BC just built their IPF and it looks awesome.

quote='Michael in Raleigh' pid='16913990' dateline='1595445613']

(07-22-2020 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:13 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Arguably, they have. BC football this past decade was better, but still bad. UConn clearly is the better basketball program.

Hindsight us 20/20, but the ACC's weakest addition since expansion started all the way back to Georgia Tech in the late 70's has been BC. On the field and court they are a disaster. They're barely a blip on the radar in the local sports scene. Sure, they're a great university, but the ACC could have had that with UConn.

UConn is having financial problems and just cut 4 sports. UConn has had its day in MBB and they are done.
Totally disagree: I live down the street from BC and they just built an Indoor Football Practice Facility. BC fits very well in the ACC and their endowment is now in the billions. UConn has financial woes and they are only getting worse. They lose $40M on football every year and are cutting sports, not adding them.
BC has won a couple of division titles, which is more than anyone but FSU, Clemson, VT and GT.

They have. They also made the ACC basketball title game in either their first or second year in the ACC (cant remember off top of my head).

But that was many years ago. BC has some of the worst facilities and lowest salaries in both major sports in the conference. In both sports, they're really struggling and have been for a decade. Again, they are a great school, but it's hard to see how the ACC wouldn't have been better off if the ACC's roster included WVU or UConn instead of the Eagles.

Folks dont seem to remember how good BC was when they first went to the ACC. From 2002 when BC was still in the BE until 2009, a span of 7 seasons, BC won 65 games and had a couple of seasons with ten and eleven wins. That team, along with VT , gave the ACC legitimacy during those years when the ACC was very weak.

BC was very good back then. I do remember. They had Matt Ryan for a stretch and got off to a great start in the ACC.

But their past decade has been bad, and given their facilities situation and relatively low coaching salaries, it's hard to forecast a strong future.

I stand by my position that the ACC would be better off today if it was either UConn or WVU in the league instead of Boston College.
[/quote]

(07-22-2020 02:20 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:13 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Arguably, they have. BC football this past decade was better, but still bad. UConn clearly is the better basketball program.

Hindsight us 20/20, but the ACC's weakest addition since expansion started all the way back to Georgia Tech in the late 70's has been BC. On the field and court they are a disaster. They're barely a blip on the radar in the local sports scene. Sure, they're a great university, but the ACC could have had that with UConn.

PHP Code:

UConn is having financial problems and just cut 4 sports. UConn has had its day in MBB and they are done.
Totally disagree: I live down the street from BC and they just built an Indoor Football Practice Facility. BC fits very well in the ACC and their endowment is now in the billions. UConn has financial woes and they are only getting worse. They lose $40M on football every year and are cutting sports, not adding them. 


BC has won a couple of division titles, which is more than anyone but FSU, Clemson, VT and GT.

They have. They also made the ACC basketball title game in either their first or second year in the ACC (cant remember off top of my head).

But that was many years ago. BC has some of the worst facilities and lowest salaries in both major sports in the conference. In both sports, they're really struggling and have been for a decade. Again, they are a great school, but it's hard to see how the ACC wouldn't have been better off if the ACC's roster included WVU or UConn instead of the Eagles.

Folks dont seem to remember how good BC was when they first went to the ACC. From 2002 when BC was still in the BE until 2009, a span of 7 seasons, BC won 65 games and had a couple of seasons with ten and eleven wins. That team, along with VT , gave the ACC legitimacy during those years when the ACC was very weak.

BC was very good back then. I do remember. They had Matt Ryan for a stretch and got off to a great start in the ACC.

But their past decade has been bad, and given their facilities situation and relatively low coaching salaries, it's hard to forecast a strong future.

I stand by my position that the ACC would be better off today if it was either UConn or WVU in the league instead of Boston College.

The ACC is the 3rd best FBS P5 conference, behind the SEC and Big 10. They made the right choice in Miami, BC and the Cuse, and by not inviting UConn. UConn has had its day in MBB and will eventually go back down to FCS.

