BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:eagletx {l Wrote}:BCSUPERFAN22 {l Wrote}:eagletx {l Wrote}:TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:this team will lose to yukon
reading through the season prediction thread is high comedy. it's as if many of you didn't watch slaughter last year
I did the same, and it is amazing how many are blind to what has really transpired under Daz...he was so lucky frankly that Murphy experiment worked...since then, the OL, his stock in trade, mind you, has been a disaster (let the "youth" apologists begin). 4 years in he is reliant on "rental QB hope and a prayer", with year 5 outlook no more stable at that position than 3 or 4 years ago.
He came in with a reputation as a recruiting wizard, which clearly was fashioned on Meyers' coattails; in 4 years, just look at the comparative ranking of BC's classes vis a vis the rest of the ACC.
I guess hope springs eternal...at hiring, Addazio said BC would be an ACC championship contender in 5 years...last year, we were the worst of the bunch. anyone willing to bet today that we might be any better than 8th best team in the entire conference? Anyone willing to commit to the proposition that next year will be a marked improvement.
Arguments that the AD must precede the next coaching change are valid. What Leahy does in that regard is and can be impacted by money, but not by the promises of a bunch of $5k donors....BC has real donors who have the kind of influence to shape the future regardless of who the president is. Frankly, I have no idea what those power brokers think about athletics. But how quickly (or slowly) BC reaches its $200M goal is as good and telling indication as any. $5k donors won't make that happen. Donors who get their names on buildings can.
Your recruiting argument is flat out wrong. Addazio built a reputation as a recruiter not just because of Meyer, but because he was recruiting to actual infrastructure, something he can actually sell. When you have the worst set of facilities in the country and a degree that is, at best, on par with Duke, Stanford, Wake, Vanderbilt, ND, there just isnt a selling point. Firing Addazio isnt going to change that as nobody is recruiting elite talent to this place, its just not going to happen. With that being said, talent isnt the primary issue with this team, its clearly Addazio's archaic system. Whining about subjective rankings by TGOSB, where there is almost no difference between teams 6-14, is just dumb.
You say BC has these apparent donors. Where are they ? Where have they been ? If this was a situation where these "influential donors" had given money in the past (they obviously haven't, just look at the state of the facilities and the general joke that this athletic department is from a lack of staff perspective) and just aren't now because of underperformance, then I would say you had a point, and a new AD should be brought in to sell the program. The donors don't exist. The BC people with money don't care. Unless BC gets creative with some different financing options, this thing is just going to continue to spiral out of control. Meanwhile, Miami just lined up half of the cost of their IPF from a non-alum and will probably break ground years before BC ever does.
BC has plenty of money. Just look at the infrastructure improvements on the campus. The latest fundraising campaign raised a ton of money. As of yet, that money, and those donors, are not committed to athletics. That why the progress to meeting the $200M commitment will be indicative.
Regardless of the current state of comparable facilities the issue is the relative progress this coach is making 4 years into his tenure. If the issue of deficient recruiting relative the rest of the ACC is all a question of facilities, then it doesn't who the HC IS, does it. The dazzler wasn't hired with a parallel commitment made by the AD that there would be facility improvements. He was hired based on his perceived and advertised strenghes, one of which was that he was a strong recruiter. Not that he was a strong recruiter as long as BC developed comparable facilities to the rest of the ACC. Again, Addazio's performance cannot, and should Mr be excused or qualified by some specious argument about facilities. The simple question is how much better or stronger is this program 4 years into his tenure. It was the worst of the bunch last season. As this point this season he is still 0 fer in the ACC, after the worst drubbing in BC conference history.
He blames youth, hostile environment, lack of receiver aggressiveness in his post game presser. No mention of the readily apparent lack of in game adjustments, or the seeming lack of preparation for that opponent yesterday.
Last I checked this was a football message board, not an academic message board. BC does have money to spend on academics infrastructure, they've shown that. They don't have donors (or institutional interest) interested in giving to athletics, they've shown that too. At this point, anyone who complains about TGoSB rankings, and doesn't equate that to the state of facilities at BC, is just blind to the state of college football in 2016. Go take a trip anywhere else n the country, you'll be shocked how many miles BC has fallen behind.
Corners, I'll take your comments with a grain of salt. However, if BC did in fact raise $300mm for athletics (that's not earmarked for the rec center), and it has not gone to very basic facility/ATH dept upgrades, then just shut this whole thing down because the mismanagement is higher than Addazio or Bates, and nothing is going to change the trajectory of this joke. They raised $300mm in the LTW campaign and $18mm went to scholarships ? Where did the rest go ? The baseball facility has already morphed into a high school level facility, and I'm sure if shovels ever get in the ground for an IPF, it will prob get scaled back to a 50 yard field. It's simply amazing how incompetent this university can be towards athletics when they seem to get it with regards to the general academic operations.
BC takes north of $20M
annually as its take from ACC revenues. That is more than enough to cover all its scholarship commitments.
As far as what portion of the LTW campaign money got earmarked for athletics, I have no idea.
What has been reported is that the $200M campaign to up grade athletic facilities was announced last year. I assume that was separate and apart from the LTW campaign. But I could be wrong on that point. But several athletic dept statements and other publicity surrounding the $200M athletics upgrade (that supposedly includes the indoor training/practice facilities) suggested that that money still needed to be raised, not that BC was sitting on a pile of money that was just waiting to be spent.
The last semi-detailed statement of position of the Athletic department I was supplied years ago during the GDF reign detailed the amount of $$ each ACC school had in terms of revenues, broken out by league shared revenues and revenues donated. This was prior to the realignment that brought in Pitt and Syracuse. BC was like fourth from the bottom in terms of total revenues, if I recall correctly.
What was most surprising, and quite shocking to me was that BC stated that they had something on the order of only 7500 FF donors, at the time of that report. My suspicion is that number may have degraded since then, based only on my personal experience as a (former) DBS donor, and watching the empty seats around me grow year by year.
I think BC finds it in the very tenuous situation of what must come first. I suspect, that poor regular donor support may be used by some in Administration as evidence that investment in athletics (beyond what they feel is more that reasonable now) is unnecessary, and unjustified. The converse of that is that donors, like myself, have suspended their donations because of a perceived disinterest or indifference by the administration in advancing athletics beyond what it is. Catch 22. Who blinks first.