It's a fair point, but I also think it's a dangerous mindset. Once you start seeking success by lowering your competition there is the potential to think that you could have more success by lowering your competition further and so on. It's a death spiral mindset or, at least, has the potential to become one.
I disagree. Our current scheduling mindset is what creates a death spiral. Playing 4-6 games a year where you are almost guarenteed to lose means you are almost guaranteeing a 500 record is your upside. Army is the poster child for this. They play 2 P5 teams a year, but offset this with 2 FCS teams. This year they played 3 P5s but that is unusual. They also played Delaware State and have Holy Cross. Navy did the same thing when Johnson came pre AAC. VaTech used to schedule non-conference teams they new they would usually beat outside there old Big East games. They wanted to be 4-0 in the non-league portion of the schedule. Once they were an established program they upgraded their schedule. Just to be clear, I’m not advocating playing 2 FCS teams. But not 4-6 P5 teams either.
Well sorry, but no one will care to come and watch if you do that. I would much rather go back to FCS and play an ex-Yankee, Patriot, and Ivy schedule.
Unfortunately it's been made amply clear that basketball doesn't matter.
Cal, Stanford, and SMU aren’t exactly world beaters on the football field.
I disagree. Our current scheduling mindset is what creates a death spiral. Playing 4-6 games a year where you are almost guarenteed to lose means you are almost guaranteeing a 500 record is your upside. Army is the poster child for this. They play 2 P5 teams a year, but offset this with 2 FCS teams. This year they played 3 P5s but that is unusual. They also played Delaware State and have Holy Cross. Navy did the same thing when Johnson came pre AACoVaTech used to schedule non-conference teams they new they would usually beat outside there old Big East games. They wanted to be 4-0 in the non-league portion of the schedule. Once they were an established program they upgraded their schedule.
Then don’t go. I suspect a 10-2 team will out draw a 6-6 one on a regular basis.
I mean I agree. We have been the best program, measured by championships at least, for the last 25 years. Nobody has won more championships over the past quarter century. It has gotten us nowhere.
Respectfully disagree. Considering the Fiesta Bowl appearance and beating South Carolina in a bowl, UConn was doing reasonably well in football, but the ACC chose Louisville University when they had a chance to elevate the conference with an across the board solid academic and athletic university that gets more of the New York market than the fruit could. Don't kid yourself Billy, your beloved ACC has a singular goal of hurting UConn every time it can, and it has.
you can only count 1 FCS game per year.
As an outsider with an keen interest in football and some UConn knowledge
No doubt. That played a huge role. I was just stating a fact about the 3 new additions. They are all pretty terrible. I think SMU will elevate their programs in the ACC. I think the move for Cal and Stanford will be a net loss in terms of athletics for both school and makes absolutely no sense for them.
Well, their teams do still schedule UConn, so I don't quite agree with that part. But yes,nothing less than P4 football will be supported. Except when it comes to raising money to pay the players. So there is indeed no path unless UConn wins both natties this winter and a P4 invites UConn. Then things get easier. But until then?
i think the point was, we need to stop playing clemson/michigan/ohio state/tennessee, etc. for the immediate future. the money we make is not worth the embarassment and deeper hole that getting ruined like that, puts us in. it's true that a sun belt opponent isn't as sexy as Michigan, but again what the heck is the point if we have to go to ann arbor just to get destroyed by the end of the first quarter. we need FBS wins and fast. a fairer schedule against appropriate competition, makes that more possible. overscheduling P4's without being one, is masochism.
You really don’t have to lose that badly when your team is decent. We’ve beaten SEC and Big Ten schools several times in the past and we were never a great team.
Just remember that shopping in the portal requires enough cash in the collectives allocated to FB and not BB.
The closest thing to P4 football is playing as many P4 teams as possible (5-6).
I don't have a problem scheduling P4 teams. I have a problem scheduling buy games at top 20 programs. Playing UNC, Pitt, Ole Miss, Maryland, Wake H/H is perfect for me. Most of those games we can at least be competitive.
They are only “good matchups” if we have at least a punchers chance. I’m saying it makes no sense to put together a schedule where your best outcome is 6-6. You guys are like the farmer wow enters his mule in the Kentucky derby. Knows he can’t win but hopes the mule gets a benefit from the association. You guys want to play games we don’t have the horses to win. Do you think James Madison fans say we’re 9-0 and ranked 24 but we didn’t play 4 P5 opponents? Do Tulane fans say we’re 8-1 and probably going to the Sugar Bowl but we only played 1 p5? In a couple of years, with a reasonable schedule, we could get to that level. With our schedule maybe we get to 7-5 in a really good year.
The UConn budget is $3.1 Billion for next year. The budget without UConn Health is 1.6 Billion. Spending on football is lost in the decimal points.
This is the post that everyone panicking needs to re-read! If we had won a couple of the close games this year, most folks wouldn’t be wanting to downgrade the schedule.
This isn't even honest. We played 4 P5 opponents including BC who is one of the worst power conference programs.