"If you monitor, you get passed by. | Page 2 | The Boneyard

"If you monitor, you get passed by.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fishy said:
This.

A thousand times, this.

Dead duck*ing right, but I'm afraid you're teaching calculus to people who need their fingers to count.
Expand ...

Apologizing for mediocrity and inaction is a long standing tradition on this board.

"Get into the ACC?, Nope, time for a Carnival Cruise and then a trip to China!"
 
I think the problem here was that the PERCEPTION that UConn was a shoe-in was just that. A general perception. Nobody ever bothered to look into whether or not they actually had the votes. So it was simply an assumption that in the long run turned out to be wrong. Once the football schools had the ability to threaten to bolt and it became they that were making the decision it was clear that UConn no longer had the votes. Yes the basketball schools probably wanted UConn but faced with FSU and Clemson bolting they chose the better football school. And yes Louisville is a better football school. It wasnt politicing that changed the dynamic it's that everyone assumed that the ACC would bolster basketball and head north for some of that NYC market. The perception was that Duke and UNC were going to lead the pack. That is not what then happened. Keep in mind the same people that were saying UConn was in are many of the same people we call idiots for all the expanion talk.
 
Ironically, the same crowd that was proclaiming that the university's silence meant that we were a lock and Lville's campaigning meant that they were on the outside looking in, now profess that we never stood a chance and that's why the AD and Pres. didn't actively campaign. You don't need calculus to know when things don't quite add up.
 
It wasn't a mere perception. We were the clear front runner, we lost out for some of the reasons you just mentioned, but we definitely started with the initiative, did little to keep it and did less to get it back.

I think that part of the reason Warde and Company did so little is that they were "confident" in our position, and by the time they learned that the confidence was no longer valid, there was very little that could be done about it.

If it makes you feel better to say that we were powerless to do anything about it, then say it.

Revrat said:
I think the problem here was that the PERCEPTION that UConn was a shoe-in was just that. A general perception. Nobody ever bothered to look into whether or not they actually had the votes. So it was simply an assumption that in the long run turned out to be wrong. Once the football schools had the ability to threaten to bolt and it became they that were making the decision it was clear that UConn no longer had the votes. Yes the basketball schools probably wanted UConn but faced with FSU and Clemson bolting they chose the better football school. And yes Louisville is a better football school. It wasnt politicing that changed the dynamic it's that everyone assumed that the ACC would bolster basketball and head north for some of that NYC market. The perception was that Duke and UNC were going to lead the pack. That is not what then happened. Keep in mind the same people that were saying UConn was in are many of the same people we call idiots for all the expanion talk.
Expand ...
 
CL82 said:
Ironically, the same crowd that was proclaiming that the university's silence meant that we were a lock and Lville's campaigning meant that they were on the outside looking in, now profess that we never stood a chance and that's why the AD and Pres. didn't actively campaign. You don't need calculus to know when things don't quite add up.
Expand ...

I think the probability that the leadership got an "unofficial" offer was high. It explains Aresco not mentioning UConn, it's an alibi that explains much of the inaction.

That's where all of the "quiet confidence" and "sleep the sleep of children" came from. The truth likely was that we were in, but FSU and Clemson freaked out, and that changed the game. Jurich just drank our milkshake.
 
.-.
RMoore1999 said:
Where did you come across that list of votes?
Expand ...

Talk radio, both the FAN in Char. and Glenn in Raleigh. Both shows had extensive discussion after Ville was chosen. Both had the same breakdown of votes for and against Uconn. Fl. St and Clemson led the fight against Uconn and had support from the other 4 schools mentioned. UNC/Duke were pushing Uconn with the support from Swofford but they could not gather the votes from the other members.
 
ZooCougar said:
I think the probability that the leadership got an "unofficial" offer was high. It explains Aresco not mentioning UConn, it's an alibi that explains much of the inaction.

That's where all of the "quiet confidence" and "sleep the sleep of children" came from. The truth likely was that we were in, but FSU and Clemson freaked out, and that changed the game. Jurich just drank our milkshake.
Expand ...
Maybe, but those of us in the real world know that you don't have a deal, until you do. With so much at stake, nothing should have been taken for granted. We should have calmly and confidently have addressed Lville's promotion campaign early before it got legs. In the world that most of live in, the answer a critical moment of opportunity was lost because you didn't realize that there was a problem until it was too late to do anything about it is a ticket to the unemployment line. This was a huge dropped ball. We don't need to obsess about it, but pretending it was anything less is just enabling another disaster.
 
Cl82, I'm with you. I hope my post didn't come off as obsessing, I just found the highlighted line interesting given the choice of words, and how it related to us. Its over, and we have to move on but you nailed it. The ball was dropped. When the opportunity to present your case as THE candidate, hopefully they have learned that monitoring, is a losing strategy.
 
CL82 said:
Maybe, but those of us in the real world know that you don't have a deal, until you do. With so much at stake, nothing should have been taken for granted. We should have calmly and confidently have addressed Lville's promotion campaign early before it got legs. In the world that most of live in, the answer a critical moment of opportunity was lost because you didn't realize that there was a problem until it was too late to do anything about it is a ticket to the unemployment line. This was a huge dropped ball. We don't need to obsess about it, but pretending it was anything less is just enabling another disaster.
Expand ...

I agree.
 
mcs333 said:
We got passed over by the ACC because we didn't have the votes. It was 6 for and 6 against. Miami, Fl. St, Clemson GT Nc St and BC voted no for Uconn. I am not sure if Vir. Left for the Big we would be the next team going to the ACC. Half the teams in the ACC just didn't want Uconn in their conf.. I believe Uconn is still a difficult sell to these teams.
Expand ...

Who were the six for? Syrapitt couldn't vote. Maryland didn't vote, so I would think the best we could get was five based on who voted against.
 
ZooCougar said:
One last thought. Isn't blaming misfortune on things out of our control EXACTLY what you guys are doing?
Expand ...
No it is what you are doing. I'm not blaming anyone (administration) because it is and was out of their control and to the most extent out of the control of any of the schools who were being reviewed.

Certainly minds can be changed with advertisement. There are a lot of suckers out in the marketplace that make decisions based on Madison Avenue. However there are also discerning individuals who review a product based on what it offers them as opposed to the slick brochure. The decisions made in choosing Ville over UConn were in the hands of FSU. They were swayed by Jurich! Jurich is not "The Mentalist" who can convince the FSU people what they should do. He was a corporal to the five star general (FSU administration). He gave input but in the end the chief of command doesn't factor the advice of lower ranks. And you can be sure the people at FSU who made the decision have the same egos that Jurich has and they won't give him any credit because of their egos.
 
.-.
fleudslipcon said:
No it is what you are doing. I'm not blaming anyone (administration) because it is and was out of their control and to the most extent out of the control of any of the schools who were being reviewed.

Certainly minds can be changed with advertisement. There are a lot of suckers out in the marketplace that make decisions based on Madison Avenue. However there are also discerning individuals who review a product based on what it offers them as opposed to the slick brochure. The decisions made in choosing Ville over UConn were in the hands of FSU. They were swayed by Jurich! Jurich is not "The Mentalist" who can convince the FSU people what they should do. He was a corporal to the five star general (FSU administration). He gave input but in the end the chief of command doesn't factor the advice of lower ranks. And you can be sure the people at FSU who made the decision have the same egos that Jurich has and they won't give him any credit because of their egos.
Expand ...
Fleud, you and I often see the world the same way, but I disagree that UConn's actions or inaction were irrelevant in the most recent ACC offer.

We needed to get our ahead of 'ville on this and tout our development in football. From I-AA to a BCS bowl in less than 10 years is huge. We needed to present our case that that is exactly what we do at UConn, push for excellence in every sport. We needed to talk about our head to head records vs. Ville, Cuse and Pitt. We needed to address the perception that we are somewhow a weak sister to those schools in football. We aren't Ville's great run this year notwithstanding. We needed to talk about the fact that our football facilities (excluding the Rent) are second to none and note that the Rent is expansion ready. That is our push to the football schools.

To the hoops schools well our pitch is obvious but needed to be articulated. # NCs since 1999? Who tops that? Duke? Well our head to heads speak for themselves.

We needed to speak very publically about our academics and hammer hard that the ACC tradition is (was) successful sports without compromising academics. We've got a great narrative about the development of the school and the money we've invested in it. We should have made a very stark comparision to Louisville that locked down the our schools so that they wouldn't accept Louisville.

We needed (and still do) to revamp our athletic revenues so that they are consistent with the way other schools report them. We needed to tout the fact that our even woman's basketball team has better coverage than Louisville's men's teams with a deal that emphasizes coverage in the NYC metro area.

Perception is reality. We allowed our university to be painted as a school in decline. We allowed another institution to paint itself as an up and comer with only the thinest of veneers to support that premise. You and I could debate whether or not would succeed (and I believe that we could have) but you have to be in the game to win. Standing on the sidelines doesn't get it done.
 
The fallacy is in the belief that these "complex business decisions" are not made by simple humans. To suggest that influence does not...well...influence people is just wrong.

Jurich won, Manuel lost. Jurich stayed home and turned out a Goebbels like proganda campaign while Manuel and Herbst lit off (Manuel unexpectedly) to soak up the sun during happy holiday time.

The ACC decision was made in a matter of days, not after years of research. Louisville was not even on the ACC's radar during past expansion. Circumstances dictated timing.

I'm conflicted on this point. The effort by UConn was so pathetic that either those in charge are deserving of our reprobation, or UConn never tried because Delaney has Herbst's ear.

There really is no middle ground. Since we're called heretics for our Big 10 beliefs, then that leaves us with a buffoon for an AD. Monitor Manuel's leadership isn't exactly captivating the world.
 
Didn't HuskyNan post that she saw Herbst at the beach in the midst of all this?

Saying there was nothing we could have done is such a loser CT attitude. We should have been laying the groundwork for those two weeks since Syrapitt.

Even if the Apologists are right she lost the battle before the first shot was fired. Also not to her credit.


Rumrunner said:
The fallacy is in the belief that these "complex business decisions" are not made by simple humans. To suggest that influence does not...well...influence people is just wrong.

Jurich won, Manuel lost. Jurich stayed home and turned out a Goebbels like proganda campaign while Manuel and Herbst lit off (Manuel unexpectedly) to soak up the sun during happy holiday time.

The ACC decision was made in a matter of days, not after years of research. Louisville was not even on the ACC's radar during past expansion. Circumstances dictated timing.

I'm conflicted on this point. The effort by UConn was so pathetic that either those in charge are deserving of our reprobation, or UConn never tried because Delaney has Herbst's ear.

There really is no middle ground. Since we're called heretics for our Big 10 beliefs, then that leaves us with a buffoon for an AD. Monitor Manuel's leadership isn't exactly captivating the world.
Expand ...
 
I don't believe that manual is an idiot, just that he was out of his life league against a guy that went blow for blow with oliver luck for a spot in the big 12, the year prior. The fact that Susan hired warde rather than go after a mover and shaker in the mold of Lew perkins, is something she will have to live with.
 
noeynox said:
I don't believe that manual is an idiot, just that he was out of his life league against a guy that went blow for blow with oliver luck for a spot in the big 12, the year prior. The fact that Susan hired warde rather than go after a mover and shaker in the mold of Lew perkins, is something she will have to live with.
Expand ...

As an organization, UConn wasn't prepared or equipped for this fight. I don't even think they fully understood that the game changed this fall as the ACC was getting more and more pathetic at football.
 
.-.
This is message board debate. It's hard to think you are a serious person when you drift into the pejorative ding of "NPR" and "the Beach".

In this thread, there were some crucial points: the "Game" changed. I don't think lots of noise & public PR campaigns were appropriate for UConn in this last ACC go-around. (and I am a bombthrowing Let's-get-Blumenthal/Malloy-involved thinker) But ... it strikes me that, given our past, that we correctly played some cards. Unfortunately, FSU-Clemson-NCState-GeorgiaTech cabal forced the hand to Louisville. I don't think WE are the Football Program to combat that swing. No amount of lobbying (or even a Tom Jurich behind-the-scenes performance) changes where the ACC was headed. Academics? Sure ... Louisville (in my mind) is slightly beyond WVU & not near what I believe UConn is ... or will be. But, that was not a key criteria.

