It was a little bit of the familiar -- poor decisions when the game got close -- and a little bit new -- terrible, terrible defense in the entire first half. In the end,
BC couldn't do enough to close the gap and lost to Georgia Tech. If you want to get excited about anything it is that BC kept trying in the second half. But man, there was very little positive to takeaway from that game. I will try anyway.
-- Milon's 3s are starting to drop. Next year he needs to shoot and make a lot more.
-- Barnes-Thompkins is making good decisions. He should be a serviceable ACC level role player next year too.
-- Carter's BC career is nearly done. That may seem harsh or overly cynical, but some of his turnovers were just flat giving up.
Posts
38 comments:
Of all the miserable things about this season, watching Eli Carter play might have been the worst of all
Someone at ESPN sure doesnt like BC or they dont like Bates and are hell bent on embarassing him with BC being collateral damage. In any case get ready to be the worst sports school in the post WWII era. Even a hockey frozen four wont cleanse this filth.
BC deserves all the ridicule they get, and with all due respect to hockey it's still a non-mainstream sport that won't earn the school overall credibility from ESPN's standpoint (for whatever that's worth).
Bates certainly deserves his share of the blame, but the downward spiral arguably started with GDF
Speaking of non mainstream - did anybody notice that BC just hosted the ACC Track and Field Championships in Boston at the Reggie Lewis Center? You would never know it by reading the BC sports page - but the men's team did not score a single point while the women finished 13th. Do you know how ridiculously bad that is? Then why the F do we even bother to participate? We are an absolute joke in this conference - BC Athletics and the Jesuits tolerating this BS do not have an ounce of pride for our university.
From the ACC site report describing the men's results:
"...the Orange still placed first in the scoring with 88 points, followed by Clemson at 76.5, Virginia 64, NC State 62 and 2015 champion Virginia Tech 58....
Florida State held sixth place with 55 points, followed by Notre Dame 45, Miami 44, Louisville 38.5, Pitt 28, Wake Forest 27, Duke 26, Georgia Tech 25 and North Carolina 23. Boston College did not score."
Hey Brad - you're the AD - did you know we had a track team? Its just symptomatic of the entire situation. Bates has got to go. All the amateurs on our payroll have to go. The ACC is a serious proud major athletic conference in which BC doesn't deserve to belong.
Not sure anybody noticed that Villanova is ranked #1 in men's basketball. I guess that's understandable - they have such a better location (no pro sports and great weather), prettier campus, better academics, bigger endowment, etc. But do they have adults at the helm of their athletic program who know what they are doing?
Sorry for the Sunday morning rant folks - but I'm so sick and tired of Boston College having allowed itself to become so shitty, mediocre, complacent and amateurish in its approach to athletics. It does not and should not have to be this way. Every single one of you - especially the alums - needs to get your blood up on this. You have a right to feel disgusted. You have a right to have high expectations. You have a right to feel proud of your university. Every opportunity you have with BC - let them know you are unhappy, let them know this is unacceptable, let them know you demand top down change, let them know you expect Boston College to excel (or die trying) in everything it chooses to participate - let them know you want to feel pride in Boston College and demand that the administrators paid/assigned to manage athletics demonstrate a much higher level of competency, creativity and accountability. The shit has hit the fan - show it.
Which is exactley why they should drop half the sports they sponsor.
I believe they sponsor the most in the ACC, it's just wasted money. Dump the under performing sports that don't work at BC and allocate that money to football.
For Milon to be effective he needs to be part of a motion offense w/ lots of off ball screens. I hope Xtian will realize this when working in Graves. We need allot, hi on the list is adequate PG play.
To Nappy's point, Bill any chance you do a post on the structure of BCs athletic decision making? Is it just Bates getting permission from Leahy to do the things he wants? I hope not. We're at the point of futility that if we were a business someone like McKinsie would be brought in to do a complete top to bottom analysis and critique of our operations. BC Athletics is really a multi million $ business in a multi billion $ industry, and should be run accordingly. No more major decisions re: BCs athletic future should be made till the entire process is reviewed.
Amen, brother.
Complaining to each other on a forum like this accomplishes nothing.
If you care, BC needs to hear from you all!
"Dump the under performing sports that don't work at BC and allocate that money to football."
Because BC football is an overperforming sport that "works"?
Traditionally yes. If BC can save a few hundred K by cutting sports that they will never be competitive in, and use tat money towards additional FB staff (recruiting staff) for instance, then you're stupid to keep said sport around. If BC wants to cry poor all the time and use that excuse for the lack of facilities and under spending on staff, ten maybe it's time to start some cost cutting and allocate resources where they will provide a return
Or we can all just sit back, put forth a half ass effort to a large number of sports, and see mediocre results.
