ACC Basketball a Dud

[itgoeslike]

Curious: How does it work? Accumulating tourney credits? Is it a simple 1:1 Win/Loss? (i.e. 1 win = 1 credit?)

It is simply games played. Each year the tourney establishes a valuation for a unit (or game played). This year the valuation is estimated at $250,106 per unit. That valuation applies to games played this year and any game the conference earned in the previous 5 years. So, a game played this year will earn a payout for the next 5 years as well. Per the article posted below, and assuming a 2% increase in valuation year-over-year, a single game played this year will payout nearly $1.6M over the term of 6 years. I believe the only game excluded from receiving a unit is the championship game. Play-in games may also receive less than the full unit value. The 11 games that the AAC will have played in through Saturday will amount to $2,751,166 which will payout approximately $17.38M over the total six years. I posted a second link that also has some good data.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...gle-ncaa-tournament-win-is-worth-1-6-million/

http://winthropintelligence.com/201...all-tournament-this-years-unit-payouts-after/

 

[Sea Goat]

Thanks For TheLumberjack commentsiquote="btstimpy, post: 913474, member: 2673"]The ACC is 9-3-3 against the Big Ten in an ESPN orchestrated head to head event in the past 15 years. The ACC just traded Maryland for Louisville, and the Big Ten added Rutgers. While Virginia lost to Wisconsin this season while sorting out the point guard position, Virginia did win on the home court of Wisconsin last season in Madison. That's not being buried by anyone. And Virginia has beaten Maryland 6 out of the past 7 meetings. Michigan and Michigan State both lost this year in the Big Ten-ACC challenge to other ACC schools.

UConn and Kansas would both help the Big Ten in basketball, no doubt. But I do doubt that Nebraska, Michigan, or Ohio State are itching to bring Charlie Weiss and Kansas fooball onto their football strength of schedule anytime soon particularly after adding Rutgers and Maryland. I could be wrong because this AAU fetish is driving the bus, but I wouldn't think that the Big Ten would want to dilute its football even more to add basketball strength. The Big Ten already has 7 or 8 good basketball programs. They had 5 Big Ten teams in the top 10 at some point this year, but I'm not predicting a Big Ten team to win the NCAA tournament. Wisconsin is all that remains.[/quote]
a

First off, no real Tobacco Road fan who seriously follows college basketball thinks that Syracuse is a better program than UConn. They're out of their freaking minds if they do.

The reason UConn gets the hatred it gets down here...and its JMHO...is that the ill-informed media made it sound as if UConn was the lone BE school responsible for the lawsuit. And, CT's former AG Blumenthal always being seen on TV during this time did nothing to change that narrative.

It almost NEVER got reported that VPI was in on it, too. At least until former VA Gov Mark Warner intervened on their behalf. Pitt's name was never mentioned, that I remember.

The NC schools were for UConn, as were UVA, and Maryland, if memory serves.

Right now, football is clearly driving the bus for conference media contracts. But, sports networks need content, and, basketball is the absolute best thing, content-wise, for them. I honestly believe Swofford knew this, which is why he pushed for UConn. But, the blowback from the other ACC schools forced him to compromise, and, not just on which school was eventually picked. Now, I have absolutely nothing against Louisville. But, I feel the ACC missed the boat by passing you all over.

Of course, you all already knew I thought this.

th

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

Stimp,

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

Stimp,

Time for you to go away...

I've been polite - but the last time the Cavaliers were relevant was during the reign of King Charles. You (ACC) blew it - you could have done the right thing and maintained your credibility, but you threw it away with Louisville. The ACC won't amount a patch on the B1G's ass when all is said and done. The sad thing is that the ACC was the architect of their own disaster. Bring it on - I'll take all ACC apologists on with half my brain tied behind my back!

 

[btstimpy]

This is an incredibly simple perspective (although not an unsurprising one, considering the source).

On a year-to-year football basis, the ACC will never touch the B1G, SEC or even the B12 so long as Texas and Oklahoma are still there. That means the ACC's calling card will have to be basketball, and that's precisely why the conference added Syracuse and Pitt the last time around.

Unfortunately for the ACC, it's been filled with a bunch of pretenders after Duke and UNC for years and years and years (and even Duke and UNC have been underperforming in the tourney since 2010). Conversely, the B1G has a number of programs - MSU, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. -that have helped the conference become every bit as good as the ACC. Adding UConn and Kansas would mean the top of the B1G (MSU, Kansas, UConn, OSU, Michigan) would go toe-to-toe with the top of the ACC (Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville), while the depth of the B1G would blow the ACC right out the water.

