Expansion Rumors site profiles UConn

[RegisteredUconn]

It's bunk.

Are you claiming the guy's entire post is bunk or just the part where there might be some demonstrable link to William the Conqueror and Julius Caesar (which even he seems to concede is remote at best)? Surely a claim of ancestral activity during the Revolutionary War can be reasonably established. Surely Washington spent a winter at Valley Forge. Surely an army wintered there as well. The degree to which I can claim a link to one of those soldiers may be moot but to call it bunk without examining evidence would be hyperbole.

 

[upstater]

Are you claiming the guy's entire post is bunk or just the part where there might be some demonstrable link to William the Conqueror and Julius Caesar (which even he seems to concede is remote at best)? Surely a claim of ancestral activity during the Revolutionary War can be reasonably established. Surely Washington spent a winter at Valley Forge. Surely an army wintered there as well. The degree to which I can claim a link to one of those soldiers may be moot but to call it bunk without examining evidence would be hyperbole.

Histories are a different story, they are as true as the people who wrote them. The genetic DNA stuff is bunk. Certain general things can be established, such as traits that link you to regions and peoples, but a lot of services are linking customers to specific individuals. That's the bunk.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Histories are a different story, they are as true as the people who wrote them. The genetic DNA stuff is bunk. Certain general things can be established, such as traits that link you to regions and peoples, but a lot of services are linking customers to specific individuals. That's the bunk.

That's interesting. I didn't know there were services purporting to establish a genetic link between individuals spanning generations. Sure sounds like a scam to me. Plus, where would I get the DNA of my Revolutionary War ancestors?

Still, paternal DNA testing seems well established. I wonder how much certitude would be lost with each intervening generation. For example, could grandparental links be established? I would imagine they could but not to the same degree of certitude as parental links. I've read it's estimated that the most distantly related people on the planet are (about) 33rd cousins. If that's true, no genetic link could be probabilistically established between me and my 32nd great-grandparents.

If the degree of certitude of links across generations is arithmetically distributed (something I doubt intuitively), each succeeding generation introduces about 3% of uncertainty. Assuming 8 generations between me and the Revolution, that means the best someone could say is they would be 75% sure a particular individual was related to me.

Of course, given the depth of my understanding of genetics, I wouldn't rely on anything I've just said. Except for the first sentence. I do find it interesting.

 

[billybud]

DNA testing usually starts off with a discussion of haplotypes....and haplotypes only give a deep generic background about geographic origins and migrations (nordic, ashkenazi, mongolian etc).

Some DNA testers get more specific by setting up family groups by surname (only males with the surname are tested)...they can pretty well match you with reasonable certainty to someone as far as five generations back with your surname...the further back, the less certitude.

Nobody but nobody can actually trace themselves by documents or DNA to Julius Caser, , etc......It is thought that a very high number of eastern europeans do have a distant relationship with Genghis Khan (common sense & DNA but no proof to the actual mongol originator)...the Mongolian haplotype shows up in Hungary, Romania, etc. Since old Ghengis fathered 100s of children by captives, concubines, etc...there are now millions of people who are descendants...although very, very diluted.

 

[RuffRuff]

Maybe the big dogs of the ACC will watch Uconn squirm for awhile, get knocked down a little before they bring them aboard. With their rise in hoops over the last 15 years, I wonder if there has ever been any dialogue to seeing them knocked back a bit first. My sense is that the perception of many is that Nutmeggers/Uconn come with egos a bit too big for their britches.

 

[Road Dog]

I know you guys have talked about it endlessly, but, BC doesn't have enough stroke to block UConn from the ACC, IMHO. Their old AD was doing nothing more than posturing, because thats all he could do.

I hope that writer is correct, and, that you'll be in the ACC. And, sooner than 2016.

If UNC is so pro-UCONN, why haven't you supported us for the ACC? Are you here just to rub salt in our wounds?

 

[Davidm]

If UNC is so pro-UCONN, why haven't you supported us for the ACC? Are you here just to rub salt in our wounds?

Actually if memory serves me right... UNC DID support Uconn along with duke.

 

[caramel]

Actually if memory serves me right... UNC DID support Uconn along with duke.

yes they did

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I believe each of the NC ACC Schools were our only support.

 

[upstater]

I believe each of the NC ACC Schools were our only support.

Not our only. Virginia too. I don't think we know enough about the others (we know Clemson, BC, FSU, Miami were not in favor).

 

[SouthronCross]

If UNC is so pro-UCONN, why haven't you supported us for the ACC? Are you here just to rub salt in our wounds?

No sir, I am not here to do anything of the sort. I do not believe that I've ever been disrespectful towards UConn, or, the folks here.