Does BC need M/W track, golf, tennis, fencing, swim/dive, rowing, skiing ? The answer is no. BC isn't placing people in olympics. They get nothing from these sports and just dump money into them. It's just a total waste
While I agree its a management problem - its not something that can necessarily be fixed by any competent manager. And I can't imagine any of the consulting firms are so niched as to have practical expertise in major university athletic department issues! We should first spend a lot of time finding two extremely capable and highly successful retired Athletic Directors (especially those whose experience included private universities) who would be interested in getting paid to do a very deep dive on BC's entire Athletic Department and other BC departments impacting the management of athletics at BC. They would be expected, as part of their review, to interview coaches, assistant coaches, team captains as well as AD personnel and BC administration involved in athletics. I would team them up with one or two management consultant types who would assist. I would then look at their assessment and recommendations and take it from there.
On the issue of dropping sports. It is possible to get over extended. It does not make sense to support a sport where we will never or rarely be in a position to compete for league championships for reasons largely beyond our control (such as built in major recruiting disadvantages) and/or where there is little to no fan interest in the sport. For example, I have always thought that to be the case with baseball (although the team is currently doing well - let's reserve until the ACC part of the schedule). We also cannot afford to spend money that is not providing any kind of direct or indirect return to the school. If, however, despite all these things the sport is effectively supporting itself and is no real financial burden to the school - I have no concerns. I would put something like fencing into that category.
The notion floated above of simply dropping a ton of men's and women's sports likely would not work due to Title IX. Football eats up so many scholarships that you need to have a bunch of women's sports. Dropping the men's version of a lot of those sports is possible but I don't know how much of a difference it really makes.
It would be interesting to see a P&L to see how the money really flows. As a former track athlete at BC, I can shed a little light on the extreme costs of the men's track program. Unless things have changed, men's track gets zero scholarships. We did at one time but coming into compliance with Title IX (or at least that is what we were told) killed those midway through my time at BC. Despite being called men's track and field, BC provides neither. No track or field so nothing to maintain. People bitch about the football facilities but to put them on par with track they would be going to Harvard to practice (like we did) and play all their games on the road (like we did). Almost all transportation to meets is by bus or school van. Per diem allowances were light (i.e., McDonald's). Hotels were only required a couple of times a year. We would usually wake up early the day of the event, drive a few hours, compete and come home same day. Essentially, we got one pair of sneakers, one pair of spikes, and unis/practice clothes. Not big bucks. Looking back to Eagles of the Year since the late 70s, each of men's track and women's track have almost as many as football. Both men's track and women's track have more than basketball. If football and basketball were as productive with their scholarships as men's track (when we had them) or women's track, we sure as hell would not be winless in conference. The performance of football and basketball is far more pathetic than men's track. Men's track is a bunch of non-scholarship guys against paid runners. Football and basketball are fully-funded. The lack of an indoor practice facility or the fact you need to share your practice court with the women's team should not mean that you are incapable of winning one single game.
At the end of the day, I don't know that the money spent on non-revenue sports is the issue. I don't think BC suffers from a lack of funds in the aggregate and I can assure you that the administration does not give a ton of attention to the non-revenue sports. I tend to agree with Joe that if the school is not going to give adequate resources to the sport, it should probably be dropped. It really isn't fair to anyone, especially that we are now in the ACC which is a lot tougher than the Big East in many sports (track is definitely one of them). However, the non-revenue sports have little to nothing to do with the miserable state of football and basketball. The responsibility there is on the players, coaches and BC's sports administration.
The other thing that is more subjective is how the dropping of those programs impacts the quality of person BC is producing. Any college sport is a grind and the balancing act does help prepare you for the real word. It is not easy to be studying for finals on a 7-hour bus ride home from Villanova and wake up on a handful of hours of sleep to take a final the next morning but it is good prep for the real world. You take the non-revenue sports away and you lose some of that. As an employer, if I have my choice of hiring the guy who did a non-revenue sport in college or the guy whose time was split equally between Xbox and weezing his way through intramurals, all else being equal, I'll take the non-revenue guy every time.
