Expansion Rumors site profiles UConn

[WestHartHusk]

Bob Ryan may or may not have been right but I think of him as a dinosaur!And I think hes not much older than me?If at all?I'm 62 in November!But looking at him he's got to be 70?I don't care about his age though just his 1960s/70s thinking!

Nicky - I can't help but read every one of your posts like Mr. Lippman read the Jake Jarmell book...

 

[NEforceUConn]

If the ACC was really smart they would give ND 2 years to join with UConn, or tell ND to hit the road and tap UConn and Cincy. Then the ACC sets up the 8 former BE schools as one division and the old line 8 ACC schools as another. This structure renews/creates rivalries and a sense of tradition while keeping the integrity of a 16 team major conference. Yes losing ND does hurt but ND is never joining the ACC in FB in the next 10 years.

The B1G is having some identity issues with a 14 team league trying to form rivalries and scheduling. This split ACC ,old line and former BE schools, addresses the rivalry situation and cements the ACC as a major conference (the GOR doesn't hurt either).

With ND as a part timer the ACC is not as strong because certain schools' jelousy will increase over time due to ND's tv contract and their bowl stealing ACC status. If we know one thing we know ND does nothing unless it helps ND.

This final CR step by the ACC makes a ton of sense. Maybe the B1G can wait for a pipe dream like Texas or Oklahoma but that's never going to happen to the ACC.

 

[btstimpy]

If you ACC fans aspire to add schools like UAB and Southern Mississippi (and Temple), screw the ACC. B1G or bust.

It's just the list of what's available in the South. None of them are all that attractive. Tulane is a good school, but they are in need of an athletic upgrade. They're coming to the AAC, so we'll see what they do just like with Temple. Temple has few supporters, but I don't see them any differently than Cincinnati.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

We've gone over this. BC is confortable playing BU in everything, so what's wrong with UConn. To me, Nothing. Hopefully that last effort to exclude UConn is over. I think UConn is the best choice. I think UConn offers a good rival to BC not only in football and basketball, but in other sports. It's also a good rivalry in a league geographically dispersed. BC and Clemson are not going to be rivals, I'm sorry, as much as they want to. It will not happen.

I think Virginia can develop a rivalry with UConn. But we are much closer geographically.

BC-BU and BC-UConn aren't comparable. In the sport that BU and BC are most successful, their programs are basically of equal stature, and their rivalry is widely considered the best in the sport, think Duke-UNC. So, there's a 0% chance the two will ever not play one another, and are really attached at the hip. While they frequently battle over recruits, neither would be in much of a position to "block" the other for recruiting reasons as with UConn. BC is actually not generally comfortable playing BU in basketball, and only recently began playing again due to BU's head coach coming from BC. They play in Olympic sports, but that's more of a proximity thing, and BC actually plays UConn with some regularity in Olympic sports.

BC and UConn are on different levels in basketball, don't go after the same recruits, and frankly, neither cares about the other in that sport. In football, they're in the same competitive vicinity, but there is some logic (not very good logic, but nonetheless it exists) in BC blocking UConn since UConn is the only other legitimate FBS team in New England, recruiting targets are similar, and with BC having the leg up in conference affiliation for the foreseeable future, they think it makes sense to want to keep it that way, rather than giving us a door to bust through and potentially become a better program than they are.

 

[Adios]

It's just the list of what's available in the South. None of them are all that attractive. Tulane is a good school, but they are in need of an athletic upgrade. They're coming to the AAC, so we'll see what they do just like with Temple. Temple has few supporters, but I don't see them any differently than Cincinnati.

Culturally, we do fit in better with the B1G. In just about every way. I am sure that's been said before. But with demographics shifts from north to south (with the exception of the northeast; around NYC and Boston are still very attractive areas to live), a move to the ACC might be more beneficial long-term. Also helps for a conference to own the whole east coast, with the exception of Maryland and New Jersey. Temple might be good to go along with Pitt.

But just the fact some ACC posters keep beating their own chests over the south doesn't make one feel too comfortable about the ACC. You guys already took Louisville over us. For the time being, we are the last lone really worthwhile school left in the northeast to add. Between NYC and Boston. But some posters want to selfishly add schools from the south instead? Really? Next year, I am sure you all know only 4 out of 15 schools will be above the Mason-Dixon line.

 

[NickyNewark]

Nicky - I can't help but read every one of your posts like Mr. Lippman read the Jake Jarmell book...

Thanks WestHartfordHusky,I need to think with all the heat I get someone enjoys my posts...even if only for the humor aspects!..people either like me or hate me but I say what I'm thinking early signs of dementia or not?Did I forget something?HaHa.Oh yea..!!!!!

 

[btstimpy]

Culturally, we do fit in better with the B1G. In just about every way. I am sure that's been said before. But with demographics shifts from north to south (with the exception of the northeast; around NYC and Boston are still very attractive areas to live), a move to the ACC might be more beneficial long-term. Also helps for a conference to own the whole east coast, with the exception of Maryland and New Jersey. Temple might be good to go along with Pitt.

But just the fact some ACC posters keep beating their own chests over the south doesn't make one feel too comfortable about the ACC. You guys already took Louisville over us. For the time being, we are the last lone really worthwhile school left in the northeast to add. Between NYC and Boston. But some posters want to selfishly add schools from the south instead? Really? Next year, I am sure you all know only be 4 out of 15 schools will be above the Mason-Dixon line.

I think with BC and Syracuse in there, UConn would be fine culturally in the ACC. UConn certainly does academically. And the North South thing is a less of an issue over time due to the demographic migration. I happen to love the idea of the whole east coast given that I'm at the mid-point. Hartford is closer to Richmond than Atlanta or at least as close. I did work at Pratt & Whitney in the early 2000s and watched the stadium construction from their front door. Never been to Storrs, but I know where that stadium is.

I can understand schools on the Southern End of the league wanting schools closer to them for fan travel and local interest. The same thing could happen in the Big Ten with their western schools wanting Kansas, Iowa State, or Missouri over someone in the east. I think all of that can be solved with changes to the divisions, and with 16 it would change anyway. What I want the league to do is add members that help it market itself in the regions it serves, and that help it the most with television coverage in those regions and nationally.

 

[upstater]

I think with BC and Syracuse in there, UConn would be fine culturally in the ACC. UConn certainly does academically. And the North South thing is a less of an issue over time due to the demographic migration. I happen to love the idea of the whole east coast given that I'm at the mid-point. Hartford is closer to Richmond than Atlanta or at least as close. I did work at Pratt & Whitney in the early 2000s and watched the stadium construction from their front door. Never been to Storrs, but I know where that stadium is.

I can understand schools on the Southern End of the league wanting schools closer to them for fan travel and local interest. The same thing could happen in the Big Ten with their western schools wanting Kansas, Iowa State, or Missouri over someone in the east. I think all of that can be solved with changes to the divisions, and with 16 it would change anyway. What I want the league to do is add members that help it market itself in the regions it serves, and that help it the most with television coverage in those regions and nationally.

I agree with this. UConn fits in better with the ACC by virtue of the fact that so many old BE teams are in it. Clemson and UConn are never going to see eye to eye.

 

[NickyNewark]

I agree with this. UConn fits in better with the ACC by virtue of the fact that so many old BE teams are in it. Clemson and UConn are never going to see eye to eye.

Sorta like UConn and BC?Ha Ha,we don't need distance or cultural difference for hate to thrive.But I agree about the ACC with being mostly old BE now and if the B1G don't call aa decent landing spot!I just don't see the B1G as being stupid enough to allow that to happen?

 

[SouthronCross]

A school in the south I respect and sympathize with in a "tight" market is ECU as I think we both mentioned?I love a loyal,dedicated fanbase! Of course until UConn gets in a B1G5 conference invite I won't be happy! Also I like USF ahead of UCF(altho they fit in the discussion) as they've grown alot since joining the BE!

I always thought that the Big East should've invited ECU a decade ago. They would've been competitive in football, and, very good in baseball, for the league. Yeah, their basketball program is a trainwreck, by and large, but, maybe being in the BE might've helped.

Not to mention, it would've planted the BE flag right in the heart of Tobacco Road. Which would've been a MAJOR annoyance to UNC, NCSU, and, Duke.

 

[Adios]

I agree with this. UConn fits in better with the ACC by virtue of the fact that so many old BE teams are in it. Clemson and UConn are never going to see eye to eye.

2/3rds of our basketball years, our rivals have been UMass, URI, Ivy League and Little Ivy schools. 1/3rd with the Big East.

In football, our history is 9/10th against UMass, URI, Ivies and Little Ivies. 1/10th against the Big East schools.

The Ivies do have a history with the B1G. The Ivies helped promote the B1G. And helped promote us, too. The ACC schools succeeded without playing the Ivy League schools much. The Ivy League was the SEC (or stronger/more influential, actually).

Our history is mostly northern schools. Even in the Big East, obviously.

 

[SouthronCross]

Personally and selfishly, I would like to see another southern program added to the ACC before going further into the north east. And then North-South divisions.

Since FSU joined the ACC, the conference has added Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville (all to the north of Kentucky proper).....and FSU travels to three of the four in the division.

While there are sparse pickings, maybe something like UCF (sagarin currently has higher than Mizzou, UNC, and Michigan State).

WVU would've been the best choice. I am not sold on either USF or UCF being viable, long term. WVU has the history and national brand recognition the league would need.

 

[Adios]

I always thought that the Big East should've invited ECU a decade ago. They would've been competitive in football, and, very good in baseball, for the league. Yeah, their basketball program is a trainwreck, by and large, but, maybe being in the BE might've helped.

Not to mention, it would've planted the BE flag right in the heart of Tobacco Road. Which would've been a MAJOR annoyance to UNC, NCSU, and, Duke.

It's kind of funny to think the ACC went from being associated with SEC schools to becoming mostly an incarnation of a combination of the Metro and Big East conferences.

 

[SouthronCross]

I think with BC and Syracuse in there, UConn would be fine culturally in the ACC. UConn certainly does academically. And the North South thing is a less of an issue over time due to the demographic migration. I happen to love the idea of the whole east coast given that I'm at the mid-point. Hartford is closer to Richmond than Atlanta or at least as close. I did work at Pratt & Whitney in the early 2000s and watched the stadium construction from their front door. Never been to Storrs, but I know where that stadium is.

I can understand schools on the Southern End of the league wanting schools closer to them for fan travel and local interest. The same thing could happen in the Big Ten with their western schools wanting Kansas, Iowa State, or Missouri over someone in the east. I think all of that can be solved with changes to the divisions, and with 16 it would change anyway. What I want the league to do is add members that help it market itself in the regions it serves, and that help it the most with television coverage in those regions and nationally.

A N-S Divisional split, with Miami in the North, cures almost all possible problems, schedule-wise (Miami would be in the North because their alumni are from the region). The ACC could then allow the likes of UNC-UVA to be played as a non-league game in seasons where they do not meet in ACC play. It makes sense geographically, economically, and, from a rivalry standpoint.

Which means it has a snowball's chance in Hades of being adopted.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

A N-S Divisional split, with Miami in the North, cures almost all possible problems, schedule-wise (Miami would be in the North because their alumni are from the region). The ACC could then allow the likes of UNC-UVA to be played as a non-league game in seasons where they do not meet in ACC play. It makes sense geographically, economically, and, from a rivalry standpoint.

Which means it has a snowball's chance in Hades of being adopted.

An east west split in the B1G would also work

 

[billybud]

Found this Sept 11, 2013 article...another piece on where recruits come from....


http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

 

[upstater]

Found this Sept 11, 2013 article...another piece on where recruits come from....


http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

You gotta wonder how the numbers are so wildly off from this:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

In the Grantland article, Conn. has double the rate per capita. Whereas Florida has a lower rate on Grantland.

One site names the source of the study, a Geography professor, so we can assume he used some statistical analysis (however flawed that may be) while the other source comes from SB Nation, no citation, could even be the fan writing the article.

 

[billybud]

Well....

Rivals High School has a report that seems to coincide with study hall..

http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1182411

 

[billybud]

Hawaii has a high rate per capita...but a low relative population...

"Per Capita" is a pretty meaningless stat IMHO.....for intance, Utah is a real killer on "per capita"...higher than California....but Florida, Texas, and California are where the kids are.

 

[billybud]

another reference..interesting in that author is comparing "per capita" to "total available"

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.a..._college_football/20100129_222_0_ascoll743798

 

[billybud]

BY THE NUMBERS
A state-by-state breakdown of Division I FBS signees per participant. Data collected from participation stats distributed by the National Federation of High School Sports and signees as reported by Division I FBS schools and the Rivals.com database.
State

Signees​

Players​

Ratio​

Florida

344​

38,268​

111​

Louisiana

87​

14,839​

171​

Georgia

170​

32,088​

185​

Alabama

86​

22,052​

256​

Utah

30​

8,104​

270​

Oklahoma

44​

12,000​

272​

Maryland/D.C.

49​

16,123​

329​

Hawaii

14​

4,926​

352​

Ohio

144​

55,027​

382​

Arkansas

28​

11,120​

397​

California

253​

104,224​

412​

South Carolina

44​

18,962​

425​

Mississippi

52​

22,306​

429​

Delaware

7​

3,091​

442​

North Carolina

79​

35,214​

446​

Pennsylvania

60​

26,730​

446​

Texas

345​

161,210​

454​

Virginia

56​

25,651​

459​

Arizona

41​

19,103​

466​

Nevada

13​

6,594​

507​

Tennessee

44​

22,868​

520​

New Jersey

45​

25,872​

575​

Colorado

22​

14,825​

674​

Illinois

73​

49,543​

679​

Kansas

20​

14,302​

715​

Kentucky

19​

13,842​

729​

Michigan

59​

43,678​

740​

Indiana

31​

23,023​

743​

Washington

24​

22,422​

934​

New Mexico

8​

7,672​

959​

Oregon

11​

13,357​

1214​

Missouri

18​

23,504​

1306​

New York

29​

38,354​

1323​

Nebraska

8​

10,667​

1333​

Wisconsin

22​

29,442​

1338​

North Dakota

2​

3,018​

1509​

Massachusetts

12​

20,626​

1719​

Connecticut

6​

10,792​

1799​

Idaho

4​

7,340​

1835​

Alaska

1​

2,037​

2037​

West Virginia

3​

6,404​

2135​

Iowa

9​

19,451​

2161​

Minnesota

11​

25,433​

2312​

South Dakota

1​

3,756​

3756​

Maine

1​

4,024​

4024​

Montana

1​

4,775​

4775​

New Hampshire

0​

3,679​

0​

Rhode Island

0​

2,901​

0​

Vermont

0​

1,385​

0​

Wyoming

0​

2,654​

0​

​

​

 

[upstater]

another reference..interesting in that author is comparing "per capita" to "total available"

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.a..._college_football/20100129_222_0_ascoll743798

I don't think per capita is irrelevant in this discussion. There's a reason why. A state like NY with a high population number might have a lot of big universities (and it does). A state like Louisiana with a small population only has 2 big universities. This is a big advantage for LSU. Florida does a great job of producing football players, but there are at least 3 if not big universities in state picking over that talent (i'm not going into out of state recruitment).

In other words, the more density you have in recruits, the more advantageous your position. A state like California with all that talent has it dispersed over several big universities.

 

[billybud]

True...If Uconn's 12 Division I signees were all high quality and all signed with UConn, that could be a difference maker.

When you have 330 players, like a Florida, and are in a position to skim off of the players in the top 20% (out of the top 66)..you are getting the higher end of the talent curve.

But...the odds on having a "high quality" player is directly proportional to the number of players. Players skill levels should always fall out distributed on a Bell Curve. The more players on the curve, the more players on the far right of the curve. If you have 12 DI players...the top 20% is rounded up to 3 players (or down to 2 players).

 

[upstater]

True...If Uconn's 12 Division I signees were all high quality and all signed with UConn, that could be a difference maker.

When you have 330 players, like a Florida, and are in a position to skim off of the players in the top 20% (out of the top 66)..you are getting the higher end of the talent curve.

But...the odds on having a "high quality" player is directly proportional to the number of players. Players skill levels should always fall out distributed on a Bell Curve. The more players on the curve, the more players on the far right of the curve. If you have 12 DI players...the top 20% is rounded up to 3 players (or down to 2 players).

Another caveat here is how well recruited an area is. The rivals recruiting services might not have a good feel for a state like Conn., for instance. So even though UConn loses a 5 star CT. kid like Bruce Campbell to Maryland, a kid like Donald Thomas goes on to become a star at UConn, and a starter in the NFL. Campbell was drafted (which is good) but has done little in the NFL.

Amari Spievey makes it, higher ranked Garrett Brown doesn't. A kid like Trevardo Williams with no other offers gets drafted in the 4th round and makes the NFL, while 4 star players like Jonathan Meyers, Mike Golic, Torrey Mack and Masengo Kabongo don't. As a matter of fact, those three players who were 4 star kids ranked in the top 20 of their positions never even graduated from a FBS school.

In lightly recruited areas, recruiting becomes more of a mystery.

 

[billybud]

One can always find four and five stars that do not play in the NFL and 3 stars that do....

In fact, the sheer math numbers would indicate that....since maybe 90% of football players coming out of high school are less than 4 star.

Some good info...

From 2009–13, there have been 160 NFL first-round picks, and looking at the 173 Rivals five-star players from 2005–10 (the first and last year of draft eligible, non-redshirting players) we see that 16% (27) of them were first-round NFL Draft picks. While this number seems less than spectacular, when you consider that there are approximately 2,656 scholarships offered to Division I football players every year (85 players per NCAA D-I team/4=21.5 scholarships x 125 D-I teams) and less than 1-percent of them garner 5-star status, the number becomes a bit more impressive.

The 16-percent (27 players) includes two players selected first in the draft and 16 drafted in the NFL's top 10 picks, or 32-percent of the top 10 in the last five years. Being one of the nation's top 1-percent of high school football players pays off. As a five-star player coming out of high school, you've got roughly a 20-percent chance of being a first-round pick and absolute multi-millionaire.

What about being a four-star player according to Rivals.com? That would make you a football player ranked somewhere (on average) between the 28th and 300th-best player in the country, keeping you in the top 12-percent of the players in the country.
Pretty good, right? Absolutely. But with that, the chances of being a first-round pick in the NFL Draft plummets to 5-percent, even though 40-percent of all first-round picks in the last five years were four-star players and 30-percent of all top 10 picks were four-star caliber players.
're a three-star player from Rivals.com, then you fall between 301-750 according to their expert analysts, keeping you ranked higher than 87-percent of the country if you're at the top of the three-star list, and and ranking ahead of 72-percent of each and every player getting D-I football scholarships. You're getting a paid-for education at the country's top academic institutions while playing football and gaining legions of fans and the attention of curvaceous coeds everywhere, a pretty sweet deal no doubt but it likely means that your dream of being an NFL first-round pick has gone the way of the dodo.
Only 2-percent of three-star players become NFL first-round selections, despite the fact that the last five drafts have seen nearly 27-percent of the first-round picks come from this group. It's all about the numbers, and the odds are not in your favor. There have been only 43 players out of an estimated 2,250 three-star players eligible for the draft the last five years to become first-round picks, although 13 of those players have been top 10 picks.
In the same span, 2009–13, there were 25 draft picks that were rated two-stars or less who were selected in the first round, and six players (12-percent) who were selected as a top 10 pick. Those numbers sound comparable, but it becomes a significant disparity when you take into consideration that players ranked two stars or less make up roughly 72-percent of all Division I scholarship offers. Bottom line? As a two-star player or lower, you've got roughly a .06-percent of getting drafted in the first 10 picks of the NFL draft, and a .26-percent shot of being selected in the first round, period.