EagleOutsider.com

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

Well for one, he's a good football coach. That's a big step from our current and previous coach.

ILikeBC {l Wrote}:

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

Well for one, he's a good football coach. That's a big step from our current and previous coach.

He's 68-67 (28-48) in college with a string of shitty bowls. Sounds like the crappy conference version of the current coach to me.

Is someone going to warn Jarmond about those Flynn Fund meetings?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

ILikeBC {l Wrote}:

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

Well for one, he's a good football coach. That's a big step from our current and previous coach.

He's 68-67 (28-48) in college with a string of shitty bowls. Sounds like the crappy conference version of the current coach to me.

Greg Schiano is basically Steve Addazio, only slightly less retarded. I watched plenty of him in Tampa to know I don't really want him coaching BC. He'd win between 5-8 games every year and generally annoy me.

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

ILikeBC {l Wrote}:

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

Well for one, he's a good football coach. That's a big step from our current and previous coach.

He's 68-67 (28-48) in college with a string of shitty bowls. Sounds like the crappy conference version of the current coach to me.

What realistic candidates would you prefer to Schiano/ would you prefer Daz to him?

He completely turned around a Rutgers program that had no previous success and was worse off than BC was post Spaz. That alone makes him a better coach than Addaziani could ever be. I think BC could do better than Schiano if they got lucky with a big name or hit a home run with an up and coming head coach/assistant, but I would be happy with Schiano coaching the team in 17-18, (I say 17-18 because most of these guys will be gone in 18-19)

As for possible candidates, the VERY early list would look like the following, and Shciano looks like he is probably the most realistic big name that BC could land:

Nearly Impossible Top Targets:
Stars would need to align. And yes, I realize that these guys probably wouldn't ever consider coming to BC

Chip Kelly
Kevin Sumlin
Bret Bielema
Dan Mullen
Steve Sarkisian
Les Miles

This list has Sumlin and Bielema on the hot seat going into 17 so maybe its not impossible... Mullen is also rumored to want to get out of Starkville, so maybe the Brinks truck + moving back home would be enough

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... eat-011817


Definite Upgrades:

Greg Schiano
Pete Carmichael Jr.
Bryan Harsin

Up And Coming Head Coaches:

Scott Frost
Philip Montgomery

Assistants To Check Out:

Joe Moorehead
Tim Drevno
Brent Venerables

You must be the dumbest person alive if you think BC is hiring anyone on that A List. I'm sure Chip and Keahy would really hit it off in an interview.

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

ILikeBC {l Wrote}:

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:I assumed Schiano would be on his way to the HUB.

What are the advantages in having Schiano as HC? NJ and SoFla FB connections? Would he get to select the right assistants?

Well for one, he's a good football coach. That's a big step from our current and previous coach.

He's 68-67 (28-48) in college with a string of shitty bowls. Sounds like the crappy conference version of the current coach to me.

What realistic candidates would you prefer to Schiano/ would you prefer Daz to him?

He completely turned around a Rutgers program that had no previous success and was worse off than BC was post Spaz. That alone makes him a better coach than Addaziani could ever be. I think BC could do better than Schiano if they got lucky with a big name or hit a home run with an up and coming head coach/assistant, but I would be happy with Schiano coaching the team in 17-18, (I say 17-18 because most of these guys will be gone in 18-19)

As for possible candidates, the VERY early list would look like the following, and Shciano looks like he is probably the most realistic big name that BC could land:

Nearly Impossible Top Targets:
Stars would need to align. And yes, I realize that these guys probably wouldn't ever consider coming to BC

Chip Kelly
Kevin Sumlin
Bret Bielema
Dan Mullen
Steve Sarkisian
Les Miles

This list has Sumlin and Bielema on the hot seat going into 17 so maybe its not impossible... Mullen is also rumored to want to get out of Starkville, so maybe the Brinks truck + moving back home would be enough

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footba ... eat-011817


Definite Upgrades:

Greg Schiano
Pete Carmichael Jr.
Bryan Harsin

Up And Coming Head Coaches:

Scott Frost
Philip Montgomery

Assistants To Check Out:

Joe Moorehead
Tim Drevno
Brent Venerables

I prefer rich Daz to poor Daz, yes. Lol@ schiano

Joe Moorhead has done a great job with the PSU offense. Others mentioned his time at Fordham as being very successful. Please, do not hire Schiano (Skiano in I-talian).

