Does the American take a page out of the BE and | Page 3 | The Boneyard

Does the American take a page out of the BE and

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya excellent sources.....and stop playing the fence....your not exactly the darling of the Boneyard and your questioning my visits here?....Im not under any false illusions trust me, I don't waver or flip flop on my approach towards others in order to appease them. You seem to always have some recollection when it comes to B.C.. I am a member on a B.C. site, as you probably are on a Rutgers board. SO? what makes your visits here anymore valid?
You know me better than that or you're memories short?? I never said anything of the sort(more valid)....I said as guests this isn't a proper forum for us to be touting either of our rooting interests!! I won't respond to a lot of the anti RU stuff posted here every day but in the beginning I was a bit touchy I admit. You know I don't really like a couple of the privates and try to tell you its not personal but I make an observation/comment(innocently) and you call me accusitory?.....Yes I read RU's board but believe it or not NEVER comment or actually joined!! Like you're board I find it boring to be honest. I'm captivated though by the CR phenominem though and relate to the average UConn fan agreeing they got a bad deal.I can't say I wouldn't come back if the get in the P5 now because their good people as a whole wherever they now reside and the mods are tolerant/friendly within reason allowing a free flow of thought. I hope you won't take my comments too seriously?
 
Last edited:
You know me better than that or you're memories short?? I never said anything of the sort(more valid)....I said as guests this isn't a proper forum for us to be touting either of our rooting interests!! I won't respond to a lot of the anti RU stuff posted here every day but in the beginning I was a bit touchy I admit. You know I don't really like a couple of the privates and try to tell you its not personal but I make an observation/comment(innocently) and you call me accusitory?.....Yes I read RU's board but believe it or not NEVER comment or actually joined!! Like you're board I find it boring to be honest. I'm captivated though by the CR phenominem though and relate to the average UConn fan agreeing they got a bad deal.I can't say I wouldn't come back if the get in the P5 now because their good people as a whole wherever they now reside and the mods are tolerant/friendly within reason allowing a free flow of thought. I hope you won't take my comments too seriously?

As a UConn fan it's hard to see Rutgers "rewarded" for poor athletic performance. Except that they weren't. They were rewarded for being a very good school for a long time, with a big enrollment, very good research, good endowment and sitting in a prime media market. Nebraska was rewarded for football performance, despite falling well short of Rutgers in those other areas, yet we don't complain about Nebraska. Maryland has the same things as Rutgers, plus better (but not great) athetic programs, and we don't complain. Of the Big Ten adds, only Penn State had it all, and even their basketball team sucks. In hindsight, it's harder for me to understand the B1G passing on Missouri, but it falls well short of Maryland and Rutgers academically, has a good market that is already served by Illinois to some degree and doesn't have an athletic brand nearly as compelling as Nebraska football.

UConn needs to make the sum of its parts add up. That means continuing to kick ass in basketball, starting to kick ass in football, and upgrading enrollement, endowment and research. All of those things are happening, pending the results from Mr. Bob Diaco. We already meet every ACC requirement, they just don't think we are a flight risk and they can add us at their leisure.
 
No I saw it on a Cuse board for sure linked to a NC board IIRC? NO the garbage came straight from you're AD BCINGYA.....cool down and learn to live in the real world....this IS a UConn board not a BC board(do you have one? Y'all always come here).As far as accusations Im not accusing....just recollecting interesting blunders from Flippers regime.

Damn Nicky....perfect attack dog for a board. Not a UConn guy but sort of a surrogate. Kind of like the board's pit bull.... blasting out to the end of the chain, all bark, fangs, and drool.

Read something on an internet board, did you? Some board posts are by guys who have the intelligence of a urinal cake.

I think, though, that there is little doubt that the BC athletic director did not have UConn down on his favorites list.
 
He's half-correct - it was written that Connecticut and Syracuse were the initial targets, but Boston College, who I believe was one of the three members of the expansion committee, pushed for Pitt because they 'didn't want UConn in because they wanted to be THE New England team". The ACC did not offer to boot Boston College out, but they smacked DeFillipo's wrists in public.
 
Look guys - the "Flipper" had the style and appearance of a wanna-be thug out of central casting for "Donnie Brasco". I'm sure he wanted all the credit for derailing UConn. (And, not being a "real hit man", he had to brag about it.) Truth is that he probably desperately wanted to keep us out of the ACC and had strong encouragement to do so from the two-faced padres ensconced in Chestnut Hill. (I'd love to get them in the confessional.) That being said, BC did not have the clout in the conference to do it alone. There were others that aided and abetted. And for the second go around, after UMD left, Syracuse probably lent its voice against us too. Nonetheless, given the gulag we are consigned to, UConn would still beg its way into the ACC. But I sure as hell hope we go to the B1G.
 
