BaseballmomCEP,
In my view, it really does not matter what top prospects leave New England for the ACC or SEC if your son isn't one of them.
What is important is whether BC is an attractive baseball option for your son.
Coach Hughes and Coach Aoki were terrific at scouting, recruiting, coaching and developing players and bringing some nice success to the BC program.
I don't have any experience with the current staff but I have great respect for jemaz views on college baseball. I think he is very knowledgable.
While we can look at this different ways, our experience suggests the best question to try and answer, if a player is not a top recruit or elite player coming out of HS, is where can he be in 3-4 years? How well can this staff develop him, if our son does everything needed...and a bit more?
I thought I would post a cut/paste on a recent blog on what happens at the University of San Francisco, where they don't recruit elite players, but end up developing them after 3-4 years.
I think the point of jemaz' post is he feels/believes this coaching staff is in a mold of what Coach Hughes started and they can develop talent which might not be "ranked" or "rated" as elite out of HS. In my view, jemaz opinion is a good one to consider and explore as far as you feel comfortable.
To me, what you want to be able to judge is whether coaches, such as those at BC, can develop players and their talent such as your son's.
The coaches generally do at USF and a number of college programs, but by no means all of them.
I hope this USF summary is helpful in moving your focus and thinking to places which will help you and especially your son over the next few years: Can and do these coaches develop players and can they do that for our son, if our son does his part?
"Ok, full disclosure here... I coached at USF, I played junior college ball for USF head coach Nino Giarratano, USF pitching coach Greg Moore was in my wedding and I coached him for a year, I consider that coaching staff part of my family and after my time there as a coach and after getting my master's degree there, not to mention meeting the mother of my son there, well, I BLEED USF green and gold.
However, all that aside (really? I can say "all that aside" and mean it?)... do you know how many college programs have had MORE pitchers drafted in the first round than USF's three since the 2007 draft? Do you?
The answer is TWO. Exactly two college programs have had MORE pitchers drafted in the first round (including the supplemental round) than the University of San Francisco.
Vanderbilt, Stanford, San Francisco, Georgia Tech... look at the names of the schools. Are you surprised?
Vanderbilt has had five pitchers drafted in the first round, Stanford has had four while USF and Georgia Tech have had three apiece.
ASU? UCLA? Texas? Virginia? Oregon? Kentucky? Florida? LSU? Missouri? Miami? Rice? Arizona? Hello? Noonan?
Those teams all have had at least one and a couple of them have had two pitchers drafted in the first round. In the case of Arizona, they were both relievers.
So where is Cal? Where is Fullerton? Where is Long Beach State? Where is Washington? Where is San Diego? Where is USC? Where is Cal Poly? Not on this list. However, those schools are on the "wish list" of the top high school pitchers. Hey high school pitchers, get wise, wake up, consider something other than the name on a jersey or the average everyday temp and all that brings with it.
So why do I write all of this? It isn't to pick on those other programs. Rather, it is to show just how good USF is at developing players and pitchers in particular. So why are the Dons not able to attract big time prospects out of high school?"