Let's look at the real world. Of course "mod34b" is right and "Napoleon Bonaparte" is on target. According to Wikipedia, Villanova is 12 miles west of Philly and I know that it is part of the Big 5 with Temple, St. Joe, UPa, and LaSalle. They have a tremendous track program. BC has lost its "weigh". The entire situation has to be reevaluated. Xavier just beat Villanova like a drum in basketball. The excitement was overwhelming among the students. Father Leahy will soon be gone. A lay president will come in. After concussion issues and the cruelty of the sport (Mehdi Abdesmad) along with its corruption, BC needs to take a long look with ND on where this is all going. According to Father Jenkins, it is all moving toward semi pro. He said that at that point, ND would drop football. BC needs to look at reality. I love BC football. However, it has become the "tail that wags the dog". There are other athletes on campus that deserve recognition. At present, it looks like "the charge of the light brigade" all over again. Life has moved way beyond just "strapping on your helmet" and jumping off the top of the Heights.
SD, let me clarify. while I may have been rambling a bit, my point (in re: to Title IX) was the dropping of non-revenue sports in which men and women competed (i.e. You drop men and women golf, you lose same # of scholarships keeping the ratio in tact to comply).
I also don't know the P&L. My honest guess is, on a pure dollar basis, it probably doesn't cost much to fund these sports. Maybe people are donating money and earmarking said donations towards specific athletics. I don't know. My point more refers to why fund these things if you are not going to approach it with a winning mentality, as you said as well. Sponsoring track and field (or CC) and only providing the bear minimum, isn't helping anyone. It's money (however large the amount) essentially being thrown at a losing product because the athletes aren't being provided the proper resources. BC has a number of disadvantages in warm weather sports, most notably, high tuition. If a kid from down south, where presumably there is more talent, can go to a state school at 25% the cost (since these sports aren't funded), why are they coming to Boston to pay full boat and freeze ? They're not. I think where BC has gotten in trouble, is sponsoring these sports when they were only competing against schools in the Northeast, where they could be competitive, thus the huge number of sports. Now that they are playing a more national schedule, they simply can't compete. So what's the solution, the school needs to take a long look at what sports they want to allocate funds to in order to be competitive, and needs to shit or get off the pot.
Again, if you look at money the school brings in (from ACC, FB, BB, whatever) I'm sure the money it takes to run golf, track, tennis, etc is minimal. For me it just goes back to returns. Does BC get more out of minimally funding a bunch of non revenue sports, or adding a group of football recruiting staff/ upgrading locker rooms/renovating alumni stadium or conte/ whatever you want to say to make revenue producing sports more competitive.
I completely agree with you as to the quality of person issue. I played a non-revenue sport in college, I get it (one that was coincidently dropped due to Title IX). However, I don't think that justifies sponsoring a sport. As many people here and elsewhere point out in their criticism of Brad Bates and the administration, this is a multi-million dollar business, and unfortunately, the "type of person produced" is something that may have to be overlooked, at a certain point, especially as a private, non state funded university, it's about dollars and cents. Like I said before, the sport I played in college was dropped, it was disappointing, but I can honestly say it was the right move. We were competitive within the Northeast, but we couldn't realistically compete on a national level. We couldn't recruit or practice year round. It was a huge disadvantage and dropping was the right thing to do.
I'll wager my mortgage that the next president is a Jesuit. Also, Villanova being a better academic school is news to me.
Father Jack or Tony would be great leaders of the University. The exemplify and care about every positive aspect of the school, the Jesuit culture,and all students. They are also involved with athletics and understand each program's importance. Father Leahy has done well for the school, but he has lately turned a blind eye to too many aspects of it, and not just Athletics, but the Campus School and Alumni Relations to name a few, and he needs to go. Being a BC Alumni to him is nothing more than a wallet or checkbook. I cannot recall the last time in 10 years since graduating BC that the school has put an ounce of effort in to maintaining the relationship, other than the monthly phone call, asking for more money. Not even 1 drink at an alumni event that wasn't aimed at annual donors. Just throw one freakin alumni event where you don't ask me for a dollar! One!
The Villanova example is exactly my point. Look at their schedule, they're competing in regional meets against smaller, northern schools, where Nova has a major advantage. I also don't think the above was suggesting that Nova is a better school, but similar in geography, academics, etc...
I obviously don't follow T&F closely, but I would imagine that BC used to be in a similar situation in the 70s, 80s, 90s. They would compete against northern focused, non-revenue sports, and would be quite successful, and was most likely the case for most of the non-revenue sports. Now, BC just can't compete with the southern based ACC schools and national schools that allocate proper funds to non-revenue sports. Why does BC field M/W Golf, M/W Tennis, M/W T&F (among others) when these teams have major disadvantages in where they can practice and the talent they can realistically draw, just so they can travel down south in the winter months to get their brains beat in.
