Addazio vs BC's actual history

Addazio referenced winning historically at BC and mentioned 6.5 wins per year since 1980. That's a misleading stat since the college football season has expanded gradually from 11 games, to 11 plus regular bowls, to 12 plus regular bowls. In my opinion, it is probably better to measure Addazio's body of work using winning percentage. Right now he sits at .500. And to me that feels like the sort of coach he is. But I feel like BC can be more and that history is not told through 6.5 wins per year, but through what a variety of coaches have done at the school under varied circumstances. Take a look:

Winning Percentage
Boston College All-Time: .560

Boston College Since DIA-DIAA Split: .538

Boston College Since joining a conference: .557

Boston College Since joining ACC: .547

Addazio: .500

Winning Percentage by Coach
Frank Leahy: 909
Jeff Jagodzinski: .714
Joseph Yukica: .648
Gilmour Dobie: .639
Tom O'Brien: .625
Frank Cavanaugh: .625
Mike Holovak: .623
Tom Coughlin: .614
Jim Miller: .586
Denny Myers: .561
Jack Bicknell: .517
Steve Addazio: .500
Moody Sarno: .500
Dan Henning: .458
Frank Spaziani: .431
Ernest Hefferle: .375
Ed Chlebek: .364

Conference Winning Percentage
Jagodzinski (ACC): .687

O'Brien (ACC): .625

Coughlin (Big East): .559

O'Brien (total): .521

O'Brien (Big East): .490
Henning (Big East): 452
Spaziani (ACC): .406
Addazio (ACC): .375

Winning Seasons
Yukica: 9
O'Brien: 8
Holovak: 7
Addazio: 5
Bicknell: 4

Miller: 4

Spaziani:2
Jagodzinski: 2
Coughlin: 2
Henning: 1

BC coaches in their 2nd Year

What do you expect from Addazio this year? In first years, fans tend to want a new coach to show improvement. They want to see healthy change as the new leader puts his stamp on the program. Years 3 and 4 are when expectations rise. A full roster of his own players and a few trips around the conference means the team should be ready to win. But Year 2 isn't as defined...for BC or any team really.

I think the general consensus among BC fans is that we'll be a borderline bowl team again. If we take a step back, it will only be because we overachieved last year and are very young. But historically Year 2 hasn't been a good barometer for any BC coach. Take a look at coaches in their second year since Holovak.

Coach	Year 1	Year 2
Holovak	3-6	4-4-1
Hefferle	3-6-1	4-6
Miller	8-2	6-3
Yukica	6-3	5-4
Chlebek	0-11	5-6
Bicknell	5-6	8-3-1
Coughlin	4-7	8-3-1
Henning	7-4-1	4-8
O'Brien	4-7	4-7
Jagodzinski	11-3	9-5
Spaziani	8-5	7-6

Over the 11 coaches there is not great pattern. You want to read into Coughlin's four win improvement, but how can you when Chlebek improved by five wins? Henning fell apart, but Spaz held things together. Jags' record declined but I know many of us felt his second year was a more impressive coaching job.

I think and want Addazio to do well this season. But I don't think we can read too much into our final record. The key for me will be how we compete and how the players he recruited start to develop.

History Lesson: the Eagle

In honor of the 4th of July, I thought it might be a good time to revisit one of the symbols BC shares with our great nation: the eagle.

Although the Eagle is now synonymous with BC through statues and other references on campus, we were without an official mascot during our first few decades. In 1920 the Heights published a cartoon showing a cat licking a plate of its sports rivals. Yes, we could have been the "Cats." While that would have inspired plenty of nicknames and unique imagery, Father McLaughlin didn't think a cat was the proper representative for our university. He suggested the eagle due to its majesty, power and freedom. We officially became the "Eagles" that same year.

Contrary to millions of sports writers' work, we are not the "golden eagles." And despite Baldwin's looks and name we are not the "bald eagles" either.

Two other FBS programs also use the eagle as their mascot. Like us Eastern Michigan is just the Eagles. Southern Mississippi uses Golden Eagles.

I can't find any evidence that McLaughlin wanted to tie BC's symbols to those of the United States, but it is a nice connection.

3rd year is the charm

In this Blue Ribbon preview, Spaz starts talking about the challenges of not having many fifth year seniors on the roster. I'll save the validity of the 5th year void for another date, but what has me scratching my head is why are we still making excuses in Year 3. Forget the continuity that Spaz brought to the position. Put aside the bare cupboard debate for a moment. Even if a coach takes over a program in tatters, shouldn't Year 3 be the turning point?

By the third year a coach should have the majority of the roster filled with "his" players. He should have some cohesiveness among the staff. He should have his own QB in place and he should have a good feel for the conference and other teams's tendencies. Great coaches are well on their way by Year 3. But for this post I didn't want to cherry pick great coaches to make Spaz look like he is whining. Instead I just wanted to focus on BC. If you look at our history is Year 3 an indicator of where the program is headed?
[For relevancy, I started with Post WWII BC football.]

BC Coaches in their Third Year
Myer -- 1946. Record: 6-3 (Myer's tenure was interupted by WWII.)
Holovak -- 1953. Record: 5-3-1
Miller -- 1965. Record: 6-3
Yukica -- 1970. Record: 8-2
Chlebek -- 1980. Record: 7-4
Bicknell -- 1983. Record: 9-3
Coughlin -- 1993. Record: 9-3
Henning -- 1996. Record: 5-7
O'Brien -- 1999. Record: 8-4

Aside from Henning, everyone else has a winning record. Even Ed Chelibek -- the guy who had the worst season in BC history -- had things turned around by Year 3. I am not ready to make W-L predictions for this season yet but there really should be no excuses to justify a down season. This is Spaz's team and Spaz's program and Spaz's 5th year seniors.

Missing Mele Kalikimaka

[The following is a little history lesson for those younger BC fans.]

In the old days, when bowls still meant something, the college football postseason kicked off on Christmas Day with Aloha Bowl. BC played in the game twice and it was the prefect for us.

Why was the game perfect? Because it provided everything we needed and didn't ask much of BC in return.

We can whine about Boise or Detroit, but at the end of the day none of us actually have to go to these games. The player and coaches do. A trip to Hawaii was rare and a true treat. The guys got a unique experience and warm weather.

The game actually provided a showcase for BC. This was the first bowl game of the year and it was on ABC on Christmas Day. There was nothing else on. Millions of desperate sports fans tuned in just to get their football fix. And for BC fans it was great. The games were afternoons kickoffs, so you could open your presents, have a little family bonding and then watch BC. There was no juggling of schedules or figuring out where you were going to be for some random, midday weekday kickoff.

Plus we played real teams. In 1994, Kansas State was ranked and favored before our defense tore them apart. Like us, Arizona State squeaked into the 2000 Aloha Bowl, but at least they were a name from a power conference.

Playing in Hawaii also meant BC wasn't expected to travel. Few schools did. We just needed to provide a solid TV rating (which we always do).

Finally Hawaii just looked great and fun on TV. The scenic shots in and out of commercials made you feel warm. I wanted to hop on a plane after seeing Dan Henning in a Hawaiian shirt or watching TOB try to hula.

We played in the last Aloha Bowl. The official NCAA certification ended and was later replaced by the Hawaii Bowl. But the Hawaii Bowl is not different though. It is basically an extra home game for the University of Hawaii and is rarely on Christmas Day. Maybe one day BC will find themselves in this newer bastardized version of the Aloha game again, but it won't be the same. None of it is the same...I guess for Christmas I should ask Santa for an NCAA playoff with a championship game in Honolulu.

BC Coaches in their first year

I’ve focused a lot (maybe too much) on Jags’ time as Offensive Coordinator at BC. Maybe it is time to look at how other coaches performed in their first season on the Heights and what sort of indicator each season turned out to be. To keep this somewhat brief and relevant, I focused on the modern era (divisional football) and started with Yukica.

Year	Coach	Record	Win Pct Year 1	Win Pct Change from Predecessor's prior season	Win Pct for BC Career
1968	Joe Yukica	6-3	.667	+.267	.648
1978	Ed Chlebek	0-11	.000	-.545	.364
1981	Jack Bicknell	5-6	.455	-.182	.517
1991	Tom Coughlin	4-7	.364	.000	.614
1994	Dan Henning	7-4-1	.636	-.114	.458
1997	Tom O’Brien	4-7	.364	-.053	.625

As you can see, first years were rough. Only Yukica improved on his predecessor’s previous year. The first year also proved pretty telling for future success. The guys who struggled more tended to have a less successful career at BC.

As for Jags, despite our tough ACC schedule and the high bar of 10 wins, I think he has the chance to join Yukica as the only guy to improve the team in his first year.