I am very much in favor of UConn being an ACC member. I always have been. Its always been my contention that 'football drives the bus, and, basketball is in the front seat,' where CR is concerned. UConn hoops, and, Olympic sports, would be a boon for the league if an ACCN ever gets started.

FTR, Carolina and Duke were VERY MUCH in support of UConn getting an ACC invite. They were both dumbstruck by how much BC protested against you.

UConn had the support of the Tobacco Road schools, and, UVA. It is also well-known that it was the football-first schools - FSU, Miami, GT, CU, and, VPI - along with BC and SU, who voted against you.

And, BC has NEVER had enough stroke within the ACC (and never will have) to singly block ANYBODY. They can probably build some cooperation with other members, but, they'd never be able to go it alone vs the rest. Only FSU, CU, Duke, UVA, or UNC could conceiveably pull that off.

 

[Road Dog]

No sir, I am not here to do anything of the sort. I do not believe that I've ever been disrespectful towards UConn, or, the folks here.

I am very much in favor of UConn being an ACC member. I always have been. Its always been my contention that 'football drives the bus, and, basketball is in the front seat,' where CR is concerned. UConn hoops, and, Olympic sports, would be a boon for the league if an ACCN ever gets started.

FTR, Carolina and Duke were VERY MUCH in support of UConn getting an ACC invite. They were both dumbstruck by how much BC protested against you.

UConn had the support of the Tobacco Road schools, and, UVA. It is also well-known that it was the football-first schools - FSU, Miami, GT, CU, and, VPI - along with BC and SU, who voted against you.

And, BC has NEVER had enough stroke within the ACC (and never will have) to singly block ANYBODY. They can probably build some cooperation with other members, but, they'd never be able to go it alone vs the rest. Only FSU, CU, Duke, UVA, or UNC could conceiveably pull that off.

Get over yourself. No one school in the ACC can block anyone and that includes UNC.

And how did Syracuse get a vote - were they even in the ACC at that point?

It's pathetic that you come here making up "FACTS" to support your stories.

 

[upstater]

Get over yourself. No one school in the ACC can block anyone and that includes UNC.

And how did Syracuse get a vote - were they even in the ACC at that point?

It's pathetic that you come here making up "FACTS" to support your stories.

It's clear now SouthernCross that we are dealing with a BC troll.

Which is no surprise since it happens quite often at this site.

We call them "Chippy" after the screenname of the most notorious BC troll we've ever had.

 

[btstimpy]

No sir, I am not here to do anything of the sort. I do not believe that I've ever been disrespectful towards UConn, or, the folks here.

I am very much in favor of UConn being an ACC member. I always have been. Its always been my contention that 'football drives the bus, and, basketball is in the front seat,' where CR is concerned. UConn hoops, and, Olympic sports, would be a boon for the league if an ACCN ever gets started.

FTR, Carolina and Duke were VERY MUCH in support of UConn getting an ACC invite. They were both dumbstruck by how much BC protested against you.

UConn had the support of the Tobacco Road schools, and, UVA. It is also well-known that it was the football-first schools - FSU, Miami, GT, CU, and, VPI - along with BC and SU, who voted against you.

And, BC has NEVER had enough stroke within the ACC (and never will have) to singly block ANYBODY. They can probably build some cooperation with other members, but, they'd never be able to go it alone vs the rest. Only FSU, CU, Duke, UVA, or UNC could conceiveably pull that off.

No one from VPI that I talk to, and I know many given that I see many everyday, has an objection to UConn. In fact, they prefer UConn to another private school because they like Public Schools. I don't think VPI was against UConn. The southern ACC schools led by FSU and Clemson have their position primarily over football and proximity. We've discussed this here before. They don't have an issue with UConn specifically. They have an issue with loading up the league with northeastern schools that they have to travel to often. It's a long distance for their fans to get to road football games, and the northern schools, primarily BC and Maryland, have a history of not buying tickets to their stadiums either. They saw a vote for UConn as a vote for more of that.

I think if we rearrange the divisional lineup with UConn as a member focusing more north-south, then they would support it. Or if we added another southern school like USF on the way to 20. I don't want the UConn fans to get the impression that FSU and Clemson don't like UConn. I don't think that's the case. I think they just see the ACC loading up on too many northeastern schools.

The Boston College position is one I can't understand, and we've gone over it multiple times here on this board. I think it is in their best interest to have additional schools close to them for rivalries and fan interest. For whatever reason, BC doesn't. I think if the ACC addresses the North-South thing, then the objection will go away. There is objection from UVA and VT about losing access to the south. Georgia Tech wants to continue with Duke, UNC, and UVA. We're trying to figure out what ND wants to do. There are moving parts here that all have to come together. In the end, I support inviting UConn. I don't care about the Towson football game. This decision would be more long term than that game. UVA is likely to be killed by Oregon on Saturday too. It's just one game.

 

[RS9999X]

This could be Gene's new job. Same as the old job. Trolling Uconn from the ADs office.

I've read the same thing about SU elsewhere. They preferred Louisville out of self-interest and regional coverage. Not having a vote doesn't mean their opinion wasn't solicited.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Why this is rehashed here over and over again is beyond me. The prevailing understanding that has become clear from multiple angles is that the ACC brass gave in to the southern football schools, primarily lead by FSU and Clemson to take UL over us, as more of a "football school." Especially since the previous additions of SU and Pitt were clearly basketball-centric. In this round, FSU and CU had options to look elsewhere, mostly the Big 12, and the ACC felt if they chose us, those two would very seriously consider leaving the league. Thus, the basketball schools in NC gave in to adding an academically subpar school in UL who was better in football and perceived to be an equal in all other aspects. But this round was not pushed by BC, it was spearheaded by CU and FSU, perhaps with support from the likes of GT and BC for the hell of it, but neither had enough sway, nor the leverage of having a viable option in another conference, which would leave the ACC crippled.

 

[upstater]

Why this is rehashed here over and over again is beyond me. The prevailing understanding that has become clear from multiple angles is that the ACC brass gave in to the southern football schools, primarily lead by FSU and Clemson to take UL over us, as more of a "football school." Especially since the previous additions of SU and Pitt were clearly basketball-centric. In this round, FSU and CU had options to look elsewhere, mostly the Big 12, and the ACC felt if they chose us, those two would very seriously consider leaving the league. Thus, the basketball schools in NC gave in to adding an academically subpar school in UL who was better in football and perceived to be an equal in all other aspects. But this round was not pushed by BC, it was spearheaded by CU and FSU, perhaps with support from the likes of GT and BC for the hell of it, but neither had enough sway, nor the leverage of having a viable option in another conference, which would leave the ACC crippled.

To be clear, BC came out against UConn this time and used the regional excuse to explain their vote, and this in particular exasperated the Presidents of UNC and Duke. I've never made the case that BC stonewalled UConn this time around. 2011 is a different story.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Get over yourself. No one school in the ACC can block anyone and that includes UNC.

And how did Syracuse get a vote - were they even in the ACC at that point?

It's pathetic that you come here making up "FACTS" to support your stories.

relax toughy...
not sure why you're going after this guy. he's been nothing but supportive of Uconn since he's been here.
even if he weren't, I haven't seen anything dis-respectful.
hell, half the posters on this board should be as supportive of uconn.

 

[SouthronCross]

Get over yourself. No one school in the ACC can block anyone and that includes UNC.

If you do not believe that the ACC has alpha dogs, where league decisions are concerned, you don't know ANYTHING about how the internal politics of the ACC work. Nor, any conference, for that matter.

And how did Syracuse get a vote - were they even in the ACC at that point?

You seriously believe that SU did not have a vote on last summer's expansion that brought Louisville in (bypassing UConn), after they'd been voted in as members? Especially considering that they'd attended official ACC functions, and, were allowed input, prior to that?

Please.

It's pathetic that you come here making up "FACTS" to support your stories.

Your disbelief is duly noted.

I've not read anything, from any source here in ACC country, or nationally, who has disputed that account of the proceedings. Have you? If so, please, share the link with us.

 

[SouthronCross]

It's clear now SouthernCross that we are dealing with a BC troll.

Which is no surprise since it happens quite often at this site.

We call them "Chippy" after the screenname of the most notorious BC troll we've ever had.

If he is a BC fan, thats fine. I have no problems with BC, and, I'm one of the few ACC traditionalists who like having them in the league. Save geography, they're a great fit for the ACC as an institution. Just like I've said about UConn. I've also said that giving them a regional rival, like UConn, would increase the interest in both fanbases, and, make the games mean more.

If he takes issue with what I've posted, he can just show me where what I posted was incorrect. If I'm wrong, I will say so.

 

[SouthronCross]

No one from VPI that I talk to, and I know many given that I see many everyday, has an objection to UConn. In fact, they prefer UConn to another private school because they like Public Schools. I don't think VPI was against UConn. The southern ACC schools led by FSU and Clemson have their position primarily over football and proximity. We've discussed this here before. They don't have an issue with UConn specifically. They have an issue with loading up the league with northeastern schools that they have to travel to often. It's a long distance for their fans to get to road football games, and the northern schools, primarily BC and Maryland, have a history of not buying tickets to their stadiums either. They saw a vote for UConn as a vote for more of that.

VPI not being against UConn is new to me, I admit. It was reported here in NC (don't remember by who, straight away) that VPI sided with the far southern schools against them. And yes, FSU and CU do have an issue with the travel involved with the divisional alignment now.

I think if we rearrange the divisional lineup with UConn as a member focusing more north-south, then they would support it. Or if we added another southern school like USF on the way to 20. I don't want the UConn fans to get the impression that FSU and Clemson don't like UConn. I don't think that's the case. I think they just see the ACC loading up on too many northeastern schools.

The teams who would be in the South Division would take a N-S split (with Miami in the North) right now. But, your own UVA and VPI have both come out against it. Pretty strongly, too, IIRC.

The Boston College position is one I can't understand, and we've gone over it multiple times here on this board. I think it is in their best interest to have additional schools close to them for rivalries and fan interest. For whatever reason, BC doesn't. I think if the ACC addresses the North-South thing, then the objection will go away. There is objection from UVA and VT about losing access to the south. Georgia Tech wants to continue with Duke, UNC, and UVA. We're trying to figure out what ND wants to do. There are moving parts here that all have to come together. In the end, I support inviting UConn. I don't care about the Towson football game. This decision would be more long term than that game. UVA is likely to be killed by Oregon on Saturday too. It's just one game.

Hard to disagree with any of that. But, the caveats you list effectively block any N-S divisional relaignment talk.

 

[pj]

If he is a BC fan, thats fine. I have no problems with BC, and, I'm one of the few ACC traditionalists who like having them in the league. Save geography, they're a great fit for the ACC as an institution. Just like I've said about UConn. I've also said that giving them a regional rival, like UConn, would increase the interest in both fanbases, and, make the games mean more.

If he takes issue with what I've posted, he can just show me where what I posted was incorrect. If I'm wrong, I will say so.

He's a troll. Every post is senseless and every post is negative, whining and complaining about or attacking somebody.

In 33 messages he has 2 likes, they were for a post berating UConn football coaches. There is enough negative sentiment after the loss to Towson that he can get likes for that. His other 32 messages have no likes because they are malicious.

He made his first post after the Towson loss so he's clearly somebody who revels in UConn's disappointment.

 

[NickyNewark]

No sir, I am not here to do anything of the sort. I do not believe that I've ever been disrespectful towards UConn, or, the folks here.

I am very much in favor of UConn being an ACC member. I always have been. Its always been my contention that 'football drives the bus, and, basketball is in the front seat,' where CR is concerned. UConn hoops, and, Olympic sports, would be a boon for the league if an ACCN ever gets started.

FTR, Carolina and Duke were VERY MUCH in support of UConn getting an ACC invite. They were both dumbstruck by how much BC protested against you.

UConn had the support of the Tobacco Road schools, and, UVA. It is also well-known that it was the football-first schools - FSU, Miami, GT, CU, and, VPI - along with BC and SU, who voted against you.

And, BC has NEVER had enough stroke within the ACC (and never will have) to singly block ANYBODY. They can probably build some cooperation with other members, but, they'd never be able to go it alone vs the rest. Only FSU, CU, Duke, UVA, or UNC could conceiveably pull that off.

"Us?"I suspect "Road Dog" is a BC troll and his posts are ludicrous!!

 

[btstimpy]

Hard to disagree with any of that. But, the caveats you list effectively block any N-S divisional relaignment talk.

It's a problem in a 14 member league with 8 Conference Games. It is not a problem in a 16 or 20 member league with 4 PODS of 4 or 5 members that rotate to form 8 or 10 team divisions each season. UVA and VT would be able to be in a mid-atlantic division and rotate frequently north and south. This is the best of all situations in a large conference. There could also be a north POD and a South POD to please both of those regions. They would each be able to rotate toward each other frequently enough to get a flavor, but not be required every season.

 

[upstater]

It's a problem in a 14 member league with 8 Conference Games. It is not a problem in a 16 or 20 member league with 4 PODS of 4 or 5 members that rotate to form 8 or 10 team divisions each season. UVA and VT would be able to be in a mid-atlantic division and rotate frequently north and south. This is the best of all situations in a large conference. There could also be a north POD and a South POD to please both of those regions. They would each be able to rotate toward each other frequently enough to get a flavor, but not be required every season.

Although UVa, UNC and Duke have given UConn support (UVa has a lot of ex-UConn people there, one reason Leitao was hired in the first place), I can't help but think some pretty powerful bball people at those schools have recognized that the ACC could return to old rivalries in bball if only the conference was split up something along the lines of old-BE and old-ACC.