- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,409
- Reaction Score
- 40,683
If your football team is really good then none of that matters.
Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.
- Thread starter ZooCougar
- Start date
If your football team is really good then none of that matters.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 24,139
- Reaction Score
- 63,229
of course it did
Waquoit
Mr. Positive
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 35,191
- Reaction Score
- 96,235
Pitt, Cuse and Rutgers were no better than us. Yet here we sit.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,409
- Reaction Score
- 40,683
We don't serve ranch dressing with our pizza and it confuses them.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 18,564
- Reaction Score
- 26,204
It matters. See Rutgers. There is no football program out there that is so good that none of the other stuff doesn't matter. Even Oregon is AAU.
It had to be because Pitt and cuse have a much longer history prior to selling out and being outkasts. rutgers is the anomaly of anomalies. Even the Architect has no idea about rutgers
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,173
- Reaction Score
- 10,786
Those schools didn't sink to the depths of being in the 100-130 power rating for ~ 10 years. If we stayed up in the 40-60 range like we were under RE1, then we'd have been in a P4 years ago.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 2,967
- Reaction Score
- 15,098
No. Like, all these things they say. If money was there and they wanted UConn, they would be in.
SUNJ sucks
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,409
- Reaction Score
- 40,683
It matters. See Rutgers. There is no football program out there that is so good that none of the other stuff doesn't matter. Even Oregon is AAU.
It had to be because Pitt and cuse have a much longer history prior to selling out and being outkasts. rutgers is the anomaly of anomalies. Even the Architect has no idea about rutgers
Rutgers is a red herring and everyone knows why they were added.
When your football team is really good then many blemishes don’t seem that bad. And there are multitude of examples to support this.
Edit: You’re hilarious. You used Rutgers as evidence to the contrary and then in the next paragraph you say it’s an anomaly.
Your second paragraph is more correct.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 18,564
- Reaction Score
- 26,204
what do you mean, "No... If money was there." What money? What do you think drives money?
Rutgers is an anomaly because it is in the Big Ten for every reason in the book except athletic success. It is the prime example of evidence to the contrary. What do you find so amusing about that?
I think he means that if a conference wanted to add UConn and their media partner (ESPN, Fox) was willing to pay pro-rata to add UConn, we would be added.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 18,564
- Reaction Score
- 26,204
Yes, I agree, and that is obvious. And what makes both the conference and media partner value a program?
The Big Ten added Maryland & Rutgers in 2014
The Big Ten added UCLA, USC, Oregon & Washington in 2024
What criteria did Maryland, Rutgers & UConn all meet which garnered the first 2 an invite but not UConn? I suggested UM and RU had location and AAU but you said No.
KryHavok
Oh yes, UConn IS a BB blueblood!
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2023
- Messages
- 928
- Reaction Score
- 3,797
At the risk of being flippant, what those 2 schools had was a name that didn't have the word "Connecticut" in it. Other than that, all 3 schools are large land grand schools having solid academics and good sports programs (with some of us having more championship trophies for our school to show). AAU is the cherry on top, but it's the excuse to keep a school out rather than a criterion to bring a school in. If they wanted to reach into New England, we'd be in, irrespective of that AAU tag.
Part of the problem is that the metrics keep changing. And UConn is never on the right side of the metrics. When Rutgers was added to the Big 10, the metric was cable boxes. They were AAU and contiguous also, so they were acceptable. As we later found out, the Big 10 had been in contact with Rutgers for years telling them what they needed to do. Maryland had location, AAU, contiguous, wanted out of the ACC, and was a partner for Rutgers. The Big 10 did require AAU and contiguous back then. Not now. And cable boxes are not a metric now with the Big 10.
One constant, has been UConn's lack of football history and success. When the ACC added BC, Miami, Syracuse and Pitt, those schools had a history of football. There are name players you can associate with those schools---Doug Flutie, Donavan McNabb, Jim Brown, Dan Marino, etc,
And lack of football success kept us out of the ACC when they added Louisville over UConn.
When the ACC added SMU, SMU had a wealthy booster, so they cut the deal of taking no money from the ACC for 10 years. Plus they added the Texas market for the ACC Network. Similar to the addition of Rutgers to the Big 10, adding SMU was a plus due to the ACC having a conference network. UConn adds nothing to the ACC Network because the ACC Network is already on local cable companies, AND SMU had an acceptable football program.
Despite the changing metrics of cable boxes, AAU, contiguous state, ACC network--- the one continuous factor has been that UConn's lack of football success has been a problem with any conference. That is evident in the discussions last year that UConn had with the Big 12. They weren't going to add UConn right away; there was the 5 year runway plan for football.
One constant, has been UConn's lack of football history and success. When the ACC added BC, Miami, Syracuse and Pitt, those schools had a history of football. There are name players you can associate with those schools---Doug Flutie, Donavan McNabb, Jim Brown, Dan Marino, etc,
And lack of football success kept us out of the ACC when they added Louisville over UConn.
When the ACC added SMU, SMU had a wealthy booster, so they cut the deal of taking no money from the ACC for 10 years. Plus they added the Texas market for the ACC Network. Similar to the addition of Rutgers to the Big 10, adding SMU was a plus due to the ACC having a conference network. UConn adds nothing to the ACC Network because the ACC Network is already on local cable companies, AND SMU had an acceptable football program.
Despite the changing metrics of cable boxes, AAU, contiguous state, ACC network--- the one continuous factor has been that UConn's lack of football success has been a problem with any conference. That is evident in the discussions last year that UConn had with the Big 12. They weren't going to add UConn right away; there was the 5 year runway plan for football.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 5,647
- Reaction Score
- 23,851
I agreed with most of what you said, but this statement is not true. There are 2 different rates for the ACCN, in market (~$1.30/household) and out of market rates (~$0.25/household). Connecticut is currently out of market, so the ACC would get a higher rate by adding UConn. That said, there are many more households in Texas and in California for the ACCN although I don't believe the ACC gets in market rates for all of Texas and California. Thus, if ACCN revenues were the only factor, it makes more sense to add SMU/Cal/Stanford over UConn, but this is ST thinking as in the LT, I believe conference networks will be streamed.
Thanks for the info. I agree that it is short-term thinking on the part of the ACC. The metrics are constantly changing and UConn is never on the right side of the metrics. Lack of football success has been constant, though.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 28,409
- Reaction Score
- 40,683
SUNJ is fraudulent
It’s crazy that this thread still exits; more, persists.
But the notion that a lack of football success has been our downfall ignores the fact that we were successful when cuse, Pitt, wvu and ville got scooped It was only a liability when we were in AAC - which to be fair, that conference nearly killed us.
But the notion that a lack of football success has been our downfall ignores the fact that we were successful when cuse, Pitt, wvu and ville got scooped It was only a liability when we were in AAC - which to be fair, that conference nearly killed us.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 729
- Reaction Score
- 3,080
I think it is crazy that many folks on this board try to equate our football value and comparison based on a very small sample. Pitt and WVU have a huge history of major college football. WVU was nationally ranked and won major bowl games in the 50's and 60's and has been relevant through their history (albeit with some down years). Pitt won a national championship in the 70's.
When I went to UConn in the 80's, I didn't even know we had a football team. UConn's major football history equals a few decent years in the (really bad) Big East in the early 2000's. And then some of the worst football ever post RE1. The whole conference realignment was based on media value not how one school did vs another school in one small blip in history.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,920
- Reaction Score
- 14,821
If UConn cam be prime mover in a conference with almost exclusively small private schools whose Alumni base and ratings potentially are much than conferences made up of larger public’s with typically better exposure , and secure a contract that gets these schools $7,000,000 a year for primarily men’s basketball,, For a bonus add in a women’s program whose eyeballs rival most men’s teams that a 2 foe 1 deal . The case for undervaluation of UConn is simply smoke and mirrors -
I omitted football because it’s impossible to model given our current situation no disrespect intended
I think you can model a scenario where UConn basketball alone is equally valued to many of these alleged power conference schools .
I know basketball is undervalued primarily because the NCAA historically viewed as their cash cow whose members were content with whatever they gave as a return on their effort .
I omitted football because it’s impossible to model given our current situation no disrespect intended
I think you can model a scenario where UConn basketball alone is equally valued to many of these alleged power conference schools .
I know basketball is undervalued primarily because the NCAA historically viewed as their cash cow whose members were content with whatever they gave as a return on their effort .
people think UConn doing ok means UConn is doing great as an academic school
UConn is not great. The state does not pour enough money to get it there and UConn won't get there on its own because we're so gosh darn precious.
I must say, I am so tired of this excuse. We made a Fiesta Bowl (after several winning seasons and bowl games) and the hayseeds clutched their pearls and went crazy, even making up lies about ticket sales. They were offended we made it. So excuse me if I don't buy this "lack of football history and success". Even when we had it, it wasn't good enough.
This is the truth. All these schools with the "football history and success" that made it (BC, Cuse, Pitt, Ville, Cincy, UCF, Houston, etc etc) are a helluva closer to us, than they ever will be to Ohio State, Michigan, and the top SEC schools. Only we have men's and women's bball powerhouses that can bring in millions annually through tournament credits and create months worth of content for their TV deals. The hayseeds have no vision which is why all the deadweight (which is what most of the schools invited to the ACC/Big 12 are and we should know because most of them were dead weight in the old Big East) have weighed down the ACC to the point of completely diluting it's football and basketball product. If the Big 12 isn't careful, it will happen to them to. How are UCF, Cincy, and Houston's "football history and success" translating to the Big 12? Spoiler, it isn't.
UConn never had football history.
As far as success goes, all of those schools that you mentioned (BC, Cuse, Pitt, Ville, Cincy, UCF, Houston) had more football success than UConn. Regardless of whether you want to believe it or not.
The Fiesta Bowl was in 2011. What has UConn football looked like in the past 13 years?
Here is one year (2019). UConn football was ranked 123 out of 130 schools.
Other years were similar for many years. You may not want to believe it but those are the facts. UConn football stunk for many years and it has held UConn back. UConn couldn't get the Big12 to bite last year. Lack of football success was obviously a problem (not the only problem); hence, the 5 year runway for football to be added was proposed.
I agree about the grandfathered schools in the P4 Conferences who add nothing to those conferences. If conferences were right-sized, those schools would be kicked out. But that's not happening.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2014
- Messages
- 18,564
- Reaction Score
- 26,204
Exactly. When I was at UConn we couldn't even get a UConn vs PC basketball game on tv. We were the bottom of the newly created Big East Conference. Now UConn is a blue blood. They don't like UConn because of football. We don't have enough history. We don't have enough revenue. All that changes if UConn joins a power conference. I just don't understand why all of the decision makers don't get it. When UConn has an opportunity on a level playing field, it wins. And wins bigly.