Facilities Announcement -- Press Conference Today

[HJS]

I'm with Keeper in that FB and BB are unlikely to see any significant uptick with the elimination of sports. Maybe BB gets their own S&C coach and maybe we add admin support to be less of a clownshoes operation. But, it ain't like we are suddenly will go hire Jay Wright (or Schiano).

I am, however, in favor in killing sports like tennis and swimming and diving to add a lacrosse team. I think we could be elite in lax just by offering it as a varsity team. We'd have the whole prep school thing in our favor. It is also a sport that people would actually watch. I think we should be looking to cut sports that we are never competitive in (and tennis and aquasports certainly qualify).

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

i don't know, there are a number of fans on this board that i would guess like watersports.

i am not one of them

[HJS]

i don't know, there are a number of fans on this board that i would guess like watersports.

i am not one of them

I thought you drove away the majority of the hot tubbers?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

i don't know, there are a number of fans on this board that i would guess like watersports.

i am not one of them

I thought you drove away the majority of the hot tubbers?

wrong agenda. leahy, bates, sarge and jimmy mac drove the masses away, including the great soaked but still unwashed

[twballgame9]

BC is not going to be instantly good in lax because they have prep school douchebags from LI. At that sport, coaching ties matter as much as anything.

[Eaglekeeper]

Timing is everything and cutting sports after the globe article is poor timing. You cannot just look at sports offered in comparing schools. The best measure is scholarships offered. BC offers a total of 270 scholarships (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8 for all other men's sports). Cutting sports will not reduce the number of scholarships given in any significant number. The savings would be in cutting coaches and equipment. I would add facilities as well, but they were never built.

[BCSUPERFAN22]

Timing is everything and cutting sports after the globe article is poor timing. You cannot just look at sports offered in comparing schools. The best measure is scholarships offered. BC offers a total of 270 scholarships (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8 for all other men's sports). Cutting sports will not reduce the number of scholarships given in any significant number. The savings would be in cutting coaches and equipment. I would add facilities as well, but they were never built.

Unfortunately, if what everyone says here is correct in regards to the schools accounting of athletics scholarships, the amount saved would be material (assuming BC offers the max scholarships per NCAA reg). Say you were to cut swimming/diving (24 total allowable scholarships per NCAA for both M and W), Golf (10.5 total allowable scholarships for M/W), tennis (12.5 scholarships for M/W), skiing (13 total for M/W) and Track (30 total for M/W) you are looking at 90 scholarships. At 60k per scholarship, thats $5.4 mm per year (that number goes to $7.2mm if you eliminate Cross Country as well). Factor in coaching salaries, off campus practice space (skiing/golf/track), the cost of building to maintain certain sports (would BC include an indoor tennis portion to the new rec plex ? outdoor courts ? somewhere for golf to practice year round on campus ?), the cost savings becomes quite large.

And why cant you look at other schools offerings ? It would seem that schools in the same conference, that make similar money, and allocate said money to a smaller number of sports, would be a very pertinent metric to look at.

The timing of the globe article means nothing. If anything, it helps BC at least say our department is too bloated and we need to allocate resources to a focused/smaller number of sports to put our revenue sports on an even playing field and in the best position to win. If BC cuts sports tomorrow, nobody remembers or cares 5 years from now.


http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

[DuchesneEast]

Scholarships are a garbage number to use for expenses.
a. It doesnt cost $60k for a BC education. It probably costs, $40k and $20k in financial assistance. (those are the numbers at Duke)
b. Many of these kids would have received financial aid anyway.
c. Does it really cost anything to add 2-3 kids to every classroom.

The savings is in coaches salaries/equipment/travel.

Cut men's teams down to a minimum: (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8for all other men's sportssoccer) 5 men's teams unless anyone else can support themselves or be national championship quality.

Women will be more diverse due to the need to offset football, but the rest even out. Find 85 women's schollies on cheap sports to put out there. (add more soccer and softball scholarships if possible) You can have a full woman's swimming and diving program and track and field program.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

Timing is everything and cutting sports after the globe article is poor timing. You cannot just look at sports offered in comparing schools. The best measure is scholarships offered. BC offers a total of 270 scholarships (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8 for all other men's sports). Cutting sports will not reduce the number of scholarships given in any significant number. The savings would be in cutting coaches and equipment. I would add facilities as well, but they were never built.

Unfortunately, if what everyone says here is correct in regards to the schools accounting of athletics scholarships, the amount saved would be material (assuming BC offers the max scholarships per NCAA reg). Say you were to cut swimming/diving (24 total allowable scholarships per NCAA for both M and W), Golf (10.5 total allowable scholarships for M/W), tennis (12.5 scholarships for M/W), skiing (13 total for M/W) and Track (30 total for M/W) you are looking at 90 scholarships. At 60k per scholarship, thats $5.4 mm per year (that number goes to $7.2mm if you eliminate Cross Country as well). Factor in coaching salaries, off campus practice space (skiing/golf/track), the cost of building to maintain certain sports (would BC include an indoor tennis portion to the new rec plex ? outdoor courts ? somewhere for golf to practice year round on campus ?), the cost savings becomes quite large.

And why cant you look at other schools offerings ? It would seem that schools in the same conference, that make similar money, and allocate said money to a smaller number of sports, would be a very pertinent metric to look at.

The timing of the globe article means nothing. If anything, it helps BC at least say our department is too bloated and we need to allocate resources to a focused/smaller number of sports to put our revenue sports on an even playing field and in the best position to win. If BC cuts sports tomorrow, nobody remembers or cares 5 years from now.


http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

but if we are using all 85 for football, all 13 for hoops and all 18 for hockey then that only leaves 19 men's scholarships that you can cut and just as many lady scholarships only if you cut that 19.

really you are talking about cutting baseball because the other 8 mens scholarships we offer are not material.

you are assuming the bc is maxing out their scholarships on all sports but that math doesn't add up. you can only get to 270 but your math takes it much higher than that. remember that half of your schollies need to be title ix... so football requires a lot of lady swimmers, divers and field hockey players

[BCSUPERFAN22]

Timing is everything and cutting sports after the globe article is poor timing. You cannot just look at sports offered in comparing schools. The best measure is scholarships offered. BC offers a total of 270 scholarships (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8 for all other men's sports). Cutting sports will not reduce the number of scholarships given in any significant number. The savings would be in cutting coaches and equipment. I would add facilities as well, but they were never built.

Unfortunately, if what everyone says here is correct in regards to the schools accounting of athletics scholarships, the amount saved would be material (assuming BC offers the max scholarships per NCAA reg). Say you were to cut swimming/diving (24 total allowable scholarships per NCAA for both M and W), Golf (10.5 total allowable scholarships for M/W), tennis (12.5 scholarships for M/W), skiing (13 total for M/W) and Track (30 total for M/W) you are looking at 90 scholarships. At 60k per scholarship, thats $5.4 mm per year (that number goes to $7.2mm if you eliminate Cross Country as well). Factor in coaching salaries, off campus practice space (skiing/golf/track), the cost of building to maintain certain sports (would BC include an indoor tennis portion to the new rec plex ? outdoor courts ? somewhere for golf to practice year round on campus ?), the cost savings becomes quite large.

And why cant you look at other schools offerings ? It would seem that schools in the same conference, that make similar money, and allocate said money to a smaller number of sports, would be a very pertinent metric to look at.

The timing of the globe article means nothing. If anything, it helps BC at least say our department is too bloated and we need to allocate resources to a focused/smaller number of sports to put our revenue sports on an even playing field and in the best position to win. If BC cuts sports tomorrow, nobody remembers or cares 5 years from now.


http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

but if we are using all 85 for football, all 13 for hoops and all 18 for hockey then that only leaves 19 men's scholarships that you can cut and just as many lady scholarships only if you cut that 19.

really you are talking about cutting baseball because the other 8 mens scholarships we offer are not material.

you are assuming the bc is maxing out their scholarships on all sports but that math doesn't add up. you can only get to 270 but your math takes it much higher than that. remember that half of your schollies need to be title ix... so football requires a lot of lady swimmers, divers and field hockey players

Corners mentioned the 270 number, I'm not sure what that means or where it came from. I also have no clue how BC allocates scholarships, I was just going off of what is allowed by the NCAA. The sports I listed above were done so because they both have M/W elements, so in theory, by eliminating the sport for both M/W, the title IX legislation would not be an major issue (of course it wouldn't work out perfectly, but provides a basic framework).

I actually agree with Duchesne, I think taking the men offering down to 5 main sports and figuring out what women's sports to keep to remain compliant, is the way to do it (maybe you keep sailing as they have been nationally succesful with low cost because of the regionality of the sport).

[angrychicken]

Timing is everything and cutting sports after the globe article is poor timing. You cannot just look at sports offered in comparing schools. The best measure is scholarships offered. BC offers a total of 270 scholarships (85 football, 13 hoops, 18 hockey, 11 baseball and 8 for all other men's sports). Cutting sports will not reduce the number of scholarships given in any significant number. The savings would be in cutting coaches and equipment. I would add facilities as well, but they were never built.

Unfortunately, if what everyone says here is correct in regards to the schools accounting of athletics scholarships, the amount saved would be material (assuming BC offers the max scholarships per NCAA reg). Say you were to cut swimming/diving (24 total allowable scholarships per NCAA for both M and W), Golf (10.5 total allowable scholarships for M/W), tennis (12.5 scholarships for M/W), skiing (13 total for M/W) and Track (30 total for M/W) you are looking at 90 scholarships. At 60k per scholarship, thats $5.4 mm per year (that number goes to $7.2mm if you eliminate Cross Country as well). Factor in coaching salaries, off campus practice space (skiing/golf/track), the cost of building to maintain certain sports (would BC include an indoor tennis portion to the new rec plex ? outdoor courts ? somewhere for golf to practice year round on campus ?), the cost savings becomes quite large.

And why cant you look at other schools offerings ? It would seem that schools in the same conference, that make similar money, and allocate said money to a smaller number of sports, would be a very pertinent metric to look at.

The timing of the globe article means nothing. If anything, it helps BC at least say our department is too bloated and we need to allocate resources to a focused/smaller number of sports to put our revenue sports on an even playing field and in the best position to win. If BC cuts sports tomorrow, nobody remembers or cares 5 years from now.


http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

but if we are using all 85 for football, all 13 for hoops and all 18 for hockey then that only leaves 19 men's scholarships that you can cut and just as many lady scholarships only if you cut that 19.

really you are talking about cutting baseball because the other 8 mens scholarships we offer are not material.

you are assuming the bc is maxing out their scholarships on all sports but that math doesn't add up. you can only get to 270 but your math takes it much higher than that. remember that half of your schollies need to be title ix... so football requires a lot of lady swimmers, divers and field hockey players

[twballgame9]

Multiplying scholarships x $60K under any circumstances related to costs of athletics or potential "savings" of real money should result in immediate revocation of a BC diploma.

[claver2010]

from the ff website:

The Flynn Fund Scholar-Athlete Program:
In lieu of a multi-year commitment for an endowment, one may choose to participate in the Flynn Fund Scholar-Athlete Program. With a gift of $25,000, a donor may fund the scholarship of a single student-athlete in any athletics program for an entire year. The gift provides the University with resources it can use immediately to provide financial-aid to one of our 700+ student-athletes.

http://flynnfund.bceagles.com/giving-information.html

[twballgame9]

Also, I do not believe that Title IX requires a 1:1 ratio in either #of scholarships or total scholarship value. I believe that is a fallacy perpetuated by programs cutting men's sports. What you cannot do is be 50/50 in athletes and spend 70% of the budget on men.

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

Multiplying scholarships x $60K under any circumstances related to costs of athletics or potential "savings" of real money should result in immediate revocation of a BC diploma.

oh, i agree. that doesn't mean the school agrees, though

[hansen]

1. The 270 number was correct. Not sure if it still is but my guess is yes.
2. BC interpretation of Title IX which I assumed was based in some legalese is that the ration of men's scholarships to women scholarships as well as the participation ratio (roster sizes) must be representative of the overall campus gender breakdown which used to be 53:47 women.
3. Cutting men's olympic sports will not save much money nor will BC use that money to pour into the revenue sports. To think otherwise is a pipe dream. There's as much a chance as BC hiring a Nick Saban as there is BC filling in the corners. At least under the current administration.

[HJS]

1. The 270 number was correct. Not sure if it still is but my guess is yes.
2. BC interpretation of Title IX which I assumed was based in some legalese is that the ration of men's scholarships to women scholarships as well as the participation ratio (roster sizes) must be representative of the overall campus gender breakdown which used to be 53:47 women.
3. Cutting men's olympic sports will not save much money nor will BC use that money to pour into the revenue sports. To think otherwise is a pipe dream. There's as much a chance as BC hiring a Nick Saban as there is BC filling in the corners. At least under the current administration.

Cutting men's Olympic sports in the hope that the savings are funneled into FB and BB is ridiculous. Any hypothetical monies saved would go to pairing down other "costs" the school feels like it subsidizes.

I'm only in favor of killing off mens programs that suck and, in their place, adding new sports that we wouldn't suck as much in. So, for instance, I would prefer to have a men's lax program instead of skiing, swimming/diving and tennis.

[eepstein0]

I'm with Keeper in that FB and BB are unlikely to see any significant uptick with the elimination of sports. Maybe BB gets their own S&C coach and maybe we add admin support to be less of a clownshoes operation. But, it ain't like we are suddenly will go hire Jay Wright (or Schiano).

I am, however, in favor in killing sports like tennis and swimming and diving to add a lacrosse team. I think we could be elite in lax just by offering it as a varsity team. We'd have the whole prep school thing in our favor. It is also a sport that people would actually watch. I think we should be looking to cut sports that we are never competitive in (and tennis and aquasports certainly qualify).

Greg Schiano is not a good coach. For the love of God HJS...

Is he a family member or something?

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

I'm with Keeper in that FB and BB are unlikely to see any significant uptick with the elimination of sports. Maybe BB gets their own S&C coach and maybe we add admin support to be less of a clownshoes operation. But, it ain't like we are suddenly will go hire Jay Wright (or Schiano).

I am, however, in favor in killing sports like tennis and swimming and diving to add a lacrosse team. I think we could be elite in lax just by offering it as a varsity team. We'd have the whole prep school thing in our favor. It is also a sport that people would actually watch. I think we should be looking to cut sports that we are never competitive in (and tennis and aquasports certainly qualify).

Greg Schiano is not a good coach. For the love of God HJS...

Is he a family member or something?

only in the same way that manson family was a family

[Eaglekeeper]

BC only gives out 270 scholarships and I believe it is evenly split between men and women. The most women's scholarships are in crew.

The point is that without cutting football, basketball, hockey, baseball or soccer, there is no substantial scholarship savings in cutting the other men's sports. The problem is not on the expense side of the ledger, it's on the revenue side. They need to sell tickets and merchandise, two things that they suck at.

[DuchesneEast]

BC only gives out 270 scholarships and I believe it is evenly split between men and women. The most women's scholarships are in crew.

The point is that without cutting football, basketball, hockey, baseball or soccer, there is no substantial scholarship savings in cutting the other men's sports. The problem is not on the expense side of the ledger, it's on the revenue side. They need to sell tickets and merchandise, two things that they suck at.

If you win, they will come, you just need to win first. Its an investment.

[Bryn Mawr Eagle]

I cannot imagine a college athletics program that does not have basic track-and-field type sports. And no, Hansen did not pay me to say this.

[twballgame9]

They don't have a track. Or a field, really.

[angrychicken]

The University will also seek permitting for new baseball, softball and intramural fields on the Brighton Campus, which were also approved in the 2009 IMP.

In addition, Bates stated that the University will begin discussions with Boston city officials regarding construction of an athletics field house that would be located adjacent to Alumni Stadium. This indoor facility, to be funded through private gifts, would provide much-needed space for varsity football and other field sports, as well as campus recreation, club sports, and intramurals.

1) What is the status of the permitting process for the new fields on Brighton Campus?

2) How are the discussions going with the city officials regarding the indoor practice facility?

[RegalBCeagle]

I cannot imagine a college athletics program that does not have basic track-and-field type sports. And no, Hansen did not pay me to say this.

Especially considering BC built the reservoir for our sailing program.

[BCSUPERFAN22]

North Dakota just announced they are dropping baseball and men's golf. The below article says the cuts will save the athletic department 720k annually.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/sports/4007776-watch-und-athletics-announces-elimination-baseball-mens-golf

[twballgame9]

I'm dropping my chores of mowing the lawn and shoveling the driveway. Because paying the neighbor's kid would have cost $40 bucks each to do it, 10-12 times a year, my deciding not to do it myself anymore just saved me approximately $1,000.

[Corporal Funishment]

I'm dropping my chores of mowing the lawn and shoveling the driveway. Because paying the neighbor's kid would have cost $40 bucks each to do it, 10-12 times a year, my deciding not to do it myself anymore just saved me approximately $1,000.

Just because you have no clue how capital budgeting works within an organization doesn't mean you have to lash out at the rest of us every time reality disrupts your fantasy-Teddy-world.

[angrychicken]

I'm dropping my chores of mowing the lawn and shoveling the driveway. Because paying the neighbor's kid would have cost $40 bucks each to do it, 10-12 times a year, my deciding not to do it myself anymore just saved me approximately $1,000.

Just because you have no clue how capital budgeting works within an organization doesn't mean you have to lash out at the rest of us every time reality disrupts your fantasy-Teddy-world.

[twballgame9]

I'm dropping my chores of mowing the lawn and shoveling the driveway. Because paying the neighbor's kid would have cost $40 bucks each to do it, 10-12 times a year, my deciding not to do it myself anymore just saved me approximately $1,000.

Just because you have no clue how capital budgeting works within an organization doesn't mean you have to lash out at the rest of us every time reality disrupts your fantasy-Teddy-world.

Perfect meme.