Commentary Thread for Premium Top-Shelf Tweets

[tykurez]

Big XII adding Cincy and Houston or the fact that my dog didn't throw up her food for the first time in several weeks today. Not sure what would be bigger national news.

 

[BlueandOG]

We have been hearing this sad song since Warde Manuel arrived. We have to do this, we have to do that, yet whenever a conference expands, it never includes UConn, but schools that have inferior metrics. No matter what UConn does, it never seems good enough. To even think a Memphis or Houston or even Cincinnati is ahead of UConn is incredible, so it looks like public begging and pleading do have a positive effect as it appears that Cinci will be #1 on the list for the Big 12. A decade will be a very long time to keep fans interested in watching UConn play in an even worse AAC. I suspect most will abandon ship and find something else to do.

I'm not so sure. We begged the ACC when they expanded and were not included. The embarrassment of being denied was bad; however, it was made much worse by our prostration. Regarding fan interest - people will watch if we win. Therein lies the key to our future success. There have been (and remain) problems for our inclusion in a P5 conference:

• SEC: geography, culture, and football
• ACC: BC, FSU, football
• Pac 12: geography
• Big 12: geography, culture, football
• B1G: AAU status, football

We cannot change geography, so that wipes-out the Pac 12, SEC, and (probably) the Big 12. The ACC and B1G have one common obstacle: football. When we produce an entertaining and winning program, we will be invited into one of those conferences.

 

[UConnNick]

I'm not so sure. We begged the ACC when they expanded and were not included. The embarrassment of being denied was bad; however, it was made much worse by our prostration. Regarding fan interest - people will watch if we win. Therein lies the key to our future success. There have been (and remain) problems for our inclusion in a P5 conference:

• SEC: geography, culture, and football
• ACC: BC, FSU, football
• Pac 12: geography
• Big 12: geography, culture, football
• B1G: AAU status, football

We cannot change geography, so that wipes-out the Pac 12, SEC, and (probably) the Big 12. The ACC and B1G have one common obstacle: football. When we produce an entertaining and winning program, we will be invited into one of those conferences.

The B12 has not listed geography as a factor being considered, although it certainly affects market share, so to that extent it has to be relevant to them. Also, what they say publicly and what they do privately will likely be two different things.

I do think that overall, the way other conferences have made decisions with what appears to be a total lack of concern about geography puts the B12's public comments about it in line with how everybody else seems to value geography, which is not at all.

 

[Sea Goat]

I'm not so sure. We begged the ACC when they expanded and were not included. The embarrassment of being denied was bad; however, it was made much worse by our prostration. Regarding fan interest - people will watch if we win. Therein lies the key to our future success. There have been (and remain) problems for our inclusion in a P5 conference:

• SEC: geography, culture, and football
• ACC: BC, FSU, football
• Pac 12: geography
• Big 12: geography, culture, football
• B1G: AAU status, football

We cannot change geography, so that wipes-out the Pac 12, SEC, and (probably) the Big 12. The ACC and B1G have one common obstacle: football. When we produce an entertaining and winning program, we will be invited into one of those conferences.

Mr. Cameron, right? I think your facts are wrong. We didn't beg to be in the ACC, although people will argue that maybe we should have. If anything we might have been too passive/complacent. You say football was all-important. (I'll admit it had to be for the ACC to hold its academic nose and add the likes of LV.)

Others in the ACC, however, were opposed to us for long standing reasons. No doubt BC still harbored ill will against us at the time LV was added and perhaps Miami did also. Which I understand if it was related to our AG's lawsuit.

The ACC may have wanted to go stronger in football because it was already burdened by existing weak football programs - including Syracuse, WF and ironically, BC. BC might have done more to hurt our chances vs. LV by playing $#!TTy football than anything else. BC was in the middle of a 2-10 season when LV was added. This could have made FSU and Clemson cringe at the thought of another NE football program. If that was the result, I can only say "well played" BC!

If the B1G also looks at football as an obstacle, then the rules have changed for them. Rutgers was admitted for one reason. Cable boxes! You can take all other cogent reasons and throw them out the window. It is quite clear that, nothing else mattered. As is apparent by Rutgers performance and scandals, the B1G is only counting cable boxes in assessing its decision.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

No idea what to make of that latest post by Blauds.

