If you are looking to add to our the list of frustrating moments, how about know that any early game lead will fade.
Saturday's loss to UNC had the prototypical breakdown. BC led early despite turnovers. Then UNC made a run and never looked back. BC cannot hang with any team -- let alone the No. 2 team in the country -- with an offense like this. Even if Carter gets hot, the rest of the offense is so mistake prone and terrible on the boards, that you know things will go wrong.
What's also frustrating is how many turnovers we got from our upperclassmen. How are these guys not more aware?
I don't know what else to write. Even if we upgrade the talent, Christian still has a lot to fix with how his teams approach and manage these games.
Posts
20 comments:
ESPN posted a statistic that sums up our frustration; i.e., BC's record against ranked opponents in the last seven (7) years is 2-31.
Enough of this crap.
Agree dixie - but until the people in place administering athletics at BC resign or are removed and, more importantly, replaced with people with proven track records at winning programs, this embarrassing situation will only continue for quite some time. And it seems the current administration is firmly entrenched and, as a practical matter, accountable to nobody. I suppose the BOT is the only body who can act but the nature and make up of that body and its relationship to Leahy make it appear highly unlikely it will do anything. The only thing anyone up there understands or will listen to is money. The alums are hugely important only in regards to money. If serious money is involved - there will be change.
And don't assume Leahy's retirement would solve anything. A 50/50 proposition at best as he could be replaced with another Jesuit even less interested in the state of athletics. I know most of you think it highly unlikely that the ACC gravy train will ever end - but everything has its limits. There has to be an implied contractual understanding that when you enter a conference - you will invest sufficiently to be competitive and be the contributor to conference resources you represented yourself to be on your application to the conference. At some point - the ACC has to start looking at its options.
Answer this riddle;
Temple was to the Big East was ___ is to the ACC
Is there any scenario that a Power 5 Conference could replace a perceived "Weak Sister" with another school ??? For instance , if UConn's football team continued to get stronger under Diaco(SP) , could the league opt to drop BC and add UConn ?? Maybe a ridiculous question , but I am serious. The ACC would gain two "Monster" basketball programs. UConn women - National Champions year after year. And the men are always strong .Don't be too hard on me for the question!!!! Are there contracts in place that guarantee your membership ???
Eli Carter with 7 TOs, at the game it felt like it was in double digits. As it has been written / commented on, if you are going to go winless in the ACC, might as well play people who will be in the program next year. With @ UVA, @ L-Ville and UNC at home in the next three games, more 20+ losses on the way. Hope that the team continues to play hard.
Looking forward to the Beanpot and the rest of the Hockey season.
ESPN commented that the ACC was researching it s records to see if a school had ever gone winless against the conference BB schedule. They thought that it had never happened.
Guido - One year like the one we are having would not be nearly enough. But if you follow this up with two or more years of similar performance in football and basketball (mens and womens), then I think at a minimum you have the ACC brass calling BC and asking if we are serious about our membership and competing in the major revenue sports. If the ACC wanted to get rid of us in favor of somebody else - it would be a negotiation as the conference would have to pay a ton of money. If you were representing the ACC you would look at potential misrepresentations made by BC when it applied and what it has done (especially compared to norms in the conference). But the worst public spectacle for BC would be to be in a conference where it is unwanted by a majority of other member institutions and has been asked publicly to consider leaving on mutually acceptable terms because it cannot compete and its continued membership is considered detrimental to the conference and BC. The threat of that kind of adverse publicity would bring BC to the negotiating table for a negotiated settlement that would cost both the conference and the school dearly but be portrayed as a voluntary exit by BC to de-emphasize athletics.
@Napoleon" You ask a good question. It could very well happen the situation is so bad. @dixieagle is right. @Guido: You can't say it won't happen. @Lenny: Numbers make it sound even worse. There are 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in an association. All of them are now moving to getting rid of their Jesuit presidents. The time for Father Leahy is not that far off. Once that happens, there will be a tremendous amount of change. I for one like the red headed leader. Isn't that the real reason for the selection of the red headed TOB?
Smart accounting. U do taxes?
M34 - the biggest reason is to enhance the profile,image and popularity of the school. And indeed it does. But the eggheads at BC probably give themselves all the credit. Stanford could probably de-emphasize sports tomorrow and still be Stanford. Boston College could probably de-emphasize sports tomorrow and be Fordham.
I have listened for years how the neighbors and the City of Boston have blocked so many expansion plans for BC. I truly believe that excuse is "Getting Tired". They are reluctant to spend $$$$. They fail to understand that to maintain quality and to enhance your image , you must spend $$$$. The Mods are a firetrap and are quite a "blemish on the campus. - look closely at them when you are out to the Campus. If I was a fan from another ACC school , I would wonder why those "Disgusting" structures still exist !!!! Final point - when you spend $$$ , grads and fans like myself are willing to send a check to Boston College. Successful fundraising occurs when donors witness their contributions being "put to good use".
The ACC only cares about BC for one reason. Access to those millions of cable boxes in Boston. It's the same reason Rutgers is in the Big10. If we are good or bad it doesn't matter. UCONN doesn't have the bodies to be profitable replacement for us.
Hoib - please clarify your last comment as I am not sure I understand. You said the ACC wants access to those millions of cable boxes in Boston (and trust your point is that's presumably why the ACC could care less about BC's record). Okay - there are a lot of cable subscribers in the Boston area - hardly any of them watch BC anymore because we suck. What does that do for the ACC? Also - even without BC can't the ACC gain access to Boston area cable? I mean I get it if BC ever improves and becomes a good entertainment bet. But if BC continues to be a joke in hoops and football - what's in it for the ACC?
And Hoib - do we have ratings data on BC televised events from the most recent football season that we can compare to any of the more successful ACC programs?
Nappy
Most of the money that the ACC gets come's from ESPN, which comes from cable TV companies. The TV Cos. get the money from people like u and me when we pay our monthly bill. ESPN is bundled into all kinds of packages by the cable providers to the viewers. A good # of these viewers never watching college football. So ratings for college ball in Boston don't matter. So long as ESPN can get cable cos. to pay them top dollar for the content they provide the $ will keep flowing to the ACC and us. If cord cutting really starts to affect what ESPN can charge then things could be different, but that seems like a long way off to me.
I don't know all the rules of access, but I cam watch allot more BC games in the NYC area, where I live, since Cuse came into the league. Bill has written about this stuff before and seems to have a good sense of how it works. W/ allot of people questioning our ACC viability, maybe he can revisit the topic.
Thanks Hoib - now let me understand this. You are saying that the ACC's payments from ESPN are greater as a result of BC being in Boston irrespective of BC's actual ratings and performance. In other words, BC is more attractive than UConn simply because its in a bigger cable market. Then if I have that right - the ACC could replace BC with BU or Northeastern (assuming they had football teams) and the TV money is unaffected. So basically BC's performance and ratings are unimportant to ESPN and the ACC - its just their location that matters?
Post a Comment