC teams, as part of the ACC deal. Five ACC teams per year. Since BC was the away team for this game, the option for BC was Fenway or South Bend. Next time we are the away team against ND, I vote South Bend.

Incorrect (or at least I think). This Shamrock Series is a one-off game not part of the ACC deal. I kept hearing Meter say this all week and I wanted to slap him through the radio. ND is required to play 5 ACC games a year, they played 6 this year. Check the 2014 and 2016 schedules, ND only has 5 ACC teams.

I could be wrong here but I'm 99% sure of this. Based on it your choice was ND at Fenway or another lovely Brad Bates OOC opponent.

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:Overall, I'd say this Shamrock Series event at Fenway was an embarrassment to BC. When it was first scheduled, I tried to look at the positives - away game without the travel hangover making a victory more likely - but it was not worth it.

Were you there? I'd be interested to know what it was like.

No agenda here I promise

I did not go. The night before I almost pulled the trigger on a $165 SRO ticket, but decided against it.

I can't imagine USC would ever agree to a Shamrock Series at Dodger Stadium with all of that ND pageantry. It just perpetuates the BC "small-time" problem.

I think the choice is play ND like this or insert generic MAC team here. I'd prefer to play ND at Fenway but can see the other side.

Notre Dame is required to play BC and all other ACC teams, as part of the ACC deal. Five ACC teams per year. Since BC was the away team for this game, the option for BC was Fenway or South Bend. Next time we are the away team against ND, I vote South Bend.

Incorrect (or at least I think). This Shamrock Series is a one-off game not part of the ACC deal. I kept hearing Meter say this all week and I wanted to slap him through the radio. ND is required to play 5 ACC games a year, they played 6 this year. Check the 2014 and 2016 schedules, ND only has 5 ACC teams.

I could be wrong here but I'm 99% sure of this. Based on it your choice was ND at Fenway or another lovely Brad Bates OOC opponent.

It's an average of five teams per year:

According to Atlantic Coast Conference associate commissioner Michael Strickland, the league entered into a standard game agreement with Notre Dame, a member of the conference in all sports except football, to provide visiting ACC teams an allotment of 5,000 tickets. That is part of the arrangement for Notre Dame to play an average of five games per year against ACC teams over the next 12 years.

“When our teams go to South Bend for a Notre Dame home game — or, in this case, Fenway Park, since it’s a Notre Dame home game — the ACC ticket policy will apply,’’ Strickland said. “We’ve actually revised it upward to give Notre Dame more tickets when they come to our places than your typical ACC game and vice versa, so it’s a total of 5,000 tickets that every ACC school will get when they go play at Notre Dame and then, likewise, Notre Dame will get 5,000 when they come to our places.’’

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/05/22/ ... story.html

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:Overall, I'd say this Shamrock Series event at Fenway was an embarrassment to BC. When it was first scheduled, I tried to look at the positives - away game without the travel hangover making a victory more likely - but it was not worth it.

Were you there? I'd be interested to know what it was like.

No agenda here I promise

I did not go. The night before I almost pulled the trigger on a $165 SRO ticket, but decided against it.

I can't imagine USC would ever agree to a Shamrock Series at Dodger Stadium with all of that ND pageantry. It just perpetuates the BC "small-time" problem.

I think the choice is play ND like this or insert generic MAC team here. I'd prefer to play ND at Fenway but can see the other side.

Notre Dame is required to play BC and all other ACC teams, as part of the ACC deal. Five ACC teams per year. Since BC was the away team for this game, the option for BC was Fenway or South Bend. Next time we are the away team against ND, I vote South Bend.

Incorrect (or at least I think). This Shamrock Series is a one-off game not part of the ACC deal. I kept hearing Meter say this all week and I wanted to slap him through the radio. ND is required to play 5 ACC games a year, they played 6 this year. Check the 2014 and 2016 schedules, ND only has 5 ACC teams.

I could be wrong here but I'm 99% sure of this. Based on it your choice was ND at Fenway or another lovely Brad Bates OOC opponent.

It's an average of five teams per year:

According to Atlantic Coast Conference associate commissioner Michael Strickland, the league entered into a standard game agreement with Notre Dame, a member of the conference in all sports except football, to provide visiting ACC teams an allotment of 5,000 tickets. That is part of the arrangement for Notre Dame to play an average of five games per year against ACC teams over the next 12 years.

“When our teams go to South Bend for a Notre Dame home game — or, in this case, Fenway Park, since it’s a Notre Dame home game — the ACC ticket policy will apply,’’ Strickland said. “We’ve actually revised it upward to give Notre Dame more tickets when they come to our places than your typical ACC game and vice versa, so it’s a total of 5,000 tickets that every ACC school will get when they go play at Notre Dame and then, likewise, Notre Dame will get 5,000 when they come to our places.’’

