Boston College's Fall

[GFTakedown]

Since it is quiet time, I as wondering what caused the complete fall of BC in basketball. Was it the move to the ACC and the lose of all regional traditional games (BE teams)? Was it the administration wanting to clean house(raise admission qualifications for incoming recruits and all coaches with connections to Skinner) and not realizing the affect it would have on recruiting?

Just worried when the move to the ACC occurs. Are the regional games that pulled in a lot of success for the BE going to be be a giant hit to SU?

 

[AlaskaSU]

Their basketball team was overrated. At best they had two legit players. The one year they were ranked, before leaving the Conf., was a fluke due to an extremely favorable Big East Schedule. I assume that the Big East scheduled weak against weak back then. Towards the end of the season they finally had a real game or two which they promptly lost. The only people fooled were the talking heads, casual fans and the pollsters. Its been ages since they made the final 4.

To your point, the ACC probably hurt them. We will not be an outlier like they were. They thought they were going in with us but got blind sided by the Virginia Gov. The ACC killed their local recruiting.

We are much stronger then they were in our respective back yards. The move should not damage our main pipelines like Philly and Detroit and it will help us in Baltimore. In addition, we recruit nationally and the ACC might help us in CA and the SE. Californians probably related better to the ACC. With BC and Pitt we are not so much of an outlier, although I would like to add 2 more NE schools.

Did they raise athlete admission standards?

 

[NineOneSeven]

Their basketball team was overrated. At best they had two legit players. The one year they were ranked, before leaving the Conf., was a fluke due to an extremely favorable Big East Schedule. I assume that the Big East scheduled weak against weak back then. Towards the end of the season they finally had a real game or two which they promptly lost. The only people fooled were the talking heads, casual fans and the pollsters. Its been ages since they made the final 4.

To your point, the ACC probably hurt them. We will not be an outlier like they were. The ACC killed their local recruiting. We are much stronger then they were in our respective back yards. The move should not damage our main pipelines like Philly and Detroit and it will help us in Baltimore. In addition, we recruit nationally and the ACC might help us in CA and the SE.

Did they raise athlete admission standards?

Craig smith and Jared Dudley?

 

[AlaskaSU]

Craig smith and Jared Dudley?

yup, those two.

 

[PeteCalvin]

The ACC move and the firing of Skinner was a double whammy. They basically scuttled their own ship. They had just lost their natural rivals and regional games (BE teams refused to play them), and compounded the problem by removing Skinner, who had recruited the NE successfully since his days at Rhode Island. It's one thing to take over a program with an established tradition and identity, but it has to be very difficult to rebuild in uncharted waters, especially when your local recruiting ties are severed.

 

[orangehomer]

fall from what??

 

[jdubs30]

Craig smith and Jared Dudley?

Ryan Sidney and Troy Bell were pretty good college players too...

 

[samspann1]

fall from what??

Semi-relevance.

In fairness, though, Troy Bell was pretty good too.

 

[Townie72]

Since it is quiet time, I as wondering what caused the complete fall of BC in basketball. Was it the move to the ACC and the lose of all regional traditional games (BE teams)? Was it the administration wanting to clean house(raise admission qualifications for incoming recruits and all coaches with connections to Skinner) and not realizing the affect it would have on recruiting?

Just worried when the move to the ACC occurs. Are the regional games that pulled in a lot of success for the BE going to be be a giant hit to SU?

The "traditional rivals" thing is way overrated. If you play quality teams --- regardless whether its St Johns or Wake Fores or Ga Tech --- fans will react positively.

This "loss of traditional rivals" stuff is just a talking point for those who are mad SU or BC or whoever is changing conferences. It's a myth. But its been mentioned so often people are starting to give it a weight it doesn't deserve. Who are the SU rivals that our fan base just can't live without? Rutgers? Seton Hall? Providence?.

If SU came out and said, "We are never going to play Colgate or St Bonaventure or St Johns or (name a "traditional rival") do you really think the SU fan base would care? Assuming of course that the new opponent was of equal stature.

I don't.

 

[joct]

Even with all of the colleges in the area, historically Boston is a pro sports town when it comes to fans, so they've always had that as part of their fight for fans. College Hockey has a deeper following than hoops. When they had their exceptional moments (Flutie, the Curley - Abrams era, the early 90s FB era that beat #1 Notre Dame), the city gets behind them, but without that, they seem to be an afterthought.

When Jim O'Brien lost a few recruits and had their falling out, that set them back. The ACC move was the final straw in my opinion. Being a huge metropolitan area, they have a lot of people who went to BE schools and are from those metro areas, so they could relate to them. Even when Skinner had some good teams, they barely were on the radar as far as the Boston sports scene was concerned. Add that the Boston area isn't exactly a hotbed for top BB recuits (Noel notwithstanding), and they're in a tough spot.