Then, there's the fact that the B1G and ACC are clearly competing for dominance in NYC. As we saw this past weekend, UConn would help the B1G in that regard.

I'm not overly confident in UConn getting into the B1G, and there's plenty of GOR obstacles preventing Kansas from getting out of the Big 12. But pretending those two wouldn't impact the ACC is simply preposterous.

The Big XII would need to worry because it is one of their teams being discussed.

You talk about the ACC being full of basketball pretenders year after year. The Big Ten has won exactly one (1) NCAA men's basketball championship in the past 25 years. ONE. The ACC nine (9). You call that close? The ACC has won four (4) Football National Championships in the past 25 years. The Big Ten has won only two (2). You call that close? It is closer than basketball. I'll grant you this, but half. You need to go back and identify the real pretenders, and they are not in the ACC.

 

[UConn990411]

The Big XII would need to worry because it is one of their teams being discussed.

You talk about the ACC being full of basketball pretenders year after year. The Big Ten has won exactly one (1) NCAA men's basketball championship in the past 25 years. ONE. The ACC nine (9). You call that close? The ACC has won four (4) Football National Championships in the past 25 years. The Big Ten has won only two (2). You call that close? It is closer than basketball. I'll grant you this, but half. You need to go back and identify the real pretenders, and they are not in the ACC.

Typical ACC fan living on your past laurels.

Who gives a duckk about the past 25 years? Certainly not recruits.

At the moment, basketball recruits seem to be more attracted to Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana than any ACC schools other than UNC and Duke. And for good reason. The coaching in the ACC is incredibly mediocre after the top, and most of the elite coaches in the conference (K, Roy, Boeheim, soon to be Pitino) have but a few years left. On the other hand, the top B1G coaches (Izzo, Beilein, Thad Matta, Crean) still have plenty of years left.

Oh, and you conveniently left Kansas and UConn's combined titles (4) off your arbitrary "NC in the past 25 years" list. We're talking about a hypothetical conference with them, aren't we? And that number grows to five if you extend the range to an even more arbitrary 26 years.

 

[btstimpy]

Time for you to go away...

I've been polite - but the last time the Cavaliers were relevant was during the reign of King Charles. You (ACC) blew it - you could have done the right thing and maintained your credibility, but you threw it away with Louisville. The ACC won't amount a patch on the B1G's ass when all is said and done. The sad thing is that the ACC was the architect of their own disaster. Bring it on - I'll take all ACC apologists on with half my brain tied behind my back!

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

 

[WestCoastHusky]

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

As for Olympic sports, CA schools will ALWAYS dominate. In fact, close to 50% of Olympians in this country come from CA. It is not by accident either due to the weather and location. Oh yeah, I don't live far from the Stanford campus and I will be the first to tell you how nice the weather is. In fact, it is almost 6 PM now and it is like close to 60 degrees outside and sunny. I still get to get tennis in T-shirt and shorts every weekend.

A combination of nice weather and a great education make it easy to attract recruits for Olympic sports. Does it make it fair? No, but CA schools do have a built-in advantage no one on the East Coast can beat.

In fact, I also got a degree from Santa Clara University. It is a small school but it has higher Director's ranking than many P5 schools. It also sits right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

 

[btstimpy]

Typical ACC fan living on your past laurels.

Who gives a duckk about the past 25 years? Certainly not recruits.

At the moment, basketball recruits seem to be more attracted to Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana than any ACC schools other than UNC and Duke. And for good reason. The coaching in the ACC is incredibly mediocre after the top, and most of the elite coaches in the conference (K, Roy, Boeheim, soon to be Pitino) have but a few years left. On the other hand, the top B1G coaches (Izzo, Beilein, Thad Matta, Crean) still have plenty of years left.

Oh, and you conveniently left Kansas and UConn's combined titles (4) off your arbitrary "NC in the past 25 years" list. We're talking about a hypothetical conference with them, aren't we? And that number grows to five if you extend the range to an even more arbitrary 26 years.

Kansas and UConn have won some Basketball Championships yes. And Neither of them are in the Big Ten.

