We should all pray Al is the head coach for the next 5 years

[Logitano]

I have come around to the Al is not that bad because the regular season results have been good side. I also agree that I do not want Smiling Gene to hire his replacement. I just will never accept this Al is a "Great" coach nonsense. Or the ultimate bullshit call of "well he does so much more with less." He actually or someone on his staff does a great job of identifying talent. If you want to say these players do suck then wouldn't you want Al to stop bringing in shitty players? That is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

[branchinator]

I have come around to the Al is not that bad because the regular season results have been good side. I also agree that I do not want Smiling Gene to hire his replacement. I just will never accept this Al is a "Great" coach nonsense. Or the ultimate bullshit call of "well he does so much more with less." He actually or someone on his staff does a great job of identifying talent. If you want to say these players do suck then wouldn't you want Al to stop bringing in shitty players? That is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Al certainly isn't bad. How many coaches that BC could realistically hire could take the BC program to the dance 7 times in one decade? However, we've missed some golden opportunities in the tournament and have narrowly avoided some really embarrassing losses with our top 2 teams this decade (Southern Utah in 2001 / Pacific in 2006). If getting to the tournament is all you care about, then Skinner is your coach. If you want to be able to experience the excitement of the 2nd weekend, then he probably isn't. I'm at the point where I think Skinner may have plateau'd but I'm absolutely horrified of letting Gene pick a replacement so I'd rather we just stick with him.

[Eagledom]

"make the elite 8 all the time"?????. How about just once? Nice jump there to try to establish an argument, though?

Recently, I asked you if your opinion of Al Skinner would be changed if his highest seeded tournament team had gone to the Elite Eight instead of losing in the round of 32. You said no.

So, what side of the argument are you taking? That one Elite 8 appearance would change your opinion of Al or one Elite 8 appearance wouldn't change your opinion of Al?

one elite 8 = "making the elite 8 all the time"? You are all over the place. I was mocking your exaggeration of others' arguments. People think Al has reached his ceiling...you interpret that as "they want a coach that makes the elite 8 all the time".

[Eagledom]

I have come around to the Al is not that bad because the regular season results have been good side. I also agree that I do not want Smiling Gene to hire his replacement. I just will never accept this Al is a "Great" coach nonsense. Or the ultimate bullshit call of "well he does so much more with less." He actually or someone on his staff does a great job of identifying talent. If you want to say these players do suck then wouldn't you want Al to stop bringing in shitty players? That is just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Al certainly isn't bad. How many coaches that BC could realistically hire could take the BC program to the dance 7 times in one decade? However, we've missed some golden opportunities in the tournament and have narrowly avoided some really embarrassing losses with our top 2 teams this decade (Southern Utah in 2001 / Pacific in 2006). If getting to the tournament is all you care about, then Skinner is your coach. If you want to be able to experience the excitement of the 2nd weekend, then he probably isn't. I'm at the point where I think Skinner may have plateau'd but I'm absolutely horrified of letting Gene pick a replacement so I'd rather we just stick with him.

that is a loser's mentality.

[EaglesTalon]

"make the elite 8 all the time"?????. How about just once? Nice jump there to try to establish an argument, though?

Recently, I asked you if your opinion of Al Skinner would be changed if his highest seeded tournament team had gone to the Elite Eight instead of losing in the round of 32. You said no.

So, what side of the argument are you taking? That one Elite 8 appearance would change your opinion of Al or one Elite 8 appearance wouldn't change your opinion of Al?

one elite 8 = "making the elite 8 all the time"? You are all over the place. I was mocking your exaggeration of others' arguments. People think Al has reached his ceiling...you interpret that as "they want a coach that makes the elite 8 all the time".

Right now, you say you want Al Skinner to be fired.

If Al Skinner had taken his highest rated NCAA team to the Elite Eight, would you still want him fired?

[Eagledom]

"make the elite 8 all the time"?????. How about just once? Nice jump there to try to establish an argument, though?

Recently, I asked you if your opinion of Al Skinner would be changed if his highest seeded tournament team had gone to the Elite Eight instead of losing in the round of 32. You said no.

So, what side of the argument are you taking? That one Elite 8 appearance would change your opinion of Al or one Elite 8 appearance wouldn't change your opinion of Al?

one elite 8 = "making the elite 8 all the time"? You are all over the place. I was mocking your exaggeration of others' arguments. People think Al has reached his ceiling...you interpret that as "they want a coach that makes the elite 8 all the time".