I am in no way criticizing the move to the ACC. Net/net, its the right thing to do. But with that move, and BC's unwillingness to PROPERLY supply for these sports, whats the point ? So some kid can put it on their resume that they played a D1 sport ? It just doesn't make any sense.
All great comments above. Obviously - reasonable minds may differ on things like which sports to drop, etc. But the main point - which you all get - is that it should be examined by intelligent people and imperfect but, on balance, common sense decisions in the overall best interests of the school and student body need to be made. As far as the more important issue - the overall state of the management of BC Athletics - I think we all clearly agree that a deep dive needs to be done and top down change in practices and culture is essential.
So what can you do? What you can do is bitch, bitch, bitch and endlessly bitch at every BC contact - until there is a roar so loud from all of you that they have to act. That means you do not give a frigging penny to BC until you are satisfied that real change is being made. It further means that when they ask for your hard earned money - you not only turn them down you tell them you are totally disgusted with BC Athletics and that is the reason. Even if its some kindly innocent student who calls. Remember - we need a roar. It also means any contact with anyone representing BC in any context is told of your disgust and unwillingness to donate because of it.
As eagle 1331 pointed out so correctly - all they really give a crap about is your money. Okay - fair enough - but guess what? We, on the other hand, give a huge crap about BC excelling at everything it elects to do and athletics is no exception. So BC - not a dime until real change in the structure and culture of BC athletics. They will say that's not fair and hurts other things not impacting athletics. Your response? TOUGH SHIT - LIFE ISN'T FAIR - FIX IT! Spread the word on this to every BC alum you know. "Ever to Excel or Bust".
Nappy
We aren't too far apart, but I want a financial analysis as well, and I don't think a former AD is really the best person for that task. You need someone who can look at revenue and expense, but also has the ability to see how the athletic dept. factors into donations and overall student recruitment. The Times recently had a story that concluded that for the 7mm Alabama pays Nick Saban the university benefits to the tune of 500mm. To get this thing right a deep dive is required. Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I hope that what moves this dinosaur will be what happens outside of athletics, since that cult seems to be well protected. If there is another drop in applications, and they have difficulty attracting "quality" students who seek a well rounded Div. I experience then maybe the earth will move. I feel for the current group of undergrads as they have little to get excited about, how many times have they heard "For Boston" following a touchdown or a win. Thank God for hockey, but when fewer and fewer current students come from Massachusetts and New England that's a tough sport to get excited about. I don't know why the panic button hasn't been pushed, current state of affairs is sad, and many thousands of Syracuse fans at Conte for a recent b-ball game should have been enough to push over the edge. But maybe it's all about butts in the seats regardless of where they come from. On another note, any one know how many football season tickets were sold last year ? I would imagine that there will be another drop off this year given the home slate put together.
I hope that what moves this dinosaur will be what happens outside of athletics, since that cult seems to be well protected. If there is another drop in applications, and they have difficulty attracting "quality" students who seek a well rounded Div. I experience then maybe the earth will move. I feel for the current group of undergrads as they have little to get excited about, how many times have they heard "For Boston" following a touchdown or a win. Thank God for hockey, but when fewer and fewer current students come from Massachusetts and New England that's a tough sport to get excited about. I don't know why the panic button hasn't been pushed, current state of affairs is sad, and many thousands of Syracuse fans at Conte for a recent b-ball game should have been enough to push over the edge. But maybe it's all about butts in the seats regardless of where they come from. On another note, any one know how many football season tickets were sold last year ? I would imagine that there will be another drop off this year given the home slate put together.
We should not be dropping sports to boost up football and basketball. Those other sports are drops in the bucket compared to the costs of the big 2. Colleges have sports to attract a diverse student body and provide well-rounded opportunities. To drop them is to admit that we are less a college, and more an amateur sports business with built-in for profit fan base.
The fact of the matter is that BC offers a wonderful education and the degree has a certain amount of prestige to it. I'm not willing to sacrifice that just so we're playing on New Years day every year. Yes, I'm aware of the Flutie effect, and understand that the ignorant masses out in the world associate our sports excellence (or lack there of) with the "quality" of the school, but thats just not the case.
We all chose BC because of the world class opportunities it offered. That includes scholastics, activities, facilities, and athletics (both to cheer on, and in some instances, participate in). But to propose the cutting of crew, track, golf, fencing (and we actually do have a fencer who is in the conversation for attending the olympics) so that football can get one or two extra weight machines seems a little short-sighted to me.