 

[GFTakedown]

The "traditional rivals" thing is way overrated. If you play quality teams --- regardless whether its St Johns or Wake Fores or Ga Tech --- fans will react positively.
I agree that playing quality teams will help but think are they going to put a game of SU/Ga Tech on tv over say Duke/NCstate game. I think that SU needs to start looking at OOC games at more than just an emphasis on recruiting but also marketing of the SU brand(building fan interest).
This "loss of traditional rivals" stuff is just a talking point for those who are mad SU or BC or whoever is changing conferences. It's a myth. But its been mentioned so often people are starting to give it a weight it doesn't deserve. Who are the SU rivals that our fan base just can't live without? Rutgers? Seton Hall? Providence?.
How about Georgetown, Villanova, and UConn? Trust me when we lose these traditional rivals there will be a lose because alot of our fanbase live in these areas. Living out of state, I can tell that I will always be an SU fan but my kids could end up being UTexas fans because of the lack of SU games here(won't happen though). We might not lose current generation of fans but future fans. I have turned some of my students into SU fans at least for basketball never football with UT down the road. I just think that they need to schedule 1 game in Philly (Temple, Nova, St. Jo), 1 in NYC(preseason tourny, St.John's, UK), and 1 in DC area(when we are not at UMaryland).

If SU came out and said, "We are never going to play Colgate or St Bonaventure or St Johns or (name a "traditional rival") do you really think the SU fan base would care? Assuming of course that the new opponent was of equal stature.
I don't think these traditional rivals are as important because we will have a following of fans in those areas even if we don't play them.
I don't.

 

[Orangemen]

The ACC move and the firing of Skinner was a double whammy. They basically scuttled their own ship. They had just lost their natural rivals and regional games (BE teams refused to play them), and compounded the problem by removing Skinner, who had recruited the NE successfully since his days at Rhode Island. It's one thing to take over a program with an established tradition and identity, but it has to be very difficult to rebuild in uncharted waters, especially when your local recruiting ties are severed.

I heard that Skinner was starting to slack on recruiting, similar to the end of Coach P's reign. His bread and butter was under valued recruits, like Smith and Dudley, when that talent disappeared, so did the "success".

 

[billsin01]

Their basketball team was overrated. At best they had two legit players. The one year they were ranked, before leaving the Conf., was a fluke due to an extremely favorable Big East Schedule. I assume that the Big East scheduled weak against weak back then. Towards the end of the season they finally had a real game or two which they promptly lost. The only people fooled were the talking heads, casual fans and the pollsters. Its been ages since they made the final 4.

This is patently absurd. I mean, they made 7 NCAA tourneys in 10 years at one point under skinner They had at least 24 wins four times and reached the sweet 16 once. I'm not sure if they were overrated or underrated b/c I'm not sure what that was based on but they had a run under skinner that many solid DI programs would kill for, particularly considering it came against good competition in a big time hoops conference.

 

[billsin01]

The "traditional rivals" thing is way overrated. If you play quality teams --- regardless whether its St Johns or Wake Fores or Ga Tech --- fans will react positively.

Eh, I agree and disagree. I agree that playing really good teams will draw interest regardless of who the teams are. But I think people who aren't at least a bit anxious over the move to the ACC are blinded by the dollar signs on the football side of things. The only thing that makes conference play relevant in any way is the fact that people actually care about the conference and respect it as something that transcends (in some way) what it really is (a collection of programs in the same general geographic vicinity). The Big East is obviously an example of this as the league's history, the site of its tournament and the quality of its programs made the league a force in recruiting and allowed downtrodden programs to continually ink coaches they wouldn't have had a prayer of getting (and keeping) if not for the BE.

The ACC has this to some degree as well but it is a vastly different identity deeply tied to Tobacco Road.

I would assume we'd be fine but I still hope a couple more NE teams are added to even the balance and make this a true coastal conference as opposed to a southern dominated collection of schools that were once pretty good and three or four schools that actually are good (Duke/UNC/SU/Pitt?). Leaving a proven commodity that had been successful marketing itself in a way attractive to TV/media, fans and recruits is not a cause for celebration, IMO.

 

[reedny]

We shouldn't be complaining too much, because we're going to be playing BC twice a year when we enter the ACC -- they're our league "partner". Better to have them struggling on the recruiting front -- we don't get many kids out of Boston anyway. But I agree it's not fair to say that BC has never been good. They have. They're just not consistently good.

As far as their players, Craig Smith was pretty tough, and Dudley, Bell, Sidney as mentioned. Reggie Jackson could play, and I think wound up in the NBA. But even in its heyday under O'Brien in the 80's and early 90's, or with Skinner thereafter, although it has had some good players and made the NCAA's frequently (under Skinner), BC has always had blue collar teams that survived on work ethic more than raw basketball talent.

This has created a "spoiler" type mentality that has characterized the program -- they rise up and beat somebody good, then they'll loose to a mid major. They have a good season or 2 and make the NCAA's, and then they tank.

The inconsistency has resulted in some ugly (and public) meltdowns between the university and its coaches. In the late 90's, O'Brien left on really bad terms (he sued the school). Skinner came in and made BC competitive -- they made the NCAA's 6 or 7 times and got some good players. But after joining the ACC in 2005, the boom/bust cycle reappeared. In 08/9 they were 22-11. But the next year they had a loosing season and Skinner got canned (another ugly fight). In retaliation, he took the teams' best player with him (Sanders). Then a couple of recruits asked to be released.

Donahue was brought in as the new coach, coming over from that great Cornell team we played against (sweet 16 I think). In his first year he had a winning record (playing Skinners seniors), but last year he had a young team that became the ACC doormat. The program is still recovering from the changeover. Not sure about this year's recruits (Francis could give better insight), but Donahue's got a big class (6 or 7 kids) coming in for the 2013 season. They also got a 6'7 transfer (Dragicevich) from ND, who can shoot. He'll be on ice for a year.

On balance, I don't see the ACC as being the primary reason for BC's issues -- the program has been mercurial for 30 years, and is again rebuilding in the ACC under a new coach.

 

[NKR1978]

BC's current downturn is part of the same BC cycle we have seen for the last 20+ years. They are not a traditional power, but they generally manage a few seasons where they are very good. In the late 90s, after Danya Abrams left, they had some of the worst seasons in Big East history. Then they won the BE in 2001 and 2005.

They'll be fine again soon enough and have a nice run before bottoming out again. Has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[billsin01]

BC's current downturn is part of the same BC cycle we have seen for the last 20+ years. They are not a traditional power, but they generally manage a few seasons where they are very good. In the late 90s, after Danya Abrams left, they had some of the worst seasons in Big East history. Then they won the BE in 2001 and 2005.

They'll be fine again soon enough and have a nice run before bottoming out again. Has absolutely nothing to do with the ACC.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

I think there are two separate point here, though, at least as it relates to SU. The ACC may have nothing to do with the downturn in both football and hoops, but it should be pointed out that it has not helped in any way shape or form. This is important b/c when they left and we were left behind, the thought was that they had moved to a better, more stable, more lucrative conference. Yet they are in no way more relevant in Boston or elsewhere and their programs have done nothing except go backwards. That was good for us when we were still in the much-maligned BE, but it stands as a major red flag, IMO, as we move to the higher ground of the ACC.

 

[pfister1]

I think there are two separate point here, though, at least as it relates to SU. The ACC may have nothing to do with the downturn in both football and hoops, but it should be pointed out that it has not helped in any way shape or form. This is important b/c when they left and we were left behind, the thought was that they had moved to a better, more stable, more lucrative conference. Yet they are in no way more relevant in Boston or elsewhere and their programs have done nothing except go backwards. That was good for us when we were still in the much-maligned BE, but it stands as a major red flag, IMO, as we move to the higher ground of the ACC.

I think the unknown in how the move may impact recruiting is one reason that it will be important to have JB at the helm for the first couple of years that we are in the ACC. Consistency will help to continue the high level of recruiting. I know that many feel Hop is responsible for much of that recruiting, but is he responsible because he is doing a great job of selling JB or is he responsible because the players love Hop and want to come here and play in the program he is partially responsible for. If it is the later then we should be able to sustain recruiting, if it is more the former...we may have a problem because who really knows whether the other variables will impact us e.g. road conference games are now predominantly in the South instead of in the NE; our TV exposure outside of Syracuse will change - will we continue to be the prime choice of ESPN or will we end up now being second or third choice behind UNC and Duke.


And, as to BC, me thinks some here are short selling them. Guys that I remember favorably from their run in the Big East...

John Bagley, Jay Murphy, Michael Adams, Dana Barros, Bill Curley, Howard Eisley, Danya Abrams, Troy Bell, Craig Smith and Jared Dudley just to name a few.

 

[newmexicuse]

Forget the causes, all I can say is that with only a couple of exceptions ( ND & GTown) it could not have happened to nicer guys.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Bill Curley graduated.

 

[zeekay]

The ACC may have nothing to do with the downturn in both football and hoops, but it should be pointed out that it has not helped in any way shape or form. This is important b/c when they left and we were left behind, the thought was that they had moved to a better, more stable, more lucrative conference. Yet they are in no way more relevant in Boston or elsewhere and their programs have done nothing except go backwards.

I'm pretty sure the BC administration is fine with it. They got 3x more money in ACC and have put little to none of it into the sports program. Guaranteed money means they can remain irrelevant as long as they want while diverting all of the money into expensive buildings for the administration, Cathlolic gatherings, and whatever else BC spends money on. They are laughing all the way to the bank on selling their football and basketball to the ACC at their absolute high points.

 

[longislandcuse]

BC has nowhere near the fanbase SU has. BC doesnt have fans/transplants/alumni up and down the eastern coast (Florida/Atlanta/Charlotte/NJ/NYC). BC never had a top 5 college basketball tradition like SU has. BC never recruited like SU does. BC moved with no northern ACC partners, we have BC and Pitt. BC moved when conference re-alignment wasnt en vogue. We will absolutely continue our NYC presence as an ACC member. BC doesnt have top notch facilities or a 30,000+ arena.

BC is nowhere near the program we are/have been/will be.

 

[realorange]

ACC schools will be blown away by the number of SU fans at their fields/arenas. As longislandcuse said, there are a LOT of Orange faithful from Maryland to Florida.