I will mention Brian Daboll again. I would be genuinely excited if we got him and he's a realistic option.

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:
As for possible candidates, the VERY early list would look like the following, and Shciano looks like he is probably the most realistic big name that BC could land:

Nearly Impossible Top Targets:
Stars would need to align. And yes, I realize that these guys probably wouldn't ever consider coming to BC

Chip Kelly
Kevin Sumlin
Bret Bielema
Dan Mullen
Steve Sarkisian
Les Miles

You must be the dumbest person alive if you think BC is hiring anyone on that A List. I'm sure Chip and Keahy would really hit it off in an interview.

Let's try this again. Look at the italicized words, maybe sound each word out if you need to. Specifically, please refer to, "Stars would need to align. And yes, I realize that these guys probably wouldn't ever consider coming to BC"

So no, I don't think that they would ever come to BC, baring a mini miracle, and previously stated that very clearly. Furthermore, I would assume all solid search firms and AD's would kick the tires on the coaches named above because not doing so would be a dereliction of duties.

Also, did you think that "keahy" would ever have hired Martin Jarmond?

Are you the spelling police now?

Sark is a hilarious name. BC is going to hire a guy who came up here and probably coached drunk on tequila against us?

Your point on Leahy and Jarmond is well taken

Though it would amuse me to see HJS tie himself in knots trying to reconcile his longstanding love of The Patron Saint with his immediate hatred of anyone employed by BC in any capacity, I would be pretty bummed if we hired Greg Schiano.

Challenge: Name anyone currently or formerly a part of Belichick's staff, other than Charlie Weis, that wouldn't get at least a couple people here excited.

Manny {l Wrote}:Though it would amuse me to see HJS tie himself in knots trying to reconcile his longstanding love of The Patron Saint with his immediate hatred of anyone employed by BC in any capacity, I would be pretty bummed if we hired Greg Schiano.

Challenge: Name anyone currently or formerly a part of Belichick's staff, other than Charlie Weis, that wouldn't get at least a couple people here excited.

Romeo Crennel

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Manny {l Wrote}:Though it would amuse me to see HJS tie himself in knots trying to reconcile his longstanding love of The Patron Saint with his immediate hatred of anyone employed by BC in any capacity, I would be pretty bummed if we hired Greg Schiano.

Challenge: Name anyone currently or formerly a part of Belichick's staff, other than Charlie Weis, that wouldn't get at least a couple people here excited.

would love Poly Prep's Brian Flores to take an asst coach job with us.

Eric Mangini
Jim Schwartz

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Women's track counters football both in terms of scholarships and bodies so that will never happen. FWIW title IX is both about participation and scholarship opportunities. Mens track is the oldest sport here at BC; I've heard its safe in some limited form (the team's roster size is less than the women's by design for the reason I mentioned above). The only sport to me that appears curious is Skiing but I'm sure there are some wealthy alumni keeping the sport around... that's pretty much how BC works.

The thing that most people fail to realize is that our athletic department does not just exist for winning. The culture at BC has always been for developing well rounded alumni whether it be athletically, academically, spiritually, etc. A lot of these sports are used to give opportunities to students to compete in their respective sports at the collegiate level regardless of the team's overall performance. BC uses it as a recruiting tool and differentiator amongst its peers in order to land well qualified students. Think about it... if you had a chance to attend a top 20 school and not play said sport or attend a top 30 school like BC and play the sport, then what would you choose? BC hopes for the latter as it tries to get top talent in an ever competitive environment. And then, when a team or individual succeeds, it's just an added bonus. Something to post on the BC Athletics Facebook or Instagram pages. I think this mindset comes from the schools Jesuit roots and I don't see it changing barring a drastic overhaul of the schools personnel.