As a UConn fan it's hard to see Rutgers "rewarded" for poor athletic performance. Except that they weren't. They were rewarded for being a very good school for a long time, with a big enrollment, very good research, good endowment and sitting in a prime media market. Nebraska was rewarded for football performance, despite falling well short of Rutgers in those other areas, yet we don't complain about Nebraska. Maryland has the same things as Rutgers, plus better (but not great) athetic programs, and we don't complain. Of the Big Ten adds, only Penn State had it all, and even their basketball team sucks. In hindsight, it's harder for me to understand the B1G passing on Missouri, but it falls well short of Maryland and Rutgers academically, has a good market that is already served by Illinois to some degree and doesn't have an athletic brand nearly as compelling as Nebraska football.

UConn needs to make the sum of its parts add up. That means continuing to kick ass in basketball, starting to kick ass in football, and upgrading enrollement, endowment and research. All of those things are happening, pending the results from Mr. Bob Diaco. We already meet every ACC requirement, they just don't think we are a flight risk and they can add us at their leisure.

I bet the B1G regrets not taking Missouri. The current B1G + Missouri+UConn would be a stellar lineup. But, they couldn't foresee that they would be able to get Maryland but not any other ACC schools. Taking Missouri, and presumably Rutgers as a partner to reach 14, would have left them with an eastern island of PSU and Rutgers, not enough weight in the East, and limited opportunities for growth because they could only grow 2 schools at a time, which makes it hard to raid ACC or B12. Keeping Rutgers in their back pocket gave them more options.

UConn needs to grow in research, enrollment, and athletically. Ideally, it would expand highway access to the campus and facilities there. It needs to roughly double in size to be comparable to the B1G universities.
 
.-.
Look guys - the "Flipper" had the style and appearance of a wanna-be thug out of central casting for "Donnie Brasco". I'm sure he wanted all the credit for derailing UConn. (And, not being a "real hit man", he had to brag about it.) Truth is that he probably desperately wanted to keep us out of the ACC and had strong encouragement to do so from the two-faced padres ensconced in Chestnut Hill. (I'd love to get them in the confessional.) That being said, BC did not have the clout in the conference to do it alone. There were others that aided and abetted. And for the second go around, after UMD left, Syracuse probably lent its voice against us too. Nonetheless, given the gulag we are consigned to, UConn would still beg its way into the ACC. But I sure as hell hope we go to the B1G.
if you got them in the confessional they'd probably say, 'we didn't harm UConn just like we didn't harm those altar boys who were in our care'.
 
I read an article today about the 2003 ACC and I don't remember ever reading this before, but apparently BC was blackballed by one ACC school. The vote was literally 8-1 in favor of BC, and the invitation to BC was rescinded because of that one school. NC State. So apparently, blackballing can happen.

Here's the wikipedia version, and it is sourced:

Talks with Syracuse indicated that it would likely leave the Big East, but doubts arose when Syracuse basketball coach Jim Boeheim publicly expressed his disapproval of a conference change,[1] even as Syracuse and ACC officials proceeded with the formalities of official campus visits. Miami and Boston College were unwavering in their interest in the ACC, and Virginia Tech made it clear that they had long wanted to join the ACC. Finally, in a last-minute about-face, due in large measure to political pressure applied by Governor Mark Warner of Virginia on the conference and member institution University of Virginia, the ACC replaced Syracuse with Virginia Tech in its expansion vote. Things became even more surprising when, reached by phone at a conference in Switzerland, then-N.C. State Chancellor Marye Anne Fox cast a last-minute "no" vote against BC.[2] As a result, the ACC extended invitations only to Miami and Virginia Tech. Virginia Tech immediately accepted the invitation and filed court papers to get themselves out of the awkward position of suing their new conference. Miami, stunned by the outcome of the vote, delayed their acceptance until the last possible day. Miami President Donna Shalala explained the delay stating "We had numbers on BC-Virginia Tech. We had done numbers on Miami alone. But we had not anticipated that Virginia Tech and Miami would be the only two invitees."[2] The remaining four plaintiffs removed BC from the list of defendants and asked both BC and Syracuse to join their suit. Both declined.

