durkcal {l Wrote}:Under the idea that you never waste a crisis, I think that BC should eliminate the Baseball program. Then when the economy recovers in say two years, add Men's Lacrosse. My view is that BC will never be a national powerhouse in Baseball. It's largely a sport that is popular in the South and Southwest. It's obviously a painful decision. And with the legacy of Pete Frates, for some it would be too much to bear. But it is 100% grounded in reality. The Men's soccer program, for example, has proven it can be more competitive nationally, and soccer doesn't have the regional bias that baseball has.
Adding Men's Lacrosse in say two years is where this pays off. I believe that BC would be a national power within five years. Lacrosse has a regional bias into the Northeast. We could establish our natural triumvirate - Football, Hockey and Lacrosse. There, I said it. I know most that post will hate the idea. But it makes all the sense in the world. New economic realities are coming towards Higher Ed fast. And BC has always had a stretch to afford all that Title IX requires of a private school with an FBS football program. This is the correct 40 year decision.
DuchesneEast {l Wrote}:durkcal {l Wrote}:Under the idea that you never waste a crisis, I think that BC should eliminate the Baseball program. Then when the economy recovers in say two years, add Men's Lacrosse. My view is that BC will never be a national powerhouse in Baseball. It's largely a sport that is popular in the South and Southwest. It's obviously a painful decision. And with the legacy of Pete Frates, for some it would be too much to bear. But it is 100% grounded in reality. The Men's soccer program, for example, has proven it can be more competitive nationally, and soccer doesn't have the regional bias that baseball has.
Adding Men's Lacrosse in say two years is where this pays off. I believe that BC would be a national power within five years. Lacrosse has a regional bias into the Northeast. We could establish our natural triumvirate - Football, Hockey and Lacrosse. There, I said it. I know most that post will hate the idea. But it makes all the sense in the world. New economic realities are coming towards Higher Ed fast. And BC has always had a stretch to afford all that Title IX requires of a private school with an FBS football program. This is the correct 40 year decision.
I am not a LAX fan but I have to agree, we could dominate the sport.
claver2010 {l Wrote}:we need to cut programs, not add them until we can appropriately fund the sports that matter
Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:we need to cut programs, not add them until we can appropriately fund the sports that matter
Okay. See you later Men’s X country, fencing and men’s track and field. Throw in Swimming as well, although I don’t think the men get scholarships anyway and we probably need the women for Title 9 reasons. Football, Soccer, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, Lacrosse for men’s sports. Football and to a lesser degree basketball fund everything but hockey, which I understand is self-sustaining and generates a small profit. If the lacrosse team gets good, they can become net sustaining—Notre Dame, Duke, UVA and UNC have break even programs from what I am told, and Syracuse actually makes money (an admitted outlier in the sport due to the number of paying fans they get at the Dome). Take baseball and soccer as loss leaders and move on.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Pretty sure ACC teams have to field certain sports. Adding Lax is still dumb, they'll get smoked worse in that.
durkcal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Pretty sure ACC teams have to field certain sports. Adding Lax is still dumb, they'll get smoked worse in that.
1) Math. There are 299 Division 1 baseball teams. There are 75 Division 1 lacrosse teams. It will be easier to be competitive in lacrosse. Have you seen some of the schools that can be ranked in lacrosse? 2) Geography - the players are in our own backyard relative to baseball. Massachusetts is a powerhouse in lacrosse. New York and DMV area are closer to our recruiting base. Of the top 25 HS programs in Lacrosse acc to US Lacrosse Magazine, 24 of them are within 440 miles of our school. We're actually closer to more of the HS players than Duke and UNC btw. The hotbeds for baseball talent are in the South and West. The same analysis for top baseball programs in the country, Zero HS's within 440 miles. Closest might be Tenneesse, LOL. 3) Lacrosse doesn't have a professional league. Baseball players have to think of their professional potential. The BC degree will be worth relatively more to a greater number of the recruited athletes for lacrosse. 4) If you haven't noticed, lacrosse is growing. This is the 40 year decision. 5) We could still play baseball. Just do it without scholarships, and outside the ACC. 6) The motto is Ever too Excel. There is no credible argument that we would compete nationally more consistently in baseball relative to lacrosse long term. We can argue about how easily the success would come. But on a 30 to 40 year basis, there is no credible argument that we can compete more strongly in baseball relative to lacrosse. If you believe that, you just don't know where the players are coming from on a HS level for these sports.
BC will be looking aggressively to cut costs right now. I'm giving them a suggestion. Bank those savings for a few years. Then, when things are flush, and hopefully football is bringing in the $$$(Hafley?), add lacrosse. I don't know if that is 2022, 2023....2028. It makes way too much sense. Painful to cut baseball. But we were never winning anything in that anyway.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:durkcal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Pretty sure ACC teams have to field certain sports. Adding Lax is still dumb, they'll get smoked worse in that.
1) Math. There are 299 Division 1 baseball teams. There are 75 Division 1 lacrosse teams. It will be easier to be competitive in lacrosse. Have you seen some of the schools that can be ranked in lacrosse? 2) Geography - the players are in our own backyard relative to baseball. Massachusetts is a powerhouse in lacrosse. New York and DMV area are closer to our recruiting base. Of the top 25 HS programs in Lacrosse acc to US Lacrosse Magazine, 24 of them are within 440 miles of our school. We're actually closer to more of the HS players than Duke and UNC btw. The hotbeds for baseball talent are in the South and West. The same analysis for top baseball programs in the country, Zero HS's within 440 miles. Closest might be Tenneesse, LOL. 3) Lacrosse doesn't have a professional league. Baseball players have to think of their professional potential. The BC degree will be worth relatively more to a greater number of the recruited athletes for lacrosse. 4) If you haven't noticed, lacrosse is growing. This is the 40 year decision. 5) We could still play baseball. Just do it without scholarships, and outside the ACC. 6) The motto is Ever too Excel. There is no credible argument that we would compete nationally more consistently in baseball relative to lacrosse long term. We can argue about how easily the success would come. But on a 30 to 40 year basis, there is no credible argument that we can compete more strongly in baseball relative to lacrosse. If you believe that, you just don't know where the players are coming from on a HS level for these sports.
BC will be looking aggressively to cut costs right now. I'm giving them a suggestion. Bank those savings for a few years. Then, when things are flush, and hopefully football is bringing in the $$$(Hafley?), add lacrosse. I don't know if that is 2022, 2023....2028. It makes way too much sense. Painful to cut baseball. But we were never winning anything in that anyway.
I know where lacrosse players come from. I went to Albany. You terribly overrate MA HS lax.
hansen {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:durkcal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Pretty sure ACC teams have to field certain sports. Adding Lax is still dumb, they'll get smoked worse in that.
1) Math. There are 299 Division 1 baseball teams. There are 75 Division 1 lacrosse teams. It will be easier to be competitive in lacrosse. Have you seen some of the schools that can be ranked in lacrosse? 2) Geography - the players are in our own backyard relative to baseball. Massachusetts is a powerhouse in lacrosse. New York and DMV area are closer to our recruiting base. Of the top 25 HS programs in Lacrosse acc to US Lacrosse Magazine, 24 of them are within 440 miles of our school. We're actually closer to more of the HS players than Duke and UNC btw. The hotbeds for baseball talent are in the South and West. The same analysis for top baseball programs in the country, Zero HS's within 440 miles. Closest might be Tenneesse, LOL. 3) Lacrosse doesn't have a professional league. Baseball players have to think of their professional potential. The BC degree will be worth relatively more to a greater number of the recruited athletes for lacrosse. 4) If you haven't noticed, lacrosse is growing. This is the 40 year decision. 5) We could still play baseball. Just do it without scholarships, and outside the ACC. 6) The motto is Ever too Excel. There is no credible argument that we would compete nationally more consistently in baseball relative to lacrosse long term. We can argue about how easily the success would come. But on a 30 to 40 year basis, there is no credible argument that we can compete more strongly in baseball relative to lacrosse. If you believe that, you just don't know where the players are coming from on a HS level for these sports.
BC will be looking aggressively to cut costs right now. I'm giving them a suggestion. Bank those savings for a few years. Then, when things are flush, and hopefully football is bringing in the $$$(Hafley?), add lacrosse. I don't know if that is 2022, 2023....2028. It makes way too much sense. Painful to cut baseball. But we were never winning anything in that anyway.
I know where lacrosse players come from. I went to Albany. You terribly overrate MA HS lax.
What’s worse... MA football or MA lax?
Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:Ok, but are you saying that a fully funded Men’s lacrosse team at BC would have any trouble attracting talent from Central/Western NY, Strong Island or Bawlmore?
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:Ok, but are you saying that a fully funded Men’s lacrosse team at BC would have any trouble attracting talent from Central/Western NY, Strong Island or Bawlmore?
Yes. Those places already feed schools BC is not beating out for talent, like all of the rest of the ACC - Duke, UVa, ND, Cuse, UNC - it's 5 or 6 of the best programs in the country and Cuse is down. Plus, the Ivy League has been balls out good last 8-10 years, so the appeal of BC loses some luster.
It's not happening, so it doesn't matter, but when 6 of the top 12 teams in the country are the other 6 teams in the conference that play lax, it's not a bold statement to say they'll struggle to ever be competitive.
Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:Ok, but are you saying that a fully funded Men’s lacrosse team at BC would have any trouble attracting talent from Central/Western NY, Strong Island or Bawlmore?
Yes. Those places already feed schools BC is not beating out for talent, like all of the rest of the ACC - Duke, UVa, ND, Cuse, UNC - it's 5 or 6 of the best programs in the country and Cuse is down. Plus, the Ivy League has been balls out good last 8-10 years, so the appeal of BC loses some luster.
It's not happening, so it doesn't matter, but when 6 of the top 12 teams in the country are the other 6 teams in the conference that play lax, it's not a bold statement to say they'll struggle to ever be competitive.
Sorry, if SUNY Albany can turn itself into a national power with third world facilities and being located in one of the least desirable locales in North America, I doubt a fully funded lax program at BC would have much trouble getting enough talent to compete. And as I said, they may never win an ACC Title, but they don’t have to as the formula for the NCAAs out of the ACC is two conference wins, a win or two against someone from the Big East, Big Ten or Ivy League, and getting above .500 by running train on the CAA and MAAC, etc.
And while all of those schools do feed into a variety of existing powers, the nature of the way college lacrosse is growing, I doubt the coaches at those programs will be reluctant to turn down overtures from a program that has a potential profile like BC.
I guess I am surprised to find out that you are a Tobias O’Jortsian “We are what we are” type.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:Ok, but are you saying that a fully funded Men’s lacrosse team at BC would have any trouble attracting talent from Central/Western NY, Strong Island or Bawlmore?
Yes. Those places already feed schools BC is not beating out for talent, like all of the rest of the ACC - Duke, UVa, ND, Cuse, UNC - it's 5 or 6 of the best programs in the country and Cuse is down. Plus, the Ivy League has been balls out good last 8-10 years, so the appeal of BC loses some luster.
It's not happening, so it doesn't matter, but when 6 of the top 12 teams in the country are the other 6 teams in the conference that play lax, it's not a bold statement to say they'll struggle to ever be competitive.
Sorry, if SUNY Albany can turn itself into a national power with third world facilities and being located in one of the least desirable locales in North America, I doubt a fully funded lax program at BC would have much trouble getting enough talent to compete. And as I said, they may never win an ACC Title, but they don’t have to as the formula for the NCAAs out of the ACC is two conference wins, a win or two against someone from the Big East, Big Ten or Ivy League, and getting above .500 by running train on the CAA and MAAC, etc.
And while all of those schools do feed into a variety of existing powers, the nature of the way college lacrosse is growing, I doubt the coaches at those programs will be reluctant to turn down overtures from a program that has a potential profile like BC.
I guess I am surprised to find out that you are a Tobias O’Jortsian “We are what we are” type.
Suny Albany landed the Michael Jordan of lacrosse because admissions standards and Cuse slow played him. They also play a Loyola Marymount two way middie fast break style of lacrosse that is exciting to young scorers and is a welcome break from the plodding style of ND and Denver and the ACC southern teams that is killing college lax. Albany can also get kids in that don't get scholarships because it costs nothing to go there. And while in a shitty location, it has had 18000 kids from strong island and western NY on campus every year for the better part of 4 decades. And Albany feasts on a terrible conference, allowing it to play 2 to 3 games it can gear up for against powerhouses to build a seeding resume instead of running the gauntlet of ACC play. They're basically Gonzaga, a unicorn.
BC would struggle to get those 2 conference wins for a long time. Last in the ACC is 10th in the country.
Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Dick Rosenthal {l Wrote}:Ok, but are you saying that a fully funded Men’s lacrosse team at BC would have any trouble attracting talent from Central/Western NY, Strong Island or Bawlmore?
Yes. Those places already feed schools BC is not beating out for talent, like all of the rest of the ACC - Duke, UVa, ND, Cuse, UNC - it's 5 or 6 of the best programs in the country and Cuse is down. Plus, the Ivy League has been balls out good last 8-10 years, so the appeal of BC loses some luster.
It's not happening, so it doesn't matter, but when 6 of the top 12 teams in the country are the other 6 teams in the conference that play lax, it's not a bold statement to say they'll struggle to ever be competitive.
Sorry, if SUNY Albany can turn itself into a national power with third world facilities and being located in one of the least desirable locales in North America, I doubt a fully funded lax program at BC would have much trouble getting enough talent to compete. And as I said, they may never win an ACC Title, but they don’t have to as the formula for the NCAAs out of the ACC is two conference wins, a win or two against someone from the Big East, Big Ten or Ivy League, and getting above .500 by running train on the CAA and MAAC, etc.
And while all of those schools do feed into a variety of existing powers, the nature of the way college lacrosse is growing, I doubt the coaches at those programs will be reluctant to turn down overtures from a program that has a potential profile like BC.
I guess I am surprised to find out that you are a Tobias O’Jortsian “We are what we are” type.
Suny Albany landed the Michael Jordan of lacrosse because admissions standards and Cuse slow played him. They also play a Loyola Marymount two way middie fast break style of lacrosse that is exciting to young scorers and is a welcome break from the plodding style of ND and Denver and the ACC southern teams that is killing college lax. Albany can also get kids in that don't get scholarships because it costs nothing to go there. And while in a shitty location, it has had 18000 kids from strong island and western NY on campus every year for the better part of 4 decades. And Albany feasts on a terrible conference, allowing it to play 2 to 3 games it can gear up for against powerhouses to build a seeding resume instead of running the gauntlet of ACC play. They're basically Gonzaga, a unicorn.
BC would struggle to get those 2 conference wins for a long time. Last in the ACC is 10th in the country.
Maybe. What if BC lands Dave Petramulla as a coach or someone of that caliber? As noted before, lax is the one sport where even our Athletic Department could look at the absolute top salaries and say “hmm, so we can break even with this program and build a brand for the cost of our LB coach? Okay, sounds good.” Point is, as Denver proved, if you are willing to pay $300K you can have anyone you want and the talent will follow. Because it is publicly reported, we know Don Starsia here at UVA, a great coach and phenomenal recruiter makes $150K in base salary and an additional $100K in incentive payments. He also probably makes an extra $50K off of camps and appearances. We know there are Wall Street types a decade ago who were willing to give Greasy Gene $12 million seed money for the program because Gene admitted as much and a few of us knew the guys making the offer. If that is still out there as an offer—and while I can’t say I speak much to one of the potential donors, I know he has not gotten any poorer since then—then that is enough cash handled by a semi competent investment advisor to throw off enough money to pay a $350 K salary and fund half of the 12.6 scholarship max for men’s lax. Shit, I’d be willing to donate substantially for that sort of a bold move and I live by the rule that you don’t ever give a school shit unless you need to buy your kid in with a donation or on a far lesser scale you want the best tickets to football games and a platform to complain to the AD when the team sucks.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I don't understand the difference between competing in the ACC and winning the ACC in lacrosse. If you aren't capable of winning the ACC in lax, you won't win a single game. Every single team in the conference is a national title contender most seasons. It's basically a conference with the lax versions of Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Auburn and Florida football where the rest of the SEC doesn't field a team. There are no Wake Forests and NCSUs to get BC to 4-4 in lacrosse.
Users browsing this forum: mod17b and 69 guests