EagleOutsider.com

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

HJS {l Wrote}:From what I can tell... our Board has only 2 Trustees under 50. One is a priest and one is a chick.

Apparently, GDF has been talking to the press: http://www.repubblica.it/rubriche/la-st ... ref=search

BCMurt09 {l Wrote}:

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

Are our athletic admissions standards tougher than many ACC schools? Yes, but they are not even close to the same standards as a normal BC student goes through and they are similar to Duke. They are no where close to Ivy League or Ivy League sports. Admissions' biggest concern is that a kid can get by. If any athlete applies with a fourth-grade reading level, he's not getting in. Most coaches know if a kid will get through. I can't think of admissions screwing with a coach on a verbal since Aboushi. And the joke was on the admissions office there, because he went to UVA and managed to stay eligible.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:From what I can tell... our Board has only 2 Trustees under 50. One is a priest and one is a chick.

Apparently, GDF has been talking to the press: http://www.repubblica.it/rubriche/la-st ... ref=search

This was funny.

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:a few things after reading through the posts:

1. If Hoff is correct than the focus of the article will be Bates, Dazz and Christian. There will likely be quotes attributed to Bates, but Dazz and Christian cant say a thing. If they did say something critical, they would be idiots. It will be fun to see the response. I think Bates knows that given what has transpired this year, that this piece is fair game. Christian, I still don't have a read on, I cant tell if he is a hot head or not. Which brings us to the Dazzler. If this article in any way points the finger at him for being a brutal coach or recruiter, he will flip his marbles. He is the thinnest skinned person alive. He also doesn't come across as the brightest guy alive, so it is entirely possible that he responds to the criticism in some public way, which would be great theatre. He is still pissed off about some imaginary articles that he thought were out there criticizing him in the middle of last years melt down. At one of his post game pressers he got super pissed off and essentially told all the writers in the room that he would get the last laugh on them for all the criticism he had taken, when the program had turned around. Nobody could find the existence of even one negative article. If he actually gets called out in this article, he may go off the reservation.

2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

3. I doubt the article even gets a mention of the BOT. I wish Hoehler would name them individually though. I want them to take a hit.

Hoff {l Wrote}:YEA I JUST FORGOT TO COACH ALL OF A SUDDEN!

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:... Do we really think that *** ******* was working on the theory of relativity while at the heights?

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:

BCMurt09 {l Wrote}:

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

I was going to make this point as well. Maybe Leahy is happy being in that range, and as a result, does enough to maintain that standing. In the same light, he was probably fine with the state of the athletic department in 2007 and made similar decisions, why change when this is fine, not realizing that times were changing and additional investment was needed. It can also (at least partially) explain why the endowment has seen little growth compared to other peer schools.

The fact of the matter is, Leahy can't be praised for the success (and in reality, the stagnation) of academics and the failure of athletics. Any CEO of a business that has a major unit, one that is front and center and generates a large chunk of revenue, is going to be held accountable when said unit underperforms, regardless of what anything else is doing. While Leahy has done his part in raising the profile of the school academically, I bet you can make a point that athletics has done just as big a part in increasing the profile of the school nationally.

Its really quite simple, but somebody needs to ask Leahy why similar schools (from an academic perspective) such as ND, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford all find it important to remain viable in athletics and why they spend money upgrading facilities and giving the Athletic Department the resources they need. What makes him think that BC is special, and can underfund but compete with schools like these (I'm not even going to try to add the baby rapists to this discussion). Again, maybe its arrogance, maybe he thinks the people that come to BC are special and can overcome everything. Whatever his reasoning is, its dead wrong.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:

BCMurt09 {l Wrote}:

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:a few things after reading through the posts:
2. As to Leahy and his going unchecked for so long. I don't know him, but assuming that he has had a hand in the deemphasizing of sports, then I want him retired tomorrow. However he is president of Boston College...as in the whole school...not the athletic department. The school has improved in national recognition under his watch, they just raised 100 million dollars..I would guess that outside of athletics he may actually be doing a good job.

I posted this in BCI as well. And it's not that I think Leahy doesn't deserve some credit. I mean, he probably doesn't but whatever. But BC has remained solidly between #31-35 in US News rankings for 10+ years now. So it's not like the academic profile of the school has gone off also.

You could really apply the cluster tuck of athletics to the whole school. Content with being mediocre. And that is on the schools President and BOT.

I was going to make this point as well. Maybe Leahy is happy being in that range, and as a result, does enough to maintain that standing. In the same light, he was probably fine with the state of the athletic department in 2007 and made similar decisions, why change when this is fine, not realizing that times were changing and additional investment was needed. It can also (at least partially) explain why the endowment has seen little growth compared to other peer schools.

The fact of the matter is, Leahy can't be praised for the success (and in reality, the stagnation) of academics and the failure of athletics. Any CEO of a business that has a major unit, one that is front and center and generates a large chunk of revenue, is going to be held accountable when said unit underperforms, regardless of what anything else is doing. While Leahy has done his part in raising the profile of the school academically, I bet you can make a point that athletics has done just as big a part in increasing the profile of the school nationally.

Its really quite simple, but somebody needs to ask Leahy why similar schools (from an academic perspective) such as ND, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Stanford all find it important to remain viable in athletics and why they spend money upgrading facilities and giving the Athletic Department the resources they need. What makes him think that BC is special, and can underfund but compete with schools like these (I'm not even going to try to add the baby rapists to this discussion). Again, maybe its arrogance, maybe he thinks the people that come to BC are special and can overcome everything. Whatever his reasoning is, its dead wrong.

I don't know if it makes any sense to say even a small climb in the US reports ranking is stagnation. Without doing much googling, BC was 37th in 2005, 34th in 2010, 30th in 2016s, so BC has moved up 7 places in a decade jumping schools like Wisconsin, Case Western, NYU, UNC, William and Mary and Brandeis. I don't know specifically what has improved because the breakdowns aren't available without crossing the pay way, but in 2005 BC was unsurprisingly weak in faculty support and punches above its weight in admission percentage (which has actually dropped). I think the climb could continue into the mid twenties, but it probably isn't going below that. I also don't know what if any stock should be put in those ratings, which seem somewhat questionable for lots of reasons. where is the endowment comparison coming from and what are peer schools in that regard?

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

hinghameagle {l Wrote}:Which brings us to the Dazzler. If this article in any way points the finger at him for being a brutal coach or recruiter, he will flip his marbles. He is the thinnest skinned person alive. He also doesn't come across as the brightest guy alive, so it is entirely possible that he responds to the criticism in some public way, which would be great theatre.

BCMurt09 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

I think the answer is Williams, Amherst, and Tufts. I think Bowdoin and Midd are next.

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

BCMurt09 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

I know a recruit who was accepted to a non-revenue sports program who could barely read. This is legit too. The admissions are not ivy league and they are no where close to ivy league. It's time we stop using the myth of epic proportions as justification for sucking. This ain't Harvard or MIT or even a top 3 Nescac school, its more along the lines of UNC and Michigan, both of which seem to have no problems getting talented athletes.

I will hand it to Gene on this though, he did do a great job of selling tall tales about admissions standards to the uninformed public (to put it kindly).

Could we list the Top 3 NESCAC schools?

Colby ain't in there, for reasons that you have so kindly and unwittingly demonstrated to the board over the years

Thanks for the softball

I think the answer is Williams, Amherst, and Tufts. I think Bowdoin and Midd are next.

Ding ding ding, spot on including the Bowdoin and Midd astericts

jhiggi02 {l Wrote}:In the dawghouse. She saw me click on one of tre's Russian Roullete posts and I lost. She now has her doubts. Thanks TRE

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

HJS {l Wrote}:

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

You read it here... but it was from someone like Corners and I immediately replied dismissing the absurdity. There is a lot to critique Leahy on, but the financial well-being of the institution is not among them.

I would've linked the thread, but alas... the search functionality doesn't seem to be working.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:I have read it on here, that many comp schools have grown their endowments at a much more aggressive rate when compared to BC. Ill never be able to remember who said it, but when looking at comp schools and how they have grown the endowment BC does lack (BC 1.2 in '05 to 2.2 in '15; ND 3.6 in '05 to 8.6 in '15; NW 4.2 to 10.2; Vandy 2.6 to 4.1, Duke 3.8 to 7.3; Stanford 12.2 to 22.2). These are obv just numbers, so I can't speak to the nature of gains (additional giving vs fund performance).

You read it here... but it was from someone like Corners and I immediately replied dismissing the absurdity. There is a lot to critique Leahy on, but the financial well-being of the institution is not among them.

I would've linked the thread, but alas... the search functionality doesn't seem to be working.

shut up hansen

ATLeagle {l Wrote}:

commavegarage {l Wrote}:^ i didnt watch but the admissions are ivy level?

ool.

yeah, rakim and corey raji were debating between BC and Princeton

Are our athletic admissions standards tougher than many ACC schools? Yes, but they are not even close to the same standards as a normal BC student goes through and they are similar to Duke. They are no where close to Ivy League or Ivy League sports. Admissions' biggest concern is that a kid can get by. If any athlete applies with a fourth-grade reading level, he's not getting in. Most coaches know if a kid will get through. I can't think of admissions screwing with a coach on a verbal since Aboushi. And the joke was on the admissions office there, because he went to UVA and managed to stay eligible.

Logitano {l Wrote}: not named Gabelli?

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:My sources are telling me that the hit piece is actually going to be about Justin for letting this place go to shit, and will include quotes from BigPete to the effect that this places sucks anyway.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Quotes from Big Pete are protected intellectual property, just saying.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:My sources are telling me that the hit piece is actually going to be about Justin for letting this place go to shit, and will include quotes from BigPete to the effect that this places sucks anyway.

will there be a subsection on PRIDE????

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Quotes from Big Pete are protected intellectual property, just saying.

flyingelvii {l Wrote}:I'm sure that was the only reason.