Living on past Laurels? You need to go back and look for the dates of the last Big Ten basketball and football championships. Some of these recruits you reference were in swaddling clothes. Wisconsin has a chance this year. You'll know this weekend.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Kansas and UConn have won some Basketball Championships yes. And Neither of them are in the Big Ten.

Living on past Laurels? You need to go back and look for the dates of the last Big Ten basketball and football championships. Some of these recruits you reference were in swaddling clothes. Wisconsin has a chance this year. You'll know this weekend.

Hopefully, we will have something to say about that.

 

[Sea Goat]

I'm happy with 20 straight years in a row in the Director's Cup top 30. I'd like to finish first at some point, but the consistency is good. Only 14 College athletics department can claim that. It defines relevancy. My response was to an uninformed poster about the ACC being way behing the Big Ten and SEC in football and basketball. The ACC isn't, and now that poster is informed. It wasn't about a comparison to UVA. They were referring to the ACC. Here are your relevant athletics departments since 1994 from an overall perspective including football and basketball. All of the P5 are represented.

Arizona
Arizona State
California
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
North Carolina
Ohio State
Penn State
USC
Stanford
Texas
UCLA
Virginia

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him?

 

[Stray_Dog]

LOL. The B1G didn't add Kansas and UConn. It added Rutgers. You should be commenting on how that helped the B1G's basketball handicap going forward. The SEC casts a football shadow over everyone. The B1G certainly doesn't. I also wouldn't say that Kansas' NCAA performance this year in Men's Basketball was their best. UConn and Kentucky are this year's Cinderellas making the Final Four from 7 and 8 seeds. It happens alot with all the parity in college basketball and all the turmoil with one and dones. It is a great accomplishment to get hot at the right time in the tournament.

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

 

[Stray_Dog]

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

Oh, and I know UConn didn't beat them the year of the Dream season, sorry if you were confused on the point, but rather it was when in 1999 we had to beat them for our first championship....such an awesome feeling!!!

 

[btstimpy]

So you feel that UConn was fairly ranked as a 7th seed? By you claiming UConn a Cinderella team...I will give you this...not by beating ISU but by beating MSU maybe...however, we do have a history of meeting our teams prior NCAA tournament foes who beat us in a previous year and come back to beat them. It is why in our Dream Team season with Tate George and Co. when we met Duke and did beat them...they have always been that first team we recall beating after losing to. Don't believe me that this has happened repeatably to UConn look at our history.
Back to the earlier point, most believe we should have been a 4 or 5 seed. If that is the case, would you still say we a re a Cinderella team. ...And what Cinderella team beats the team which sustained only two losses, one of them being from the Cinderella Huskies!!! I do believe more now than ever, that you have a certain arrogance about you. You spout facts but then interject your opinion on basis of the facts you put fourth. Only problem you only provide half the facts, those facts which make your story look good. Not sure if you get this model of reporting from Fox or CNN, perhaps you do it here because the internet doesn't lie

UConn and Kentucky are established programs with historical success in the NCAA tournament. For this reason they won't be called Cinderella like VCU was a couple of year ago. By Cinderella I mean an unpredicted lower seed making the final 4. Sure Dayton was more of a Cinderalla as an 11 seed, but Dayton didn't make the final 4. A 7 and 8 seed are not supposed to make the final 4. That's all. They aren't supposed to make the Sweet 16 either really. It happens sometimes though. UVA made the Final 4 in 1984 as a 7 seed. Kentucky didn't get it together until the SEC tournament. UConn is on a hot streak in the NCAA.

 

[upstater]

The ACC is 9-3-3 against the Big Ten in an ESPN orchestrated head to head event in the past 15 years. The ACC just traded Maryland for Louisville, and the Big Ten added Rutgers. While Virginia lost to Wisconsin this season while sorting out the point guard position, Virginia did win on the home court of Wisconsin last season in Madison. That's not being buried by anyone. And Virginia has beaten Maryland 6 out of the past 7 meetings. Michigan and Michigan State both lost this year in the Big Ten-ACC challenge to other ACC schools.

UConn and Kansas would both help the Big Ten in basketball, no doubt. But I do doubt that Nebraska, Michigan, or Ohio State are itching to bring Charlie Weiss and Kansas fooball onto their football strength of schedule anytime soon particularly after adding Rutgers and Maryland. I could be wrong because this AAU fetish is driving the bus, but I wouldn't think that the Big Ten would want to dilute its football even more to add basketball strength. The Big Ten already has 7 or 8 good basketball programs. They had 5 Big Ten teams in the top 10 at some point this year, but I'm not predicting a Big Ten team to win the NCAA tournament. Wisconsin is all that remains.

I'm just looking at this: UConn, Kansas, Michigan St., Indiana, Michigan, Ohio St., Wisconsin, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Purdue.

Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, NC State and Virginia are not going to cut it against those 12.

 

[upstater]

UConn and Kentucky are established programs with historical success in the NCAA tournament. For this reason they won't be called Cinderella like VCU was a couple of year ago. By Cinderella I mean an unpredicted lower seed making the final 4. Sure Dayton was more of a Cinderalla as an 11 seed, but Dayton didn't make the final 4. A 7 and 8 seed are not supposed to make the final 4. That's all. They aren't supposed to make the Sweet 16 either really. It happens sometimes though. UVA made the Final 4 in 1984 as a 7 seed. Kentucky didn't get it together until the SEC tournament. UConn is on a hot streak in the NCAA.

UConn was underseeded. For heaven's sake, UConn's RPI was 22. We played and beat Florida, Harvard, Maryland, Washington, Indiana, in the OOC. UConn should have been a 4 or 5 seed.

 

[upstater]

The ACC is second fiddle to only one in football and basketball since Jim Delaney took the job at the Big Ten Conference in 1989, and way ahead of another one you misjudge as quality. This article will help you get a better grasp of the reality. The media hype and rankings every year don't match the reality where the Big Ten is concerned. It does where the SEC is concerned. And the ACC hasn't done too bad. Maybe Rutgers will make big changes to these numbers going forward. Who knows?

http://www.lostlettermen.com/article/why-big-ten-badly-needs-2014-ncaa-title

The ACC lost BCs bowl after BCS bowl. The ineptitude was mind boggling.

Have a look at this: http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/4/26/1444886/sec-dominates-bcs-automatic

 

[itgoeslike]

A 7 and 8 seed are not supposed to make the final 4. That's all. They aren't supposed to make the Sweet 16 either really.

Our seeding is a byproduct of an ACC chaired and saturated committee with an apparent agenda (fueled in part by Coach K's whining). You need to complain to them.

 

[Stray_Dog]

Kansas and UConn have won some Basketball Championships yes. And Neither of them are in the Big Ten.

Living on past Laurels? You need to go back and look for the dates of the last Big Ten basketball and football championships. Some of these recruits you reference were in swaddling clothes. Wisconsin has a chance this year. You'll know this weekend.

Hey guys, According to Stimpy Kansa and UConn won SOME NC's Wow and how many did UVa win? Your arrogance is astounding! IF CR was based on basketball would UVa be in the AAC, sunbelt, or ACC and then where would UConn be? Just glad to point out we won some basketball championships and can make a claim to have participated in some number just slightly greater than that in Final Fours...

 

[itgoeslike]

Since the 2013-2014 season, the American Athletic Conference has had more mens final four teams than the ACC and Big 12 combined. True statement.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

As for Olympic sports, CA schools will ALWAYS dominate. In fact, close to 50% of Olympians in this country come from CA. It is not by accident either due to the weather and location. Oh yeah, I don't live far from the Stanford campus and I will be the first to tell you how nice the weather is. In fact, it is almost 6 PM now and it is like close to 60 degrees outside and sunny. I still get to get tennis in T-shirt and shorts every weekend.

A combination of nice weather and a great education make it easy to attract recruits for Olympic sports. Does it make it fair? No, but CA schools do have a built-in advantage no one on the East Coast can beat.

In fact, I also got a degree from Santa Clara University. It is a small school but it has higher Director's ranking than many P5 schools. It also sits right in the heart of Silicon Valley.

Congrats. SCU was our family school before my sister and I made a small change.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Congrats. SCU was our family school before my sister and I made a small change.

Nice to meet people with connections to SCU on an UCONN board. Not many people heard of it outside CA. It has one of the nicest campuses in CA. Steve Nash is one of our most famous alums. The other is Janet Napolitano, who is in charge of all the UC schools in CA. Governor of CA Jerry Brown is also a SCU alum.

 

[btstimpy]

Since the 2013-2014 season, the American Athletic Conference has had more mens final four teams than the ACC and Big 12 combined. True statement.

Yes. And there are reasonable odds that there will be an All SEC final and champion. If that happens, it will be because the ACC made them mad by taking the BCS football championship. If UConn wins, you'll probably have to go through 2 SEC teams.

 

[itgoeslike]

Yes. And there are reasonable odds that there will be an All SEC final and champion. If that happens, it will be because the ACC made them mad by taking the BCS football championship. If UConn wins, you'll probably have to go through 2 SEC teams.

Are you suggesting that the ACC may be conspiring against UConn success?! That is outrageous! But good for our Mojo. . .

 

[btstimpy]

Are you suggesting that the ACC may be conspiring against UConn success?! That is outrageous! But good for our Mojo. . .

No. The ACC has pivoted to baseball and lacrosse this year. It's the SEC that is conspiring against UConn in basketball. They are mad that they lost the football championship.

 

[Fishy]

The SEC basketball conference is in a weird space right now - all of their coaches are either in the Final Four or are somewhere in the process of ultimately losing their jobs.

 

[NotreDameJoe]

Nice to meet people with connections to SCU on an UCONN board. Not many people heard of it outside CA. It has one of the nicest campuses in CA. Steve Nash is one of our most famous alums. The other is Janet Napolitano, who is in charge of all the UC schools in CA. Governor of CA Jerry Brown is also a SCU alum.

It may be top secret to say that Leon Panetta was in my Dad's class. Which is interesting because I think Dad retired a looong time ago.

 

[NickyNewark]

If you haven't noticed, it's what this discussion has been about.

But if you want to concentrate on football, the story isn't much better. Syracuse dusted Minnesota in it's bowl game this season. Perhaps people were watching in Toronto. I'll let you inform the board of Minnesota's conference affiliation. You can also let everyone know how Rutgers made out in the Pinstripe Bowl.

Stay classy stimp.

 

[upstater]

But if you want to concentrate on football, the story isn't much better. Syracuse dusted Minnesota in it's bowl game this season. Perhaps people were watching in Toronto. I'll let you inform the board of Minnesota's conference affiliation. You can also let everyone know how Rutgers made out in the Pinstripe Bowl.

Syracuse against UConn in football

2005: UConn wins 26-7
2006: Syracuse wins 20-14
2007: UConn wins 30-7
2008: UConn wins 39-14
2009: UConn wins 56-31
2010: UConn wins 23-6
2011: UConn wins 28-21
2012: Syracuse wins (Thanks Pasqualoni!!!!)

Forgive UConn fans for not being in awe of Syracuse football. UConn started playing in a conference in 2004, and it only took this upstart football program a year to start dominating Syracuse. The ACC went with the football program with a nice history, but no recruiting base in the frozen tundra of Central NY. In fact, over the years, Syracuse has lived on Ct. talent for the players that went in the first round of the NFL draft, going back to Floyd Little, but including Dwight Freeney and guys like Tebucky Jones. UConn shut down that pipeline.

 

[btstimpy]

The SEC basketball conference is in a weird space right now - all of their coaches are either in the Final Four or are somewhere in the process of ultimately losing their jobs.

SEC basketball this year has 3 very good teams in Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee along with the rest being average or poor. In the past teams like Auburn, LSU, South Carolina, Missouri, and Georgia have been decent as well, but not this year.

 

[btstimpy]

Stay classy stimp.

Always. This other poster came on a thread that is totally about basketball questioning why I was referring to basketball. Total head scratcher.

 

[btstimpy]

Syracuse against UConn in football

2005: UConn wins 26-7
2006: Syracuse wins 20-14
2007: UConn wins 30-7
2008: UConn wins 39-14
2009: UConn wins 56-31
2010: UConn wins 23-6
2011: UConn wins 28-21
2012: Syracuse wins (Thanks Pasqualoni!!!!)

Forgive UConn fans for not being in awe of Syracuse football. UConn started playing in a conference in 2004, and it only took this upstart football program a year to start dominating Syracuse. The ACC went with the football program with a nice history, but no recruiting base in the frozen tundra of Central NY. In fact, over the years, Syracuse has lived on Ct. talent for the players that went in the first round of the NFL draft, going back to Floyd Little, but including Dwight Freeney and guys like Tebucky Jones. UConn shut down that pipeline.

You don't have to convince me that UConn would be a good addition to the ACC. I'm already impressed with the UConn athletics department and its potential. This other poster was once again pushing Rutgers. It seems that most of the time I get into good conversation about college athletics here on the boneyard someone wants to bring up Rutgers. My luck I guess.