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/05/22/ ... story.html

I still don't think this was part of BC playing ND within the ACC series. You can look at the future ND schedule commitments, they play 5 every year except for this year. I think this was still a one-off but again could be wrong here.

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:Overall, I'd say this Shamrock Series event at Fenway was an embarrassment to BC. When it was first scheduled, I tried to look at the positives - away game without the travel hangover making a victory more likely - but it was not worth it.

Were you there? I'd be interested to know what it was like.

No agenda here I promise

I did not go. The night before I almost pulled the trigger on a $165 SRO ticket, but decided against it.

I can't imagine USC would ever agree to a Shamrock Series at Dodger Stadium with all of that ND pageantry. It just perpetuates the BC "small-time" problem.

I think the choice is play ND like this or insert generic MAC team here. I'd prefer to play ND at Fenway but can see the other side.

Notre Dame is required to play BC and all other ACC teams, as part of the ACC deal. Five ACC teams per year. Since BC was the away team for this game, the option for BC was Fenway or South Bend. Next time we are the away team against ND, I vote South Bend.

Incorrect (or at least I think). This Shamrock Series is a one-off game not part of the ACC deal. I kept hearing Meter say this all week and I wanted to slap him through the radio. ND is required to play 5 ACC games a year, they played 6 this year. Check the 2014 and 2016 schedules, ND only has 5 ACC teams.

I could be wrong here but I'm 99% sure of this. Based on it your choice was ND at Fenway or another lovely Brad Bates OOC opponent.

It's an average of five teams per year:

According to Atlantic Coast Conference associate commissioner Michael Strickland, the league entered into a standard game agreement with Notre Dame, a member of the conference in all sports except football, to provide visiting ACC teams an allotment of 5,000 tickets. That is part of the arrangement for Notre Dame to play an average of five games per year against ACC teams over the next 12 years.

“When our teams go to South Bend for a Notre Dame home game — or, in this case, Fenway Park, since it’s a Notre Dame home game — the ACC ticket policy will apply,’’ Strickland said. “We’ve actually revised it upward to give Notre Dame more tickets when they come to our places than your typical ACC game and vice versa, so it’s a total of 5,000 tickets that every ACC school will get when they go play at Notre Dame and then, likewise, Notre Dame will get 5,000 when they come to our places.’’

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/05/22/ ... story.html

I still don't think this was part of BC playing ND within the ACC series. You can look at the future ND schedule commitments, they play 5 every year except for this year. I think this was still a one-off but again could be wrong here.

But if this were a one-off, I don't believe the ACC ticket policy would have applied. But I could be wrong.

DomingoOrtiz {l Wrote}:

durkcal {l Wrote}:Who is out for BC tonight besides the obvious ones like Wade, Moore and Hilliman?

Outlow.

HJS {l Wrote}:As someone who doesn't give a crap about Fenway, I think it was good playing them in Fenway. It rekindled some level of local interest in what is a lost season. No one in Boston gives a flying fuck about BC unless we are holding the #2 BCS ranking hostage or knocking off a #1. I also can assure that this is the last Shamrock Series where they schedule a team to be played in their backyard. On TV the crowd sounded like it was 1/3 BC. Not much home field advantage there. Simply... BC wins if we had a real OC or even just Day. Or if the goddamn QB coach just fucking knew its own motherfucking personnel.

basselope {l Wrote}:

Reverend Mike {l Wrote}:

eaglesfan06 {l Wrote}:If I played defense for this team, I wouldn't let the offense and the coaches in the locker room.

I still laugh every time I remember the story about the team locking spaz out of the locker room.

I picture him pounding on the door while eating a bear claw. "Yous guys a-better let me in, or theres-a gonna be trouble!"

So can anyone name the player who locked the door and which game was it?
Winner gets a ZIMA Gold imported from Japan.

Foot is ineligible...

PhillyandBCEagles {l Wrote}:

basselope {l Wrote}:

Reverend Mike {l Wrote}:

eaglesfan06 {l Wrote}:If I played defense for this team, I wouldn't let the offense and the coaches in the locker room.

I still laugh every time I remember the story about the team locking spaz out of the locker room.

I picture him pounding on the door while eating a bear claw. "Yous guys a-better let me in, or theres-a gonna be trouble!"

So can anyone name the player who locked the door and which game was it?
Winner gets a ZIMA Gold imported from Japan.

Foot is ineligible...

Player was Herzy, right??

Don't remember the exact game....think it was against one of those forgettable games against Maryland, NC State, Wake, etc

commavegarage {l Wrote}:no it was luke

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Wasn't Herzy was a huge advocate for Spaz getting the job in the first place?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Wasn't Herzy was a huge advocate for Spaz getting the job in the first place?

Bryn Mawr Eagle {l Wrote}:I loved the uniforms.

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:Daz just said they were waiting to get the "proper" field position before inserting Smith into the game Saturday at today's press conference.. WTF?!?!?!

commavegarage {l Wrote}:fwiw ive heard from now a good amount of people (parents, former players, etc) who know players on the team who all have given me the same info...which is that many players hate playing for daz.

though in fairness id imagine the disciplinarian approach comes off particularly bad when youre not winning football games

commavegarage {l Wrote}:fwiw ive heard from now a good amount of people (parents, former players, etc) who know players on the team who all have given me the same info...which is that many players hate playing for daz.

though in fairness id imagine the disciplinarian approach comes off particularly bad when youre not winning football games

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

StratEagle {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:fwiw ive heard from now a good amount of people (parents, former players, etc) who know players on the team who all have given me the same info...which is that many players hate playing for daz.

though in fairness id imagine the disciplinarian approach comes off particularly bad when youre not winning football games

It's the lack of personal accountability. You can't run half way across the field to yell at a walk on kicker for fucking up a kick everyone knew he was gonna fuck up, and then shit yourself on the clock management 2 minutes later, without ever shouldering a shred of the blame.

You hit the nail on the head. It's why Daz is a loser and JC is not. JC EXPLICITLY REFUSED TO BLAME YOUTH ON THE TEAM'S STRUGGLES at the start of this season, something Daz would die before doing. He has used youth as an excuse all three of his years here.

And Regardless of Daz' potential with this program, which due to his lack of accountability and thus lack of character is most likely 7-6, the way he refuses puts unworthy blame on the players has turned me against him. I thought he was a guy who believe in personal integreity? Clearly he is just an idiotic meat-head who got the interim UF job, Temple job, and BC job due to HORRENDOUS hiring/vetting by the athletic department. I am calling Daz Petey from now on, and no, not in reference to Petey Pablo.

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

StratEagle {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:fwiw ive heard from now a good amount of people (parents, former players, etc) who know players on the team who all have given me the same info...which is that many players hate playing for daz.

though in fairness id imagine the disciplinarian approach comes off particularly bad when youre not winning football games

It's the lack of personal accountability. You can't run half way across the field to yell at a walk on kicker for fucking up a kick everyone knew he was gonna fuck up, and then shit yourself on the clock management 2 minutes later, without ever shouldering a shred of the blame.

You hit the nail on the head. It's why Daz is a loser and JC is not. JC EXPLICITLY REFUSED TO BLAME YOUTH ON THE TEAM'S STRUGGLES at the start of this season, something Daz would die before doing. He has used youth as an excuse all three of his years here.

And Regardless of Daz' potential with this program, which due to his lack of accountability and thus lack of character is most likely 7-6, the way he refuses puts unworthy blame on the players has turned me against him. I thought he was a guy who believe in personal integreity? Clearly he is just an idiotic meat-head who got the interim UF job, Temple job, and BC job due to HORRENDOUS hiring/vetting by the athletic department. I am calling Daz Petey from now on, and no, not in reference to Petey Pablo.

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."

Is there anyone on here that needed the definition of the Peter Principle?

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

StratEagle {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:fwiw ive heard from now a good amount of people (parents, former players, etc) who know players on the team who all have given me the same info...which is that many players hate playing for daz.

though in fairness id imagine the disciplinarian approach comes off particularly bad when youre not winning football games

It's the lack of personal accountability. You can't run half way across the field to yell at a walk on kicker for fucking up a kick everyone knew he was gonna fuck up, and then shit yourself on the clock management 2 minutes later, without ever shouldering a shred of the blame.

You hit the nail on the head. It's why Daz is a loser and JC is not. JC EXPLICITLY REFUSED TO BLAME YOUTH ON THE TEAM'S STRUGGLES at the start of this season, something Daz would die before doing. He has used youth as an excuse all three of his years here.

And Regardless of Daz' potential with this program, which due to his lack of accountability and thus lack of character is most likely 7-6, the way he refuses puts unworthy blame on the players has turned me against him. I thought he was a guy who believe in personal integreity? Clearly he is just an idiotic meat-head who got the interim UF job, Temple job, and BC job due to HORRENDOUS hiring/vetting by the athletic department. I am calling Daz Petey from now on, and no, not in reference to Petey Pablo.

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by Laurence J. Peter in which the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence."

Is there anyone on here that needed the definition of the Peter Principle?

Roonie? Hansen? HJS? Fill in the corners? I dont know, I am sick of watching Daz roam the sidelines like a wild boar and got a little carried away.

commavegarage {l Wrote}:people like approaches when they're winning and hate the same approaches when they are losing.

i was just surprised at the number of people who were saying it. it doesnt look like this team quit (although lets see saturday)

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
Is there anyone on here that needed the definition of the Peter Principle?