Right now, you say you want Al Skinner to be fired.

If Al Skinner had taken his highest rated NCAA team to the Elite Eight, would you still want him fired?

if grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa.

[EaglesTalon]

Your reluctance to answer an incredibly simple question says all I need to know.

[Eagledom]

Your reluctance to answer an incredibly simple question says all I need to know.

I already answered your incredibly stupid question.

[eepstein0]

Got to agree here, that was a terrible hypothetical question.

[Eagledom]

Got to agree here, that was a terrible hypothetical question.

all of his questions are hypthetical, because in REALITY, Al is the definition of mediocrity.

[eepstein0]

Got to agree here, that was a terrible hypothetical question.

all of his questions are hypthetical, because in REALITY, Al is the definition of mediocrity.

Here's the deal, I'm giving Al until the start of the conference season including the Clemson game to figure this shit out. If this team continues to play horribly, it might be time to consider going in a different direction. I really do hope Al suceeds because he seems like a nice guy and someone who's good for BC Basketball, but this is a results oriented position.

[Eagledom]

Got to agree here, that was a terrible hypothetical question.

all of his questions are hypthetical, because in REALITY, Al is the definition of mediocrity.

Here's the deal, I'm giving Al until the start of the conference season including the Clemson game to figure this shit out. If this team continues to play horribly, it might be time to consider going in a different direction. I really do hope Al suceeds because he seems like a nice guy and someone who's good for BC Basketball, but this is a results oriented position.

that's fine. But we have lost 4 of our first 10 games to Harvard, URI, UNI, and St. Joe's. Don't hold your breath for a magical turnaround.

[EaglesTalon]

Routinely finishing in the top third of TWO of the strongest college basketball conferences in the country = definition of mediocrity.

gotcha.

[eepstein0]

Got to agree here, that was a terrible hypothetical question.

all of his questions are hypthetical, because in REALITY, Al is the definition of mediocrity.

Here's the deal, I'm giving Al until the start of the conference season including the Clemson game to figure this shit out. If this team continues to play horribly, it might be time to consider going in a different direction. I really do hope Al suceeds because he seems like a nice guy and someone who's good for BC Basketball, but this is a results oriented position.

that's fine. But we have lost 4 of our first 10 games to Harvard, URI, UNI, and St. Joe's. Don't hold your breath for a magical turnaround.

Get healthy, fine some defensive scheme that works (2-3 zone, 3/4 trap, I really don't give a damn Al is the coach figure something out because we can't play m2m) and actually run our flex the way it's designed to run and we'll be fine. I've had some time to think after the URI game and have backed off the ledge but don't go out and lose to Bryant or UMass.

And I'm putting another pre-emptive strike out here, UMass is not good, they got blasted already by Cornell. St. Joe's also got blasted by Cornell.

[eepstein0]

Routinely finishing in the top third of TWO of the strongest college basketball conferences in the country = definition of mediocrity.

gotcha.

Regular season performance is above average. Post-season (NCAA Tourney) performance is medicore at best.

[Eagledom]

Routinely finishing in the top third of TWO of the strongest college basketball conferences in the country = definition of mediocrity.

gotcha.

When you top off those "great seasons" with repeated first and second round exits in the tourney....that's exactly what it is. Glad you are happy with "top third regular season finishes". Really high standards.

[HJS]

GDF is the one holding back on coaches' salaries. I don't see how this is under debate.

Proportionately, we paid our head coaches twice as much under Gladchuck as we did GDF.

It wouldn't be under debate if Gladchuck and GDF both worked for the same University president.

Unless you've got some intel that suggest what GDF is authorized to spend on coaches salaries and what is spent on coaches salaries are in completely different ballparks.

I don't believe Leahy gets involved in the athletic department... at all. It is a little world unto Gene. The only people with any influence over athletics is the Board. The same Board who was ripshit over GDF not offering Toby more money to keep him from NCS. The idea that Leahy spends 5 seconds on ANYTHING involving the Athletic Department is laughable. The man couldn't be more detached.

so, you're saying that if the Board authorizes GDF to spend x on coaches, GDF just divides by two and spends only half of x?

I don't think the board tells GDF anything on how he can spend his budget. So, I don't think they tell him to spend X on a coach, just like I don't think they tell him to send no band/pep band/full band to a bowl game. If Spazerelli went undefeated and had us playing for the National Title and was approached by his alma mater to replace Paterno, if GDF wanted to keep him, BC could pay up. BC can pretty much pay as much as any ACC or NBE school for any of its coaches. GDF chooses not to.

