Why Shouldn't BC Hoops Contend For A National Championship?
They play in one of the nation's premier, if not the premier, college basketball conferences. Their beautiful, Gothic campus is just a short drive away for dozens of top-rated national recruits. They play in a great college town and have a rabid local fanbase. The school has made a solid investment to its athletic program and has plenty of big money donors to call upon when the locker room needs an upgrade. They compete annually for the NCAA Championship.
Who are they? They are Duke. But the above paragraph could also accurately describe Boston College. Right up until the final sentence. BC and Duke are strikingly similar schools but their basketball programs are worlds apart. While the Blue Devils are national championship contenders year after year, a trip to the Sweet Sixteen is a reason to celebrate on Chestnut Hill. It's not that Boston College's basketball program is bad because it's not. Head coach Al Skinner has done a good job and made the Eagles into a team that people expect to make the NCAA's every year. But is BC as good as it could be? Not even close.
If BC and Duke are such similar schools, then why do they have such dissimilar basketball expectations? In a word: talent. While a BC player will occasionally emerge as a true gem- Troy Bell, Craig Smith, Jared Dudley- the reality is that for every player that Skinner gets credit for unearthing from the recruiting landfill, there are (a) dozens of nationally ranked recruits ready to contribute from Day 1 who never even consider BC, and (b) a long list of BC recruits who never make a contribution.
Finding overlooked high school recruits and recognizing their innate ability is a talent. And Skinner has done a solid job of it since he took over at BC in 1997. But should a school like Boston College, a Big East and ACC school, be limited to recruiting projects? Shouldn't BC be able to play more of a national role in recruiting? In 2002, Skinner recruited PG Louis Hinnant who was a solid, four year player for the Eagles. But some of the other point guards in the class of 2002 included Raymond Felton, Dee Brown, Gerry McNamara, Deron Williams, Jarrett Jack, Taquan Dean, Maurice Ager and Randy Foye. Hinnant was solid. The other guys were superstars.
And should Skinner really get credit for "coaching up" his players? First, he's the guy who recruits them. He makes the final decision on what players BC recruits and doesn't recruit. It's doubtful that he recruits players he doesn't think are capable of producing. Second, isn't his job to get the most out of players? If Skinner is going to get the credit for "coaching up" players like Smith and Dudley, shouldn't he also get the blame for recruiting players like Erik Witt, Ludmill Hadjisotirov, Kirsten Zoellner, Johnnie Jackson, Gordon Watt and Tyrelle Blair?
Since 1999, Skinner has recruited 28 players to BC. Of those 28, there are probably eight who could have contributed for most programs in America- Uka Agbai, Bell, Ryan Sidney, Smith, Hinnant, Dudley, Sean Williams and Tyrese Rice. And Agbai, Sidney, Hinnant and Rice are probably stretches for elite programs like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State and Arizona. Compare Skinner's haul to what Duke and Wake Forest, the two ACC schools most similar to BC, recruited over that same period. Wake brought in Josh Howard, Jamal Levy, Taron Downey, Vytas Danelius, Chris Ellis, Justin Gray, Trent Strickland, Eric Williams and Chris Paul. Duke recruited the likes of Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy, Jr., Jason Williams, Chris Duhon, Daniel Ewing, Sean Dockery, J.J. Redick, Shelden Williams, Luol Deng, DeMarcus Nelson and Josh McRoberts. Any of the players recruited by Wake Forest or Duke would have started at BC.
For all of BC's regular season success in recent years, when the NCAA Tournament rolls around, the Eagles are almost always exposed as being one dimensional and lacking depth. And that goes directly to Skinner's inability to consistently recruit solid classes with three or four players able to contribute over four years. Since 1999, no BC recruiting class has produced more than two players who made significant contributions for three seasons. It's not a question of whether or not Skinner's recruiting classes produce starters because it doesn't work any other way. It's a question of whether or not Skinner's recruiting classes produce national-level starters. Would John Oates really start anywhere else in the ACC? Would he even make Duke or North Carolina or Maryland or Georgia Tech's roster? Would a player like Akida McClain, a potentially key contributor for the Eagles, even see the floor for Syracuse or Georgetown or UCLA or Alabama or Florida? Sure, Skinner has unearthed some recruiting gems in his day but he's also done a great job in recruiting some downright bad players who other major programs wanted nothing to do with.
Skinner's 2007 recruiting class is perceived to be among his strongest yet at BC which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. But if he can't use that group of recruits as a springboard for BC to emerge as more of a national recruiting power, and the administration at The Heights is serious about being a championship contender, then Al's time at Conte may be coming to a close. It's not that Skinner is a bad coach; he may just not be the coach capable of taking BC to the next level.
Boston College can legitimately compete for the national championship. Everything is in place- facilities, athletic budget, solid local recruiting base, media attention, power conference affiliation. All that's missing is the talent. And maybe a head coach able to bring that talent to Chestnut Hill.
Jamie Chisholm