Per FBschedules.com, BC added Ohio to the 2020 schedule. By itself that is not a bad game or a big deal. However, in the context of all our future scheduling, it is terrible. Bates and Addazio keep shrugging and explaining that they are penned in by past commitments and conference switches and that is why our non-conference schedule disappoints. They will also say that it takes years to schedule another Power 5 team. There are elements of truth to all of that. But it also covers up their desire to keep the schedule soft. If they really wanted to add some challenges to the future, they would be doing it now. Instead they are locking in winnable games.
Bates is also misreading the college landscape and his own fanbase. I do agree that winning easy games is probably a better perception decision than losing hard ones. Recruits, the media and most fans look at W-L first and not who you played. However, by 2020 Addazio should be beyond padding the win total. If he still needs those Ws in his 8th year, then something is wrong. At that point he should be established enough that BC can take a risk. If he's not, then there will be pressure to fire him whether we are beating Ohio or losing to Alabama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
27 comments:
especially strange given that we are probably paying Ohio to play them. given the recent comments posted on here (and echoed by some BC folk i saw at Fenway for the game) regarding the athletic department losing money, there is a financial aspect too - you can pay for a W, or you can presumably get paid (or at least not pay out any money) to play an elite school like an Ohio State or Stanford or USC.
Addazio has at least had some highlights to go along with the lowlights. what exactly has Bates done in his time here that is noteworthy or remarkable?
If BC has any interest in putting more butts in the bleachers scheduling the likes of Wagner and Ohio won't make that happen. I was once a season ticket holder, can't see that happening again anytime soon.
If BC has any interest in putting more butts in the bleachers scheduling the likes of Wagner and Ohio won't make that happen. I was once a season ticket holder, can't see that happening again anytime soon.
Not that this is an excuse, but is it possible they are looking even further to 2023 and 2024 and seeing Ohio State and thinking that is enough?
In Bates defense, this was announced by Ohio (as part of announcing 15 future games).
If Bates comes out in the next few weeks and has a larger scale announcement (with better opponents lined up) then this becomes less important, as a secondary opponent, this is fine.
Of course Bates has done nothing to make us believe that a broader announcement is coming so ...
Daz here in 2020???... please no.....horrible to watch Daz ball.
This is more crap from BB.
BB has got stones the size of pistachio nuts (shelled and unsalted)
Bad Job Brad.
As of late, BC/Brad Bates/Addazio have done nothing to inspire me to support the Athletics Department.
I sincerely hope Bates is shown the door before he has the opportunity to hire Jerry York's replacement.
He continues to be an embarrassment and out of his league running this Athletic Department. He may even still think he is the AD at Ohio, for all we know.
As i have said recently. I am far more ready to let Bates go than Daz at this juncture.. .
Jerry York should hire his replacement.
The entire athletics scenario is very troubling to me ; unfair or not ,I do not believe that the fan is even a minor factor in scheduling. That is a shame , since we are the customers. I do not know what other scheduling efforts are being put forth by Bates and Company , but at this point , I will not renew my 2 tickets for next year. I can randomly select games that are of interest . If the BC Administration think that their continued excuses will be bought by loyal fans , I believe that they might be surprised. I have heard for so many years that parking limitations are controlled by the City of Boston and other failures are attributable to "we are in a pro sports city". I fail to accept this BS any longer. And they will never - never - never change until the fans speak out by not renewing or e-mailing the BC Administration and expressing their frustration.
ATL - I think this is a topic that needs to be discussed. If you researched the Power 5 schools BC would without question be near the bottom of Alumni as part of Athletic Administration and Development. No one believes that this is the days of old when entire athletic departments were made up of alums.
However the lack of both BC connection and lack of High Level Power 5 experience is alarming to say the least. I believe Bates finally hired a women's administrator who is a BC alum (thou from a mid major school). We complain about our lack of fundraising and fan experience. I think not one member of the Flynn Fund is a BC Alum. How is that even possible? How could Bates rationally explain that? The Development team for a good AD is the most important wing of their department yet seems like Bates could care less.
