Question...do fans from...

[Mr Blueskin]

other conference teams still go to our Scout.com site instead of the Boneyard and think we don't have that many fans? I just dont understand why we have the most fans spread out between football, men's bball, and women's bball compared to any other school in the region yet we are begging to get into one of 5 top conferences in the country. I'm not a huge women's bball fan but the difference in TV ratings (SNY loves it) for that one extra sport that is huge for UConn has to count for something and be a significant difference compared to the other schools in our region that only have 2 significant teams, no? Sorry for the run-on entences but Why is UConn such a black sheep?

 

[Adios]

We're just one of the newest kids on the block. But if you can't see, our future is...

B1G.

 

[uconNYC]

UConn peaked too early. We were dominant and Husky Mania (Hoopla) was in full force in the 90's. That was before the proliferation of social media, conference TV networks and realignment. Then at the turn of the century enthusiasm for our programs slowly started declining (bad economy + bad marketing + taking fans for granted + scandals). We never had that seminal moment where fans started flocking to message boards. Even in our championship seasons in 2004 and 2011 (2010 in football), the teams struggled at various periods in the season. They were not dominant and creating buzz like the 94, 96 and 99 teams.

I put a lot of the blame on the Athletic Department. They absolutely sat on their hands during our periods of success. There was no brand building, no marketing initiatives, you couldn't find UConn gear anywhere outside central CT. Unfortunately, it does not seem as though things are changing.

 

[Nostical]

As an example of the difference in how schools use creative marketing--and take advantage of a fortuitous event--watch how T A&M markets Johnny Football's Heisman Trophy win. We had ample opportunity to trumpet our various successes but never really did. It may have been the money, or the lack of creative, forward thinking folks in marketing (ya think?), but promotion helps set the perception. That's the theory behind advertising. The bold move at the time by outlier Oregon to put a billboard in Times Sq promoting Joey Harrington made people sit up and notice. (The swoosh of course didn't hurt either). But here's the point. it wasn't only Phil Knight's money that turned a sleepy Northwest afterthought school into the hippest place on earth. It was also, and most definately, his genius at marketing.

 

[upstater]

UConn peaked too early. We were dominant and Husky Mania (Hoopla) was in full force in the 90's. That was before the proliferation of social media, conference TV networks and realignment. Then at the turn of the century enthusiasm for our programs slowly started declining (bad economy + bad marketing + taking fans for granted + scandals). We never had that seminal moment where fans started flocking to message boards. Even in our championship seasons in 2004 and 2011 (2010 in football), the teams struggled at various periods in the season. They were not dominant and creating buzz like the 94, 96 and 99 teams.

I put a lot of the blame on the Athletic Department. They absolutely sat on their hands during our periods of success. There was no brand building, no marketing initiatives, you couldn't find UConn gear anywhere outside central CT. Unfortunately, it does not seem as though things are changing.

The 2004 team was a big story, they were pretty dominant, and highly ranked, but the 2011 team became a national headliner only after the BET.

 

[RS9999X]

Boards like these are dying a death. Mobile readers go elsewhere often to ESPN or elsewhere where they can tweet up a storm of +1! and likes. Seriously. Check ESPN out during game broadcasts. Even large University boards like Texas are rather dead compared to a decade ago.

 

[ctchamps]

Boards like these are dying a death. Mobile readers go elsewhere often to ESPN or elsewhere where they can tweet up a storm of +1! and likes. Seriously. Check ESPN out during game broadcasts. Even large University boards like Texas are rather dead compared to a decade ago.

It's a situation of being recognized by large numbers of strangers. It replaces intimacy and gives kids a feeling of grandeur they don't necessarily get in their personal lives. But this trend is peaking. I expect things to switch back to more intimate circles even if the "intimacy" is anonymous. This will happen if only because the younger generation driving the trends are change happy. But I also think in the end most of us are social beings and the biggest players are too impersonal.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Yeah, it wasn't like we didn't have any good basketball teams in 08 or 09...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I put a lot of the blame on the Athletic Department. They absolutely sat on their hands during our periods of success. There was no brand building, no marketing initiatives, you couldn't find UConn gear anywhere outside central CT. Unfortunately, it does not seem as though things are changing.

All of the blame falls on the athletic department. Hathaway had more success equity than most ADs could possibly dream of and did absolutely nothing to capitalize on it.

 

[NEforceUConn]

ok Hathaway sucked, but wft is WM doing??

 

[RealCT12]

ok Hathaway sucked, but wft is WM doing??

Taking vacations and eating donuts.

 

[jostar1]

ok Hathaway sucked, but wft is WM doing??

 

[Marty Jackson]

The 2004 team was a big story, they were pretty dominant, and highly ranked, but the 2011 team became a national headliner only after the BET.

Outside of CT and Uconn nation, most people felt the 2011 team was tainted because of NCAA issues.

 

[upstater]

Outside of CT and Uconn nation, most people felt the 2011 team was tainted because of NCAA issues.

I'm not sure what you mean, actually. Are you saying these people had mistaken views about the APR issues? Or the Miles recruitment. Most people probably were aware that the Miles issue was from 2008, but maybe not. As for APR, that reared its ugly head last year after the team won the national championship (and most here probably think it came up BECAUSE the team won the national championship).

 

[Marty Jackson]

I'm not sure what you mean, actually. Are you saying these people had mistaken views about the APR issues? Or the Miles recruitment. Most people probably were aware that the Miles issue was from 2008, but maybe not. As for APR, that reared its ugly head last year after the team won the national championship (and most here probably think it came up BECAUSE the team won the national championship).

As I said, people here on this board and the average college BB fan are completely different. I think the Uconn program from a reputation standpoint took a hit when Calhoun had to serve a 3-game suspension for NCAA violations. Haters will always hate, but this seemed to give the average BB fan a reason to think Uconn/Calhoun didn't run program by the book (the suspension validated it for the haters and raised suspicion for others where there wasn't before).
Unfortunately, despite all the positive press the men's and women's program's had gotten prior, the 2011 run was tainted by the Miles fiasco. Whether it came up because of the NC run doesn't matter. The media will use whatever platform they have.
In the context of this thread, all I'm saying is that our 3rd NC was tainted because of that story and the Calhoun suspension for 3 games.

 

[Gurleyman]

Outside of CT and Uconn nation, most people felt the 2011 team was tainted because of NCAA issues.

Nobody of any intelligence thinks that. Miles was long gone and the team that won the title had a 979 APR.

We also recruited Kemba in the same class as Miles, and Yahoo got a hold of all of our phone records from that entire year - if they could have pinned something - anything - on Kemba and not the guy who never played for us, they would have.

Low-information fans might think the title was tainted, but who cares about them.

 

[Gurleyman]

As I said, people here on this board and the average college BB fan are completely different. I think the Uconn program from a reputation standpoint took a hit when Calhoun had to serve a 3-game suspension for NCAA violations. Haters will always hate, but this seemed to give the average BB fan a reason to think Uconn/Calhoun didn't run program by the book (the suspension validated it for the haters and raised suspicion for others where there wasn't before).
Unfortunately, despite all the positive press the men's and women's program's had gotten prior, the 2011 run was tainted by the Miles fiasco. Whether it came up because of the NC run doesn't matter. The media will use whatever platform they have.
In the context of this thread, all I'm saying is that our 3rd NC was tainted because of that story and the Calhoun suspension for 3 games.

The Miles fiasco broke during our 2009 Final Four run. The story was already two years old when we won the title. The NCAA ruling of a three-game suspension in 2011-12 didn't have the same shock value as the initial story.

In my opinion, the people who call the 2011 title tainted over the violations in 2007 (from recruiting one player who never played) are people who are either low-information, or people who are going to reach that conclusion due to their dislike of JC, regardless of what the facts are.

The primary media narrative during the 2011 run was Kemba and the Miracles and how long the magic carpet ride would last. The Miles story was barely a sidebar. Sure there may have been a columnist or two lamenting the fact a coach on probation might win, but the drama of our wild 11-game run superceded any of that talk. It never felt like there was any "tainted" talk - I heard/read more people try to "taint" the title by calling the Butler game unwatchable than by bringing up Miles.

 

[upstater]

As I said, people here on this board and the average college BB fan are completely different. I think the Uconn program from a reputation standpoint took a hit when Calhoun had to serve a 3-game suspension for NCAA violations. Haters will always hate, but this seemed to give the average BB fan a reason to think Uconn/Calhoun didn't run program by the book (the suspension validated it for the haters and raised suspicion for others where there wasn't before).
Unfortunately, despite all the positive press the men's and women's program's had gotten prior, the 2011 run was tainted by the Miles fiasco. Whether it came up because of the NC run doesn't matter. The media will use whatever platform they have.
In the context of this thread, all I'm saying is that our 3rd NC was tainted because of that story and the Calhoun suspension for 3 games.

Tainted implies to me that they got an unfair advantage, which they didn't. That the team won a championship while under probation is not really a big deal, since plenty have done the same. I understand people think he's a cheater, but the biggest charge about that really came from Gary Williams' crying to the Washington Post over the Gay recruitment.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Nobody of any intelligence thinks that. Miles was long gone and the team that won the title had a 979 APR.

We also recruited Kemba in the same class as Miles, and Yahoo got a hold of all of our phone records from that entire year - if they could have pinned something - anything - on Kemba and not the guy who never played for us, they would have.

Low-information fans might think the title was tainted, but who cares about them.

So basically everyone else is an idiot or just not as educated as you. And by educated, you mean access to the BY.
Instead of Gurleyman, it should be Homer.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Tainted implies to me that they got an unfair advantage, which they didn't. That the team won a championship while under probation is not really a big deal, since plenty have done the same. I understand people think he's a cheater, but the biggest charge about that really came from Gary Williams' crying to the Washington Post over the Gay recruitment.

Taint or Tainted, depending on the source has a couple different meanings (hint: I was not referring to the Urban Dictionary)... Nothing I've seen suggests that it means an 'unfarir advantage'...

In my case, I meant that it spoiled or contaminated the NC run. It took a perfect run in the post season and used that as a podium to air Uconn's recent troubles and JC's suspension. That to me detracted from the experience and tainted the NC run. I am not saying it overshadowed what they did in the post-season or Kemba's heroics, but it didn't have the same feeling as NC 1 or 2.

 

[Marty Jackson]

The Miles fiasco broke during our 2009 Final Four run. The story was already two years old when we won the title. The NCAA ruling of a three-game suspension in 2011-12 didn't have the same shock value as the initial story.

In my opinion, the people who call the 2011 title tainted over the violations in 2007 (from recruiting one player who never played) are people who are either low-information, or people who are going to reach that conclusion due to their dislike of JC, regardless of what the facts are.

The primary media narrative during the 2011 run was Kemba and the Miracles and how long the magic carpet ride would last. The Miles story was barely a sidebar. Sure there may have been a columnist or two lamenting the fact a coach on probation might win, but the drama of our wild 11-game run superceded any of that talk. It never felt like there was any "tainted" talk - I heard/read more people try to "taint" the title by calling the Butler game unwatchable than by bringing up Miles.

We disagree. I remember several times where Uconn and Calhoun's issues were discussed.
The very notion that this was even in the discussion on a national level would seem to suggest that it may have tainted that NC.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Nobody of any intelligence thinks that. Miles was long gone and the team that won the title had a 979 APR.

We also recruited Kemba in the same class as Miles, and Yahoo got a hold of all of our phone records from that entire year - if they could have pinned something - anything - on Kemba and not the guy who never played for us, they would have.

Low-information fans might think the title was tainted, but who cares about them.

Intelligence? Who cares about that? A lot of fans and media people think Calhoun was a snake in the grass on his best day. It's much the same way we feel about Calipari....just because he doesn't get caught every year, or with every recruit, doesn't make him clean. Ollie is a major upgrade to our image in that respect.

 

[Gurleyman]

So basically everyone else is an idiot or just not as educated as you. And by educated, you mean access to the BY.
Instead of Gurleyman, it should be Homer.

All I said was "low information" - i.e. people who may not have all the details about this particular subject matter. I don't consider knowing the details about a specific school's NCAA investigation to be a commentary on someone's education or idiocy. There are a billion Chinese who don't give a either way, many of whom are probably quite smart.

If a couple of sidebar stories about Nate Miles bugged you during the 2011 title run, I can't tell you that you're wrong for feeling that way. You're entitled. But it still doesn't "taint" what the team accomplished. If Miles played in 2009 and we won that title and later found out we had violations in his recruitment, that would be tainted. Or, and this is my personal opinion, a 2006 title would have been tainted in my eyes because I strongly felt like Marcus Williams should never play for us again and we would have won a title with someone who didn't deserve to be there.

Personally, I enjoyed Title 3 most of all since it came from nowhere. I enjoyed 77-74 most as a single game, but in terms of the entire postseason run, 2011 was as good as it gets. The barely-mentioned sidebars about a two-year-old story into a four-year-old recruiting violation didn't take away my enjoyment at all. I wish they weren't there, but I considered them residual stories based on old news that had nothing to do with the current team. If you didn't enjoy that run, then I feel bad for you, because you missed out on all sorts of awesome.

 

[upstater]

Intelligence? Who cares about that? A lot of fans and media people think Calhoun was a snake in the grass on his best day. It's much the same way we feel about Calipari....just because he doesn't get caught every year, or with every recruit, doesn't make him clean. Ollie is a major upgrade to our image in that respect.

People are too impressionable. Make up your own mind for heaven's sake. Calhoun didn't do anything that Coach K. didn't do.

 

[The Funster]

UConn had three major Men's BB "scandals": computergate, Miles and the APR.

If UConn was mediocre or sucked, no one would have noticed. If UConn was a longtime blueblood, with a national army of apologists, those scandals would have been marginalized or never gotten major attention.

Computergates happen at every university. Sometimes the offenses are worse. UConn isn't big enough and/or calculating enough to cover up those offenses. We don't have as much to lose as, say, Notre Dame, so we're probably quite a bit more transparent.

Nate Miles was a mistake from day 1. Almost from the beginning I said that Miles was Moby Dick to Calhoun's Ahab. Still, some of the "offenses" we were charged for are now acceptable under current NCAA guidelines IIRC and there were dozens, if not hundreds of Nate Miles situations at other institutions that somehow flew under the radar.

The APR thing hurts because although it was applied retroactively we were the only ones who failed the standard. Never mind the fact that the satndard is flawed. never mind the fact that our athletes don't take bogus basket weaving classes or are enrolled in an "African Studies" program that is completely bogus...we get nailed while more beloved programs get away with their offenses. We were hurt by the APR and it appears we've learned our lesson. UConn has instituted measures to ensure our student athletes maintain a high academic level. In the midst of this god forsaken Men's BB season we should be trumpeting our progress and trying to turn negative perception into positive.

I've had my criticisms of Calhoun but the reality is that he has been no more nefarious than any other high profile HC and that includes the allegedly squeaky clean Coach K. Calhoun reached the top of the mountain three times and that has raised the stakes of the program. However the higher stakes were not supported by the cachet of being a long time blueblood program and I think that has made us a convenient target. Big time programs ride the razor's edge all the time. Often times they cross the line and sometimes by a lot. Public opinion is shaped not by that fact...but whether you get "caught" with "caught" being a function of reputation as much as a function of the crime.