[pick6pedro]

I don't think the board tells GDF anything on how he can spend his budget. So, I don't think they tell him to spend X on a coach, just like I don't think they tell him to send no band/pep band/full band to a bowl game. If Spazerelli went undefeated and had us playing for the National Title and was approached by his alma mater to replace Paterno, if GDF wanted to keep him, BC could pay up. BC can pretty much pay as much as any ACC or NBE school for any of its coaches. GDF chooses not to.

You actually believe the board doesn't tell GDF "anything on how he can spend his budget"? Really? Maybe they don't say X, but as the ones who actually control the cash flow, they certainly give him parameters and input. Giving parameters is clearly being involved and at the very least has an influence on decisions he makes (whether the band traveling or coach salaries). GDF does not write these checks out of his personal bank account.

Proportionately, we paid our head coaches twice as much under Gladchuck as we did GDF.

Proof? This has no legs without it.

JOB, Coughlin, Millbury... they were all well-compensated at the end of their time here (Millbury's beginning and end just happen to be one and the same).

Why are you using the fact that these guys were well-compensated at the end of their career (again, speculative without #'s and comparisons with the market) to show why BC won't pay an incoming coach well (assuming he deserves said payment)?

[HJS]

I posted "at the end of their time at BC" because TC and JOB received raises just before they left. I don't think they started out being top paid coaches, but when they left they were making bank.

As for proof, prove that they weren't well paid for that time.

[pick6pedro]

I posted "at the end of their time at BC" because TC and JOB received raises just before they left. I don't think they started out being top paid coaches, but when they left they were making bank.

OK so I'll repeat: what does this have to do with a salary for an new incoming coach?

As for proof, prove that they weren't well paid for that time.

It was your assertion - hence your burden of proof, not mine. By your response I'll take it you have none.

[EaglesTalon]

As for proof, prove that they weren't well paid for that time.

Gladchuck gave his coaches access to the secret Boston College time machine, so that they could go back in time and open up savings accounts in their name hundreds of years ago. If you don't believe me, prove that there was no time machine.

[HJS]

Holy crap... you guys really don't believe that BC increased the pay for Coughlin after he turned down the Giants gig. Seriously? They expanded the goddamn stadium for the guy. You don't think they gave him a pay increase??? Do you forget that time or were you too young to remember it? And what about when JOB was renegotiating his deal after the Admissions Scandal (where he had a new deal in place, blabbed to the media, and the had it revoked)? Do you guys deny those events happened???

Most of this shit (conveniently for you) predates the interweb (at least in Coughlin's case) or requires a subscription (in the JOB) case.

[pick6pedro]

Holy crap... you guys really don't believe that BC increased the pay for Coughlin after he turned down the Giants gig. Seriously? They expanded the goddamn stadium for the guy. You don't think they gave him a pay increase??? Do you forget that time or were you too young to remember it? And what about when JOB was renegotiating his deal after the Admissions Scandal (where he had a new deal in place, blabbed to the media, and the had it revoked)? Do you guys deny those events happened???

Most of this shit (conveniently for you) predates the interweb (at least in Coughlin's case) or requires a subscription (in the JOB) case.

Congrats on not following the conversation at all.

[HJS]

There is a Jan 6, 1993 article in the Boston Globe about Coughlin receiving a "significant raise" for turning down the NY Giants head coaching job.
http://nl.newsbank.com/cgi-bin/ngate/BG ... ed=PLAYERS FEEL REASSURED&ext_theme=bg&pubcode=BG

There is a Dec 8, 2006 article in the Boston Globe where a trustee makes comments that money for coaching was always available to Gene, but Gene decided not to use it.
http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/f ... er_obrien/

[pick6pedro]

There is a Jan 6, 1993 article in the Boston Globe about Coughlin receiving a "significant raise" for turning down the NY Giants head coaching job.
http://nl.newsbank.com/cgi-bin/ngate/BG ... ed=PLAYERS FEEL REASSURED&ext_theme=bg&pubcode=BG

There is a Dec 8, 2006 article in the Boston Globe where a trustee makes comments that money for coaching was always available to Gene, but Gene decided not to use it.
http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/f ... er_obrien/

1st link: who cares? that was never up for debate.
2nd link: that's not what the trustee says.

[HJS]

"One of the reasons I'm disappointed is that [$3.5 million endowment] provides funds to prevent this from happening," Barber said. "It's to make a statement that BC has the resources to play at the highest level in college football, and if it costs a lot of money to hire a coach, then that endowment is there for that purpose.

"I'm worried that the football world is going to question our commitment because we let him go," Barber added. "It's a lot easier to keep people than go find new ones, especially when you have a good guy."

As part of its study on college coaches' salaries, USA Today recently reported O'Brien's annual compensation package to be worth $733,626, based upon tax returns filed by the school. BC officials, however, have disputed the figure as being inaccurate.

"I'd have to say that BC, somewhere in the administration, someone was ambivalent about whether he stayed or whether he left," Barber said. "They made no effort to extend his contract. They made no effort to change his compensation."

Once again... BC has the resources to pay a coach in order to compete at the highest level. GDF, not the trustees, makes the decisions regarding who to pay and how much. You asked for me to back up my previous statements that GDF has resources that he decides not to use. Here is your proof. If you are going to continue to dispute this, you better come back with something more than Doubting Thomas conjecture of your previous posts.

[bignick33]

If only we'd paid as much as we should have, we wouldn't be having this debate.

[pick6pedro]

"One of the reasons I'm disappointed is that [$3.5 million endowment] provides funds to prevent this from happening," Barber said. "It's to make a statement that BC has the resources to play at the highest level in college football, and if it costs a lot of money to hire a coach, then that endowment is there for that purpose.

"I'm worried that the football world is going to question our commitment because we let him go," Barber added. "It's a lot easier to keep people than go find new ones, especially when you have a good guy."

As part of its study on college coaches' salaries, USA Today recently reported O'Brien's annual compensation package to be worth $733,626, based upon tax returns filed by the school. BC officials, however, have disputed the figure as being inaccurate.

"I'd have to say that BC, somewhere in the administration, someone was ambivalent about whether he stayed or whether he left," Barber said. "They made no effort to extend his contract. They made no effort to change his compensation."

Once again... BC has the resources to pay a coach in order to compete at the highest level. GDF, not the trustees, makes the decisions regarding who to pay and how much. You asked for me to back up my previous statements that GDF has resources that he decides not to use. Here is your proof. If you are going to continue to dispute this, you better come back with something more than Doubting Thomas conjecture of your previous posts.

All this guy said was the money was there to keep TOB. If the TOB situation came down to money only, you may have a point; too bad there were other factors. And how many trustees are there? The answer is more than one. This one guy has been documented as having problems with GDF. It's not hard to believe others may too, of course. But this is far from proof that Gene won't use resources in the future under the right circumstances simply because he didn't use it to keep a "good guy". These trustees also have the power to do something about the whole thing - yet they have not.

If your idea of fiscal management involves using money on an average commodity just because you have it, then you must be broke.

[HJS]

All this guy said was the money was there to keep TOB. If the TOB situation came down to money only, you may have a point; too bad there were other factors. And how many trustees are there? The answer is more than one. This one guy has been documented as having problems with GDF. It's not hard to believe others may too, of course. But this is far from proof that Gene won't use resources in the future under the right circumstances simply because he didn't use it to keep a "good guy". These trustees also have the power to do something about the whole thing - yet they have not. If your idea of fiscal management involves using money on an average commodity just because you have it, then you must be broke.

Proof? This has no legs without it.

[pick6pedro]

All this guy said was the money was there to keep TOB. If the TOB situation came down to money only, you may have a point; too bad there were other factors. And how many trustees are there? The answer is more than one. This one guy has been documented as having problems with GDF. It's not hard to believe others may too, of course. But this is far from proof that Gene won't use resources in the future under the right circumstances simply because he didn't use it to keep a "good guy". These trustees also have the power to do something about the whole thing - yet they have not. If your idea of fiscal management involves using money on an average commodity just because you have it, then you must be broke.

Proof? This has no legs without it.

How cute. You can cut and paste. So you present something that is all about money and I'm on the hook to show it wasn't all about money? Fine.

It's a pretty well known fact that TOB was looking around for a while. And he clearly wasn't recruiting positions that were needed. And he didn't get along with GDF. All good evidence. And of course there's this - right from the horse's mouth:

"Just the whole thing of a state university, the state of North Carolina, a great high school football state, the opportunity to recruit in this part of the country and get back down here, that's the thing that enticed me most," O'Brien said.

"There was never a question in my mind, when I talked to his representation, that he was really interested. It wasn't like this guy was going to ask for the moon, and if we didn't give it he was going to walk away," Fowler said. "It came together pretty quickly as far as that was concerned."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2691537