And you are like most others that post about Rutgers so-called losing history. Unlike UCONN, Rutgers has more winning seasons than losing seasons, and has won more games in their history than they've lost.
It is so hysterical to me that people from UCONN knock RU's history, when their own school's history is worse.
It's hysterical to me too! It is just sad.
Rutgers has more winning seasons than losing seasons (unlike UConn): I'll just have to take your word for that, because I'm not going to go the archives and count how many winning seasons Rutgers has from the 1800's.
I typically find that sports fans (of good teams anyway) argue and compare number of championships, not who has more winning seasons, because winning titles is what is important (not that you managed to break even on a season more often than not). I'll forgive you for not understanding what I am talking about, because the trophy case at Rutgers is probably the last (if not entirely avoided) stop on the recruiting visit for your potential athletes.
You can try and vainly argue that UConn's history is much worse than Rutgers, pointing out that Rutgers has more winning seasons, but truth is, Rutgers is 626-606 in 140 seasons.
Rutgers has managed to win 20 more games than it has lost in 140 years. This is what you are proud of? Really? Good lord, do you people through ticker-tape parades celebrating the teams that manage to go 6-5?
Rutgers has one exactly one Big East title in the 21 years they were a member. UConn has two in the 8 years they have been in the conference. In eight years we managed to outdo your "superior" history. Frankly, I'm not taking much pride in this, because Rutgers athletics does not set the bar very high.
To be perfectly honest, I look at it this way. You want to argue that our history is much worse than yours, be my guest. You have to delve back 100+ years to find winning seasons to help show that Rutgers has more winning seasons than losing seasons. It takes that long, and you have to actually go back that far, because you can't base it on the one stat that matters: Championships. UConn has two, and Rutgers has one. Despite having a "superior" (I'm laughing, even just typing that)history, Rutgers still doesn't have UConn beat where it counts, even with a 13 year head start.
Purely as a sports fan, I would be embarrassed if my source of pride is that we manage not to lose more often than we win. It becomes even sadder to rely on that when considering college football teams in FBS conferences schedule multiple cupcake games a year, and Rutgers still is only 20 wins above .500 in 140 years.
UConn may have a historically below .500 record, but we have more trophies in the case, and if you follow sports, then you should know, that this is all that matters. BTW, in case you didn't know, our other sports happen to win national championships.
Oh, sorry, you might not be familiar with these words when placed next to one another. A national championship is an achievement given to the best team in the country in a particular sport, usually coming in the form of a trophy, and designation as the #1 team in the country in the relevant media polls. Teams usually win this by qualifying for a tournament, and competing and defeating other teams vying for the championship themselves.