BC has always wanted to be Notre Dame well they should take a page out of their book. Surround the Athletic Department with proud alums who know what it takes to be successful at the school they love. Who have classmates & a network they can tap into to provide the financial resources necessary to compete. Instead we are having our proud tradition and department trending the wrong way fast and being told it's the alumni who don't support the school and excuses why we are not what we once were yet we operate with a mid major mentality.
Again no one says the AD and every member of his staff have to be alums but there should be a alumni base represented. BC is a very unique school in an extremely unique city with its professional landscape. BC has thrived before and can again but has some major issues that need to be addressed. I would be interested if you or anyone finds this to be an issue.
Adding salt to the wound.... Did anyone see the globe article on how well Ryan Anderson is doing at Arizona? I am so tired of hoops and football being embarrassing. And the comments are right. It all starts at the top.
This site is really interesting regarding scheduling. From the Flutie years on, we mostly played FBS teams until the 2000's. The schedules in the 80's and 90's were far more appealing. I know the landscape has changed but I think we have gone overboard on dumbing down the schedule.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/BostonCollege.htm
Edmunds 1101-- great point about the lack of a BC presence in the BC AD apparatus. No wonder there seems to be a huge disconnect
I did a quick look at BC AD office and Flynn fund sites. Maddeningly they do not have bios for most of the people (gee, why not?). However, Linked in gave me the bios.
In the AD's office and the Flynn Fund there is ONLY one BC grad! (i took names of the Flynn Fund staff out - they seemed young and i did not want to ID them.. just pointing out that BC does not hire BC kids AND not that there is anything at all wrong with these young folks working hard for BC... But seriously What's with BC not hiring some BC kids?)
Brad Bates, AD, Michigan
Jamine Sequin, Deputy AD, BC 1999
John Kane, Sr Assoc AD, 30 yers BC, former manager of The Plex, unk college
Tom Petere, Sr Assoc AD, UMass
Jody Mooradian, Senior Associate AD and Sr. Women's Admin, UNH
JM Caparro, Sr, Assoc AD, Extenral Affairs, Leigh
(Flynn Fund)Steve Novak, Assoc AD, Development, Flynn Fund- Drew Univer
(Flynn Fund) , Sr Asssoc, Dir. Flynn, Miami U
(Flynn Fund) , asst Dir, Flynn, Western Kentucky U
(Flynn Fund) Assoc Dir, Ath Major giving, U of Iowa
(Flynn Fund) , Asso Dir Capita n Spec Gift, Western Kentucky
(Flynn Fund), Asst Dir, Ath Stewardship, Mass College of Liberal arts
(Flynn Fund), Ass Dir Flynn Fund Op, Furman Univ
Great point on needing Bc guys in ththe at department
Maybe that would bring about a he vision needed to turn this ship around
There are plenty of BC alums in Development. I actually welcome non alums. We need to grow our network and need perspectives from others. There is a world beyond BC. Sometimes I think we think too locally.
Atl--what kind of grade would you give bates so far...any thoughts on doing a report card post on him soon?
aTL. Huh??? We need perspective from Drew, W Kentucky, Iowa etc? BC charges $250,000 for 4 years. About $400,000 pretax income.
Is BC that stupid that it can't hire a few recent grads ?
There are plenty of BC alums in BC sports office ? Like who?
Hario. Report Card BB gets a C-
BB is invisible and ineffective. Salary man in a suit with nice hair. Right. Collecting a pay check until the next gig comes along. He bleeds Maize and Blue not maroon and gold
Mod - For once I am pretty much in agreement. BB gets a C- from me to.
Positives: fired Spaz and Donahue?; the red bandanna game?
Cons: no improvement in game day experience; no master plan that he talked about; horrible football OOC scheduling; no improvement on facilities; low attendance; and FB and BB hires look like wiffs at this point in time
not looking good.
I think having highly competitive ACC athletic programs is important to the majority of the alums - especially in the most highly visible programs. Fair or unfair, I think its hugely important to raising (or lowering, as the case may be) the profile and image of the school. Hardly anyone wants a win at all costs approach - but if Stanford, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, Georgetown can all succeed - so should we.
I am concerned about Father Leahy. One man at the helm with a bad taste for athletics can truly ruin the programs - and ultimately hurt the school for years to come. In fairness, I really don't know for sure where he stands on the subject. As far as I know, he has never been interviewed in any depth concerning his vision for BC Athletics, his view of its importance to the university, whether he feels the university should be highly competitive in the ACC and whether he is committed to invest at appropriate levels. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE HE STANDS.
Based on results and everything else I have read - I am suspicious that he has gotten fed up with college athletics and wants to ultimately lower the school's athletic profile. If so - then he should leave the ACC and stop taking their money under false pretenses as that is highly unethical.
But then he needs to take BC to another level academically and emulate, over time, schools like Emory, Chicago, Carnegie Mellon, etc. However, I don't see huge movement there either in recent years as our rankings seem to have stagnated and none of our graduate departments seem to be moving into top tier status.
So basically Father - what is your vision for the university? What are your goals and expectations for athletics and academics? Where do you envision our university being ranked among its peers in 5 to 10 years and how are we going to get there?
And if we do not like what we are hearing - nothing can be done about it unless the alumni get highly organized and significant donors demand change. And even then its a 50/50 proposition. The Jesuits control the place. If they want it to be more like Loyola or Le Moyne rather than Notre Dame or Georgetown - they will do so.
Nappy
Is there any way to objectively quantify "I think having highly competitive ACC athletic programs is important to the majority of the alum"? I'm a fanatic but suspect the average BC alum doesn't care all that much, but I don't know that for certain.
BTW
For those of us who go back far enough. When we went 0-11, no one was calling for Monan's head. It was strictly an AD issue, which they resolved quite poorly, and still there were no repercussions for Fr. Don. If Flutie didn't come along we might be in the Patriot League by now.
If Flutie didn't come along we would be a lot of things we aren't. He's not totally responsible, of course, but he was a catalyst as a result of the positive visibility he gave to the school. I fear, however, that the academic/administrative numnuts at BC give themselves most of the credit. A successful and by the rules football or basketball program with national visibility has a tremendous impact. I think Notre Dame and Duke were helped tremendously over time - their academics being pulled up by the increased selectivity and applications. You are even seeing it today at UConn (of all places) - its a much more highly regarded school academically today than it would have been without all of their hoops success.
I recently spoke to a prominent physician who graduated from Holy Cross who told me that the school has formed a committee to set a framework for the school's upgrade of its football, basketball and hockey programs. The school's administration reluctantly agreed that Holy Cross cannot raise its profile long term and attract better students in sufficient numbers without the increased visibility from better athletics.
I suppose its not always essential when you consider schools like Emory, Hopkins and Chicago. But those places are so far ahead academically due to history, a hugely wealthy alumni base, enormous endowments and nationally renowned graduate departments that its a very long road to reach that level.
So at the end of the day - its really all about money. A well run/by the rules athletics program enhances visibility, pride and loyalty - and it generates donations and support. And if the leadership at BC doesn't realize that - then they are truly putting the school at a competitive disadvantage against peer institutions that have better national visibility due to athletics or historically elite academics.
Nappy
I agree w/ everything you say except Uconn. I live in CT, and the State took on a huge program to upgrade the university w/ State $. I'm sure the athletic success helped grease the skids some. I agree completely w/ your premise though, as it regards BC. I just don't see where the momentum would come from. In my world of BC alumns, siblings, daughter, friends, and classmates, I don't see anywhere near the passion that you and I feel. Heck allot of them don't know the difference between the ACC & AARP! Please anyone show me where I'm wrong.
Bc about to lose to pen state in bball....we don't have to pretend xtian is any good do we?
There was a huge upgrade in the dollar commitment to the head coach. Like a 125% increase in the rate of pay. Sounds like the board/president are committed.
Maybe they hired the wrong coach. Not certain yet.
Other schools hire coaches that don't workout as well. Florida, Texas, USC, Syracuse etc etc.
The team sucks. The coach is completely questionable.
Don't fully understand the carping about the resident/board right now.
president
Rome is burning Hario.
Post a Comment