The silver lining of the weekend in Austin is the extra attention BC baseball is getting. Alums who have never paid attention sat by their computers all weekend to follow the action. Bloggers (including this one) who only give baseball a passing mention took notice. And of course the local and national media took time to recognize the special game and BC's part in it. Although
this focuses on Austin Wood, Peter King used a big chunk of his football column to write about the epic game. The Herald
focused on BC's run and what it means. The New York Times
took note. Aoki told the Globe that this team has
raised the bar at BC.
Aoki is also making the media rounds.
[EDITED: The NESN script was breaking the blog. Check out the video on their site.]
The one critique of the weekend was how the relief pitchers were overused on Saturday night.
The Sailing Team won another National Title. This makes back to back wins in this category.
Jayme Parker has a multipart interview with Herzy rolling out each night on NESN. Here is a portion of it.
[Funky NESN embedded code here too. Check out the video on their site.]
BC guy Boog Sciambi spoke to a blog.
BC is recruiting Georgia line prospect Kyle Woestmann.
Posts
32 comments:
Quick Question:
Does BC give full or partial scholarships to baseball players? How many? Are there still non-scholarship athletes on the team?
Thanks (if the answer is yes-all-no, I am going to have to go on a WHY-NO-LAX-AT-BC rant!!)
mod34b - I believe with the move to the ACC, your answer is yes-all-no.
Big East is a partial scholarship conference.
mod34b: NCAA rules limit baseball teams to 11.7 total scholarships. There are some even more arcane rules - which I'm not really clear on - that delineate how those scholarships have to be spent. There may or may not be a rule that mandates "full-scholarship" teams to have player on at least a partial scholarship; I can't remember for the life of me. And the reason men's lax isn't a varsity sport has little to do with scholarships. It's all about Title IX.
When lacrosse becomes a sport, that is a question that can be asked.
Don't even get me started on the lack of a lacrosse program: I can't think of a more fitting school to add a varsity lax program than BC. The competitiveness of the club team, the I-95 corridor from which the majority of students originate; and the shocking familiarity of the schools with which we could one day compete (ACC schools: UNC, UVA, Duke, Maryland; Catholic schools: GTown, ND; "Big East" schools: 'Cuse, even local schools: Umass), make it a no brainer.
At issue, obviously, is 1.) funding and 2.) Title IX (as NorCal has observed).
Though GDF routinely has shot the idea down, perhaps his successor could make it happen. It needs to be done (just like an indoor football practice facility).
Seriously, if one day I could endow a BC athletic program (like the supplement to our football head coaching salary), D1 BC lacrosse would definitely be the destination of my energy and resources.
Can someone explain this Title IX point in view of the following:
1. baseball is all male; lax would probably be all male (but see below); why fund baseball instead of lax when lax is a more natural fit for BC???
2. there is no women's baseball team (right, or is there a women's softball team) so how does all male baseball get funded if there is no counterbalancing female team???
3. why does UNC, Duke, Maryland etc have a male Lax team if there is a Title IX issue?
4. why can't there be a women's and men's lax team at BC which would end the Title IX issue.
GDF seems like a d-bag on lax issues . . . i've seen his I-wont-coment-again-on-lax-again comments a few times...come to think of it he seems like a d-bag on most other issues
The issue with Title IX is that men's and women's sports have to have equal participation and equal funding. The gorilla in the room is football. Football accounts for 85 scholarships and millions in funding that have to be matched in women's sports. This is why BC has women's volleyball, field hockey, crew and lacrosse as varsity sports (as you guessed, baseball = softball), but no male equivalents. Baseball also has the advantage of being a "traditional" big-four sport, plus it is still very popular in New England, even if there isn't a great prep talent-base.
What is sometimes missed with Title IX is that it is not sport-by-sport. Gender equality is measured on an institutional level. It's not men's lax v women's lax. It's all men's sports against all women's sports. This is why football the all-important force that dictates Title IX politics. It's also why many universities eliminated varsity wrestling.
At this point, to add men's lax as a varsity sport, GD and Co. would either have to add another women's team or cut an extant men's squad. The latter is probably what would happen (funding streams) and that would be incredibly unpopular.
As far as other ACC schools, I really don't know how they pull it off. Not having hockey is probably part of it. (Don't kid yourself thinking that the men's and women's hockey teams are equally funded.) Sailing being a co-ed varsity sport might limit BC's options as well, as it soaks up some funding. Another factor - in the favor of women's sports at other schools - is that volleyball tends to get a lot more funding at Sun Belt schools. In some cases, women's basketball and volleyball even generate appreciable revenue, helping make women's sports more self-sufficient and easier to fund.
Really, when it comes to Title IX politics, every school is unique. BC is in a tough position because scholarships are so expensive and the school is relatively small, which limits the number of potential donors (though not necessarily the size of those donations). At the same time, not a single women's team generates much revenue. Factor in a high-cost sport that Southern schools don't have and it becomes even more complicated.
BCNC -- great explanation. Thanks! you obviously know your stuff in this area. (i hope you are not GDF in disguise!! ) But I must say (as a former BC lax player from the mid 1980s) that Lax is way more popular than baseball from Maryland, through NJ, to NY (including LI and upstate NY, the birthplace of Lax), CT and Mass. I do not think its even close as between Lax and baseball.
But again, thank you for the explanation. It was very helpful.
mod34b...there is a reason that baseball is the most followed, most popular sport in the Western hemisphere and that lacrosse is isolated to the upper crust of a few states on the eastern seaboard. Lacrosse is just a modified form of hockey/basketball/soccer (i.e. getting a ball into a goal) that is less physical than hockey, less athletic than basketball and, ok, maybe its better than soccer, but thats not saying much. What would BC gain from having a lacrose team? Would not bring in any revenue (no TV/radio, sparse attendance) or promote the BC name. The athletic department should concentrate on the big four mens sports in that they bring in revenue and promote the school. That is the ultimate job of the athletic department. Also, if we had to choose one or the other, I guarantee you that more alumni would support having a baseball team vs. having a lacrosse team...not even a question. If kids want to play club lacrosse they can be my guest, but the school has nothing to gain by adding a lacrosse team.
easyrider, WI_eagle.... I echo your sentiments and fully support BC baseball. lacrosse...yikes
WI_eagle -- I assume the WI is for Wisconsin.
Did you know Lax is THE original US sport .. invented by the Iroquois Indians around the time fo Christ!!! It is not a modification of any other game. Its an American original.
While you are right baseball has more national appeal than Lax, that same point is not true regionally.
I'll leave your ribbing on lax aside other than to say, you are a @^$$@#^#%#!!! about lax...you don't know too much there.
Go to Long Island, for example, Lax is no upper crust game....it played by all schols and is as popular as football. Same point is true from MD, NJ, NY, CT, and MA. LAx really is broadly POPULAR SPORT FOR ALL CLASSES. To give you an example of how the sport has changed: If some Lax players from a fancy prep school showed up on LI, they would be they would be quickly wiped out. Baseball in these states is mainly for guys who could not make the lax team. (were you a HS baseball player? Matt were you?)
As to you point about revenue, its not all about the almighty buck -- did BC teach you nothing! Lax is a great sport, and I am sure it generate$ some revenue. I know Foxboro was completely sold out last year for the NCAA lax championship. People came from all ovr the North East to see the games. Lax at BC would also help persuade those $$$ alumni from preppy backgrounds to give more to BC...
No way alumni would prefer baseball to Lax. 1. No student or alum -- until this week -- could care less about baseball and 2. many, many alums are from theNortheast where Lax is king, but this need not be a competition btw Lax and baseball. I think they both can thrive.
give this some thought Cheese Boy. matthew....go to bed.
Let me say a couple of things -- I think lacrosse is a relatively fun sport to watch... and I bet it's really fun to play too. I just happen to be baseball through an through.
However, I was going to be using the same quote about lax players being failed baseball players. My high school went to the states in NY, so we had a very legit program. 2 of the stars on that team were first year players that were simply athletic. Yes lacrosse takes athleticism. But try to imagine someone picking up a baseball bat... and in his first year, being an all-state caliber player. That's not how it works, because baseball is a much more difficult sport.
It's not fair for me to say, because I've never played lacrosse. It's also not fair for the failed baseball players (lacrosse "stars") to say, as they have stock in it too. However, a friend of mine was both a pretty solid baseball player and lacrosse player during high school. No reason for him to be bias either way... and he admitted that lacrosse was much easier to play.
I dont think there's much of a debate to be had. Yes lacrosse is up and coming in certain parts.... but baseball is and always will be perhaps the hardest sport to play... and will rival football as the most popular in the US.
and I am gonna go to bed now, thanks for the idea. let me know if you can find a person that has played both sports at high levels that can seriously say lacrosse is harder, and baseball is for those who could not make the team. I am from NY. That is laughable to me.
I honestly believe that it would be a mistake to add another sport when we are so unsure of the funding. Lacrosse would become a further burden to other sports. I am still amazed at the football team's success given the lack of facilities compared to others in our conference. The facilities are not crucial for winning, for the most part, but are for recruiting top tier athletes. I would really like to see how much interest/money lacrosse would bring to BC. Lacrosse is a hobby, football is a business.
Matty -- Baseball is "harder" to play than LAX???? Is this an argument? Who cares which is harder to play. Is a basketball player a better athlete than a hockey player? Which sport is "harder"? who cares, it is totally beside the point.
Baseball and Lax are different sports that require different skills. Superior athlete excel in both sports. Did you know that the greatest football player athlete ever (perhpas) is also one of the greatest Lax players? That would be Jim Brown, NFL hall of famer.
And getting a lax program does not mean dropping baseball.
So what do we have so far: 1. Lax is an upeer crust game; 2. Lax is not for true athletes; 3. Lax is a hobby sport; 4. Lax is not a hard sport. Its all a bunch of nonsense.
Lax is a great sport with a great following. That is why there are top lax program at Harvard, Duke, Notre Dame, Hopkins, UNC, Princeton, G'town,
Are you getitng the idea now?? Maybe BC is missing the boat here????
Here is the current LAx top 10 -- a very nice list of great school BC would luv to emulate in other areas:
1. Syracuse
2. Cornell
3. Virginia
4. Duke
5. Princeton
6. ND
7. UNC
8. MD
9. Harvard
10. Hopkins
Lax would be great for BC. I know GDF will not push for Lax ever, but maybe someday he will see the light, or a new AD will.
I come from lacrosse territory (Maryland) and there is no question that baseball is a bigger sport from grade school on up (with the exception of several universities with national rankings). But let's be honest, the reason it is so popular at these places partly has to do with the fact that it has the top lax U's in the country. The few places where lax is more important/popular outside of these U's tend to be the rich, all guys schools in the region. But that's about it. The vast majority of places, baseball has a longer, deeper, and more competitive tradition than lax. My high school has a powerhouse baseball program and the lax team was pathetic and club level until maybe 5 years ago - even struggling to get a full squad. It still remains far less popular and competitive than baseball at my school and in the region as a whole. The way to tell is to look at the region at every level and look at the number of participants and the competitiveness of the entire sport; looking at just the top 10 college rankings is misleading.
mod34b - Did you really say lax is as popular as football? if lax is as popular as football then tell me why the only game that gets similar attendance to a regular season football game is the championship game. Cue crickets. That's what I thought.
I agree though, lax is a sport that could offer BC a lot. Too bad Title IX needed a victim. It made far more sense to get rid of lax than baseball for many reasons that have been mentioned above. Lax will rise again on the Heights, but not very soon. Other priorities exist. It's funny to see people take it out on GDF. I guess there has to be a scapegoat for everything.
colon:
Lax is as popoular as football on Long Island! and if you ever met a lax guy from LI, you'd know they aint no elites, that's for sure.
You are obviously another person who has never played lacrosse, never handled a lacrosse stick, and really do not know enough to comment on the worth of the game. its not a zero-sum game as between baseball and lacrosse.
what a cue cricket?
as for GDF, c'mon, the guy is stiff, admit it. (Jags was one of his friends, the original Height bromance, really...)
but again, this is not a baseball vs Lax. No one, i repeat, no one at BC could care less about baseball until this week. If BC had a Lax team far more fans would go to a lax game than baseball becaue no one goes to baseball games. no one.
glad though you see that Lax has a lot to offer BC. jsut liek to offers the elite universities in the U.S.
So because I don't agree with you on certain points, I am not qualified to comment on lax? Yes, I played lax. Yes, I prefer baseball. But that has nothing to do with what I have observed in the area I was commenting on. Did I comment on LI? No - because I don't know what goes on there. I talked about Maryland - well known to be one of the biggest lax areas in the country.
I know you don't believe it, but plenty of people have paid attention and followed BC baseball before this year. I have several friends who are former BC players.
My comment about GDF is more that any AD would have done the same thing in the same situation. I'm not commenting on him personally like you are and don't need to given this situation because it's irrelevent.
Get over yourself already. You thought Title IX meant equal funding was needed for the exact same sport - and that says it all. The fact that you ignored my question says even more.
We had a lax team and "far more fans" did not attend those games. You're still talking about exceptions rather than the entire picture. Wake up.
And where did I comment on the "worth of the game"? You have an agenda, dude: that much is obvious. Thanks for largley ignoring my post and continuing on your rant. Good luck.
This lacrosse conversation went south quickly...
At the end of the day, the point is not a baseball v. lax, or a football v. lax argument, but I think simply the observation that lacrosse would be a fitting addition to the men's varsity sports lineup at BC.
It's irrelevant if "the big four" sports are pushed by BC, or how someone's provincial high school buddies rank baseball and lacrosse; the point is simply that lacrosse was, is, and will be, a great fit at BC, and there should be room among all our varsity men's sports offerings for it (rather than at the expense of baseball, which is ludicrous).
Colon --
What are you so mad about? Chillax, dude.
and yes, dear colon, I do have a point -- an 'agenda' as you say so ominously: I'd like to see BC have a varisty lax team. Is that something to get steamed about?
EIB - I fully agree and stated just that. Lax was the unfortunate victim of an awful rule.
Well said, Brighton Eagle!
please point out where I'm "steamed". right.
colon: what is cue cricket?
The arguments for a lacrosse program on its own I think are undeniable.
The school already fields a competitive intramural team just from the general student body. Coupled with the fact that the majority of our student body draws heavily from the the lacrosse heartland (UNC/DC to NJ/NY to CT/MA), therefore either playing or at least appreciating the sport, and the fact that the majority of the elite schools to which we academically compare ourselves also field competitive teams, I think the marriage between a Varsity program and BC is a no brainer. (Not to mention the fact it is the fastest growing game in the nation).
The issue, obviously, is funding. Adding to the budget is essentially out of the short term question. Therefore, the point of debate, if we were to go there, is not lacrosse v. baseball, or lacrosse v. hockey, but lacrosse v. swimming or cross country. I don't have numbers in front of me, but if this were to happen, a reallocation of men's athletic funding would have to occur (i.e. eliminating x-country and/or swimming).
I think that would be the appropriate move. At the very least, THAT'S the debate that needs to be had.
"Cue crickets" as in the answer to my question will be silence. You actually never answered it, so my prediction was somewhat correct. let's just call it a day as we agree lax is good for BC. We are on the same team after all.
Not to belabor the point, but when compared to swimming/cross country (which brings no regional or marked conference identity to the table as lacrosse does), lacrosse at least perhaps provides the potential as a financially self-sustaining varsity program once established (final four at Foxborough drew 50k), at least more than the programs it would be replacing.
Brighton -- alright, now your taking, let's get the swimmers and the cross-x guys!! these guys are always unpopular!! off with their heads!!! We need to "redistribute" (as Obama would say) about 40 male scholarships to do a lax team . . . maybe go after baseball after all!! Is there fencing, squash, tennis guysd getitng $$;, those would be great candidate to sack (talk about no revenue potential!!!)
I know you're being sarcastic, but I'm serious: if you were to slot men's lacrosse into a an existing ordered hierarchy of men's varsity sports offerings ranked in terms of general student body/alumni support; growth potential; conference/regional appropriateness; revenue potential; capacity for long term success (i.e. regional interest and recruiting); track record of success; and aesthetic appropriateness; at the very least, lacrosse would rank above swimming and cross country.
If additions can't be made because of budgetary pressure and title IX, I'd definitely reallocate if I was AD. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last.
Post a Comment