To me BC Football is the University's "face" in many respects. It's been that way since the Flutie years on a national level, because we had carved out a niche on the field in a way which matched our "Ever to Excel" credo. We played tough football, against tough opponents. Our players were (are) smart, and hard working. BC football stood for something unique.
In the last 35 years, up until recently in my opinion, we've had moderate success with wins and losses; never quite getting to the upper echelon in any given successful year, but never becoming irrelevant either in down years. That balance and national perception was the result of playing the " big boys" with spirit, and fight, and hard all four quarters, with a degree of intelligence and toughness even in a loss. We were respected.
In the days when we were an independent, going back as far as Bill Flynn, we sought to schedule at least one or two "intersectional" games, as they were called. Then came the ACC. I thought, and had hoped that what was supposed to happen, was that BC Football's (in particular) profile and opportunity would springboard us to a more sustainable "national " respect. That has not happened.
While I firmly believe joining the ACC was the right choice, and that it's where we belong, there has been some criticism about this decision. But, what has happened ( in the real media world) is that BC football has become "less" prolific in terms of TV coverage, and attendance. I'm not blaming the ACC. I'm blaming Athletic leadership at BC.
BC football used to be on NY television ( in some form as an example) until we joined the ACC nearly every week. Now, far too many games have been relegated to ESPN3. Some of this can be attributed to the saturation in college football telecasts, in general. Yet there seems to be a certain amount of onus and responsibility for mismanagement within the University's athletic department which needs to be looked at from a marketing perspective beyond wins and losses.
The tail end of GDF's tenure, and now in the Bates' regime, we continue see evidence that no one is paying attention to the BC "brand", and what that stands for, and has meant beyond the words. The evidence of not understanding BC's identity as hard nosed, smart, not afraid to play ANY team, is showing up in extraordinarily weak OOC scheduling; which neither matches " Ever to Excel", nor serves BC well considering the larger diluted marketing issues facing ALL college football teams.
I recognize the need to attempt to secure some W's through scheduling; especially in light of the state of the program in the wake of Coach Spaziani. However, there usually are no quick fixes in college football anyway. There are too many variables and components involved to sustain immediate "turnarounds" . I think we're seeing this bare out this year with our team, regardless if Coach Addazio is our long term solution or not.
So, if scheduling is part of the longer range strategic plan to get BC football on successful national footing again, then ( as many here have written) I really have to question the decision making. Scheduling all these regional mediocre, " who cares" type of teams, not only won't help BC in the general changing dynamics and demographics of college football ( attendance and TV exposure); it just simply doesn't complement the University's mission.
We can't rely solely on the ACC affiliation, as we have seen these last 10 years. We need to take our football program back in ways which elevate the "brand" to what it used to mean by wanting to take the risk of playing a truly national type of schedule more similar to ND, than where Bates has us headed. Don't get me wrong- I hate ND- but I respect the fact they play no lower division teams. I realize too, that maybe we can't go to that extreme. But, in order to put fans back in the seats, and to get more TV exposure ( aside from winning more), my theory is we need to expound on the attributes which define us as a fan base, and as a University.
We need visionary athletic leadership with guts. Whether Daz can get us to the championships he aspires is a separate issue. We need football to be the "cash cow", to be the market leader on campus before we can become a conference leader. The apparent current football scheduling philosophy will never get us back to the national stage on the field, in the polls, in attendance, or on TV.
The real dilemma is our current athletic administration doesn't believe "Ever to Excel" in the same way - even Bill Flynn did. And our "brand" continues to erode.
That's why I want to play Texas, and Alabama, and the Texas Aggies, and OSU out of conference, and not MAC teams and Uconns.
The BC brand is worth saving beyond the intrinsic value we close to the University hold high. It has marketability and power behind it, because it is recognizably different than almost any other football program's.
Let's dare to take the risk to set us apart in marketing, by taking on the challenge to bring our scheduling in line with being the best we can possibly be in football .
After all, its not simply a football problem. Its become a branding issue.
In the last 35 years, up until recently in my opinion, we've had moderate success with wins and losses; never quite getting to the upper echelon in any given successful year, but never becoming irrelevant either in down years. That balance and national perception was the result of playing the " big boys" with spirit, and fight, and hard all four quarters, with a degree of intelligence and toughness even in a loss. We were respected.
In the days when we were an independent, going back as far as Bill Flynn, we sought to schedule at least one or two "intersectional" games, as they were called. Then came the ACC. I thought, and had hoped that what was supposed to happen, was that BC Football's (in particular) profile and opportunity would springboard us to a more sustainable "national " respect. That has not happened.
While I firmly believe joining the ACC was the right choice, and that it's where we belong, there has been some criticism about this decision. But, what has happened ( in the real media world) is that BC football has become "less" prolific in terms of TV coverage, and attendance. I'm not blaming the ACC. I'm blaming Athletic leadership at BC.
BC football used to be on NY television ( in some form as an example) until we joined the ACC nearly every week. Now, far too many games have been relegated to ESPN3. Some of this can be attributed to the saturation in college football telecasts, in general. Yet there seems to be a certain amount of onus and responsibility for mismanagement within the University's athletic department which needs to be looked at from a marketing perspective beyond wins and losses.
The tail end of GDF's tenure, and now in the Bates' regime, we continue see evidence that no one is paying attention to the BC "brand", and what that stands for, and has meant beyond the words. The evidence of not understanding BC's identity as hard nosed, smart, not afraid to play ANY team, is showing up in extraordinarily weak OOC scheduling; which neither matches " Ever to Excel", nor serves BC well considering the larger diluted marketing issues facing ALL college football teams.
I recognize the need to attempt to secure some W's through scheduling; especially in light of the state of the program in the wake of Coach Spaziani. However, there usually are no quick fixes in college football anyway. There are too many variables and components involved to sustain immediate "turnarounds" . I think we're seeing this bare out this year with our team, regardless if Coach Addazio is our long term solution or not.
So, if scheduling is part of the longer range strategic plan to get BC football on successful national footing again, then ( as many here have written) I really have to question the decision making. Scheduling all these regional mediocre, " who cares" type of teams, not only won't help BC in the general changing dynamics and demographics of college football ( attendance and TV exposure); it just simply doesn't complement the University's mission.
We can't rely solely on the ACC affiliation, as we have seen these last 10 years. We need to take our football program back in ways which elevate the "brand" to what it used to mean by wanting to take the risk of playing a truly national type of schedule more similar to ND, than where Bates has us headed. Don't get me wrong- I hate ND- but I respect the fact they play no lower division teams. I realize too, that maybe we can't go to that extreme. But, in order to put fans back in the seats, and to get more TV exposure ( aside from winning more), my theory is we need to expound on the attributes which define us as a fan base, and as a University.
We need visionary athletic leadership with guts. Whether Daz can get us to the championships he aspires is a separate issue. We need football to be the "cash cow", to be the market leader on campus before we can become a conference leader. The apparent current football scheduling philosophy will never get us back to the national stage on the field, in the polls, in attendance, or on TV.
The real dilemma is our current athletic administration doesn't believe "Ever to Excel" in the same way - even Bill Flynn did. And our "brand" continues to erode.
That's why I want to play Texas, and Alabama, and the Texas Aggies, and OSU out of conference, and not MAC teams and Uconns.
The BC brand is worth saving beyond the intrinsic value we close to the University hold high. It has marketability and power behind it, because it is recognizably different than almost any other football program's.
Let's dare to take the risk to set us apart in marketing, by taking on the challenge to bring our scheduling in line with being the best we can possibly be in football .
After all, its not simply a football problem. Its become a branding issue.
Last edited:
