Can the next 3-4 years of football shape our conference future?

[huskypantz]

We all know that football drives the bus. If basketball drove the bus, we'd be riding in a 20-person limo with a jacuzzi filled with swimsuit models. Our best option is #1 ACC and distant #2 B1G. Our most relevant competitor for both is Rutgers, no other BE school has the profile to match either conference(except for ND, which trumps us both). So here we stand, Coach P in year 2 and Rutgers dealing with year one without Schiano. As bad as he was a gameday coach, the guy was a stellar recruiter - can't deny it. We need to separate ourselves over the next few years - more movement's coming. Maybe sooner, maybe later - but it will happen.

It's really all about winning. Win games, sell out the Rent. Win games, get better recruits. Win games, go to good bowl games. Win games and get better TV ratings in CT, New England and the northeast. Win while Rutgers loses are our profile improves greatly.

I should mention that it's not just about winning - UConn fans need to represent in the stadium,and the bowl games and in the TV ratings. But winning helps in those areas too.

 

[mattp]

the ACC is our best geographic option by a narrow margin and the best option in terms of rivalries by a significant margin, but since it seems like those two novelties have been thrown out the window with the latest round of expansion, i think the Big Ten is our best option. it's bigger, better schools with more resources. at the end of the day that's what will be most important and in 10-20 years of playing in any conference i think we could pretty comparably replicate any of our rivalries.

unfortunately i don't think it is really all about winning. if it was WVU would be in the SEC instead of Mizzou and Colorado would still be in the B12. who would want Cuse if it was about winning? Pitt and Cuse were taken for "brand name" (i'm assuming, since they offer nothing else). it's about demographics. obviously winning should lead to more fans and help, but in reality winning is probably 3-4th most important factor to the knuckleheads that get to make these decisions.

 

[Dann]

Is this a spin off of the ACC thread?

 

[mattp]

i don't know, i haven't waded into that mess since page 20 something. lord knows that they're onto at this point.

 

[huskypantz]

Is this a spin off of the ACC thread?

I think every thread is a spinoff at this point. It's hard not to hit every offseason topic in a 45-page thread. I could start a thread on Shakespeare and it'd be a spinoff........

 

[huskypantz]

the ACC is our best geographic option by a narrow margin and the best option in terms of rivalries by a significant margin, but since it seems like those two novelties have been thrown out the window with the latest round of expansion, i think the Big Ten is our best option. it's bigger, better schools with more resources. at the end of the day that's what will be most important and in 10-20 years of playing in any conference i think we could pretty comparably replicate any of our rivalries.

unfortunately i don't think it is really all about winning. if it was WVU would be in the SEC instead of Mizzou and Colorado would still be in the B12. who would want Cuse if it was about winning? Pitt and Cuse were taken for "brand name" (i'm assuming, since they offer nothing else). it's about demographics. obviously winning should lead to more fans and help, but in reality winning is probably 3-4th most important factor to the knuckleheads that get to make these decisions.

My point is that winning will get us sellouts, better ratings (at least in the northeast) and better TV slots. There were rumors that we were the choice over Pitt but Flipper worked to swing the votes away from us. Cuse's advantage over us was their history. We won't have real FBS history for another 15-20 years, but consistently selling out the Rent now can impact the impression of our program. The converse is that - how would the ACC or B1G feel about a UConn program that could only sell 25-30k tickets and won 3-6 games per year over the next several years?

 

[UCFBfan]

the ACC is our best geographic option by a narrow margin and the best option in terms of rivalries by a significant margin, but since it seems like those two novelties have been thrown out the window with the latest round of expansion, i think the Big Ten is our best option. it's bigger, better schools with more resources. at the end of the day that's what will be most important and in 10-20 years of playing in any conference i think we could pretty comparably replicate any of our rivalries.

unfortunately i don't think it is really all about winning. if it was WVU would be in the SEC instead of Mizzou and Colorado would still be in the B12. who would want Cuse if it was about winning? Pitt and Cuse were taken for "brand name" (i'm assuming, since they offer nothing else). it's about demographics. obviously winning should lead to more fans and help, but in reality winning is probably 3-4th most important factor to the knuckleheads that get to make these decisions.

I think the bottom line is putting butts in the seats. The Big East has horrific bowl tie ins because there are no fan bases that travel well. WVU was the only fan base that travelled and with them gone, look for the Big East to get even worse bowl tie ins in the next go round of bowl contracts. WInning is great and it helps but if you can't sell tickets you aren't attractive to other conferences. Syracuse may not have been winning lately but they still sell tickets. They still have the "tradition" to drive some interest. UConn still doesn't move the needle. The only reason is because we've only been around for just over a decade at the FBS level. So we can win, win, win, but if we don't travel well, we're not going to be attractive to conferences that already have teams in the vicinity (ACC). I think that all of you who think the B1G is even an option are dreaming so I won't even go there. UConn brings nothing to the table that would interest the B1G.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I think the bottom line is putting butts in the seats. The Big East has horrific bowl tie ins because there are no fan bases that travel well. WVU was the only fan base that travelled and with them gone, look for the Big East to get even worse bowl tie ins in the next go round of bowl contracts. WInning is great and it helps but if you can't sell tickets you aren't attractive to other conferences. Syracuse may not have been winning lately but they still sell tickets. They still have the "tradition" to drive some interest. UConn still doesn't move the needle. The only reason is because we've only been around for just over a decade at the FBS level. So we can win, win, win, but if we don't travel well, we're not going to be attractive to conferences that already have teams in the vicinity (ACC). I think that all of you who think the B1G is even an option are dreaming so I won't even go there. UConn brings nothing to the table that would interest the B1G.

The only thing that matters is television money for football.

In terms of traveling the top schools were West Virginia, Louisville and Rutgers. Pitt can't even sell out it's home stadium and while Syracuse travels for basketball - but again this is about television money for football. Syracuse and Pitt like you said just have tradition on us at this point. Nothing we can do to change that besides winning and the passage of time.