We've done really well with the cards we've been dealt in the past, the hand hasn't really changed, just our willingness to play it.
I don't have the answer for this, but is there a requisite amount of sports and/or scholarships BC has to sponsor in order to remain in the ACC?
BB, the answer is, I'm sure there is. I just quickly went thru the Atlantic Division and Wake is the lowest with 16.
As to Danny Boy's comment, dropping sports does one thing, it falls completely in line with what the school has been projecting for years, that they don't care about athletics. Whatever subjective bullshit you want to spew about athletics and diversity and well-rounded opportunities and a fencing participant, really means nothing.
My entire point, is that if BC isn't going to step up for ALL of their sponsored sports, then what is the point ? If BC is going to put their T&F athletes at a major disadvantage by not supporting them, then why throw even small amounts of money at the program at all ? Why not drop a few non-rev sports and allow the school to PROPERLY fund other non-rev sports. Ones where BC is not put at a major geographic/demographic disadvantage.
It becomes a question of commitment. Obviously every athletic program at a school can't be successful all the time, it doesn't work that way. But if you are going to sponsor a sport, you have to at least give the athletes a chance to compete on the same level. That means investment in facilities, weight rooms, practice space, etc ...
The bottom line is, BC DOES get more out of small upgrades to football than throwing losing money at underfunded sports. Its just a fact. If BC can add to the FB support staff, or replace weight room facilities, or whatever, it means absolutely more than BC spending money on equipment, travel, etc for a losing program that can't realistically compete.
There seems to be a real dislocation among certain people. That being people who are pissed about the current state of the basketball program, but also want to wax poetic about diversity and well-rounded opportunities. You need to catch up to 2016, and realize what collegiate athletics is. This isn't high school where everyone deserves a chance. Businesses cut underperforming units all the time, they don't keep them around to provide jobs just because. Its just a matter of investment and return.
BB
We are way over that #. I'm wondering why we have to be in the ACC for the sports people are speaking about here. We aren't in it for hockey.
Hoib, that's only because the ACC doesn't offer hockey. Being a member in the ACC means that BC has to be a member for all sports the ACC offers (the only exception to this is ND football, but that's explicitly stated).
This isn't true at all. Plenty of schools don't field sports in every sport the ACC sponsors. Off the top of my head, I can tell you (ironically) Miami doesn't field a men's golf program, in fact only 12 schools field men's golf (just using this as an example)
Idk where you're getting your facts from, but how is there a difference in the # of sports offered by each school if everyone has to participate in every sport offers ?
Joe, what I meant was if the ACC offers the sport and BC fields a program, that team has to be in the ACC. BC can't go out and park it's basketball team in the Big East, its baseball program in the American Athletic Conference, and its track team in Conference USA. Since the ACC doesn't offer hockey, BC's hockey team can be a member of Hockey East.
My bad, I misread
BB
I understood the rules, but I would think things could be worked out for smaller sports if there was a will to push for it. Two of my kids went to Johns Hopkins. JHU is in the Big 10 for Lax, and is D3 in all other sports. The ACC is really only about the 2 big money generating sports why does everything else have to be swept up into it?
I understand the desire of the ACC to want schools who sponsor sports to put them in the conference (as opposed to letting them do their own thing), especially down the road if a network is ever created as it provides some kind of additional content.
I don't have a problem with the rule. My problem is more with BC. That rule exists for every P5 school (I would imagine). If you play a sport sponsored by that conference, you play in conference. BC knows this is the deal. So fund the sport to be competitive or axe it.
I agree Joe. Look at ND. As much as I hate the buggers, you will have a hard time finding anything in which they participate where they are not competitive. In fact, in most things they are either good or very good. And their academics are excellent as well. Its the culture - and we need to change the culture at BC. It would be interesting to hear from someone who knows both schools well to give us their observations of the differences.
I see that our women's basketball team is 2-14 this year in the ACC with one game left. The last three years before that we were 5-12, 3-14 and 6-14 in conference. Yet Brad Bates decides to extend the coach's contract last year. Why? Because Johnson is a nice guy? We need to pay Bates hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and this is what he does? Your 15 year old kid could do this for a shitload less money.
1) As for the women basketball thing, eeeh who cares. They went .500 overall. Doesn't move the needle enough for me to give a shit.
2) The ND thing is a simple issue. ND makes a lot of money. ND invests a lot of money. Despite being in the middle of nowhere, they have beautiful facilities for every sport. In that regard, it is culture, in the sense that they understand the benefits of successful sports in their relation to the academic side.
Post a Comment