Speculation that Chancellor Fox, a Notre Dame trustee, cast her initial vote against BC so that the ACC might consider extending membership to Notre Dame was fueled by press accounts reporting that a bid to the Fighting Irish was imminent. But in mid-October 2003, the ACC voted unanimously to invite BC to be its twelfth member, although because of timing issues BC was not able to compete in the ACC until the 2005-2006 season. When BC accepted they were returned to the lawsuit still pending against Miami by several Big East schools. After expansion, Jake Crouthamel retired as athletic director at Syracuse.
 
I don't know how...since the voting procedures and numbers needed to prevail in a vote have been spelled out in the ACC Bylaws...and a 100% acceptance has never been in the bylaws.

FSU was blackballed by Maryland and Duke...and got in....and that too, is sourced.
 
Probably the little boys always express some doubt in expansion when their share is going to be further divided with another little one.

That being said, I still don't know how BC got in the ACC.
 
Butch said:
Tulane's arena was built in 1931. If they have the right coach, they can succeed. It may also be possible to add more seats to the arena.

They just renovated it. Adding seats would be pointless, anyway.

I just hope that folks can get to the side of the arena opposite the entrance without walking across the playing floor as was the case forever.
 
.-.
Maybe I didn't word it right Fishy.....IIRC the words were to the effect of" if you're not happy here your welcome to leave" by someone at ACC HQTs...I wish I could dig it up but I didn't realize the comment would create such a flurry of emotion on this board. Like I said the ACC was unhappy with that ackward situation everywhere I looked and BC's board even felt properly chastised. Funny usually I like BCINGYA but he takes any comment against BC like a personal attack. How does he think I feel ? Too his credit he never seems to bash other school's in the NE though.
Damn Nicky....perfect attack dog for a board. Not a UConn guy but sort of a surrogate. Kind of like the board's pit bull.... blasting out to the end of the chain, all bark, fangs, and drool.

Read something on an internet board, did you? Some board posts are by guys who have the intelligence of a urinal cake.

I think, though, that there is little doubt that the BC athletic director did not have UConn down on his favorites list.
Exactly right ergo my shock that someone I thought highly of would take me to task for just throwing in my 2 cents? Espescially given I'd taken up for him once or twice for the very same type of situation. I never realized he was so touchy but completely can understand his defending his school's administration! I've done the same thing myself.
 
Probably the little boys always express some doubt in expansion when their share is going to be further divided with another little one.

That being said, I still don't know how BC got in the ACC.
I don't either. But like I've said before....its all about relationship's and I think Donna Shalala might be able to school us?
 
I don't know how...since the voting procedures and numbers needed to prevail in a vote have been spelled out in the ACC Bylaws...and a 100% acceptance has never been in the bylaws.

FSU was blackballed by Maryland and Duke...and got in....and that too, is sourced.

Time and era. It could be that committee members now respect each other's interests a lot more. BC suffered for that one vote. Miami almost put the brakes on everything because of that vote. This is why I call it a blackball because I know it goes against the bylaws. But sometimes the power of the blackball goes well beyond that one solitary vote.
 

1.2 rating isn't bad for the American especially since--compared to last year's BET--we got a bad start time. 6 pm on a Saturday night when most people are preparing for the night out.

I bet that rises to 1.5-1.8 if it was a typical BE start time (9 pm).

The thing to remember is that this looks bad for the new BET because you're looking at %s but if you go back and look at the 2011 and 2012 BE finals, you'll see 3.3m and 3.4m viewers. To put this in perspective, the ACC final got 2.2m in those years. So the BET was by far and away the most popular final to watch. It's better for the new conferences, AAC and NBE, to be compared to the SEC for instance.

The thing that should really be concerning for the NBE is having lower ratings than CUSA or MWC or A10.
 
I think what really happens...is that nobody knows the first vote results...a straw vote that tests viability.

The official vote is all that may get recorded....and many times, the losers in a straw vote will vote in the official vote with the winners in order to maintain the appearance of solidarity.
 
.-.
I read an article today about the 2003 ACC and I don't remember ever reading this before, but apparently BC was blackballed by one ACC school. The vote was literally 8-1 in favor of BC, and the invitation to BC was rescinded because of that one school. NC State. So apparently, blackballing can happen.

Here's the wikipedia version, and it is sourced:
This just proves on thing. ND was behind the 2003 effort and at the end was instrumental in killing the BE.

Which is consistent with the fact that ND is the most evil and cut throat athletic department in the country.
 
Reading the back and forth...my homer thought is.."at least UConn made the dance".

My perennial bubble team did not....beating UMass and VCU in OOC while losing to Florida by one point and to Michigan by a basket.

FSU needed another win or not a bad loss...Playing Virginia three times and losing, Syracuse, Duke, and North Carolina and losing killed the chance...along with an RPI of 54.

If the Huskies dominate their conference, play good basketball and beat a couple of good OOC teams, they should be able to pull down a decent seed. I see more hope for UConn in the AAC then I do for FSU in the ACC.
Um, well we could trade conference affiliation....if you want. I mean you are unhappy with where you are and I, uh, guess we be okay with it..., ah... just for the change, you know? PM me and we can hammer out the details. You know.. uh.. if you want. It uh, really doesn't matter to me either way...but PM me.
 
1.2 rating isn't bad for the American especially since--compared to last year's BET--we got a bad start time. 6 pm on a Saturday night when most people are preparing for the night out.

I bet that rises to 1.5-1.8 if it was a typical BE start time (9 pm).

The thing to remember is that this looks bad for the new BET because you're looking at %s but if you go back and look at the 2011 and 2012 BE finals, you'll see 3.3m and 3.4m viewers. To put this in perspective, the ACC final got 2.2m in those years. So the BET was by far and away the most popular final to watch. It's better for the new conferences, AAC and NBE, to be compared to the SEC for instance.

The thing that should really be concerning for the NBE is having lower ratings than CUSA or MWC or A10.
A couple of comments on the ratings that I see are that CBS has lousy conference finals. Jeez, considering they have the NCAA tourney they end up with the Big 10 and 3 pretty crappy others. Any chance the AAC manages to get a deal to get its title game on CBS?

In todays over-saturated college basketball media scene, I also think teams matter. Creighton-Providence might as well be Latvia-Bellorus. They aren't teams anyone has heard of or cares about outside Rhode Island and Central Nebraska. They could have been on prime time on ESPN, ABC, CBS and NBC and they'd still struggle to get more viewers than Brady bunch re-runs. UConn-Louisville was a blessing for the AAC in year 1.Maybe a sign our luck is changing finally. had the final been two lesser known entities we'd probably seen much worse numbers. In a similar vein, Florida-Kentucky was likely up because it was Florida-Kentucky. Replace one of those with Teas A&M and ratings plummet. Same with the ACC. Duke is the closest thing to a "national" college team in basketball. (Little known fact, Duke is the most picked winner in most NCAA Tournament pools). So if they end up in the finals they'll draw. They'll draw better against Syracuse or UNC, but Virginia was a good opponent.
 
The BE tournament final featured arguably the best player in the country and they got that rating. It might be a long time before they have a player like that again.
 
The BE tournament final featured arguably the best player in the country and they got that rating. It might be a long time before they have a player like that again.
Yes maybe, but he played for Creighton. The new Big East just had so many obstacles to overcome...FS1 was a huge one, make no mistake. They have had a hard time outdrawing the local news. But then have the schools which give the Big East its identity all go out early and it was just too much to overcome. No Georgetown, no St Johns, no Villanova...not even a Butler who isn't a Big East name but has some national cache. It would have been like an AAC final of Central Florida against SMU.
 
slightly OT, but still does not feel right that Butler in in the all Catholic BE. SLU would have been more fitting. That's what happens when you look at recent form when adding conference members. ACC made the same mistake with BC.
 
.-.
LOL wow that Central Florida SMU final would have been painful to broadcast even. As for the OP unless you can pry Georgetown or Villanova or St Johns. I don't see anyone worth adding as a basketball only. The chances of them leaving currently is about equal to winning the billion dollar bracket also. They always mention Witchita St on the AAC boards but they look like Butler to me. Eventually the success will end.
 
Adding a basketball only from Kansas based on two great seasons is stupid.

Not Tulane level stupid, but pretty close.
 
slightly OT, but still does not feel right that Butler in in the all Catholic BE.

Considering the nosedive to irrelevance Butler is on, I'm sure the Big East feels the same way.
 
Adding a basketball only from Kansas based on two great seasons is stupid.

Not Tulane level stupid, but pretty close.
To be fair, their background is deeper than that. They have a FF from the 1960s, an E8 in the 1980s, and a S16 in 2006. They're program is way better than Tulane, and has some marginal history to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,333
Messages
4,564,925
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom