Tuesday, March 17, 2015

BC explains its protest vote

The New York Times featured BC and Brad Bates in Monday's article on paying college athletes. As most inferred, Bates and Father Leahy knew the initiative would pass and felt they needed to send a message with their vote. I am all for being a contrarian, but I have a problem with how BC is playing this.

College athletics is headed down a path where things are going to become more professional and more commercial. It is only fair and probably in the best interest of the athletes. BC's leadership is smart. We know they see the big picture, hence the "We clearly wanted people to pause." Who does the "pausing" benefit? The current power brokers (i.e. schools, coaches, admins). It doesn't really benefit the athletes. The oncoming changes are disruptive but inevitable and trying to stop the inevitable is wasted energy.

Instead of trying to maintain the status quo even through protest votes, BC's leadership should decide where they want to be in the new world. It is not an easy decision, but coming up with real answers is more brave and shows more leadership than an "I told you so" vote among college administrators.


NEDofSavinHill said...

Happy St. Patrick's Day.

Hoib said...


I agree w/ you completely but feel we are in the minority in the BC community. Reading between the lines of what the vote meant, and what Bates has to say, speaking for the administration, I think they are having second thought on being in the power 5. Past comments on this, a sports blog, seem to indicate that most alums want no part of what being in a Power5 conference, with what that entails. I myself want to be all in, warts and all, but I don’t think many are w/ me. It wouldn’t surprize me at all if in a few years we went independent in football and back to the BiG East for basketball. I wouldn’t like it, but I sense that most of the BC community would like it or just not care one way or the other.

ATL_eagle said...


I don't know our future, but believe we will tie it to the Dukes, Notre Dames and Stanfords. But I don't know if the Power 5 is a sustainable model for anyone. Eventually the NFL and NBA will want more control over the player development at the Alabamas and Kentuckys and more importantly want their TV money.

dixieagle said...

ATL: You said the magic words: "TV money."

mod34b said...

ATL, your seeming desire for practicality strikes me as weak.

Does BC really want to be the kind of school that would hire a Bruce Pearl or John Calipari, or do the things UNC is said to have done? Can you even imagine what goes on at Alabama, tOSU, Oklahoma and Texas? Is there any doubt that a maleable set of new rules allowing for more money to athletes is going to lead to more corruption in college sports.

Why are so many fearful of dissent? BC is not here being a 'contrarian,' or setting up some lame "i told you so" retort, it being a dissenter in the most noble sense of that word. It believes in what it says. Too many people are afraid that if they stick your nose out, it'll get clipped? (in truth, BC does produce an inordinate amount of Sheeple)

I am so proud of Father Leahy for his dissent, and even more proud that BC can wear the badge of "lone dissenter." It is awesome and so in line with what BC is all about.

It is also what America was about:

"“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.”
― William Faulkner

Fear Not, ATL, fear not

FakeShalomTfree said...

The mention of BC's sports offerings is noteworthy. For a school that is "cost sensitive", the variety of offerings in non-revenue sports -particularly those in which it is at a significant competitive advantage- seems somewhat contradictory

I know this is only one aspect of a very broad subject and debate, but i think its a point worth noting

JBQ said...

bC is a leader and not a follower. I agree completely with the protest vote. 77-1 is about the odds that you can get betting on Kentucky basketball.

blist said...

The fact BC cast a dissenting vote somehow means they're not committed to Big5? Everyone should be yes men, no one should voice an opinion? Come one guys.

Ryan said...

Not only is the no vote short-sighted and embarrassing, it comes across as cheap and spiteful. Just 'Cross the program if you're going to insist in being small-time

Knucklehead said...

Jesuits saying F you to the system. I am thankful for the vote. College athletes get free tuition, free room, free board, as much of the opposite sex as they want and a leg up in any job interview process if they are competent.

Now they want cash. Where is the cash going to come from . . . Tuition increases and cable bill increases so ESPN and Fox can pay the ACC for its television rights.

I know all the arguments for paying college athletes and they are illogical. Let these kids go pro, fall on their face and then ask them if the current system is fair or not.

CT said...

Agreed with above. When the rest of the private market makes a salary/benefits in order to enrich those above, college athletics are no different. Like I've said before, student loans tend to double in cost before they're paid off. And college sports are a marketing tool for either the pros or for a job network.

If you want to argue about the one-and-done rule...fine. There's merit in disagreeing with that, even as it previously eroded the quality of the NBA before it was implemented. But, you know, capitalism...

The same ppl who argue that college athletics is all about money then refuse to concede that it bears too much of a resemblance to private business. Athletes do in fact get paid. I'm probably in the minority but these kids need to get a job first before complaining about making other ppl money. I mean, come on. Poor scholarship athlete? Really? Whatever.