How Uconn compares to Big Ten schools

[CTGoonie]

Not really taking anything from this but here is a chart showing how Uconn, RU, MD and BCU compare to Big Ten schools.

 

[johnhelvete]

UConn and Rutgers would make a great combo to join the Big 10 together. Rutgers is an AAU school and unfortunately UConn is not at this time, but new Big 10 member Nebraska just lost their AAU membership.

 

[The Funster]

I wonder if the ACC wishes they had offered UConn instead of BC?

 

[MattMang23]

The offer to BC over UConn in 2003 was the correct decision for the ACC at the time. They might like a mulligan now, but back then BC was stronger in bball and fball than they are now, while a mostly fan-less UConn football team was busy losing games 66-10 to the likes of Middle Tennessee State.

 

[Excalibur]

Wow, we lost to MTSU in 2003? I could have sworn we went 9-3 and played in a nearly full 39,000-seat stadium that year. I must have missed when we were a transitional 1-AA three years after we were a transitional 1-AA.

If your point is that UConn was an unknown and would have been a huge gamble in 2003-04, you're right. You could have just said that.

 

[Sky ball]

IF UConn was invited to ACC in 2003 would our program(s) have fallen into mediocraty just like BCU? We would be the team on an Island trying to recruit kids to play in a Southern Conference. Would we have 2 more MBB National Championships? We are, however, a better fit Geografically for the ACC than BCU being further south!

 

[MattMang23]

Thanks for the history lesson, Excalibur, but considering I was a UConn student in 2003, it was most unnecessary. I realize 2003 wasn't the exact year we lost to MTSU, and I intentionally picked a score from a game a couple of years earlier when we were awful to exaggerate my point that UConn wasn't nearly yet ready for an ACC move at that time. Oh you picked up on that? Good, then point made.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Thanks for the history lesson, Excalibur, but considering I was a UConn student in 2003, it was most unnecessary. I realize 2003 wasn't the exact year we lost to MTSU, and I intentionally picked a score from a game a couple of years earlier when we were awful to exaggerate my point that UConn wasn't nearly yet ready for an ACC move at that time. Oh you picked up on that? Good, then point made.

No need to make a dumb comment and be a about it.

UConn was 9-3 and playing in the Rent. I think that's a whole hell of a lot relevant competitively speaking than a loss to MTSU a few years earlier.

 

[Vowelguy]

If the ACC had taken a FB team that was just transitioning to I-A, they would have rightly been ridiculed.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If the ACC had taken a FB team that was just transitioning to I-A, they would have rightly been ridiculed.

UConn has also improved considerably in the USNews ratings since 2003, while BC was already strong. Add the perception of gaining the Boston market and it was an easy decision.

 

[Adios]

If we get into the B1G, our football attendance will easily go up. I don't know about 100K, but 50+K average is easily attainable. Rutgers' would be selling out their stadium, too. (Remember the New Jersey Generals.)

 

[upstater]

The offer to BC over UConn in 2003 was the correct decision for the ACC at the time. They might like a mulligan now, but back then BC was stronger in bball and fball than they are now, while a mostly fan-less UConn football team was busy losing games 66-10 to the likes of Middle Tennessee State.

What about the offer to BC a year later? BC came in the summer AFTER Orlovsky lead UConn to a 9-3 record.

 

[06029]

What about the offer to BC a year later? BC came in the summer AFTER Orlovsky lead UConn to a 9-3 record.

BC , Cuse and Miami were the original targets. That never changed except for the VA legislature stepping in for VT and an ND Trustee who was chancellor at NC State (MaryAnn Fox) joined Duke and UNC for a no vote the first time around. When the ACC could not get a FB CG waiver for 11 teams, they went back to BC. Not sure why Cuse was not re-considered at that time, but as we all know, Cuse remained a target.

And Uconn was not looking to move anywhere at that time.

 

[Nostical]

UConn to the Big 10 is still the preferred landing spot of the most important decider.

 

[HuskyHawk]

UConn to the Big 10 is still the preferred landing spot of the most important decider.

I'm the most important decider?

 

[kibblesnbits]

Aha! He outed himself. HuskyHawk is Jim Delany.

 

[ASweet3781]

I wonder if the ACC wishes they had offered UConn instead of BC?

If they did, why would they invite an athletic program that brings absolutely to the table like Pitt over UConn just 2 months ago?

Pitt has horrible Olympic sports, has the poster child for underachieving football program and apathetic fan base, and brings no natual rivalry to anyone in the ACC. And yet the ACC invited them over UConn. I know some will say it was because of BC but the fact remains, they considered fricken Pitt more of an attractive member than us.

I am at a loss as to why anyone thinks UConn will ever be in the ACC. When that league considers Pitt to be a more attractive option, than they must not think very highly of us at all to begin with. That is how little Pitt brings to the table compared to UConn.

 

[willie99]

we would have excelled in WBB and MBB wherever we went

Jim and Geno are our coaches

middle of the road in football

 

[husky10]

"I am at a loss as to why anyone thinks UConn will ever be in the ACC. When that league considers Pitt to be a more attractive option, than they must not think very highly of us at all to begin with. That is how little Pitt brings to the table compared to UConn."

Compared to Uconn pitt brings nothing but the acc picked pitt because they are better than uconn? Not sure I follow exactly what you were saying here but even as much as i hate pitt the acc did have some good reasons to bring pitt on board. First pitt has football history that is attractive in terms of television deals also Pitt is located in a pretty decent sized city. Their football team may underachieve but they have been at least as good as uconn since uconn joined the BE and their BB team has been top half of the BE in recent years as well. Good to know Pitt's olympic sports suck but i have yet to hear anyone that even claims to have knowledge about the thinking that goes on when conferences discuss expansion that believes olympic sports matter.

So looking at what both schools offer for the sake of argument lets call football a draw, uconn has 2 elite BB programs but pitt has football prestige and is located in a pretty decent sized market. Seems to me that both schools offer enough to the ACC that when one of the ACC schools throws an 8 year old sized tantrum about one of the schools joining that everyone would be satisfied with the other coming aboard in their place.

As to why most people believing that the next move for the ACC would be to add uconn, who else might they add instead? If there was a school in the ACC footprint that would add anything for the ACC to consider them then the BE would have picked them up in this round of expansion so dont even bring up any mid majors if the ACC expands again its coming from the BE. UCONN supposedly being so close to an invite in the last round of expansion leads most people to think they would be next. I guess an argument could be made for rutgers or UofL but most people believe that BB would get UCONN in over Rutgers and UCONN is just a better fit for the ACC than UofL. The ACC would need to add another if Notre Dame were to join the ACC because of division layouts or if for some other reason the ACC needed to go to 16 UCONN would most definitely get the invite. I hope I cleared up that "loss" for you.

 

[mattp]

any guess that begins with "if ____ adds Notre Dame" doesn't need to be finished because it won't happen.

 

[upstater]

If they did, why would they invite an athletic program that brings absolutely to the table like Pitt over UConn just 2 months ago?

Pitt has horrible Olympic sports, has the poster child for underachieving football program and apathetic fan base, and brings no natual rivalry to anyone in the ACC. And yet the ACC invited them over UConn. I know some will say it was because of BC but the fact remains, they considered fricken Pitt more of an attractive member than us.

I am at a loss as to why anyone thinks UConn will ever be in the ACC. When that league considers Pitt to be a more attractive option, than they must not think very highly of us at all to begin with. That is how little Pitt brings to the table compared to UConn.

It's not some will say. Gene DeFillippo said it.

I can't understand how an AD's claim gets treated as rumor.

 

[businesslawyer]

It's not some will say. Gene DeFillippo said it.

I can't understand how an AD's claim gets treated as rumor.

Of course you can. Does every member of Congress speak for the Congress? Does every member of the NRA speak for the organization? I am not saying what De Fillippo said is or is not true, but the fact that he wanted to take credit for something in BC's interest is evidence that it happened like he said it but it certainly isn't proof of it.

 

[06029]

It's not some will say. Gene DeFillippo said it.

I can't understand how an AD's claim gets treated as rumor.

Because BC was 1 vote and there had to be 3 additional votes against. BC may have lobbied but they did not block Uconn by themselves. The ACC expansion committee had 12 members with one representing each school. 4 AD's, 4 presidents and 4 academic reps. That has been reported too but ignored by those that want to blame BC for everything.

 

[upstater]

Of course you can. Does every member of Congress speak for the Congress? Does every member of the NRA speak for the organization? I am not saying what De Fillippo said is or is not true, but the fact that he wanted to take credit for something in BC's interest is evidence that it happened like he said it but it certainly isn't proof of it.

I never said it was proof. I said it wasn't a rumor. You jumped on something quickly here. "Some will say" implies rumor. Gene D. saying it openly, after we read an article from Carolina telling us the committee moved onto Pitt after originally settling on UConn, lends a lot of weight to what might have happened. He heard about this long before Gene D. opened his mouth. It was a rumor then, and after Gene D. confirmed the rumor.

 

[upstater]

Because BC was 1 vote and there had to be 3 additional votes against. BC may have lobbied but they did not block Uconn by themselves. The ACC expansion committee had 12 members with one representing each school. 4 AD's, 4 presidents and 4 academic reps. That has been reported too but ignored by those that want to blame BC for everything.

No, you're thinking of the vote to add a school. The expansion committee did not vote. The vote happens afterward after the invitations, and in that case, the Presidents vote, not the committee, not academics or ADs. This is why in many instances, even when you get schools that oppose other schools or oppose expansion in general, they vote unanimously because the end result has already been decided by the conference when an invitation is offered. By the time the invitation goes out, the decision is made. A school isn't invited so it can be rejected (unless you're dealing with the Big12).