2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Forum rules
"The opinions expressed on this board are property of the poster and do not reflect the opinion of EagleOutsider, Boston College or Boston College Athletics"

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:00 pm

hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 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.

Plus, the other dudes on campus are much more likely to put out for a D1 athlete than they are a club sports athlete. That's the real motivation and why I chose track. I could train to run into a homohumpathon even faster than my other 5th floor colleagues.


fixed
marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20650
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 5704

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby DuchesneEast on Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:01 pm

Depending on the program, $ should be spend on coaches as opposed to simulators and other fancy gadgets. The best comparison I can make that I know some background on is women's gymnastics. The best club programs I have seen are the ones with great coaches that dont waste money on new leotards, practice mats, vaults. Everything stinks and is covered in chalk anyway. At the lower levels, the clean fancy places get all the newbs, but by the time you get to the higher levels, the best athletes search out the places with the best coaches, who make them better athletes.
User avatar
DuchesneEast
Lyons Hall
 
Posts: 9107
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: I am the Duke of New York
Karma: 1627

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby BCSUPERFAN22 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:20 am

hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 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.


Quite honestly, its not worth the effort to go back and look at the lack of success by "warm weather" sports, but I would almost guarantee that the results from the most recent athletic year (that I referenced earlier) would extend back (since the start of ACC play).

I also fail to understand your comment on bias. I presented pretty black and white facts, ACC standings and results, its not biased at all. I played collegiate golf in the northeast and can personally attest (at least with that sport) that what I said is 100% factual(again, don't take my word for it, just look at the results). When BC would be at an event with predominately Northeast schools (URI, Yukon, Ivy's, West Point, Binghamton, etc.), they would be very competitive. When southern schools entered the picture, it wasn't even close. Hell, Johnson & Wales (FL) showed up at the Dartmouth event one year and it was an absolute bloodbath, and that was just JWU, yet alone the ACC programs that have long histories, stronger recruiting bases, weather advantages and more university support.

Im not going to bang my head against the wall on this, its just not worth it, but results are results and BC can not compete with ACC schools as they are currently set up. Again, if BC wants to sponsor all of these, I don't care, but to continue to do so while your revenue sports/facilities are under-invested and in disarray, is simply irresponsible. Division 1 athletics are not for everyone and should not be used as a tool to attract students as you state, the school should be able to do that on its own. I also find the Jesuit / athletics argument to be a poor justification for sponsoring so many sports. Of course someone would want to compete at the D1 level, but you state that its about opportunity, and club athletics is a cheaper alternative to provide opportunity if that in fact is a way to maintain Jesuit ideals and attract students as you stated previously (just as a note, BC can sponsor a club sport and they can compete at the D1 level in sports like golf in a much more manageable competitive environment like the Northeast, they would just need to fund themselves up and above any minimal funding from the recreation department or club sport department). While it may be satisfying to achieve success in spite of under investment, there has been no sign of being even remotely competitive where that would even be a possibility in the near to medium term. There has been enough of a record of ACC under performance to prove that.
BCSUPERFAN22
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Karma: 122

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby DrJackRyan on Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:24 am

-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.
User avatar
DrJackRyan
Campion Hall
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: Marblehood, Marblehood...always up to no good
Karma: 201

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby BCSUPERFAN22 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:04 pm

DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.
BCSUPERFAN22
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Karma: 122

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby hansen on Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:14 pm

BCSUPERFAN22 wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.


Your bias is that you are applying your knowledge of one particular sport and broadly applying that to all sports.
this post ridiculously over simplifies the complexity of title IX regulation. For one thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about participation rate as well.
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Not Japan
Karma: 274

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby eepstein0 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:57 pm

hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.


Your bias is that you are applying your knowledge of one particular sport and broadly applying that to all sports.
this post ridiculously over simplifies the complexity of title IX regulation. For one thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about participation rate as well.


Then how do the other schools have 18 varsity sports and not violate Title IX? 22 is dead on in this argument.
User avatar
eepstein0
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 15976
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Danvers, MA
Karma: -257

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Wed Apr 26, 2017 5:13 pm

eepstein0 wrote:
hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.


Your bias is that you are applying your knowledge of one particular sport and broadly applying that to all sports.
this post ridiculously over simplifies the complexity of title IX regulation. For one thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about participation rate as well.


Then how do the other schools have 18 varsity sports and not violate Title IX? 22 is dead on in this argument.

fewer men's sports/scholarships. hansen is closer to correct on this one.

sometimes, people that went to other schools forget that boston college is an institutionfor higher learning first and athletic brand second. those people also don't seem to get that cutting out the expenses for men's shorty-shorts for track isn't going to mean dollars flowing to football or basketball. it's more likely going to go to salaries, grounds, etc.
marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20650
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 5704

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby hansen on Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:53 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
eepstein0 wrote:
hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.


Your bias is that you are applying your knowledge of one particular sport and broadly applying that to all sports.
this post ridiculously over simplifies the complexity of title IX regulation. For one thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about participation rate as well.


Then how do the other schools have 18 varsity sports and not violate Title IX? 22 is dead on in this argument.

fewer men's sports/scholarships. hansen is closer to correct on this one.

sometimes, people that went to other schools forget that boston college is an institutionfor higher learning first and athletic brand second. those people also don't seem to get that cutting out the expenses for men's shorty-shorts for track or used golf clubs sports most people are not interested in Isn't going to mean dollars flowing to football or basketball. it's more likely going to go to salaries, grounds, etc.


this
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Not Japan
Karma: 274

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby DrJackRyan on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:03 pm

As some of us went to the Carroll School where we are taught to deal with data....

Source: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

http://imgur.com/gUVxuXY

Image

Subset for Hockey here:

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/6190/Boston-College-Ice-Hockey

Summary:

$13M for Women's sports other than Women's Basketball
$8.6M for Men's sports other than Men's Football and Men's Basketball
$4.1M for Men's hockey

If you are saying you are going to take the $4.5 Million on men's sports and move it to Football, Basketball and Hockey..fine, I guess. But not a huge increase if you divide among the three. Is it really going to make a difference?

If you are saying you are going to take the $13M for women's sports and move that to men's Football, Basketball and Hockey...ha, ha, ha. No way that happens. Definitely a Title 9 violation and even if it wasn't, no way BC does that.
User avatar
DrJackRyan
Campion Hall
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: Marblehood, Marblehood...always up to no good
Karma: 201

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby claver2010 on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:09 pm

unless I'm missing something, how the hell is the women's team bringing in $1.8 MM in revenue? that's a lot of bake sales
Bush, George H W
Cosby, Bill
Disick, Scott
Flair, Ric
Griffin, Kathy
Khamenei, Ali
McCain, John
Pele
Soros, George
User avatar
claver2010
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 17682
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:55 pm
Karma: 3050

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby ILikeBC on Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:53 pm

claver2010 wrote:unless I'm missing something, how the hell is the women's team bringing in $1.8 MM in revenue? that's a lot of bake sales


Other teams succeeding in the tournament and TV money, probably.
Image

What can Brown do for you?
User avatar
ILikeBC
Campion Hall
 
Posts: 1365
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:48 pm
Karma: 194

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby claver2010 on Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:43 pm

sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey
Bush, George H W
Cosby, Bill
Disick, Scott
Flair, Ric
Griffin, Kathy
Khamenei, Ali
McCain, John
Pele
Soros, George
User avatar
claver2010
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 17682
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:55 pm
Karma: 3050

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:16 pm

claver2010 wrote:sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey

t00bz is going to kick you out of the next hockeyruption tailgate
marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20650
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 5704

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby Salzano14 on Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:58 am

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
claver2010 wrote:sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey

t00bz is going to kick you out of the next hockeyruption tailgate

Ha excellent -- that's some great accounting; they don't even charge for tickets to games.
I prefer hockey.
Salzano14
McGuinn Hall
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:45 am
Karma: 32

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:48 am

Salzano14 wrote:
TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
claver2010 wrote:sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey

t00bz is going to kick you out of the next hockeyruption tailgate

Ha excellent -- that's some great accounting; they don't even charge for tickets to games.

i know that - but claver shining a light on this is going to eventually lead to the revelation of how much you are spending to sniff their sweaty, hairy assholes after games. i would imagine even your wife would be upset by this
marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20650
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 5704

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby hansen on Fri Apr 28, 2017 9:02 am

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
Salzano14 wrote:
TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
claver2010 wrote:sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey

t00bz is going to kick you out of the next hockeyruption tailgate

Ha excellent -- that's some great accounting; they don't even charge for tickets to games.

i know that - but claver shining a light on this is going to eventually lead to the revelation of how much you are spending to sniff their sweaty, hairy assholes after games. i would imagine even your wife would be upset by this


Wait, what? Some Women have hairy assholes?
Gross
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Not Japan
Karma: 274

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby claver2010 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:14 am

men's tennis hasn't won an acc game in at least the last 4 years, an impressive 0-47 (acc's standings page doesn't go any further back than that)
Bush, George H W
Cosby, Bill
Disick, Scott
Flair, Ric
Griffin, Kathy
Khamenei, Ali
McCain, John
Pele
Soros, George
User avatar
claver2010
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 17682
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:55 pm
Karma: 3050

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby eepstein0 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:33 pm

claver2010 wrote:men's tennis hasn't won an acc game in at least the last 4 years, an impressive 0-47 (acc's standings page doesn't go any further back than that)


I've seen BC play tennis before as I also played in college.

That sport should probably be the first one to cut. BC shouldn't be sponsoring sports that they're 0-47 in.
User avatar
eepstein0
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 15976
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Danvers, MA
Karma: -257

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby eepstein0 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 6:34 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
eepstein0 wrote:
hansen wrote:
BCSUPERFAN22 wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:-Any potential student is more interested in being a Varsity athlete in a D1 program than being in a Club sport even if that sport stinks as a team.

-You can't just move funds to men's football, men's basketball and men's ice hockey at the expense of the other sports. That would be a Title IX violation. You need multiple (men's and women's) sports to make sure the funding for the all-men's football team doesn't throw off the whole funding formula.



Of course playing a D1 sport is more appealing, I'm not arguing that. But what is the point of fielding these programs if they have no chance to be competitive ? Just to attract kids to come to the school ? That seems like an unnecessary expense (that hurts other programs by stretching funding thin and hurts the optics of the BC Athletic Department by being uncomeptitive) to attain something the academic side of the school should be able to do on its own.

I never suggested cutting a disproportional number of sports by gender. You cut M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W Skiing, M/W T&F, M/W Fencing, M/W Swim&Dive. Thats 12 programs right there that maintain the Title IX proportion as you're eliminating both genders programs (within reason, I'm not about to research the actual scholarship allocation per sport) and instantly brings you to a number of sponsored sports more in line with the average ACC program (probably still higher but much more manageable, ~30 down to 18). How does saving money on coaching salaries, travel, equipment, etc... violate Title IX? IX is about scholarship distribution, not annual operating expenses.


Your bias is that you are applying your knowledge of one particular sport and broadly applying that to all sports.
this post ridiculously over simplifies the complexity of title IX regulation. For one thing, it's not just about scholarships, it's about participation rate as well.


Then how do the other schools have 18 varsity sports and not violate Title IX? 22 is dead on in this argument.

fewer men's sports/scholarships. hansen is closer to correct on this one.

sometimes, people that went to other schools forget that boston college is an institutionfor higher learning first and athletic brand second. those people also don't seem to get that cutting out the expenses for men's shorty-shorts for track isn't going to mean dollars flowing to football or basketball. it's more likely going to go to salaries, grounds, etc.


That's fine, but why are you sponsoring sports you're not even trying to be competitive in?

The motto of the school is supposed to be Ever to Excel, not hand out participation trophies.
User avatar
eepstein0
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 15976
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Danvers, MA
Karma: -257

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby hansen on Sun Apr 30, 2017 8:18 pm

Hottest girl at BC I ever met (besides Elisabeth Filarski) was a women's tennis player. There was serious smokeshows on that squad. Highly recommend preserving that sport at BC.... just sayin'. :shrug
HANSENPOST :shrug

Image
User avatar
hansen
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Not Japan
Karma: 274

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby eepstein0 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 9:07 pm

hansen wrote:Hottest girl at BC I ever met (besides Elisabeth Filarski) was a women's tennis player. There was serious smokeshows on that squad. Highly recommend preserving that sport at BC.... just sayin'. :shrug


Tennis girls are hot, known fact. Nice perk of playing on the men's team was the co-mingled parties.
User avatar
eepstein0
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 15976
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 7:35 pm
Location: Danvers, MA
Karma: -257

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby BCSUPERFAN22 on Tue May 02, 2017 12:42 pm

This article just got pushed to my email, re: Jarmond and scheduling ...

https://www.landof10.com/ohio-state/ohio-state-football-schedule-alabama
BCSUPERFAN22
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Karma: 122

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby twballgame9 on Tue May 02, 2017 1:02 pm

Notable that the BC games appear to have been moved before he left, with a delayed announcement.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 30496
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2428

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Tue May 02, 2017 3:28 pm

twballgame9 wrote:Notable that the BC games appear to have been moved before he left, with a delayed announcement.

he said he was continuing to work there (columbus) until friday june 2
marty j, heinz hammer, and jimmy mac have ruined the athletic programs of this school. until they are all sent out to pasture, i take my leave of this shithole and all other things bc. your pal, tre (rhymes with "seriously, fuck those 3")
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20650
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 5704

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby twballgame9 on Tue May 02, 2017 3:34 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
twballgame9 wrote:Notable that the BC games appear to have been moved before he left, with a delayed announcement.

he said he was continuing to work there (columbus) until friday june 2


Fair enough.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 30496
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2428

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby Salzano14 on Tue May 02, 2017 7:05 pm

TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
Salzano14 wrote:
TobaccoRoadEagle wrote:
claver2010 wrote:sorry should've been more specific

how the hell is the women's hockey team pulling in $1.8 MM in revenue?

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/ ... Ice-Hockey

t00bz is going to kick you out of the next hockeyruption tailgate

Ha excellent -- that's some great accounting; they don't even charge for tickets to games.

i know that - but claver shining a light on this is going to eventually lead to the revelation of how much you are spending to sniff their sweaty, hairy assholes after games. i would imagine even your wife would be upset by this

Wouldn't that mean I'm not spending ANYTHING to sniff assholes though?

I mean you can't beat the price
I prefer hockey.
Salzano14
McGuinn Hall
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:45 am
Karma: 32

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby DrJackRyan on Fri May 05, 2017 12:30 pm

eepstein0 wrote:
claver2010 wrote:men's tennis hasn't won an acc game in at least the last 4 years, an impressive 0-47 (acc's standings page doesn't go any further back than that)


I've seen BC play tennis before as I also played in college.

That sport should probably be the first one to cut. BC shouldn't be sponsoring sports that they're 0-47 in.


$180K is not going to make any kind of significant difference to the men's revenue sports.

That's what we spend on men's tennis.

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/6197/Boston-College-Tennis
User avatar
DrJackRyan
Campion Hall
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:23 pm
Location: Marblehood, Marblehood...always up to no good
Karma: 201

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby MilitantEagle on Fri May 05, 2017 1:42 pm

DrJackRyan wrote:
eepstein0 wrote:
claver2010 wrote:men's tennis hasn't won an acc game in at least the last 4 years, an impressive 0-47 (acc's standings page doesn't go any further back than that)


I've seen BC play tennis before as I also played in college.

That sport should probably be the first one to cut. BC shouldn't be sponsoring sports that they're 0-47 in.


$180K is not going to make any kind of significant difference to the men's revenue sports.

That's what we spend on men's tennis.

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/6197/Boston-College-Tennis


To me, it's not about the money, but mental energy. We have limited resources in terms of people in and associated with the athletic department and we can't afford to devote any time and decision-making energy on these pointless sports.

Cut as many as possible outside of the major ones and Title IX requirements.
MilitantEagle
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:13 pm
Karma: 140

Re: 2017 Athletic Director Candidates Thread

Postby BCSUPERFAN22 on Fri May 05, 2017 2:56 pm

MilitantEagle wrote:
DrJackRyan wrote:
eepstein0 wrote:
claver2010 wrote:men's tennis hasn't won an acc game in at least the last 4 years, an impressive 0-47 (acc's standings page doesn't go any further back than that)


I've seen BC play tennis before as I also played in college.

That sport should probably be the first one to cut. BC shouldn't be sponsoring sports that they're 0-47 in.


$180K is not going to make any kind of significant difference to the men's revenue sports.

That's what we spend on men's tennis.

http://college-sports.pointafter.com/l/6197/Boston-College-Tennis


To me, it's not about the money, but mental energy. We have limited resources in terms of people in and associated with the athletic department and we can't afford to devote any time and decision-making energy on these pointless sports.

Cut as many as possible outside of the major ones and Title IX requirements.


For one thing, you don't think having ~180k saved (if that # is true) from one sport to roll into something for football would help. That's the salary for multiple full time recruiting staff (or facility upgrades). If you save 180k per year from one sport and can redo the weight room, that's a plus. If you can redo locker rooms for BB or IH, that's a plus. It's also not about just cutting 1 sport, BC has to cut quite a few and that would have a material effect.

To the above point, wasn't it Hoff who said what a joke the athletics department was from a staff size perspective ? Again, it comes down to commitment. If BC is so hell bent on offerin so many sports because it fits with "Jesuit ideal" or whatever other excuse you want to use, that's fine, but commit. That means facilities (on campus or off campus arrangement), coaching staff, recruiting budget to get kids who can compete, etc. Its quite evident that stretching the athletic department so thin and trying to make it work on the cheap hasn't worked for a number of sports.
BCSUPERFAN22
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3244
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:21 pm
Karma: 122

PreviousNext

Return to Alumni Stadium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Untitled document