We are a stark contrast to Jurich's construct of the Louisville Football Program (a 15 year build). We have serious problems in PR & Marketing whereby we have a great Brand; but Hathaway let it flutter in the wind. And, I really don't see that Warde Manual has shown the capacity to lead us to a new era. I am more confident in Herbst. She is far beyond the President model that I see across academia (and I am in the SUNY system).
 
The only thing that is consistent, in this second great migration of universities, (the first migration was in 1990-1991) and what drives all of this conference shifting, for two decades now, is pursuing the best media rights deals you can get for your intercollegiate athletics product, whether it be individually (BYU Notre Dame Texas) or as a group in a conference.

The power players are the conference commissioners and the university ceo's / presidents. THere is no regulation from a point of authority. There is no end goal.

(There could be an end goal, and regulation from point of authority, but there isn't yet - one or the other, or both ideally - the end goal to stop it all, is a true playoff format for a national champion in 1-A football so that every 1-A program has the same path to a championship)

Football rights are the primary economic force, with two strata related to conference affiliation, the first being direct revenue for sporting events through the regular season schedule, and the second, larger strata - that being the revenue around the football post season, which has created a major divide in the intercollegiate athletics world among different conferences in the past 20 years, with the evolution of the BCS since the first great migration of universities in 1990-1991.

Basketball is a long distance second to everything revenue wise with the primary value in the month of March, and only has significant value really at this point in time because of the changes in the reality television market and the explosion of value of live sports programming, but even still is a distant second.
 
Pudge said:
This is message board debate. It's hard to think you are a serious person when you drift into the pejorative ding of "NPR" and "the Beach".

In this thread, there were some crucial points: the "Game" changed. I don't think lots of noise & public PR campaigns were appropriate for UConn in this last ACC go-around. (and I am a bombthrowing Let's-get-Blumenthal/Malloy-involved thinker) But ... it strikes me that, given our past, that we correctly played some cards. Unfortunately, FSU-Clemson-NCState-GeorgiaTech cabal forced the hand to Louisville. I don't think WE are the Football Program to combat that swing. No amount of lobbying (or even a Tom Jurich behind-the-scenes performance) changes where the ACC was headed. Academics? Sure ... Louisville (in my mind) is slightly beyond WVU & not near what I believe UConn is ... or will be. But, that was not a key criteria.

We are a stark contrast to Jurich's construct of the Louisville Football Program (a 15 year build). We have serious problems in PR & Marketing whereby we have a great Brand; but Hathaway let it flutter in the wind. And, I really don't see that Warde Manual has shown the capacity to lead us to a new era. I am more confident in Herbst. She is far beyond the President model that I see across academia (and I am in the SUNY system).
Expand ...

I am really not seeing where you are disagreeing with me.

I think Herbst is on the money in building the school the right way. But she is getting owned in the Athletic part. She really needs someone who is as skilled as her on athletic side of things. Warde doesn't seem to fit that model.

The NPR comment is spot on. It shows their tone deafness. They don't know their audience. It was an awful way to cast their message.

Not only did we not have a PR campaign, but we lacked the ways and means to stick up for ourselves. We came out of it looking worse than we did going into it.

The Beach. That's not even flippant. And you need to get over yourself here. It was also tone deaf.

GM's don't go on vacation the week of the NFL Draft. Generals don't go on leave at the beginning of a campaign and ADs AND PRESIDENTS shouldn't make themselves indisposed when they are trying to secure their school's athletic future.

It may not have made a difference, but everyone will always wonder. While Jurich was setting more favorable conditions, Warde was in the Virgin Islands being ruled by them. Great leaders don't accept inherited conditions when they are unfavorable. They set new ones.
 
Carl Spackler said:
The only thing that is consistent, in this second great migration of universities, (the first migration was in 1990-1991) and what drives all of this conference shifting, for two decades now, is pursuing the best media rights deals you can get for your intercollegiate athletics product, whether it be individually (BYU Notre Dame Texas) or as a group in a conference.

The power players are the conference commissioners and the university ceo's / presidents. THere is no regulation from a point of authority. There is no end goal.

(There could be an end goal, and regulation from point of authority, but there isn't yet - one or the other, or both ideally - the end goal to stop it all, is a true playoff format for a national champion in 1-A football so that every 1-A program has the same path to a championship)

Football rights are the primary economic force, with two strata related to conference affiliation, the first being direct revenue for sporting events through the regular season schedule, and the second, larger strata - that being the revenue around the football post season, which has created a major divide in the intercollegiate athletics world among different conferences in the past 20 years, with the evolution of the BCS since the first great migration of universities in 1990-1991.

Basketball is a long distance second to everything revenue wise with the primary value in the month of March, and only has significant value really at this point in time because of the changes in the reality television market and the explosion of value of live sports programming, but even still is a distant second.
Expand ...

There is no end goal. It looks completely Darwinian at this point. Except for the fact that slugs like Purdue, WSU and Iowa State are immune.
 
What's Darwinian about it, is the college football postseason, and it's 130+ year history of being ruled by media and public perception to determine a champion, rather than play on the field, and specifically the last 20 years of that 130 years, in which the BCS evolved out of a simple bowl coalition among a handful of conferences separate from other conferences, and has now reached a pseudo playoff of 4 teams to determine a national champion. Things dramatically changed a little after a century of almost no change, back in 1990. It's accelerated from there.

Way back then, it was foreseen by many, including leadership at UConn, that a break from the NCAA by a large group of collegiate institutions was highly likely in the future, and it's as real now of possibility, as it was then.

The revenue gaps between the coferences around the college football post season, are the driving factor.

Put it this way. 4 teams - a playoff. Right now, if you put 80 teams, in 4 conferences, of 20 teams each, and divide each of those conferences into two 10 program divisions, you've got the format set up naturally for a true 8 team playoff 3 round, competition for a national champion among those 80 that would fall well within the normal academic calendar.

Regular season division winners play each other for the conference title. Round 1. The four conference winners match up for the semis. Round 2. The championship game round 3.

Those 80 programs don't have to split up the 500 million dollar contract, with the other colleges in teh country.

If that happens, we need to be part of it.
 
CL82 said:
Fleud, you and I often see the world the same way, but I disagree that UConn's actions or inaction were irrelevant in the most recent ACC offer.

We needed to get our ahead of 'ville on this and tout our development in football. From I-AA to a BCS bowl in less than 10 years is huge. We needed to present our case that that is exactly what we do at UConn, push for excellence in every sport. We needed to talk about our head to head records vs. Ville, Cuse and Pitt. We needed to address the perception that we are somewhow a weak sister to those schools in football. We aren't Ville's great run this year notwithstanding. We needed to talk about the fact that our football facilities (excluding the Rent) are second to none and note that the Rent is expansion ready. That is our push to the football schools.

To the hoops schools well our pitch is obvious but needed to be articulated. # NCs since 1999? Who tops that? Duke? Well our head to heads speak for themselves.

We needed to speak very publically about our academics and hammer hard that the ACC tradition is (was) successful sports without compromising academics. We've got a great narrative about the development of the school and the money we've invested in it. We should have made a very stark comparision to Louisville that locked down the our schools so that they wouldn't accept Louisville.

We needed (and still do) to revamp our athletic revenues so that they are consistent with the way other schools report them. We needed to tout the fact that our even woman's basketball team has better coverage than Louisville's men's teams with a deal that emphasizes coverage in the NYC metro area.

Perception is reality. We allowed our university to be painted as a school in decline. We allowed another institution to paint itself as an up and comer with only the thinest of veneers to support that premise. You and I could debate whether or not would succeed (and I believe that we could have) but you have to be in the game to win. Standing on the sidelines doesn't get it done.
Expand ...

We usually do see eye to eye. So where did you go wrong?:)

We can debate this till the end of time and the reality is is we don't really know the answer. All we're doing is basing reality on our individual perceptions. Now that's a twist on your statement "perception is reality".

If I could go back in time and get into the minds of the individuals who decided on the outcome beginning with the inception of the event that precipitated all these moves, I would have the real answer. I think we look for answers after the fact! There was silence with Maryland and Rutgers. So when they were accepted everyone postulated their ideas of how Delany based his decision. But that is second guessing. And even if Delany spoke publicly about his decision, can any of us really be sure we are getting the complete picture? I doubt it.

Same thing happened with UConn getting passed over by Ville. We presume things went along a certain pathway. But again that is a presumption and not fact. All the points you propose wouldn't do much damage. But I'm not sure they would offer much to change the events that played out in CR. If there is debate amongst the likes of us about it's value then that probably plays out amongst all the players who are the decision makers. In other words, the reality is we have diverse perceptions of values and ideas.

If it makes you feel better, my wife agrees with your point of view. But before you take this statement to support your contention about Jurich vs. Warde I must warn you that she felt KO would not be given a decent contract. I felt, and if I'm correct, you did as well, it was only a matter of time before he was given the multiple years. She did feel he would end up being considered a great coach. On that all three of us are in agreement.
 
.-.
Where did I go wrong? Perhaps my wayward youth... but I digress.

I think your comparison to the Rutgers and Maryland's situation is flawed. The B1G's courtship Maryland and Rutgers was a stealth affair replete with non-disclosure agreements. Louisville and UConn was an open, if one-sided competition. In the former silence was a contractual prerequisite. In the latter silence allowed one protagonist to set backstory in the media. I recently had a discussion with a print and broadcast reporter in which they both opined that once that story is established it is very difficult to change. I agree that we can't know for sure whether being proactive would have changed anything. However, I've always beleived that the only way to be sure of failure is not to try. Would action have saved us? Who knows? But inactivity dooned us.

So where does that leave us? Well, you should listen more to wife. Be sure to tell her I said so!
 
I think it's silly to knock the two of them for an NPR interview. (and as some said ... that Interviewer seems to have an excellent reputation for putting forth a intelligenet program). More than anything, I am just pleased that Herbst saw a problem in this regard & hired a highly paid staff person to work on PR. We need something.
 
Pudge said:
I think it's silly to knock the two of them for an NPR interview. (and as some said ... that Interviewer seems to have an excellent reputation for putting forth a intelligenet program). More than anything, I am just pleased that Herbst saw a problem in this regard & hired a highly paid staff person to work on PR. We need something.
Expand ...
The interview is fine. The fact that it is the only one, isn't.
 
CL82 said:
The interview is fine. The fact that it is the only one, isn't.
Expand ...
One of the reasons NPR was used, I believe, is a total lack of other media venues in CT to present this type of discussion.
 
CL82 said:
Where did I go wrong? Perhaps my wayward youth... but I digress.

I think your comparison to the Rutgers and Maryland's situation is flawed. The B1G's courtship Maryland and Rutgers was a stealth affair replete with non-disclosure agreements. Louisville and UConn was an open, if one-sided competition. In the former silence was a contractual prerequisite. In the latter silence allowed one protagonist to set backstory in the media. I recently had a discussion with a print and broadcast reporter in which they both opined that once that story is established it is very difficult to change. I agree that we can't know for sure whether being proactive would have changed anything. However, I've always beleived that the only way to be sure of failure is not to try. Would action have saved us? Who knows? But inactivity dooned us.

So where does that leave us? Well, you should listen more to wife. Be sure to tell her I said so!
Expand ...
Listening to the media, Jurich and the ACC trumpet Louisville's athletic accomplishments told me everything I need to know. One final 4 appearance be each basketball team in the last 20 years was touted. Numerous BE conference championships in minor sports like swimming and track were used to pump up the resume. Louisville was playing football in an old minor league baseball park before 1998, that's their proud tradition no one seems to mention.
 
It is time for UConn to replace the people in charge, President and Athletic Director and bring in real professionals to promote this school to a solid conference. Being left behind over and over is a testament to the inability of the present administration.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,321
Messages
4,563,691
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom