2017 University President Candidates Thread

[BCMurt09]

Father Joe McShane or nothing

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

i would take fr. monan at 91 eleventybillion times over leahy

[angrychicken]

Jay Wright or Bruce Pearl

[DomingoOrtiz]

Greg Grice

[HJS]

McShane is 1 year younger than Leahy. While I wouldn't be against a new president ever 5 years, it is highly unlikely that the powers that be would be on board. They clearly prefer to choose someone who can stay in the role as a steady-hand for the preeminent Jesuit institution.

While there may always be some late 40s priest kicking around in the lower administration somewhere in Wisconsin that gets tapped... I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately is someone already involved in BC's administration. For instance, looking at my favorite link: http://www.bc.edu/offices/stserv/academ ... ation.html, there are anumber SJs listed. Those that would be considered on the "younger-side" are:
Daniel Hendrickson (https://www.creighton.edu/office-presid ... -biography)
Matt Malone (http://americamagazine.org/users/matt-malone-sj)
Jack Butler (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... 02010.html)
Terence Devino (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... bc-vp.html)
Gregory Kalscheur (http://www.bc.edu/publications/chronicl ... 1224721854)
Thomas Stegman (http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/campus- ... named.html)

[TobaccoRoadEagle]

moj's post reminded me that we never recognized the passing of fr. helmick back in april. i was saddened by the news but forgot to post about it at the time

[JesuitIvy]

Me too, about Helmick. That guy was a hoot, and taught me a lot about conflict resolution even if that class was an easy A

[claver2010]

pass on mcshane

[Tom Dooder]

Mentioned this before but look to smaller Jesuit University's who have priests already running the show and are somehow connected to BC.

Kevin Wildes at Loyola NO.

John P. Fitzgibbons at Regis.

Both graduated from Weston.

Hendrickson at Creighton is the BC's board as is Michael E. Engh at Santa Clara, both Presidents.

But I think the front runner would be Brian F. Linnane at Loyola Marymount. BC undergrad.

But who knows, the school will reach out to the order and they pick the finalists.

[eagle9903]

First, I think we all know that Leahy's not getting canned for sports performance. That means, that none of this is happening until he retires. That being said he is 68. Fr. Monan retired at ~70. I have no idea if they encourage Jesuits to retire at that point or anything or whether there is any kind of policy about the BC president's age specifically but I guess stepping down may occur sooner than later.

Second, there is absolutely no guarantee that a change will improve things. Leahy was fine until GDF lost his mind. He was never actively supportive of the revenue sports in any kind of forward thinking way, with the obvious and gigantic exception of being front and center on the ACC move, but he didn't seem to negatively interfere when we had a first proactive, later insane athletic director. I think he'd likely fall back into that role if we hadn't hired the world's emptiest suit, Master Bates, although Leahy may have become trigger shy after the latter day GFD parade of embarrassments.

For example: replace Leahy with Donohue from Nova (yes, I realize you would not replace a Jesuit with an Augustinian). Donohue is the head of the theater department and apparently wasn't familiar with the game of shooty-hoops until like 2009. Donohue has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with Nova winning an NC other than not getting in the way. The difference is that Nova has alums who care about basketball, who don't tolerate failure. They have alums who donate based on their interest in basketball. Their board realizes these things and therefore prioritizes basketball. Therefore, they pay their coach $3+ million and win national championships, but it has nothing to do with the theater head president and if you traded Leahy for national championship winner, Donohue, it does not result in an upward swing.

I have no idea, moreover, whether the lay presidents at some of the other Catholic schools have anything to do with their basketball success or if it just happens that those places have other elements like fans and alums in place who can move things forward absent an active president.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

I nominate Brian Linnane, S.J., President of Loyola University of Maryland.

Linnane is a BC grad (Class of 77) and has helped grow the athletics program at Loyola. He served as a dean and professor at Holy Cross prior to his time at Loyola.

[DavidGordonsFoot]

But I think the front runner would be Brian F. Linnane at Loyola Marymount. BC undergrad.

Oh you beat me to it.

[MilitantEagle]

For example: replace Leahy with Donohue from Nova (yes, I realize you would not replace a Jesuit with an Augustinian). Donohue is the head of the theater department and apparently wasn't familiar with the game of shooty-hoops until like 2009. Donohue has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with Nova winning an NC other than not getting in the way. The difference is that Nova has alums who care about basketball, who don't tolerate failure. They have alums who donate based on their interest in basketball. Their board realizes these things and therefore prioritizes basketball. Therefore, they pay their coach $3+ million and win national championships, but it has nothing to do with the theater head president and if you traded Leahy for national championship winner, Donohue, it does not result in an upward swing.

Exactly. Lack of interest is the main issue for BC. Things have gotten so bad over the last 8 years, not just because we have bad coaches, ADs, president, and BOT, but also because relative to other schools, nobody cares. There is just not much impetus for change.

[claver2010]

i remember hearing a couple of years ago that leahy was going to ride till the end of light the world, looks like that wrapped up in april but who knows

[BCSUPERFAN22]

First, I think we all know that Leahy's not getting canned for sports performance. That means, that none of this is happening until he retires. That being said he is 68. Fr. Monan retired at ~70. I have no idea if they encourage Jesuits to retire at that point or anything or whether there is any kind of policy about the BC president's age specifically but I guess stepping down may occur sooner than later.

Second, there is absolutely no guarantee that a change will improve things. Leahy was fine until GDF lost his mind. He was never actively supportive of the revenue sports in any kind of forward thinking way, with the obvious and gigantic exception of being front and center on the ACC move, but he didn't seem to negatively interfere when we had a first proactive, later insane athletic director. I think he'd likely fall back into that role if we hadn't hired the world's emptiest suit, Master Bates, although Leahy may have become trigger shy after the latter day GFD parade of embarrassments.

For example: replace Leahy with Donohue from Nova (yes, I realize you would not replace a Jesuit with an Augustinian). Donohue is the head of the theater department and apparently wasn't familiar with the game of shooty-hoops until like 2009. Donohue has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with Nova winning an NC other than not getting in the way. The difference is that Nova has alums who care about basketball, who don't tolerate failure. They have alums who donate based on their interest in basketball. Their board realizes these things and therefore prioritizes basketball. Therefore, they pay their coach $3+ million and win national championships, but it has nothing to do with the theater head president and if you traded Leahy for national championship winner, Donohue, it does not result in an upward swing.

I have no idea, moreover, whether the lay presidents at some of the other Catholic schools have anything to do with their basketball success or if it just happens that those places have other elements like fans and alums in place who can move things forward absent an active president.

I don't know enough about the situation at Villanova to comment, but I can offer another scenario, the one at Providence College. They were in a very similar position to the one BC is in now, a President who didn't care. The new President has done a ton to emphasize athletics in general, but specifically bball and hockey and the results have shown. PC did a complete overhaul of their hockey facility and are breaking ground soon on a new basketball facility. They pay well more than market for Cooley (take that however you'd like), but their has been a considerable uptick in athletics at PC since the current president took over.

I don't know enough about the Presidents role at BC or the Board of Trustees role to say anything definitively. I simply find it strange that all of these other comparable schools (lets just use Wake and Northwestern for now) are able to go out and raise money for new facilities and BC cant ? There has to be something getting in the way, again idk if its Leahy or not. If Leahy (and corners) claim the athletic department is operating at a $12mm loss annually, then you would have to think schools like Wake/NW have similar dynamics, yet can still build and commit to athletics.

[eagle9903]

I don't know enough about the situation at Villanova to comment, but I can offer another scenario, the one at Providence College. They were in a very similar position to the one BC is in now, a President who didn't care. The new President has done a ton to emphasize athletics in general, but specifically bball and hockey and the results have shown. PC did a complete overhaul of their hockey facility and are breaking ground soon on a new basketball facility. They pay well more than market for Cooley (take that however you'd like), but their has been a considerable uptick in athletics at PC since the current president took over.

I don't know enough about the Presidents role at BC or the Board of Trustees role to say anything definitively. I simply find it strange that all of these other comparable schools (lets just use Wake and Northwestern for now) are able to go out and raise money for new facilities and BC cant ? There has to be something getting in the way, again idk if its Leahy or not. If Leahy (and corners) claim the athletic department is operating at a $12mm loss annually, then you would have to think schools like Wake/NW have similar dynamics, yet can still build and commit to athletics.

Oh, I think it is certainly possible, just that even replacing the rotting head is no panacea.

[HJS]

Second, there is absolutely no guarantee that a change will improve things. Leahy was fine until GDF lost his mind. He was never actively supportive of the revenue sports in any kind of forward thinking way, with the obvious and gigantic exception of being front and center on the ACC move, but he didn't seem to negatively interfere when we had a first proactive, later insane athletic director. I think he'd likely fall back into that role if we hadn't hired the world's emptiest suit, Master Bates, although Leahy may have become trigger shy after the latter day GFD parade of embarrassments.

While I agree that simply replacing Chris Crane will not necessarily cure all that ails BC athletics, it should be noted that Leahy was solely responsible for the uninspiring (and in many ways predictable) hiring of the Michigan Man. Many could argue that Bates' emptisuitism is precisely what Leahy wanted. At the end of the day, there is no indication from anyone in a leadership position that success in athletics is even something they desire... that is primarily an indictment of the President at the BOT. At this point, winning games are pure happenstance.

[westcoastbernie]

I know I caught some crap when I posted on the 2017 coaching thread about BC and Norheast connections, but clealry if you are talking about a president of the university, especially if athletics is a part of the equation, thee has to be a connection to BC. Th president at Loyola of Baltimore seems to fit that bill but bear in the mind the best president the school had in the last 100 years was the former president of LeMoyne. Lots of things go into a presidential search, the ability to fund raise and increase the endowment is #1 or #2 with increasing the academic reputation of the university right there as well. What you need is a president who understands that D1 sports is an asset to a college, not a necessary evil. Leahy I think falls into the latter area, whereas Fr. Monan understood the benefit of major sports.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that although Fr. Monan embraced athletics, he held it in check and demanded that the academic profile of the school remain at its forefront. They always praised the graduation rates of the players and we all know the long history of admissions and athletics having their fair share of moments. But I will give Fr. Monan credit as he was in charge when Lower campus was reshaped. The 'plex was built early in his tenure, the first expansion of Alumni took place under him, Conte was built, O'Neil Library came on board, Newton campus was purchased Lower campus housing all expanded and the university upticked from a commuter school to a national university. Having #22 roll through in the process didn't hurt either.

If the athletic program ultimately rolls to the president, then the president is responsible for its results. Leahy gets high marks for further increasing the academics at BC, making it a first tier academic school in the ACC and #31 in national universities, ranking it right along with Wake Forest, Michigan, NYU, U of Rochester, William & Mary, Georgia Tech, Brandeis and UNC Chapel Hill. Those are the schools that rank just above and below BC in the latest US News results. Next to Georgetown it is the highest ranked Jesuit school in the country. He also is responsible, like it or not, for BC being in the ACC. But the football and basketball programs have all regressed over the last 10 years. Physical plant has deteriorated and fund raising for athletics is at best questionable. The revenue producing sports are mid-major in coaching ability, overall athletic talent and obviously physical plant. Other than the Yawkey Center, which some people say was obsolete the day it opened, BC has put nothing into physical upgrades of its facilities since Leahy has been there.

I'm not sure if the Jesuits have an age 70 rule. Some orders have a rule that their professors/administrators must retire at 70. Not sure if that is the case here, but if it is, by attriiton you will see the whole infrastructure of the athletic department change almost on its own. Bates is gone in 12 1/2 months if not sooner; Jimmy Mac is out in 24 months if not sooner; Leahy is retired in 24 months as he will age off the presidency and Dazzler will be on baord with 2 years remaining on his contract, which will be much easier to swallow. I think we are in this mess for a t least 2 more years but the pressure will be on the BOT to being a young visionary president who sees athletics as a tool to use to increase visibility and promote the school and hence will hire people who can run it successfully and who also "get" what BC sports are all about. As I mentioned on another board, the new AD has a boat load of issues confronting him/her. That job will be monumental.

[eagle9903]

While I agree that simply replacing Chris Crane will not necessarily cure all that ails BC athletics, it should be noted that Leahy was solely responsible for the uninspiring (and in many ways predictable) hiring of the Michigan Man. Many could argue that Bates' emptisuitism is precisely what Leahy wanted. At the end of the day, there is no indication from anyone in a leadership position that success in athletics is even something they desire... that is primarily an indictment of the President at the BOT. At this point, winning games are pure happenstance.

I doubt he is "solely responsible" for hiring Bates, except to the extent that by virtue of being president he is responsible for the actions taken during his presidency. I'm sure latter day GDF pissed him off and I certainly don't doubt that revenue sports are not a priority to him so the pissed offedness may have led to reaction.

I'm making/trying to make two points here:

1) Anyone.But.Crane, as you acknowledge; and
2) There are a number of comparisons that could lead to forward thinking with regards to athletics including but not limited to: a) visionary president standing alone; 2) visionary AD hired by a president who allows the AD to act; 3) the (very logical) creation of an athletics oversight committee on the BOT that would be the guiding force behind hiring an AD. Conversely, there are a lot of pitfall scenarios.

[HJS]

I doubt he is "solely responsible" for hiring Bates, except to the extent that by virtue of being president he is responsible for the actions taken during his presidency.

I can agree with most of what you wrote, but is there really any question that Leahy made the hire of Bates? I know Sullivan was involved, but the selection was 100% Leahy. There is that whole Spotlight feature on how the BOT has no oversight of the athletic department.

[eagle9903]

It says:

Critics of BC’s management of athletics contend the board of trustees has granted Leahy outsized power over the department by exerting little influence of its own. The board, for instance, did not vote on BC’s move to the ACC.

Gregory Barber, a former trustee and one of the largest donors to BC athletics, walked away in frustration after giving $2.5 million to endow the football coach’s position and $1 million to help build the athletic department’s Yawkey Center.

Barber, who declined to comment for this story, previously said he tried unsuccessfully as a trustee to persuade the board to create a committee to oversee athletics, such as those that exist at ACC schools such as Notre Dame and Syracuse.

John F. Fish, chairman of BC’s trustees, said the board “devotes attention to all matters pertaining to the university in a balanced and appropriate manner. The executive committee discusses athletics issues regularly and the board gets periodic updates on BC athletics. Boston College is clearly in excellent hands under the leadership of Father Leahy.’

[hansen]

Father McGowan or bust

[ILikeBC]

Father McGowan or bust

[Max Quad]

McShane is 1 year younger than Leahy. While I wouldn't be against a new president ever 5 years, it is highly unlikely that the powers that be would be on board. They clearly prefer to choose someone who can stay in the role as a steady-hand for the preeminent Jesuit institution.

While there may always be some late 40s priest kicking around in the lower administration somewhere in Wisconsin that gets tapped... I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately is someone already involved in BC's administration. For instance, looking at my favorite link: http://www.bc.edu/offices/stserv/academ ... ation.html, there are anumber SJs listed. Those that would be considered on the "younger-side" are:
Daniel Hendrickson (https://www.creighton.edu/office-presid ... -biography)
Matt Malone (http://americamagazine.org/users/matt-malone-sj)
Jack Butler (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... 02010.html)
Terence Devino (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... bc-vp.html)
Gregory Kalscheur (http://www.bc.edu/publications/chronicl ... 1224721854)
Thomas Stegman (http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/campus- ... named.html)

No Research 1 institution is going to hire a president who hasn't earned a research based terminal degree (PhD) and at least a few publications. It is also important that he have held faculty rank somewhere for at least a time.

I would not be surprised if the next president of Boston College is a lay man (or woman).

THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE FREE.

[HJS]

McShane is 1 year younger than Leahy. While I wouldn't be against a new president ever 5 years, it is highly unlikely that the powers that be would be on board. They clearly prefer to choose someone who can stay in the role as a steady-hand for the preeminent Jesuit institution.

While there may always be some late 40s priest kicking around in the lower administration somewhere in Wisconsin that gets tapped... I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately is someone already involved in BC's administration. For instance, looking at my favorite link: http://www.bc.edu/offices/stserv/academ ... ation.html, there are anumber SJs listed. Those that would be considered on the "younger-side" are:
Daniel Hendrickson (https://www.creighton.edu/office-presid ... -biography)
Matt Malone (http://americamagazine.org/users/matt-malone-sj)
Jack Butler (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... 02010.html)
Terence Devino (http://www.bc.edu/offices/pubaf/news/20 ... bc-vp.html)
Gregory Kalscheur (http://www.bc.edu/publications/chronicl ... 1224721854)
Thomas Stegman (http://www.bc.edu/bc-web/bcnews/campus- ... named.html)

No Research 1 institution is going to hire a president who hasn't earned a research based terminal degree (PhD) and at least a few publications. It is also important that he have held faculty rank somewhere for at least a time.

I would not be surprised if the next president of Boston College is a lay man (or woman).

THEY HATE US BECAUSE WE'RE FREE.

I don't know the first thing about the bizarre world of academia, so I will happily defer. That said, I disagree on BC hiring a lay man/woman. I think the powers that be like BC to wallow in their provinciality and enjoy the overt religiousness that comes with a Jesuit President. I don't think that actually is a bad thing.

[Eaglekeeper]

Please, not another overly conservative anti sports Jesuit from the Midwest!

[HJS]

The weird thing here is that it really shouldn't be Leahy's call or that of anyone who replaces him. For so many reasons, it is better for a university President to not have to deal with Athletics. There is merit to the idea that sports detracts from an academic institution's mission. A college President should be singularly focused on the advancement of that mission.

Having a BOT committee whose job it is to oversee Athletics has always been the best idea. While I have little faith in the unimpressive Trustee that litter out Board, I still think they would have a better chance at hiring a decent AD/coach or properly determine a program's success than someone who spent college avoiding people by going to a seminary.

[eagle9903]

The weird thing here is that it really shouldn't be Leahy's call or that of anyone who replaces him. For so many reasons, it is better for a university President to not have to deal with Athletics. There is merit to the idea that sports detracts from an academic institution's mission. A college President should be singularly focused on the advancement of that mission.

Having a BOT committee whose job it is to oversee Athletics has always been the best idea. While I have little faith in the unimpressive Trustee that litter out Board, I still think they would have a better chance at hiring a decent AD/coach or properly determine a program's success than someone who spent college avoiding people by going to a seminary.

I agree.

[Tom Dooder]

It's really unbelievable there isn't an Athletics committee. School is D2, D3 and even NAIA have Athletics committees on the board.

[eaglecaddy]

I have yet to find full-time work as a moderator since IB got me fired. Would be happy to be the next el presidente of Boston College (first non-jebby).