For what it is worth

[WestCoastHusky]

If B12 is our only option, we should take it. I doubt too many Uconn fans want the B12, but they are far better option than the AAC. We got Kansas for basketball and Baylor for women's basketball. We can park ourselves here until all this GORs expire.

 

[The Viking]

Frank, I thought it's been documented in several places that Cuse and UConn were the #1 and #2 choices. Once BC put up a protest, the ACC had no qualms at all going to #3 choice Pitt because - as you stated for many reasons - they are also a strong add.

But it was not Cuse and Pitt 1 and 2.

 

[noeynox]

If its posted on the wvu board there is almost absolute certainty it won't happen.

That said, I started a thread where I thought UCONN should be pitching itself all out to the big 12.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Cause and UConn were the ACC's first choices in 2011. Frank is wrong.

 

[frankthetank]

Frank, I thought it's been documented in several places that Cuse and UConn were the #1 and #2 choices. Once BC put up a protest, the ACC had no qualms at all going to #3 choice Pitt because - as you stated for many reasons - they are also a strong add.

But it was not Cuse and Pitt 1 and 2.

I know that Jersey Guy Mark Blaudschaun wrote that back when he was with the Boston Globe, but it has never jived with what has been stated anywhere else. Even if the Blauds interpretation is correct (that Cuse and UConn were the original targets), I've always thought it was a bit disingenuous to pin this all on BC (and believe me, I neither care for that school nor have any relationship with that school). Maybe Duke and UNC liked UConn's hoops prowess, but who is to say that FSU and Clemson weren't already concerned about football issues back then? Also, Pitt also didn't just get tapped on the shoulder out of nowhere by the ACC - they were certainly making John Swofford and company very aware that the Big 12 was snooping around. Simply put - I don't think it's as simple as BC raising an objection and that's why the ACC moved onto Pitt. That's actually giving BC a little too much credit.

 

[The Viking]

well if they were concerned about football issues back then, wasn't that when we were coming off a BCS bowl appearance after less than a decade in a BCS conference?

Also, I thought DiFilippo also admitted that he did ask the ACC to exclude us.
Like I said, if UConn was overwhelmingly better than Pitt, the ACC would have ignored BC. But UConn wasn't. So they gladly slid over to Pitt while doing what most conferences do, adhere to regional blocks when requested.

 

[ZooCougar]

well if they were concerned about football issues back then, wasn't that when we were coming off a BCS bowl appearance after less than a decade in a BCS conference?

Also, I thought DiFilippo also admitted that he did ask the ACC to exclude us.
Like I said, if UConn was overwhelmingly better than Pitt, the ACC would have ignored BC. But UConn wasn't. So they gladly slid over to Pitt while doing what most conferences do, adhere to regional blocks when requested.

Pitt was an easy compromise.

 

[SubbaBub]

After this year it is truly not going to matter what conference we are in. Beginning in 2014, the BCS no longer exists. The football playoff is set up for 10 years. and the only thing that I am 93.692% sure about is tournament expansion. It will not stay 4 teams for very long. It will soon go to 8 and evenutually include all conference champions.

I can easily see the playoff going to 8 teams resulting in either 4 conferences of 16+ or teams splitting into 6-8 conferences depending how they treat at large bids.

If there is no breakaway division, it will be 4champs +1 best of the rest+3 at larges.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[whaler11]

One might also note the one league where BC would actually have influence is Hockey East, which invited UConn even though they bring no immediate value to the league.

 

[HuskyHawk]

well if they were concerned about football issues back then, wasn't that when we were coming off a BCS bowl appearance after less than a decade in a BCS conference?

Yes, but this misses the point. As I've been saying, and Frank has said...history is everything in football. One Tony Dorsett or Dan Marino is worth much more than a BCS game by a team with four losses. Look at my other alma mater, Kansas, they went to BCS game in 2008 (at 11-1), and won the Orange Bowl against the #3 team. Last year they were 1-11. Recent performance means squat. Nobody is picking programs based on recent performance.

There is no question in my mind that UConn has actually fielded teams that are better than we get credit for. Our draft results would back that up as well. It doesn't matter. It's all about perception. Colorado has been awful for almost all of UConn's time in FBS, but nobody would choose our football program over theirs. For everybody that then says "but Boise..." I would like to point out that they are in the MWC and haven't even gotten a sniff of interest from the big conferences.

Pitt, like Louisville, was a strong potential target of the Big 12. UConn, on geography alone, was not. Nor was Rutgers. So the ACC could safely pass on UConn knowing we'd still be available later. Swofford has been right on that score, and obviously missed with Rutgers.

 

[upstater]

Yes, Pitt (believe it or not) was a critical and valuable piece in conference realignment. I know that there seems to be some people on this board that believe that the ACC wanted to bring in Syracuse and UConn as opposed to Pitt, but trust me, Pitt held a ton of cards here: an AAU school with a lot of tradition located in a good TV market and one of the best football recruiting areas in the northern half of the US (western Pennsylvania). In a world where Penn State didn't exist, Pitt would have been a shoe-in for the Big Ten. The Big 12 didn't want to just add WVU and/or Louisville alone. HuskyHawk nails it that the Big 12 was looking at adding Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati and Louisville all as a unit, with Pitt being considered the most valuable piece in that puzzle. Whatever people might think of the ACC, John Swofford is NOT dumb. He knew that he had to act immediately if the ACC ever wanted Pitt (and they deemed Pitt to be a much more valuable piece than other Big East candidates), so that's what spurred the Pitt/Syracuse expansion in September 2011. The ACC ended up blocking the Big 12 with that move and did it yet again when it added Louisville this past November. For a period of time, the ACC might not have been able to hold off attacks from the Big Ten or SEC, but they definitely made sure that the Big 12's options were marginalized.

It's not some people Frank, it's journalists and the former AD at BC. There are connected people here too on this board Frank and they said the same thing.

 

[upstater]

I know that Jersey Guy Mark Blaudschaun wrote that back when he was with the Boston Globe, but it has never jived with what has been stated anywhere else. Even if the Blauds interpretation is correct (that Cuse and UConn were the original targets), I've always thought it was a bit disingenuous to pin this all on BC (and believe me, I neither care for that school nor have any relationship with that school). Maybe Duke and UNC liked UConn's hoops prowess, but who is to say that FSU and Clemson weren't already concerned about football issues back then? Also, Pitt also didn't just get tapped on the shoulder out of nowhere by the ACC - they were certainly making John Swofford and company very aware that the Big 12 was snooping around. Simply put - I don't think it's as simple as BC raising an objection and that's why the ACC moved onto Pitt. That's actually giving BC a little too much credit.

It was actually just repeated by other writers like Jeff Jacobs in a totally new context. Bob Ryan talked about BCs relationship with UConn back in 2003! I mean we live this stuff-seriously!

 

[upstater]

One might also note the one league where BC would actually have influence is Hockey East, which invited UConn even though they bring no immediate value to the league.

They are not threatened in the same way. Why? Because hockey is played in Mass at a high level. Therefore, you can split the talent between Merrimack, Lowell, Providence, Boston U., Amherst, Northeastern, New Hampshire, and this is just a one hour radius around Boston (much closer than Storrs). When you look at bball and football however, BC suddenly takes a back seat. Heck, they lost to Boston U., Harvard and even Bryant in recent years. one wonders if they were the 5th best team in Boston.

 

[upstater]

Frank, I thought it's been documented in several places that Cuse and UConn were the #1 and #2 choices. Once BC put up a protest, the ACC had no qualms at all going to #3 choice Pitt because - as you stated for many reasons - they are also a strong add.

But it was not Cuse and Pitt 1 and 2.

We've been on this story since it burbled up back in 2003 by Bob Ryan. Long before Swofford came into the picture, we were told that BC was very concerned and talked openly in the Heights about ways to snuff out UConn.

 

[John Greene]

We've been on this story since it burbled up back in 2003 by Bob Ryan. Long before Swofford came into the picture, we were told that BC was very concerned and talked openly in the Heights about ways to snuff out UConn.

I'm sure that over the past 5 years there have been hundreds of meetings at Nokia about how to 'snuff out' Apple. Did it happen? No Why? because Nokia did not have the ability to do it. UConn's problems are not as BC centric as some on the BY seem to believe. The 'brand' is seen as very good in MBB, probably top 10, outstanding in WBB, #1 (but WBB really does not count) In FB, which matters, it is not near the top 50 maybe not in the top 100. Both Pitt & Cuse are. Is that fair? Based on the past 10 years probably not. Based on the past 50 years yes.

 

[upstater]

I'm sure that over the past 5 years there have been hundreds of meetings at Nokia about how to 'snuff out' Apple. Did it happen? No Why? because Nokia did not have the ability to do it. UConn's problems are not as BC centric as some on the BY seem to believe. The 'brand' is seen as very good in MBB, probably top 10, outstanding in WBB, #1 (but WBB really does not count) In FB, which matters, it is not near the top 50 maybe not in the top 100. Both Pitt & Cuse are. Is that fair? Based on the past 10 years probably not. Based on the past 50 years yes.

Top 100? Also, go through top 50. You know we've played those programs, right? There are 60 teams in BCS football. UConn has played Indiana, Duke, Maryland, Iowa St., Michigan, all the former BEs and recently departed, South Carolina, Notre Dame, Baylor, Oklahoma, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Vanderbilt, maybe I'm missing others. UConn has played at least 28 of the 60. it is .500 against them.

I don't buy the Nokia and Apple comparison either. BC DID have the ability to keep UConn out of the ACC. A blackball vote in committee is persuasive.

 

[John Greene]

Top 100? Also, go through top 50. You know we've played those programs, right? There are 60 teams in BCS football. UConn has played Indiana, Duke, Maryland, Iowa St., Michigan, all the former BEs and recently departed, South Carolina, Notre Dame, Baylor, Oklahoma, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Vanderbilt, maybe I'm missing others. UConn has played at least 28 of the 60. it is .500 against them.

I don't buy the Nokia and Apple comparison either. BC DID have the ability to keep UConn out of the ACC. A blackball vote in committee is persuasive.

We have played schools in the top 50 and beaten some, no argument there. Has it resulted in our being considered a top 50 'program' where it counts, in conference offices? No. Is that fair? Probably not.

 

[upstater]

We have played schools in the top 50 and beaten some, no argument there. Has it resulted in our being considered a top 50 'program' where it counts, in conference offices? No. Is that fair? Probably not.

What is a top 50 program? I mean, lay out a ranking, and let's see if UConn is better or worse.

I submit that football really only mattered when it came to Louisville getting in. For the rest, it was about market or else the BC blackball.

 

[John Greene]

What is a top 50 program? I mean, lay out a ranking, and let's see if UConn is better or worse.

I submit that football really only mattered when it came to Louisville getting in. For the rest, it was about market or else the BC blackball.

What you or I see as a top 50 'program' does not matter at all. I am simply reflecting what I have been told by 2 persons whose opinion on the subject I value. Both with the SEC office here in Birmingham, one retired, one still active.

 

[upstater]

What you or I see as a top 50 'program' does not matter at all. I am simply reflecting what I have been told by 2 persons whose opinion on the subject I value. Both with the SEC office here in Birmingham, one retired, one still active.

If you're referring to the post you made earlier, what of the lack of information from those people? I mean, we poked holes in what they said. They were dealing with faulty info. No doubting their perceptions. That's the problem.

It's pretty clear that a chunk of UConn fans don't agree with the arguments those like myself have made as to how it all went down, but by and large most here agree that when it came to Cuse and Pitt getting in, this was not a football decision. UConn was the choice--not far and away the best choice, but a 1B to Pitt and Cuse. Football became paramount only last year with FSU championing FSU. otherwise...

 

[IthacaMatt]

What is a top 50 program? I mean, lay out a ranking, and let's see if UConn is better or worse.

I submit that football really only mattered when it came to Louisville getting in. For the rest, it was about market or else the BC blackball.

This is the best summary I've seen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...gs-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag/index.html

 

[Limbo Land]

okay... first it is not going to happen. second and just for fantasy sake it is a conversation... why wouldn't we jump on it. Rather play big teams every year then no names every year. Travel is not going to be much different in the end. But I stress... if WV fan sites are pushing it then it is not going to happen. They will not split up the pie bringing us on especially after WV failed so badly this year.

 

[huskymedic]

This is the best summary I've seen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/11/kings-barons-knights-peasants-mailbag/index.html[/quote]

You really need to read it to understand the below:

>>Peasants

* Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers, Temple, USF, Wake Forest, Washington State and Vanderbilt.

Five years ago I wasn't sure where to place Louisville, which was coming off a 12-1 season and Orange Bowl win. Now it's clear the Cardinals aren't too different from the rest of their Big East brethren, seven of whom sit here. None can seem to sustain success. We'll see if it's possible for any to make inroads once the Big East loses its AQ status.<<

You can make arguments for movement up or down one class but...

 

[SubbaBub]

You really need to read it to understand the below:

>>Peasants

* Arizona, Baylor, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Duke, Minnesota, Indiana, Iowa State, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Northwestern, Rutgers, Temple, USF, Wake Forest, Washington State and Vanderbilt.

Five years ago I wasn't sure where to place Louisville, which was coming off a 12-1 season and Orange Bowl win. Now it's clear the Cardinals aren't too different from the rest of their Big East brethren, seven of whom sit here. None can seem to sustain success. We'll see if it's possible for any to make inroads once the Big East loses its AQ status.<<

You can make arguments for movement up or down one class but...

Agreed, let's look at the class above:

Knights

* Arizona State, Arkansas, Boise State, Boston College, BYU, Cal, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Washington State.


We are a better program than: BC, Colorado, Pitt, Cuse, Washington State. Not really an excuse to move up, but we have been a better program since we joined the BCS. We've also beaten: MD, SCar, Virginia. Also not an excuse to move up, but it is an argument that we belong at the AQ level especially if you factor in our brief BCS existance and our committment to the FB program. (present leadership excluded)

 

[John Greene]

Agreed, let's look at the class above:

Knights

* Arizona State, Arkansas, Boise State, Boston College, BYU, Cal, Colorado, Georgia Tech, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State, Missouri, N.C. State, Oklahoma State, Ole Miss, Oregon State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Stanford, Syracuse, South Carolina, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Washington State.

Why don't we also create a world where our opinion matters and we are torn between offers to replace BC in the ACC or Maryland in the B1G.






We are a better program than: BC, Colorado, Pitt, Cuse, Washington State. Not really an excuse to move up, but we have been a better program since we joined the BCS. We've also beaten: MD, SCar, Virginia. Also not an excuse to move up, but it is an argument that we belong at the AQ level especially if you factor in our brief BCS existance and our committment to the FB program. (present leadership excluded)