Blauds: UConn/Cincy Leaning Towards C7 | Page 12 | The Boneyard

Blauds: UConn/Cincy Leaning Towards C7

Status
Not open for further replies.
UCFBfan said:
.Houston and company have already been in a league with all the NBE teams minus Temple, UConn, Cincy, and USF. They haven't done anything to improve up to now. Why start all of a sudden?
Expand ...

Geez, UCONN didn't do anything to get better in basketball until it hired Jim Calhoun in 1986, why did they start then? Everybody has their eye on joining the ACC that provides motivation to improve. SMU laid out big bucks to bring in Larry Brown, clearly that is a signal they are trying to improve their basketball profile. Do you think it is a coincidence that Houston had their best basketball recruiting class in years (Ranked in top 25) last year after they announced they were joining the Big East? The Big East name provides a halo effect for basketball programs, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Houston, SMU, Memphis all see this as a great opportunity to improve their basketball fortunes. I'm convinced Houston turned down the MWC because they want to return to their glory years in basketball and they see The Big East as the best path back.

Butler getting to the finals two years in a row makes every school feel like they can get there too.
 
Perhaps we should throw in with the C7. Just this week you have the Seau lawsuit and a devestating article in Rolling Stone.
Will there be college football in 20 years? There will always be pro football, like there will always be boxing as long as there is money to be made. But HS and college? I think there is a real doubt.
 
freescooter said:
It is not going to be a terrific basketball conference. it is going to be the A-10. It just is. No basketball only conference has managed to be "terrific." It can't. It can have a few very good teams, but the Providences and Seton Halls and St Johnses of the world simply lack the infrastructure and the financial capabilities to truly compete at a national level against leagues like the ACC, SEC, Big 10 and so forth. It just doesn't work. Of the C-7 maybe 2 can manage it, and it takes a significant and concentrated effort. Georgetown is a very different place than the others so they can more or less compete on a regular basis. Marquette, Xavier, and those other Jesuit schools can sort of hang around the edges. But the rest simply don't have any chance to do it on any kind of consistent basis. Their goal is to be respectable, nothing more.
Expand ...

The original Big East was terrific.
 
Waquoit said:
Perhaps we should throw in with the C7. Just this week you have the Seau lawsuit and a devestating article in Rolling Stone.
Will there be college football in 20 years? There will always be pro football, like there will always be boxing as long as there is money to be made. But HS and college? I think there is a real doubt.
Expand ...

What I think will happen as parents come to grips with this, is a virtual end to pee wee/midget football. Football with pads really shouldn't be played until 8th-9th grade at the soonest. Increasingly, high school football will come under scrutiny, and parents will direct their kids to other sports. On the whole, I think the talent level will shrink. Baseball and probably soccer will attract more kids. Lax and rugby too.
 
Ironically, less head protection may be the solution. You put on the pads and the helmet and you feel invincible. My understanding is there are far fewer concussions in rugby. Why, well my guess is that people keep their unprotected heads out of the way. I wouldn't suggest less protection, but I wonder about softer helmets. Yeah you'd feel hits more and you'd likely get more external bruising but that's not what causes concussions. It is the sudden decelleration from going full speed to dead stop.

Another part of the solution is proper tackling techinique. Instead of hurling yourself at a player hoping to knock him down or out of bounds, just wrap him up and bring him down. You still make the play (more effectively in my opinion) and you aren't slamming your brain around your skull.

I've seen some articles talking about these points, but they don't get much mainstream discussion.
 
Does the C7 even want us? Didn't they leave to get away from football programs like us, that were destabilizing the conference?

If they let us in, then that means that Tulane and Company were the real reason they wanted to leave.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
Very different era. Nobody has been capable of replicating that since the Big East did it. And the C-7 plus a couple won't either.
Expand ...

I guess I disagree. Butler went to two title games. Gonzaga has been as good as just about any major conference team for quite some time. Xavier has had excellent teams and in the last five years had an elite 8 and three sweet 16 teams. Butler, Dayton and Xavier, plus the 7, plus UConn and Cinci, would be probably the second best basketball league to the ACC. If you add Creighton and SLU as well, it gets even better. I think Butler, Xavier, GTown and Marquette are all better than any team in the proposed NNNBE (excluding UConn and Cinci, since they would be in whatever league they join). So the level of basketball would not even be comparable.

That said, there is no way we can go independent for football, and Blauds never suggested it. The concept that was floated was Cinci and UConn football to the MWC, and the rest to the C7. That does yield a great result for UConn and Cinci, but I doubt that the MWC would go for it.
 
HuskyHawk said:
The original Big East was terrific.
Expand ...

The BE was just fine after it added Louisville and Cincy. One could argue it improved.
HuskyHawk said:
I guess I disagree. Butler went to two title games. Gonzaga has been as good as just about any major conference team for quite some time. Xavier has had excellent teams and in the last five years had an elite 8 and three sweet 16 teams. Butler, Dayton and Xavier, plus the 7, plus UConn and Cinci, would be probably the second best basketball league to the ACC. If you add Creighton and SLU as well, it gets even better. I think Butler, Xavier, GTown and Marquette are all better than any team in the proposed NNNBE (excluding UConn and Cinci, since they would be in whatever league they join). So the level of basketball would not even be comparable.

That said, there is no way we can go independent for football, and Blauds never suggested it. The concept that was floated was Cinci and UConn football to the MWC, and the rest to the C7. That does yield a great result for UConn and Cinci, but I doubt that the MWC would go for it.
Expand ...

memphis chopped liver?
 
HuskyHawk said:
What I think will happen as parents come to grips with this, is a virtual end to pee wee/midget football. Football with pads really shouldn't be played until 8th-9th grade at the soonest. Increasingly, high school football will come under scrutiny, and parents will direct their kids to other sports. On the whole, I think the talent level will shrink. Baseball and probably soccer will attract more kids. Lax and rugby too.
Expand ...
There is way more information on concussions now than even 5 years ago. And sports rules haven't really caught up. Heading the ball really ought to be outlawed in soccer at least until high school...you could make an argument that it ought to be outlawed for girls even at the high school level, for example. As should taking a charge in girls basketball. That play alone accounts for a huge proportion of concussions among high school girls, who are 5-6 times as likely to get concussions as high school boy basketball players. the numbers are similar in soccer for what its worth. As for switching to lacrosse, boys lacrosse ranks only behind football in the rate of concussions reported so I'm not sure that is a real solution. Of course nothing is completely safe. A friend's daughter got clobbered with a tuba in band practice and ended up with, you guessed it, a concussion.
 
freescooter said:
. A friend's daughter got clobbered with a tuba in band practice and ended up with, you guessed it, a concussion.
Expand ...
I felt badly about liking this, but it was funny.
 
[quote="CL82, post: 478876, member: 44" My understanding is there are far fewer concussions in rugby. Why, well my guess is that people keep their unprotected heads out of the way.[/quote]

You have fewer concussions in Rugby because the players aren't running as fast. Football is sprint full speed, rest, sprint, rest, sprin. In Rugby, there is much more constancy of movement, but because of that at much lower speeds of collision.

I think it would be a leap to read more into the difference than that.
 
.-.
businesslawyer said:
[quote="CL82, post: 478876, member: 44" My understanding is there are far fewer concussions in rugby. Why, well my guess is that people keep their unprotected heads out of the way.
Expand ...

You have fewer concussions in Rugby because the players aren't running as fast. Football is sprint full speed, rest, sprint, rest, sprin. In Rugby, there is much more constancy of movement, but because of that at much lower speeds of collision.

I think it would be a leap to read more into the difference than that.[/quote]

Entirely different tackling techniques. You're literally taught to tackle the opposite way of football. You put your head to the outside of the body (i.e. you try to land on top of the ball carrier instead of trying to take him down). It's much more important that you stop him and try to come up right away and even stay upright rather than go down with him. Plus, as you say, movement is constant, which means the ball is already out and there's no point to hammering your guy when he doesn't even have the ball. By the time the defense catches up with the guy with the ball running just as fast as NFL'ers do, he's far away from the pack and the big guys. He's got another small fast guy on him. So you rarely get fast guy getting hit by big guy.

I do think though that having a helmet makes a difference. If rubgy players had hard helmets, you would probably see more concussions because those helmets would be used as weapons.

If any of you have seen Jonah Lomu play, you'd see some huge collisions with a big fast guy.

 
CL82 said:
I felt badly about liking this, but it was funny.
Expand ...
I know what you mean...I had the same reaction when I heard about it. And on a related note, I was telling this story to my daughter and she mentioned that her roommate was in the flag corp in high school and got a concussion from being whacked by a flag...then got whacked a second time when she returned and had a second concussion...
 
freescooter said:
I know what you mean...I had the same reaction when I heard about it. And on a related note, I was telling this story to my daughter and she mentioned that her roommate was in the flag corp in high school and got a concussion from being whacked by a flag...then got whacked a second time when she returned and had a second concussion...
Expand ...
... and yet I laughed at that as well.
 
businesslawyer said:
You have fewer concussions in Rugby because the players aren't running as fast. Football is sprint full speed, rest, sprint, rest, sprin. In Rugby, there is much more constancy of movement, but because of that at much lower speeds of collision.

I think it would be a leap to read more into the difference than that.
Expand ...

upstater said:
Entirely different tackling techniques. You're literally taught to tackle the opposite way of football. You put your head to the outside of the body (i.e. you try to land on top of the ball carrier instead of trying to take him down). It's much more important that you stop him and try to come up right away and even stay upright rather than go down with him. Plus, as you say, movement is constant, which means the ball is already out and there's no point to hammering your guy when he doesn't even have the ball. By the time the defense catches up with the guy with the ball running just as fast as NFL'ers do, he's far away from the pack and the big guys. He's got another small fast guy on him. So you rarely get fast guy getting hit by big guy.

I do think though that having a helmet makes a difference. If rubgy players had hard helmets, you would probably see more concussions because those helmets would be used as weapons.
Expand ...
Like I said, I read a few articles suggesting that helmets may be encouraging concussion the NFL. I'm not sure how you could test it, since the change might be putting people at greater risk. It does make sense to me though, that the sense of being armored contributes to the contact level. You don't see those kind of hits in backyard games - not a fair comparison, I know.

A big part of what makes football so compelling is the incredible athleticism of the players. Huge people are moving fast and are stopped on a dime. That's a lot of momentum for the brain cavity to absorb. We just aren't made to do it. In any event changes are going to happen to the game. The trick will be making the game safer, without gutting it.
 
Big wins for Nova and Gtown today. Nova fans storm the court after team's second win over a top 5 team in the same week. Awesome.
 
.-.
DW4UCONN said:
Big wins for Nova and Gtown today. Nova fans storm the court after team's second win over a top 5 team in the same week. Awesome.
Expand ...
Well, whoop dee damn do! Nova wins, lets disband football and join the C7, cause Nova won some nice regular season games. I'm sold!
 
Actually, I gave up on the idea of joining the C7 a long time ago. It is what it is. Doesn't mean I can't be excited about a couple of great BE games today however. And with Nova, Marq, Gtown, Butler, Creighton, Xavier ... and STJ, the C7 has a decent nucleus to have a terrific conference - better than the A-10. That said, doesn't mean we have to join them to appreciate the potential for that new conference.
 
.-.
I think I must be further along the road to recovery then you guys .... anyway, not much going on today so going to enjoy the Temple vs. Butler game. Nice preview of a Big East/ C7 match up. Go Temple.
 
PRHusky said:
Best realignment related news for UConn in a while. The C7 + UConn and Cincy + a couple ofnthe A10 schools would be the third best bball league, with a chance to be even better some years. Meanwhile, the MWC + UConn, Cincy and the Texas and/or Florida schools would be much better than the currently projected 2014 Big East.
Expand ...
At least the travel schedule would only be horrible for football, where it is cushioned by the fact that games are no closer than weekly and half are at home.
Men's and women's basketball, along with the rest of our sports, would actually have a better conference schedule for travel than the status quo, with the road opponents primarily in the northeast.
 
upstater said:
You are confident then that the BCS schools will not split off and form their own basketball?
Expand ...
In general, where football is king, they don't really care what happens to basketball.
A BCS school only basketball association and no more nationwide tournament would royally stink. Whether the NCAA runs it or not, it is hard to imagine not having a national division one basketball tournament.
 
huskyharry said:
In general, where football is king, they don't really care what happens to basketball.
A BCS school only basketball association and no more nationwide tournament would royally stink. Whether the NCAA runs it or not, it is hard to imagine not having a national division one basketball tournament.
Expand ...

I can imagine it. The money associated with the current tourney, at $800 million per year, well, half of it goes to the NCAA. The rest is divided among 450 D1 schools.

That's a lot of coin to split between 60-70 schools. Even if the tourney becomes less popular and the per year number drops to $400 million, that's still a lot more money for the 60-70 schools.
 
DW4UCONN said:
Actually, I gave up on the idea of joining the C7 a long time ago. It is what it is. Doesn't mean I can't be excited about a couple of great BE games today however. And with Nova, Marq, Gtown, Butler, Creighton, Xavier ... and STJ, the C7 has a decent nucleus to have a terrific conference - better than the A-10. That said, doesn't mean we have to join them to appreciate the potential for that new conference.
Expand ...

Respect for admitting that.
 
DW4UCONN said:
Nova fans storm the court after team's second win over a top 5 team in the same week. Awesome.
Expand ...
When a school has not "...won back-to-back games vs. top 5 teams since the 1985 Final 4 vs. Memphis & Georgetown", they may tinkle a little in their shorts. (tip of the hat to Brett McMurphy).
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,321
Messages
4,563,691
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom