asdfasf wrote:
;) wrote:Except Harvard has the same situation in the same city and does OK.
The difference is that people want to go to harvard and will pay for it. Harvard also gives out a lot more grant money for everyone.
Not sure how I ended up being the defender of BC on this but ... BC got 29,000 applications last year. That's a lot of people. How they fail to use that as a recruiting tool is my point.
No. I believe that's a football philosophy thing though.
that would be a huge help though!
sfslgajlkgesg wrote:
As for recruiting at BC, I can tell you when I was accepted to the school I emailed the coach as a 49.8 400m/54.6 400mH/1:57split guy who only ran track for 2 years of HS and couldn't even get an answer...wasn't expecting money obviously, but I figured that would be worth his time and a potential walk on spot. Like others in this thread have suggested perhaps they just don't do that., which seems illogical.
I had the exact same experience, although I am a distance guy. Ran 16:00 as a junior in high school for 5k and couldn't even get a response. Before I ended up committing elsewhere, I even sent a final email just asking if I would be able to simply be on the team if I could get into the school on my own. Nothing.
Sesamoiditis wrote:
Use a map wrote:Actually Harvard and BC are not in the same city. And Harvard has both an indoor and outdoor track. BC has a path around a reservoir.
Harvard's indoor and outdoor tracks are in Boston.
And most if the BC campus is in Newton.
Use a map wrote:
Sesamoiditis wrote:Harvard's indoor and outdoor tracks are in Boston.
And most if the BC campus is in Newton.
It's less than 4 miles from BC to Harvard. You realize that many large universities have athletic facilities that far from the main campus, right?
Use a map wrote:
Sesamoiditis wrote:Harvard's indoor and outdoor tracks are in Boston.
And most if the BC campus is in Newton.
Conte Forum/Alumni Stadium, which houses the track team's locker room and the athletics office, is in Boston. BC Athletics and Harvard Athletics are both headquartered in Boston.
The original statement that Harvard and BC are not in the same town is correct. It is true that parts of both campuses are in Boston, but no one considers the schools to be in the same town.
Title reader wrote:
The original statement that Harvard and BC are not in the same town is correct. It is true that parts of both campuses are in Boston, but no one considers the schools to be in the same town.
Except for EVERYONE outside of Boston.
Not me.
Title reader wrote:
The original statement that Harvard and BC are not in the same town is correct. It is true that parts of both campuses are in Boston, but no one considers the schools to be in the same town.
Except that it's not correct because they are both in Boston.
Harvard and BC are 3.6 miles apart by car.
Sesamoiditis wrote:
Title reader wrote:The original statement that Harvard and BC are not in the same town is correct. It is true that parts of both campuses are in Boston, but no one considers the schools to be in the same town.
Except that it's not correct because they are both in Boston.
Parts of both are in Boston. Most are not.
kvothe wrote:
Harvard and BC are 3.6 miles apart by car.
Ok, but how far by bike?
Geography Mann wrote:
Sesamoiditis wrote:Except that it's not correct because they are both in Boston.
Parts of both are in Boston. Most are not.
"Harvard began pushing for an expansion in Allston in the late 1980s, and it now owns 359 acres in Allston, nearly double the size of its Cambridge campus. Large swaths of Harvard owned property remain unused."
http://archive.boston.com/yourcampus/news/harvard/2013/10/harvard_expansion_in_allston_gets_okay_from_boston_redevelopment_authority.htmlAdd in the Harvard medical, dental and public health schools in the Longwood area and the Arnold Arboretum (281 acres) and it seems that a majority of Harvard is in Boston.
Boston College, on the other hand, is mostly in Newton.
Sesamoiditis wrote:
Boston College, on the other hand, is mostly in Newton.
Actually by land mass, it is probably closer to 50/50 than you think.
;) wrote:
10+ year DI P5 Coach wrote:Maybe they had hit their roster limit which is likely tiny if Title IX is playing a big role here? Either way, I understand it would have been nice to get a response, but they probably saw your marks would have never done anything in the ACC without MAJOR development over 3 - 4 years...and probably weren't/aren't investing in development of the sprints/hurdles anyway. As bad as they are, they didn't need more bad dudes to manage...probably lots of guys at that level or better willing to walk on & they have to draw the line somewhere. Just a perspective from a someone who has to do exactly this.
Those times in 400m and 400H would be immediately competitive at BC. He could be in the running for 4x400 as a freshman. 54.6 would be in the ballpark for making finals at the New England Championships.
So? That's not the point. It doesn't look like they have a sprints coach...and only one dude actually listed as a "hurdler" with five others listed in the "sprints." Between probably having a severe roster limit (any time there are 40+ female mostly distance runners and under 40 men, that's obviously the case...let me guarantee you half of those women don't give a sh!t about competing but they have to keep them for the numbers) & no coach & no facility (?), that's a recipe for making unhappy sprinters...who will rock the boat...which probably goes directly against Kerr's job description. Trust me. So it's probably just much easier (and strategically smarter) to keep those roster spots open for distance athletes unless they know someone from another event area well enough that they won't rock the boat or they're already good enough that they could possibly help the team at the conference level without much coaching or support. Do we know if Kerr is even considered full time? It wouldn't surprise me if he's not given the level of support. He'd have to carefully weigh his commitments if he's not full time...would already have to with only one assistant even if he is full time (DI track & field single gender programs are allowed 3 & combined programs are allowed 6). Regarding the guy who said he was a 16 minute guy in high school - what were your track PR's? Again, could have been a roster limit thing & unless you were under 9:30/4:20, there's just only so many guys that are worth taking at that low of a level if you're job is to compete in the ACC. I mean, yeah, if I were that coach, I'd have some sort of "copy and paste e-mail" explaining the situation a little for context so I don't have kids/fans/alumni attacking a program situation they don't understand when it inevitably sucks and they get these questions. But again, the possible bigger picture is worth considering. I do not know the staff or situation at all...but there are some VERY tough situations out there that may not be understood...
All big universities own property beyond their campuses. This doesn't change the fact that Harvard's campus is in Cambridge.
10+ year DI P5 Coach wrote:
Do we know if Kerr is even considered full time?
Yes he is full time. He is only there part time. But that is another whole issue....
;) wrote:
sfslgajlkgesg wrote:Ahh c'mon you know comparing Harvard to BC isn't apples to apples. BC is an excellent school, but Harvard is Harvard. Additionally Harvard has wicked generous fin aid that caps what you pay at ~10% of your parent's annual income.
Surprised no one has really mentioned a key issue -- Title IX. BC gives a ton of money on the men's side to football in hockey. That has to be balanced by girls money, which goes into basketball and hockey. But those don't balance, so BC has to give out more money to peripheral girls sports while giving other mens sports virtually zero.
As for recruiting at BC, I can tell you when I was accepted to the school I emailed the coach as a 49.8 400m/54.6 400mH/1:57split guy who only ran track for 2 years of HS and couldn't even get an answer...wasn't expecting money obviously, but I figured that would be worth his time and a potential walk on spot. Like others in this thread have suggested perhaps they just don't do that., which seems illogical.
I'm not saying it's the same thing at Harvard and BC. I'm saying that Harvard has similar restrictions (or more) on recruiting and yet they are competitive.
Surely you know that a huge number of kids across NE dream of attending BC. How they fail to exploit that in recruiting is beyond me. And, your second paragraph is EXACTLY my point. They are apathetic at best when it comes to recruiting. They're hardly alone, but that doesn't make it acceptable. I had an athlete almost identical to you. He got into BC and really wanted to go there. They all but discouraged him from coming out. He ended up scoring at ACC one year .... the ONLY individual competitor on the team to do so (embarrassing ...). I had another athlete who was basically told not to bother. He went on to be all-Big East and made it to nationals as part of a team in XC.
I have routinely talked with kids at camps that I coach at who had times as fast as some of their athletes who were told they could not walk on but maybe after a year of club track they might be allowed.
Bad recruiting and bad coaching is a bad combo.
similar to my point. The above basically sums up why BC is terrible. They often refuse walk-ons who are usually as good as their recruited kids. They end up with a small stable of middling kids, many of which through a combination of poor coaching, dedication, and chance end up hurt.
Reminds me of an article on Renato Canova where his training group will more or less let any nobody train with his group, where as that would be unheard of in the US. Although in the article they were talking about pro teams/clubs. It's absolutely mind boggling that as mediocre as the BC team is they don't take walk-ons. My understanding is that its a "athletic department" policy but that could just be an excuse.
BC can't recruit and doesn't take walk-ons and their coaches can't perform miracles. Fix any one of those and the team will improve, but they probably are going to fix the first or last anytime soon.
Good thread. Apparently the conclusion is ... Too hard to compete when you're nearly 4 miles from Cambridge. BC is maxing out their potential!