Bottom line is that the only way more money is flowing to football/basketball/hockey is via the Flynn Fund or the individual funds for those particular teams. If the school cuts sports, then that money is just going to flow back to general fund. So, with that in mind, I would much rather get some skiing or fencing nerds into the school if it means better qualified students and thus eventually making my degree more valuable.

hansen {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Women's track counters football both in terms of scholarships and bodies so that will never happen. FWIW title IX is both about participation and scholarship opportunities. Mens track is the oldest sport here at BC; I've heard its safe in some limited form (the team's roster size is less than the women's by design for the reason I mentioned above). The only sport to me that appears curious is Skiing but I'm sure there are some wealthy alumni keeping the sport around... that's pretty much how BC works.

The thing that most people fail to realize is that our athletic department does not just exist for winning. The culture at BC has always been for developing well rounded alumni whether it be athletically, academically, spiritually, etc. A lot of these sports are used to give opportunities to students to compete in their respective sports at the collegiate level regardless of the team's overall performance. BC uses it as a recruiting tool and differentiator amongst its peers in order to land well qualified students. Think about it... if you had a chance to attend a top 20 school and not play said sport or attend a top 30 school like BC and play the sport, then what would you choose? BC hopes for the latter as it tries to get top talent in an ever competitive environment. And then, when a team or individual succeeds, it's just an added bonus. Something to post on the BC Athletics Facebook or Instagram pages. I think this mindset comes from the schools Jesuit roots and I don't see it changing barring a drastic overhaul of the schools personnel.

Bottom line is that the only way more money is flowing to football/basketball/hockey is via the Flynn Fund or the individual funds for those particular teams. If the school cuts sports, then that money is just going to flow back to general fund. So, with that in mind, I would much rather get some skiing or fencing nerds into the school if it means better qualified students and thus eventually making my degree more valuable.

This is spot on and I have heard as much almost verbatim from a top BC administrator.

I personally will never understand the Jesuit angle in regards to sports, but I'll be honest, if they allocate the proper resources to FB, MBB and MIH, then I could care less if they offer 100 sports or not. The problem is that they haven't done that.

I also fail to see how saving money in certain athletic areas wouldn't directly benefit the revenue sports (again I'm of the viewpoint that saving money on golf/tennis/etc opex and salaries and rolling them into revenue sport facilities is a plus) and 1 person here saying the money would go to the general fund doesn't make that a fact, nobody knows the accounting policies here.

I think the main issue with sponsoring so many sports comes down to university commitment. As I said before, if the school wants to support all these sports, that's fine, but first and foremost, you have to make sure the revenue producing sports have the same (if not better) resources than other ACC schools. Once you have that, you have to be able back it up with commitment for the non-rev sports you want to sponsor and give kids a chance to be competitive, otherwise you just promote an "everybody gets a trophy" attitude and roll these kids out there to get pounded by schools that have a commitment to a smaller number of sports, which are most. There are also a number of sports that BC just has no business participating in (largely because of geography). Golf/Tennis are prime examples. You can't expect them to be competitive when weather stops you from participating most of the winter. Traditionally, BC was probably very competitive vs other Big east schools in sports like this, but sponsoring these vs southern schools just isn't fair.

hansen {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Women's track counters football both in terms of scholarships and bodies so that will never happen. FWIW title IX is both about participation and scholarship opportunities. Mens track is the oldest sport here at BC; I've heard its safe in some limited form (the team's roster size is less than the women's by design for the reason I mentioned above). The only sport to me that appears curious is Skiing but I'm sure there are some wealthy alumni keeping the sport around... that's pretty much how BC works.

The thing that most people fail to realize is that our athletic department does not just exist for winning. The culture at BC has always been for developing well rounded alumni whether it be athletically, academically, spiritually, etc. A lot of these sports are used to give opportunities to students to compete in their respective sports at the collegiate level regardless of the team's overall performance. BC uses it as a recruiting tool and differentiator amongst its peers in order to land well qualified students. Think about it... if you had a chance to attend a top 20 school and not play said sport or attend a top 30 school like BC and play the sport, then what would you choose? BC hopes for the latter as it tries to get top talent in an ever competitive environment. And then, when a team or individual succeeds, it's just an added bonus. Something to post on the BC Athletics Facebook or Instagram pages. I think this mindset comes from the schools Jesuit roots and I don't see it changing barring a drastic overhaul of the schools personnel.

Bottom line is that the only way more money is flowing to football/basketball/hockey is via the Flynn Fund or the individual funds for those particular teams. If the school cuts sports, then that money is just going to flow back to general fund. So, with that in mind, I would much rather get some skiing or fencing nerds into the school if it means better qualified students and thus eventually making my degree more valuable.

Im not disagreeing with you, I'm questioning the logic behind it. Why treat your varsity teams like club teams? I can't realistically see the coaches saying that they're going to go after the best students, as opposed to the best athletes, because they want to win, too. Look at the rosters for non-varsity sports at places like Duke - filled with amazing students, many from the Northeast and/or Catholic schools - and these kids win. I don't buy the weather excuse, because ND competes well in many sports and their weather sucks.

I see Men's Golf finished 12th out of 12 ('Cuse and Pitt don't field teams) at the ACC championships.

Here's an article from the Heights about the neglect of non-revenue sports. I won't get all Corners and say we should spend billions, but we should try to excel if we're going to offer a varsity sport - or beef up the club sports offerings. I just hate seeing something done half-assed. http://bcheights.com/2017/04/20/bc-wont-be-bostons-college-until-revitalizes-running/

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Women's track counters football both in terms of scholarships and bodies so that will never happen. FWIW title IX is both about participation and scholarship opportunities. Mens track is the oldest sport here at BC; I've heard its safe in some limited form (the team's roster size is less than the women's by design for the reason I mentioned above). The only sport to me that appears curious is Skiing but I'm sure there are some wealthy alumni keeping the sport around... that's pretty much how BC works.

The thing that most people fail to realize is that our athletic department does not just exist for winning. The culture at BC has always been for developing well rounded alumni whether it be athletically, academically, spiritually, etc. A lot of these sports are used to give opportunities to students to compete in their respective sports at the collegiate level regardless of the team's overall performance. BC uses it as a recruiting tool and differentiator amongst its peers in order to land well qualified students. Think about it... if you had a chance to attend a top 20 school and not play said sport or attend a top 30 school like BC and play the sport, then what would you choose? BC hopes for the latter as it tries to get top talent in an ever competitive environment. And then, when a team or individual succeeds, it's just an added bonus. Something to post on the BC Athletics Facebook or Instagram pages. I think this mindset comes from the schools Jesuit roots and I don't see it changing barring a drastic overhaul of the schools personnel.

Bottom line is that the only way more money is flowing to football/basketball/hockey is via the Flynn Fund or the individual funds for those particular teams. If the school cuts sports, then that money is just going to flow back to general fund. So, with that in mind, I would much rather get some skiing or fencing nerds into the school if it means better qualified students and thus eventually making my degree more valuable.

Im not disagreeing with you, I'm questioning the logic behind it. Why treat your varsity teams like club teams? I can't realistically see the coaches saying that they're going to go after the best students, as opposed to the best athletes, because they want to win, too. Look at the rosters for non-varsity sports at places like Duke - filled with amazing students, many from the Northeast and/or Catholic schools - and these kids win. I don't buy the weather excuse, because ND competes well in many sports and their weather sucks.

I see Men's Golf finished 12th out of 12 ('Cuse and Pitt don't field teams) at the ACC championships.

Here's an article from the Heights about the neglect of non-revenue sports. I won't get all Corners and say we should spend billions, but we should try to excel if we're going to offer a varsity sport - or beef up the club sports offerings. I just hate seeing something done half-assed. http://bcheights.com/2017/04/20/bc-wont-be-bostons-college-until-revitalizes-running/

the best team in college golf hails from ..... the vacation destination known as champaign-urbana

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

hansen {l Wrote}:

bchockey04 {l Wrote}:Official Release:

http://bceagles.com/news/2017/4/20/boston-college-athletics-boston-college-names-ohio-states-deputy-deputy-athletics-director-martin-jarmond-as-william-v-campbell-director-of-athletics.aspx

Interesting tidbit is that tOSU has 36 Division I varsity sports. This counters the frequent argument that BC'S 31 is some large number/outlier.

p.s. I am not suggesting adding sports.

Okay, I bit and did the research, because I believe the number of varsity sports at BC is significantly larger than our peers.

BC has 29 varsity sports, 13 men's, 16 women's (I'm not counting indoor & outdoor track & field separately, bceagles.com doesn't). The average for the other FBS schools in USNWR Top 50 is 21.5. Stanford's 35 skews that number. Northwestern has 19, Rice 14, Vandy 15, Wake 16, GaTech 15, Tulane 15, Illinois 19, Miami 16, Florida 19. Duke & ND have 24 each.

'Cuse is outside of the Top 50 (tied at 60 with Fordham, among others), but they have 18 varsity sports.

Since we're not going to compete nor put money into them, we should cut Men's Golf, Men's and Women's Skiing, Men's and Women's Swimming & Diving (especially if you're not meeting their needs with the new Plex), Men's Tennis and Men's and Women's Track & Field. 21 remaining. Might as well keep Fencing and Cross Country because they mostly compete locally, and we should be decent at each with minimal effort.

Women's track counters football both in terms of scholarships and bodies so that will never happen. FWIW title IX is both about participation and scholarship opportunities. Mens track is the oldest sport here at BC; I've heard its safe in some limited form (the team's roster size is less than the women's by design for the reason I mentioned above). The only sport to me that appears curious is Skiing but I'm sure there are some wealthy alumni keeping the sport around... that's pretty much how BC works.

The thing that most people fail to realize is that our athletic department does not just exist for winning. The culture at BC has always been for developing well rounded alumni whether it be athletically, academically, spiritually, etc. A lot of these sports are used to give opportunities to students to compete in their respective sports at the collegiate level regardless of the team's overall performance. BC uses it as a recruiting tool and differentiator amongst its peers in order to land well qualified students. Think about it... if you had a chance to attend a top 20 school and not play said sport or attend a top 30 school like BC and play the sport, then what would you choose? BC hopes for the latter as it tries to get top talent in an ever competitive environment. And then, when a team or individual succeeds, it's just an added bonus. Something to post on the BC Athletics Facebook or Instagram pages. I think this mindset comes from the schools Jesuit roots and I don't see it changing barring a drastic overhaul of the schools personnel.

Bottom line is that the only way more money is flowing to football/basketball/hockey is via the Flynn Fund or the individual funds for those particular teams. If the school cuts sports, then that money is just going to flow back to general fund. So, with that in mind, I would much rather get some skiing or fencing nerds into the school if it means better qualified students and thus eventually making my degree more valuable.

Im not disagreeing with you, I'm questioning the logic behind it. Why treat your varsity teams like club teams? I can't realistically see the coaches saying that they're going to go after the best students, as opposed to the best athletes, because they want to win, too. Look at the rosters for non-varsity sports at places like Duke - filled with amazing students, many from the Northeast and/or Catholic schools - and these kids win. I don't buy the weather excuse, because ND competes well in many sports and their weather sucks.

I see Men's Golf finished 12th out of 12 ('Cuse and Pitt don't field teams) at the ACC championships.

Here's an article from the Heights about the neglect of non-revenue sports. I won't get all Corners and say we should spend billions, but we should try to excel if we're going to offer a varsity sport - or beef up the club sports offerings. I just hate seeing something done half-assed. http://bcheights.com/2017/04/20/bc-wont-be-bostons-college-until-revitalizes-running/

the best team in college golf hails from ..... the vacation destination known as champaign-urbana

Im actually glad you said that. Go take a look at the support they have from the University. 36 hole U of I course. Access to 4 other local clubs. An outdoor practice facility and a 3 story indoor facility, arguably one of the best golf facilities in the country. Northwestern is another good example. Not in a great weather area, but have a facility (donated by Luke Donald) to help negate that fact. While you can always find an outlier or two, the fact remains, the overwhelming majority of golf schools (in this example) are warm weather destinations (http://www.ncaa.com/rankings/golf-men/d1)

For the sake of argument, U of I also sponsors a much smaller number of facilities (19) and have allocated resources to those sports as opposed to throwing a bunch of shit agains the wall and seeing what sticks. Again, if BC wants to sponsor 31 sports, knock yourself out, but don't do it half assed and don't do it at the expense of the sports that generate revenue and are most visible.



Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating a facility like this for any of the traditionally warm weather sports (I'm of the opinion they should be dropped), just making a point in re: to commitment by the university/alumni.

it shouldn't be that hard for BC to leverage its alumni network to make arrangements for course access at the country club, boston golf club, old sandwich etc. there is amazing golf in boston and could be a great draw. also no reason why there couldn't be a solid indoor golf facility. I've see the NW facility and it is awesome. they have leveraged the relationship between Luke Donald and Pat Goss (NW's coach) to build that program, but any donor with $2 mil to spare could fund that facility. actually, I'm surprised Dick hasn't done it yet.

in the end I don't think we disagree that much. the Jesuits need to stop being so damn cheap. BC has plenty of $$

The Hammond Pond Road site could support a golf facility/track facility/you name it.

Shit, just get a couple of random rooms and install golf simulators/launch monitors and fixed cameras in there and call it a day. Not sexy but that's all you really need to work on your swing.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Shit, just get a couple of random rooms and install golf simulators/launch monitors and fixed cameras in there and call it a day. Not sexy but that's all you really need to work on your swing.

But that might cost a few grand...

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Shit, just get a couple of random rooms and install golf simulators/launch monitors and fixed cameras in there and call it a day. Not sexy but that's all you really need to work on your swing.

But that might cost a few grand...

More than a few. $60k gets you this though:

http://www.frontgate.com/full-swing-golf-elite-golf-simulator/862374?SourceCode=ZZ51120&cm_mmc=Comparison+Shopping-_-Google+Product+Listings-_-NA-_-NA&intlShippingCtx=US%7CUSD&CAWELAID=120245420000026960&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=43778978600&CATCI=pla-78345207308&CATARGETID=120245420002086761&cadevice=c&gclid=Cj0KEQjwxPbHBRCdxJLF3qen3dYBEiQAMRyxS_GHYkSJjNIv1oZVqbu8desL2188qg8AyGJVFqthq-MaAtPU8P8HAQ

DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:

BostonCollege1 {l Wrote}:

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:Shit, just get a couple of random rooms and install golf simulators/launch monitors and fixed cameras in there and call it a day. Not sexy but that's all you really need to work on your swing.

But that might cost a few grand...

More than a few. $60k gets you this though:

http://www.frontgate.com/full-swing-golf-elite-golf-simulator/862374?SourceCode=ZZ51120&cm_mmc=Comparison+Shopping-_-Google+Product+Listings-_-NA-_-NA&intlShippingCtx=US%7CUSD&CAWELAID=120245420000026960&CAGPSPN=pla&CAAGID=43778978600&CATCI=pla-78345207308&CATARGETID=120245420002086761&cadevice=c&gclid=Cj0KEQjwxPbHBRCdxJLF3qen3dYBEiQAMRyxS_GHYkSJjNIv1oZVqbu8desL2188qg8AyGJVFqthq-MaAtPU8P8HAQ

If only we had a few rich, golf-loving lawyer-alumni types to donate the money for such a fine product.

You don't even need the simulator, just a launch monitor and some cameras. That's what MIT has and, combined with an iPad and a few apps, you have everything you need to see distance, ball flight, spin, etc.

this is exactly what i'm getting at. Why spend any money at all if you're going to try and slap something together with a launch monitor and some iPads ? If you want to sponsor the sport (whichever sport it may be), be willing to commit funds comparable to other schools in the ACC (they're your competition after all). Debating over simulators and iPhone apps (cheap alternatives) that show swing metrics is what has led BC to where they are today. If BC was smart, maybe they would go to one of the local clubs and negotiate some type of building arrangement where they could split the cost of some kind of indoor space attached to a practice area that both the M/W programs can use as well as the clubs membership in the winter months, I would have to think that would create a win win for both parties and specifically be attractive to any clubs membership base and the club in attracting more/new members going forward.

The bottom line is, unless you're willing to support sports like the rest of the conference (and even that wont guarantee anything for most warm weather sports), why even go through the process of competing ? If BC wants to offer sports to kids (in re: to the aforementioned Jesuit ideals), then offer them as club sports and give kids the chance to compete, but don't allocate the bare minimum for these sports to "compete" at the varsity level and send them down south with little to no chance to actually be competitive.

With many of these sports, the proof is in the pudding. Mens golf finished last in ACC Championship. Women's golf finished towards bottom of ACCC. Men's and Women's Tennis are both in the bottom of the conference standings (Men last, women 4th worst). Track and Field has not been competitive. M/W cross country finished in the bottom half's of their championships. I understand the need of some of these sports to balance title IX issues, but there is concrete proof that a number of these programs are not competitive so whatever the school has been doing, hasn't been working.

As I mentioned before, I think a big part of the problem with most of these sports has been the level of success that the school had in the Big East / Northeast days perhaps justifying or driving the program going forward. I'm fairly familiar with collegiate golf in the northeast, so Ill continue to use that as an example, but the level of competition in the NE compared to most areas of the country are night and day, BC just cant compete. You can see it in something as simple as their season results. They play at the Yale or Yukon events and are extremely competitive (vs a predominately NE comp base). The events where they travel and play a diff group of schools (mostly southern), the results drop immediately.

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:this is exactly what i'm getting at. Why spend any money at all if you're going to try and slap something together with a launch monitor and some iPads ? If you want to sponsor the sport (whichever sport it may be), be willing to commit funds comparable to other schools in the ACC (they're your competition after all). Debating over simulators and iPhone apps (cheap alternatives) that show swing metrics is what has led BC to where they are today. If BC was smart, maybe they would go to one of the local clubs and negotiate some type of building arrangement where they could split the cost of some kind of indoor space attached to a practice area that both the M/W programs can use as well as the clubs membership in the winter months, I would have to think that would create a win win for both parties and specifically be attractive to any clubs membership base and the club in attracting more/new members going forward.

The bottom line is, unless you're willing to support sports like the rest of the conference (and even that wont guarantee anything for most warm weather sports), why even go through the process of competing ? If BC wants to offer sports to kids (in re: to the aforementioned Jesuit ideals), then offer them as club sports and give kids the chance to compete, but don't allocate the bare minimum for these sports to "compete" at the varsity level and send them down south with little to no chance to actually be competitive.

With many of these sports, the proof is in the pudding. Mens golf finished last in ACC Championship. Women's golf finished towards bottom of ACCC. Men's and Women's Tennis are both in the bottom of the conference standings (Men last, women 4th worst). Track and Field has not been competitive. M/W cross country finished in the bottom half's of their championships. I understand the need of some of these sports to balance title IX issues, but there is concrete proof that a number of these programs are not competitive so whatever the school has been doing, hasn't been working.

As I mentioned before, I think a big part of the problem with most of these sports has been the level of success that the school had in the Big East / Northeast days perhaps justifying or driving the program going forward. I'm fairly familiar with collegiate golf in the northeast, so Ill continue to use that as an example, but the level of competition in the NE compared to most areas of the country are night and day, BC just cant compete. You can see it in something as simple as their season results. They play at the Yale or Yukon events and are extremely competitive (vs a predominately NE comp base). The events where they travel and play a diff group of schools (mostly southern), the results drop immediately.

The results argument is poor due to small sample size and bias.

As to the argument over club vs. varsity, I can't speak for everyone but I know that I would much rather have shitty support and still have a D1 opportunity as opposed to competing at the club level. And it's not even close. In this situation, you just accept it and move on. Just have to compete as hard as you can with what you have. It is then very satisfying to achieve success in spite of this.