The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

Everything I've seen has Miami as their primary target. I don't see why they would have added, say, WVU before Miami, especially given the ACC's beef with WVU.

(07-22-2020 10:07 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 09:55 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  What is unclear to me is whether Syracuse was interested in 2003 in joining the ACC. They never made any comments publicly.

Syracuse absolutely was interested. They had been fully vetted by the ACC, and the decision to accept had been approved by the Syracuse Board of Trustees. They were poised to accept the invitation that was anticipated after the ACC's final vote. However, Virginia maneuvered an invitation for Virginia Tech, causing the ACC to pause before proceeding on a 12th member. BC lobbied hard for that slot and Syracuse did not. I believe BC was more motivated at the time because they feared UConn surpassing them as New England's premier college athletics program.

BC was also unhappy when the Big East football schools did not/could not split from the basketball only schools. Having read the minutes from both the July and October re-org meetings, BC was committed until the split fell through, then went back to the ACC to see if there was still interest. That would be another interesting butterfly effect, if the Big East football schools split from the basketball schools.

(07-23-2020 08:23 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

Everything I've seen has Miami as their primary target. I don't see why they would have added, say, WVU before Miami, especially given the ACC's beef with WVU.

There were expansion discussions on many ACC boards for several years before the conference moved on Miami, Syracuse and BC.
Most of the people talking about expansion (as opposed to realignment) were more concerned about football than anything else.
Miami was thought of as a "northern" school. Florida State is a long way from Atlanta and in a backwater area of Florida, too far to go without planning a serious road trip to get to the middle of nowhere.
Miami is a lifetime away from almost anything (even Tallahassee) without a private jet.

(07-23-2020 10:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 08:23 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

Everything I've seen has Miami as their primary target. I don't see why they would have added, say, WVU before Miami, especially given the ACC's beef with WVU.

There were expansion discussions on many ACC boards for several years before the conference moved on Miami, Syracuse and BC.
Most of the people talking about expansion (as opposed to realignment) were more concerned about football than anything else.
Miami was thought of as a "northern" school. Florida State is a long way from Atlanta and in a backwater area of Florida, too far to go without planning a serious road trip to get to the middle of nowhere.
Miami is a lifetime away from almost anything (even Tallahassee) without a private jet.

Miami is one of the biggest airport hubs in the world. It's not hard to get there. No ACC team has anything more than a one-stop connection to get there. Distance on maps doesn't matter in the age of air travel. Quicker to fly Boston-Miami than to drive Blacksburg-Clemson or Blacksburg-Raleigh even. I just looked and every ACC city except Syracuse is served non-stop from Miami. Syracuse kind of surprises me given NY-FL tourism, so I'm wondering if that wasn't just a COVID cut.

Tallahassee is a bit more of a pain, but it also is served from four major airline hubs (Atlanta, Charlotte, DFW, & Miami) as well as from Washington National.

(07-23-2020 11:02 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 10:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 08:23 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

Everything I've seen has Miami as their primary target. I don't see why they would have added, say, WVU before Miami, especially given the ACC's beef with WVU.

There were expansion discussions on many ACC boards for several years before the conference moved on Miami, Syracuse and BC.
Most of the people talking about expansion (as opposed to realignment) were more concerned about football than anything else.
Miami was thought of as a "northern" school. Florida State is a long way from Atlanta and in a backwater area of Florida, too far to go without planning a serious road trip to get to the middle of nowhere.
Miami is a lifetime away from almost anything (even Tallahassee) without a private jet.

Miami is one of the biggest airport hubs in the world. It's not hard to get there. No ACC team has anything more than a one-stop connection to get there. Distance on maps doesn't matter in the age of air travel. Quicker to fly Boston-Miami than to drive Blacksburg-Clemson or Blacksburg-Raleigh even. I just looked and every ACC city except Syracuse is served non-stop from Miami. Syracuse kind of surprises me given NY-FL tourism, so I'm wondering if that wasn't just a COVID cut.

Tallahassee is a bit more of a pain, but it also is served from four major airline hubs (Atlanta, Charlotte, DFW, & Miami) as well as from Washington National.

We are looking at the same situation from different perspectives.

The 8 team ACC was accessible to most fans by car.
My home in Greensboro is equal distance from DC and Atlanta. I have made the Georgia Tech trip (down and back-same day) several times. Maryland was a little trickier because of DC traffic.
When Florida State came into the league, that type of trip was no longer doable. The idea of Miami, Syracuse and Boston College coming into the league was way beyond a road trip. Most of my friends didn't believe Florida State belonged.....too far.
Everybody has their own idea as to what a conference should be....I happen to like very regional, it may no longer be economically feasible, but I still prefer it.

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

With whom were they negotiating?

(07-23-2020 01:30 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:49 AM)XLance Wrote:  The other much discussed scenario for ACC expansion at the time was the addition of Virginia Tech, West Virginia and Pitt (instead of Syracuse, BC and Miami).
If that had transpired the ACC would have been a much better football conference, been more compact and be experiencing fewer internal problems.
In the 2011 time frame the ACC could have then added Miami and a SEC school that was at the time negotiating with the ACC.
The consultants ESPN hired for Swofford opted for the NE market provided by BC and Syracuse and because of BC's inclusion after VT and Miami, the conference has been suffering ever since.

With whom were they negotiating?

Vanderbilt is the only possible option. Being in the more academically elite and less competitive conference would suit them.

I know it wasn't Vandy, but I'm more curious as to who the folks were talking to in the ACC.

Chit chat or what if's passed between AD's is not a negotiation. A negotiation is a solid conversation between folks with a vote - Presidents and Chancellors. In the ACC that happens between a private president such as Nathan Hatch, and his counterpart at an out of the way airport in a third state.

"Touching base" or "chit chat" between AD's happens all the time. It's like your wife or girlfriend asking your best male friend if they are still attractive in a manner that is not a direct come-on and not meant at the moment to be a come-on. Or what some women do after chemo and or a lumpectomy when they want an opinion not from their husband.

There are a dozen unlikely scenarios that would cause the non-pillars of conferences to make sure they have a plan B or C. Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisky have no plan B because they need none. Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have no plan B because they need none. Everyone else has a plan B and most them also have a plan C. It's not good management not to stay abreast of things.

(07-23-2020 07:23 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  BC just built their IPF and it looks awesome.

quote='Michael in Raleigh' pid='16913990' dateline='1595445613']

(07-22-2020 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 10:13 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Arguably, they have. BC football this past decade was better, but still bad. UConn clearly is the better basketball program.

Hindsight us 20/20, but the ACC's weakest addition since expansion started all the way back to Georgia Tech in the late 70's has been BC. On the field and court they are a disaster. They're barely a blip on the radar in the local sports scene. Sure, they're a great university, but the ACC could have had that with UConn.

UConn is having financial problems and just cut 4 sports. UConn has had its day in MBB and they are done.
Totally disagree: I live down the street from BC and they just built an Indoor Football Practice Facility. BC fits very well in the ACC and their endowment is now in the billions. UConn has financial woes and they are only getting worse. They lose $40M on football every year and are cutting sports, not adding them.
BC has won a couple of division titles, which is more than anyone but FSU, Clemson, VT and GT.

They have. They also made the ACC basketball title game in either their first or second year in the ACC (cant remember off top of my head).

But that was many years ago. BC has some of the worst facilities and lowest salaries in both major sports in the conference. In both sports, they're really struggling and have been for a decade. Again, they are a great school, but it's hard to see how the ACC wouldn't have been better off if the ACC's roster included WVU or UConn instead of the Eagles.

Folks dont seem to remember how good BC was when they first went to the ACC. From 2002 when BC was still in the BE until 2009, a span of 7 seasons, BC won 65 games and had a couple of seasons with ten and eleven wins. That team, along with VT , gave the ACC legitimacy during those years when the ACC was very weak.

BC was very good back then. I do remember. They had Matt Ryan for a stretch and got off to a great start in the ACC.

But their past decade has been bad, and given their facilities situation and relatively low coaching salaries, it's hard to forecast a strong future.

I stand by my position that the ACC would be better off today if it was either UConn or WVU in the league instead of Boston College.

[/quote]

I get it. You don't like BC. That said, what you have put forth here is just not factually accurate.

BCFB's past decade has been "bad"?? Have you even looked at the W-L records over the past 10 years?? Over the 10 year period you cite, BC has made it to 7 bowl games. Of the 3 bad years during this 10-year period, 2 of them were in 2011 and 2012. Now, have they been elite during this time? No. Few ACC teams have been. But they have been a solid, middle-of-the-pack team in the ACC during the bulk of this period. They have not been "bad" for this 10-year period as you claim.

Facilities? BC has very good facilities - competitive with everyone else in the ACC. In the case of its FB IPF and baseball complex...they are at the top end of the ACC. This past season, the Boston Red Sox asked to use BC's baseball complex for it's summer training. The Boston Red Sox! Let that sink it when you talk about BC's facilities.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/...acilities/

With the completion of the Pete Frates Indoor Baseball/Softball Training Building in September, BC will have THREE indoor practice facilities for its teams. The Fish Field House for FB, The Frates Center for baseball and softball, and the "Bubble," an inflated facility erected inside Alumni Stadium during the winter months, for the Soccer, Lacrosse, and Field Hockey teams to practice. How many schools have up to THREE indoor practice facilities?

https://bceagles.com/facilities

Finally, your claim about what BC pays its coaches may have been somewhat true at one time. But no more. BC's compensation levels are very competitive to the rest of the ACC. Jeff Hafley's reported annual compensation is approx. $3M a year.

https://www.si.com/college/tmg/mark-blau...eff-hafley

That puts him roughly in the middle-of-the-pack in the ACC. Very competitive when one considers this is his first HC job! The assistant coaches are likewise paid very competitively. Hafley would not have accepted the job if that were not the case.

https://247sports.com/college/virginia/L...37375898_3

Again, you don't have to like BC - although given who you state you are a fan of, I kinda get why. But the reasons you cite just don't hold up to the actual facts, IMO.

(07-23-2020 07:29 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  The ACC is the 3rd best FBS P5 conference, behind the SEC and Big 10. They made the right choice in Miami, BC and the Cuse, and by not inviting UConn. UConn has had its day in MBB and will eventually go back down to FCS.

I will agree on the ACC making the right choices at the time as football history and market size were the drivers back then (and UConn hadn't been FBS for that long at that time). That said, I don't think that UConn MBB "had" its day.... the program is shaping up to be a national player again in the Big East (which was actually better than the ACC in basketball this year and has been in some other recent years). As for dropping to FCS, that won't happen. FCS is a money pit by comparison (the fewer scholarships don't offset missing out on the big paydays of body bag games and TV money that you can get if you are FBS).

ACC payday aside, I actually think that Big East basketball coupled with football independence is a better setup for UConn fans and student athletes than us being in the ACC. Having multiple conference rivals within driving range is something that is really nice (as one of the few northern schools in the ACC, we only would have had BC and Syracuse). I also can't underestimate the importance of the conference basketball tournament as MSG. It really is magical and is part of our DNA. With UConn now in the Big East, the Big East should easily be able to secure another long term contract for the tournament at MSG once the current deal is up. It may sound silly to some fans, but that is huge for our fanbase.

(07-23-2020 03:25 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:23 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  BC just built their IPF and it looks awesome.

quote='Michael in Raleigh' pid='16913990' dateline='1595445613']

(07-22-2020 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  UConn is having financial problems and just cut 4 sports. UConn has had its day in MBB and they are done.
Totally disagree: I live down the street from BC and they just built an Indoor Football Practice Facility. BC fits very well in the ACC and their endowment is now in the billions. UConn has financial woes and they are only getting worse. They lose $40M on football every year and are cutting sports, not adding them.
BC has won a couple of division titles, which is more than anyone but FSU, Clemson, VT and GT.

They have. They also made the ACC basketball title game in either their first or second year in the ACC (cant remember off top of my head).

But that was many years ago. BC has some of the worst facilities and lowest salaries in both major sports in the conference. In both sports, they're really struggling and have been for a decade. Again, they are a great school, but it's hard to see how the ACC wouldn't have been better off if the ACC's roster included WVU or UConn instead of the Eagles.

Folks dont seem to remember how good BC was when they first went to the ACC. From 2002 when BC was still in the BE until 2009, a span of 7 seasons, BC won 65 games and had a couple of seasons with ten and eleven wins. That team, along with VT , gave the ACC legitimacy during those years when the ACC was very weak.

BC was very good back then. I do remember. They had Matt Ryan for a stretch and got off to a great start in the ACC.

But their past decade has been bad, and given their facilities situation and relatively low coaching salaries, it's hard to forecast a strong future.

I stand by my position that the ACC would be better off today if it was either UConn or WVU in the league instead of Boston College.

I get it. You don't like BC. That said, what you have put forth here is just not factually accurate.

BCFB's past decade has been "bad"?? Have you even looked at the W-L records over the past 10 years?? Over the 10 year period you cite, BC has made it to 7 bowl games. Of the 3 bad years during this 10-year period, 2 of them were in 2011 and 2012. Now, have they been elite during this time? No. Few ACC teams have been. But they have been a solid, middle-of-the-pack team in the ACC during the bulk of this period. They have not been "bad" for this 10-year period as you claim.

Facilities? BC has very good facilities - competitive with everyone else in the ACC. In the case of its FB IPF and baseball complex...they are at the top end of the ACC. This past season, the Boston Red Sox asked to use BC's baseball complex for it's summer training. The Boston Red Sox! Let that sink it when you talk about BC's facilities.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/...acilities/

With the completion of the Pete Frates Indoor Baseball/Softball Training Building in September, BC will have THREE indoor practice facilities for its teams. The Fish Field House for FB, The Frates Center for baseball and softball, and the "Bubble," an inflated facility erected inside Alumni Stadium during the winter months, for the Soccer, Lacrosse, and Field Hockey teams to practice. How many schools have up to THREE indoor practice facilities?

https://bceagles.com/facilities

Finally, your claim about what BC pays its coaches may have been somewhat true at one time. But no more. BC's compensation levels are very competitive to the rest of the ACC. Jeff Hafley's reported annual compensation is approx. $3M a year.

https://www.si.com/college/tmg/mark-blau...eff-hafley

That puts him roughly in the middle-of-the-pack in the ACC. Very competitive when one considers this is his first HC job! The assistant coaches are likewise paid very competitively. Hafley would not have accepted the job if that were not the case.

https://247sports.com/college/virginia/L...37375898_3

Again, you don't have to like BC - although given who you state you are a fan of, I kinda get why. But the reasons you cite just don't hold up to the actual facts, IMO.
[/quote]

You must have missed the part where I gave you rep points for your prior rebuttal.

(07-23-2020 02:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I know it wasn't Vandy, but I'm more curious as to who the folks were talking to in the ACC.

Chit chat or what if's passed between AD's is not a negotiation. A negotiation is a solid conversation between folks with a vote - Presidents and Chancellors. In the ACC that happens between a private president such as Nathan Hatch, and his counterpart at an out of the way airport in a third state.

