Mark Blaudschun, Wrong Again

Normally, I would not feel compelled to respond in an article to something put in print with which I disagree; I have a Twitter account for such eruptions. Yesterday, however, before the Denver/Boston College hockey game, I happened upon Mark Blaudschun’s Friday piece on the Boston Globe website entitled “BC football not as bad as it looks” (its alternate title on the Globe website is “BC isn’t really that far off.”) I knew he was lacking before yesterday, but I found this article to be so odiously incorrect and biased in a particular direction that a couple Tweets won’t do my reply justice.

It starts off with a Frank Spaziani quote, and if you doubted that Spaz has gone to the Coaches’ School of Speaking in Vague Banalities to the Press, then consult the Globe article. I’m not going to waste any time copying what the coach said, other than to give you its bottom-line translation: Blah blah blah blah please don’t fire me Gene blah blah.

Blauds then proceeds to make his case, if one can call it that, that the Eagles may be 1-5, but they’re a couple plays from being much better, yet poor luck got in the way. His examples:

"Wake Forest 27, BC 19 After falling behind, 24-9, going into the fourth quarter, BC had changed the momentum. The Eagles closed the gap to 24-19 with six minutes remaining and had Wake in a third-and-15 situation on its 15. Quarterback Tanner Price connects on what looks like a “throw it and hope’’ pass to Chris Givens for 44 yards. The drive led to a field goal.Who knows what would have happened if Wake had been forced to punt? One play."

His point here is that “if BC doesn’t give up that big play, they might have won.”

That’s some deep insight. And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.

If you had paid attention, Boston College got outplayed for almost the entirety of the game. We knew going into the game that Wake Forest was capable of being a big-play offense, and BC wasn’t stopping big plays all day (or all year to this point, in fact). Besides, even if Tanner Price doesn’t make that throw, there is absolutely zero guarantee the Eagles would have won that game, because they were still losing at that point, anyway, and had blown a number of previous opportunities to drive and stop Wake’s drives. Not to mention, the Eagles were still down only one score after the Wake field goal. To say that the game came down to that one play and that one play alone is absurd to say the least.

"Duke 20, BC 19 With 43 seconds left, a 23-yard field goal attempt by BC’s Nate Freese hits the left upright.Nuff said. One play."

Our trusty columnist here completely misses the point on this one. Boston College were heavy favorites at home against Duke and played an awful game, especially in the second half. They NEVER SHOULD HAVE TRAILED Duke in the first place; this game should not have had to come down to Nate Freese’s leg, and it’s a shame that he ended up being the scapegoat of a few very ignorant quasi-observers of BC football. Do you expect Freese to make that kick? Yes, of course. But even if he had made the kick, all of my criticisms of how BC played in that game would have still stood.

"Central Florida 30, BC 3 A rout? Yes, but at the end of the third quarter, it was only 9-3. BC drives to the Central Florida 33 on the first possession of the second half and has third and 1. Two plays – a keeper by quarterback Chase Rettig and a dive by running back Andre Williams – produce zero yards.If BC makes the first down and goes in for the score, it’s a 10-9 lead and a much different game. Even a field goal makes it 9-6. One play."

Refer to the first block quote; what the hell is your point? BC DID NOT get the first down, and even if they did, who is to say they would have scored and gone on to win? In fact, when it comes to first downs, the Eagles only got seven THE ENTIRE GAME and converted one of twelve third downs. You’re guessing; nothing more, nothing less.

"Northwestern 24, BC 17 In the final minute, BC reaches the Northwestern 19. A false start puts the Eagles back to the 24 and knocks off 10 seconds (which they could have used). On the next play, Rettig is forced out of the pocket and tackled as the game ends.Avoid the penalty, get the extra seconds, who knows?One play."

Yeah, who knows? Not us, because that’s not what happened. It’s Boston College’s fault that they fell behind by two touchdowns and ultimately got beat by a backup quarterback; the penalty and eventual game-ending play were just the kill-shots.

Then he follows with this nugget:

"Realistically, BC probably will be a 3-9 team. But until the L’s are in the books, the memory of last year’s 5-0 finish (after a 2-5 start) still lingers, as it should."

Not filling the reader in, of course, that the majority of those five wins were against overly-mediocre opposition, and that BC’s second half is quite difficult this year. And this one:

"Right now, BC is not a great team, or even a good team. But it isn’t bad, either.The Eagles are just playing that way in the wrong situations at the wrong times."

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how I know that Blauds either a) does not watch the games or b) watches the games but gets his opinions in the form of talking points directly from someone above his pay grade. For one thing, that last line in particular reeks because it is an excuse, and such a vague and, frankly, unproven one that it is also a highly illogical thing to say. How can anyone who has watched all six games, as I have, say that they’re not bad, or are only situationally bad?

For one thing, you say “realistically,” they’re going to go 3-9, but even though they’re going to lose four more games in your estimation, we shouldn’t feel bad because despite a .250 win percentage, they’re “not bad.” Got it.

They are 102nd in total offense, 105th in scoring offense, and 95th in total defense; the offensive stats are both dead last in the ACC, while the total defense is 10th out of 12. That’s more than bad at the wrong time; that’s bad all the time.

They didn’t lose the Northwestern game because of a penalty; they lost the Northwestern game because they gave up 424 yards of offense, didn’t make the plays they had to make, didn’t go for the throat, and let a backup quarterback complete 71% of his passes.

They didn’t lose the UCF game because of one missed first down; they lost because of all the other third downs they didn’t convert and because the Knights outgained them by almost 300 yards.

They didn’t lose the Duke game because of Nate Freese; they lost because they blew a 12-point lead and made Sean Renfree look like Joe Montana.

Finally, they didn’t lose the Wake game because of a “throw it and hope” [sensational catch] play; they lost because they got down 15 and didn’t show up to play until the 4th quarter. Don’t single out particular plays here and there and just say “oh, BC was unlucky, and they’re not that bad; poor Spaz;” there were MANY reasons why Boston College lost those games, and all point to poor play.

If you can’t see a recurring theme of this football team making hideous mistakes over and over again, week after week, year after year, not making the big plays when they need to, not improving, and not making a single adjustment, then I would say you’re blind. Of course, I would say there is a definite tinge to Blauds’ works on Boston College (that is, when he isn’t focused in squarely on the vital importance of Boise State’s future in the Big East). We get opinion from him and quotes from guys like Frank Spaziani and Gene DeFilippo crowing about the injuries and inexperience on this team, with the three combining to say things like it’s not as bad as it looks around here, the academic standards are a deterrent, a coach who is three-years removed from the program booby-trapped it, or that “Three head coaches in six seasons is not the way to succeed at the Bowl Subdivision level, and especially at BC.”

Mr. Blaudschun, why are you making excuses for Frank Spaziani? Why would it be so bad for the Eagles to get rid of a coach who has done nothing but be mediocre since the day he took over (though “mediocre” would seem like a godsend this year)? Why do you, like the coach and AD, place the blame everywhere except where it belongs: the quality of the product on the field and who put it there? We’ve had young teams before that didn’t look half as bad as this one does, and when that happens, you have to ask yourself why.

Back to a previous point, and I realize it wasn’t in this particular article, you and Heather Dinich (who has not evoked my wrath, yet) have both gotten mileage out of this claim that BC changing coaches would be bad. If Frank Spaziani has failed, and he clearly has, why must he be retained? For the sake of consistency? Perhaps we don’t WANT consistency when we’re losing football games.

Have you considered why we’re on our third coach in six years (namely because our AD’s ego grew three sizes too big) and why said AD hired an unqualified yes-man to be coach? Further, why is firing a coach at BC worse than some other school? Is it because “we are what we are,” perhaps? Tell me, if you make a correctable mistake (like hiring Spaz in the first place), do you say “let’s fix it” or “well, ya know, we should probably just ride this thing out” (that is, if you acknowledge it’s a mistake at all)?

In short, sir, this article you penned yesterday was nothing short of weapons-grade BS, replete with excuses, wishful thinking, backside-covering for the current football program leadership, revisionist history, flawed logic, paper-thin arguments, and useless mental manipulation being passed off as obvious conclusion. You’re telling us to believe your spin as opposed to our evidently-lying eyes, but we don’t. As a Boston College alum and fan who wants to see this football program win again, and a blogger who is interested in the truth, whether it hurts or not, I found your hackish propaganda piece to be unworthy of such a renowned newspaper. It must be nice, however, to pull stuff out of your proverbial rear and get paid for it.

My advice: Stick to the Big East.