One thing for sure is that they aren't going to expand by 6.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

No idea what to make of that latest post by Blauds.

One thing for sure is that they aren't going to expand by 6.

The points I got are that the conference is still not sure what they're going to do and they aren't all on the same page. If anything, it supports Flug's theory that in order to get to agree to two teams, you have to agree to four first. It would seem to come down to can they all agree on sticking with two, and if so which two are those - otherwise it's can they agree on four (more likely) but can they get the TV networks, who prefer only two, to be OK with that result as well.

 

[pepband99]

No idea what to make of that latest post by Blauds.

One thing for sure is that they aren't going to expand by 6.

They would expand by 12, if if meant UT extending the GoR. Both might happen when pigs fly, but that's the gist of Blauds' post.

 

[BlueandOG]

Mr. Cameron, right? I think your facts are wrong. We didn't beg to be in the ACC, although people will argue that maybe we should have. If anything we might have been too passive/complacent. You say football was all-important. (I'll admit it had to be for the ACC to hold its academic nose and add the likes of LV.)

Others in the ACC, however, were opposed to us for long standing reasons. No doubt BC still harbored ill will against us at the time LV was added and perhaps Miami did also. Which I understand if it was related to our AG's lawsuit.

The ACC may have wanted to go stronger in football because it was already burdened by existing weak football programs - including Syracuse, WF and ironically, BC. BC might have done more to hurt our chances vs. LV by playing $#!TTy football than anything else. BC was in the middle of a 2-10 season when LV was added. This could have made FSU and Clemson cringe at the thought of another NE football program. If that was the result, I can only say "well played" BC!

If the B1G also looks at football as an obstacle, then the rules have changed for them. Rutgers was admitted for one reason. Cable boxes! You can take all other cogent reasons and throw them out the window. It is quite clear that, nothing else mattered. As is apparent by Rutgers performance and scandals, the B1G is only counting cable boxes in assessing its decision.

You got my name right, but I question some of the other assertions:

From an ESPN article from September of 2011, "UConn president Susan Herbst is aggressively pursuing membership in the ACC to become the 15th or 16th member institution in the conference, according to a source with direct knowledge of UConn's situation." True or not, the public perception is that we were really really trying to get into the ACC, and were not invited. Ouch.

From an article in the Boston Globe, "[Adding Pitt and Cuse to the ACC] also demonstrated the growing influence of Boston College, if not as an athletic power, then as a strong character in a passion play of intrigue, negotiations, and power moves - one of which was to successfully block Connecticut’s potential membership in the ACC." As I wrote before, I'm sure FSU, and probably Clemson, wanted nothing to do with us either. However, BC was influential. This is reflected in the NY Times article below too.

From an article in the New York Times titled "Football Drags on UCONN's Power 5 Ambitions", "When the Big Ten, which had formed the first all-conference television network in 2007, decided it could increase revenue by breaking into the New York media market, it chose woeful Rutgers over UConn. That is because the Big Ten universities pride themselves on being members of the Association of American Universities, a prestigious, if anachronistic, organization of top research institutions." I listed AAU membership as obstacle #1 for our inclusion in the B1G. However, I'm sure our football didn't help.

All of that is in the past. The intent of my original post was to say that we are not doomed if the Big 12 doesn't come calling. It will hurt. It will suck. However, our future is bright. Our most important program for conference realignment, football, is getting better and better. We have a great coach. We have stud players. We have passionate fans. We will be a winning program regardless of conference.

 

[MattMang23]

No idea what to make of that latest post by Blauds.

One thing for sure is that they aren't going to expand by 6.

And if they did it would be with Cincy, BYU, Houston, Memphis, UCF and Colorado St.

 

[CardiffGiant]

Has any writer ever proposed a compromise where the Big 12 adds 4 but only accepts the pro rata amount for 2 of the teams as opposed to all 4? This keeps the TV partners happy in that they don't have to pay the full pro rata share, and it gives the conference the ability to add 4, which would also make the TV partners happy in that the conference adds to the geographic footprint of the conference. Just about everybody's interests within the conference are served in this scenario with the exception of say Memphis and UCF, which are essentially on the outside looking in anyway.

 

[CL82]

 

[Fairfield 1st]

Relationship??? What relationship?....

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Definitely wouldn't classify Swai m as platinum. Barely makes non key.

 

[UConnNick]

Relationship??? What relationship?....

If we're talking about getting our nuts kicked time and time again by "Bruno" the ESPN mascot, it's really hard to see how that constitutes any kind of mutually beneficial relationship. The only relationship UCONN and the State of Connecticut currently have with ESPN is a totally parasitic one, where ESPN gets all the perks and they deliver all the nut kicks. ESPN is to UCONN and the State of Connecticut what Notre Lame was to the old Big East and is now to the ACC...a parasitic leech.

 

[Slasher]

Has any writer ever proposed a compromise where the Big 12 adds 4 but only accepts the pro rata amount for 2 of the teams as opposed to all 4? This keeps the TV partners happy in that they don't have to pay the full pro rata share, and it gives the conference the ability to add 4, which would also make the TV partners happy in that the conference adds to the geographic footprint of the conference. Just about everybody's interests within the conference are served in this scenario with the exception of say Memphis and UCF, which are essentially on the outside looking in anyway.

No, because it wouldn't work for anyone involved. If you're splitting the 25M/yr 2 ways, at full payout that's just 12M per year. If you're then slicing that portion down to give the original 10 extra payouts, you're talking about almost nothing to the new teams for the first 2-4 years.

 

[UConn Dan]

Greg S w a I m Is soooo non-key and full of sheete. He might as well call himself the dude.

 

[UConnDan97]

I would love for this to be true. But I have the feeling that we have a relationship with ESPN in the same way that Rihanna had a relationship with Chris Brown...

 

[noeynox]

What is the story with S w a i m and the yard? Why is he so hated? And why can't his name even be typed on this board. I tried to post a tweet of his last week and it didn't even show up.

 

[JMick]

Very glad LGBT groups are coming out against BYU. Their policies deserve no place in modern society.

 

[TRest]

What is the story with S w a i m and the yard? Why is he so hated? And why can't his name even be typed on this board. I tried to post a tweet of his last week and it didn't even show up.

Swaim has been trading in lunacy realignment theories for clicks forever. He just obviously trolls fan bases by posting crazy scenarios, so lost all credibility years ago. At least he is a real person.

Mandel tweet about BYU: Baylor's problems maybe will make a lot of college presidents want to pass on an institution like BYU.

 

[huskypantz]

Very glad LGBT groups are coming out against BYU. Their policies deserve no place in modern society.

Completely off topic but I was in an engagement ceremony this past weekend and my wife's gay 2nd cousin was not allowed to participate in the procession because the bride-to-be's family was very "religious". Unfortunately modern society still has a ways to go.

 

[noeynox]

Very glad LGBT groups are coming out against BYU. Their policies deserve no place in modern society.

I disagree. They're allowed their beliefs like anyone else.

But if it keeps em out of the big 12 and increases our chances to get in, those intolerant freaks!!! What the heck is the matter with them anyway???

Now, jokes aside this is,very bad for BYU's chances given the Baylor scandal. It's too bad, because I truly believe they are the 1 school that has truly earned the right to be in a p5 based on on field performance and historical accomplshments.

 

[JMick]

Completely off topic but I was in an engagement ceremony this past weekend and my wife's gay cousin-in-law was not allowed to participate in the procession because the bride-to-be's family was very "religious". Unfortunately modern society still has a ways to go.

I don't care how much I loved someone, if they excluded my family because of their sexual orientation I would not marry them.

 

[JMick]

I disagree. They're allowed their beliefs like anyone else.

But if it keeps em out of the big 12 and increases our chances to get in, those intolerant freaks!!! What the heck is the matter with them anyway???

Now, jokes aside this is,very bad for BYU's chances given the Baylor scandal. It's too bad, because I truly believe they are the 1 school that has truly earned the right to be in a p5 based on on field performance and historical accomplshments.

I'm not going to keep going on and on about it because I could all night, but just because they're allowed to have their beliefs doesn't mean everyone else has to stand for it.

 

[huskypantz]

I disagree. They're allowed their beliefs like anyone else.

You seem like a very level-headed guy, this is kind of surprising. If someone's belief is that a group of people should be discriminated against because of DNA, it's not a belief - it's bigotry and they're idiots. I'm fine with people being for or against abortion, gun ownership restrictions and gay marriage, but discrimination against a race, color, creed, sexual orientation, gender etc is just wrong.