"Touching base" or "chit chat" between AD's happens all the time. It's like your wife or girlfriend asking your best male friend if they are still attractive in a manner that is not a direct come-on and not meant at the moment to be a come-on. Or what some women do after chemo and or a lumpectomy when they want an opinion not from their husband.

There are a dozen unlikely scenarios that would cause the non-pillars of conferences to make sure they have a plan B or C. Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisky have no plan B because they need none. Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have no plan B because they need none. Everyone else has a plan B and most them also have a plan C. It's not good management not to stay abreast of things.

If it’s not Vandy, then it wasn’t anyone. Florida might have some administrators that would rather be associated with the ACC schools, but their fanbase and the fanbase of every other SEC team would riot and burn down the campus if they left the SEC. (Although getting Florida-Miami as a conference game annually would be great)

(07-23-2020 03:25 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 07:23 AM)ZooMass84 Wrote:  BC just built their IPF and it looks awesome.

quote='Michael in Raleigh' pid='16913990' dateline='1595445613']

(07-22-2020 01:54 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:28 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-22-2020 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  UConn is having financial problems and just cut 4 sports. UConn has had its day in MBB and they are done.
Totally disagree: I live down the street from BC and they just built an Indoor Football Practice Facility. BC fits very well in the ACC and their endowment is now in the billions. UConn has financial woes and they are only getting worse. They lose $40M on football every year and are cutting sports, not adding them.
BC has won a couple of division titles, which is more than anyone but FSU, Clemson, VT and GT.

They have. They also made the ACC basketball title game in either their first or second year in the ACC (cant remember off top of my head).

But that was many years ago. BC has some of the worst facilities and lowest salaries in both major sports in the conference. In both sports, they're really struggling and have been for a decade. Again, they are a great school, but it's hard to see how the ACC wouldn't have been better off if the ACC's roster included WVU or UConn instead of the Eagles.

Folks dont seem to remember how good BC was when they first went to the ACC. From 2002 when BC was still in the BE until 2009, a span of 7 seasons, BC won 65 games and had a couple of seasons with ten and eleven wins. That team, along with VT , gave the ACC legitimacy during those years when the ACC was very weak.

BC was very good back then. I do remember. They had Matt Ryan for a stretch and got off to a great start in the ACC.

But their past decade has been bad, and given their facilities situation and relatively low coaching salaries, it's hard to forecast a strong future.

I stand by my position that the ACC would be better off today if it was either UConn or WVU in the league instead of Boston College.

Quote:I get it. You don't like BC. That said, what you have put forth here is just not factually accurate.

BCFB's past decade has been "bad"?? Have you even looked at the W-L records over the past 10 years?? Over the 10 year period you cite, BC has made it to 7 bowl games. Of the 3 bad years during this 10-year period, 2 of them were in 2011 and 2012. Now, have they been elite during this time? No. Few ACC teams have been. But they have been a solid, middle-of-the-pack team in the ACC during the bulk of this period. They have not been "bad" for this 10-year period as you claim.

Facilities? BC has very good facilities - competitive with everyone else in the ACC. In the case of its FB IPF and baseball complex...they are at the top end of the ACC. This past season, the Boston Red Sox asked to use BC's baseball complex for it's summer training. The Boston Red Sox! Let that sink it when you talk about BC's facilities.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/stories/...acilities/

With the completion of the Pete Frates Indoor Baseball/Softball Training Building in September, BC will have THREE indoor practice facilities for its teams. The Fish Field House for FB, The Frates Center for baseball and softball, and the "Bubble," an inflated facility erected inside Alumni Stadium during the winter months, for the Soccer, Lacrosse, and Field Hockey teams to practice. How many schools have up to THREE indoor practice facilities?

https://bceagles.com/facilities

Finally, your claim about what BC pays its coaches may have been somewhat true at one time. But no more. BC's compensation levels are very competitive to the rest of the ACC. Jeff Hafley's reported annual compensation is approx. $3M a year.

https://www.si.com/college/tmg/mark-blau...eff-hafley

That puts him roughly in the middle-of-the-pack in the ACC. Very competitive when one considers this is his first HC job! The assistant coaches are likewise paid very competitively. Hafley would not have accepted the job if that were not the case.

https://247sports.com/college/virginia/L...37375898_3

Again, you don't have to like BC - although given who you state you are a fan of, I kinda get why. But the reasons you cite just don't hold up to the actual facts, IMO.

[/quote]

To defend my fellow UMass fan, the post wasn't quoted right re-read. He was crapping on UConn not BC. He actually complimented BC's Facilities, I've never met a pro BC UMass fan but you have one in ZooMass84

(07-24-2020 10:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 02:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I know it wasn't Vandy, but I'm more curious as to who the folks were talking to in the ACC.

Chit chat or what if's passed between AD's is not a negotiation. A negotiation is a solid conversation between folks with a vote - Presidents and Chancellors. In the ACC that happens between a private president such as Nathan Hatch, and his counterpart at an out of the way airport in a third state.

"Touching base" or "chit chat" between AD's happens all the time. It's like your wife or girlfriend asking your best male friend if they are still attractive in a manner that is not a direct come-on and not meant at the moment to be a come-on. Or what some women do after chemo and or a lumpectomy when they want an opinion not from their husband.

There are a dozen unlikely scenarios that would cause the non-pillars of conferences to make sure they have a plan B or C. Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisky have no plan B because they need none. Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have no plan B because they need none. Everyone else has a plan B and most them also have a plan C. It's not good management not to stay abreast of things.

If it’s not Vandy, then it wasn’t anyone. Florida might have some administrators that would rather be associated with the ACC schools, but their fanbase and the fanbase of every other SEC team would riot and burn down the campus if they left the SEC. (Although getting Florida-Miami as a conference game annually would be great)

Kentucky would be an awesome ACC school from a men's basketball standpoint. They make a lot more sense now with Louisville in the conference, they probably wouldn't have fit in geographically or academically back then the same way Louisville doesn't now.

(07-24-2020 11:17 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 10:43 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 02:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I know it wasn't Vandy, but I'm more curious as to who the folks were talking to in the ACC.

Chit chat or what if's passed between AD's is not a negotiation. A negotiation is a solid conversation between folks with a vote - Presidents and Chancellors. In the ACC that happens between a private president such as Nathan Hatch, and his counterpart at an out of the way airport in a third state.

"Touching base" or "chit chat" between AD's happens all the time. It's like your wife or girlfriend asking your best male friend if they are still attractive in a manner that is not a direct come-on and not meant at the moment to be a come-on. Or what some women do after chemo and or a lumpectomy when they want an opinion not from their husband.

There are a dozen unlikely scenarios that would cause the non-pillars of conferences to make sure they have a plan B or C. Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisky have no plan B because they need none. Alabama, Auburn, and LSU have no plan B because they need none. Everyone else has a plan B and most them also have a plan C. It's not good management not to stay abreast of things.

If it’s not Vandy, then it wasn’t anyone. Florida might have some administrators that would rather be associated with the ACC schools, but their fanbase and the fanbase of every other SEC team would riot and burn down the campus if they left the SEC. (Although getting Florida-Miami as a conference game annually would be great)

Kentucky would be an awesome ACC school from a men's basketball standpoint. They make a lot more sense now with Louisville in the conference, they probably wouldn't have fit in geographically or academically back then the same way Louisville doesn't now.

Could be. Certainly you could see the value in UNC and Duke coming to town as conference games. Their football fanbase would be enraged, but who cares? The basketball fans would see it as an upgrade.

UMass fans have no right to crap on UConn at all. UMass hasn't really won anything in anything and UConn has P5 level facilities while UMass does not.