Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[ZooCougar]

Very complementary article on UConn. The author suggests that the ACC might be in play for UConn, too. I just don’t believe that.

Project 2031.

We got bigtimed by Poverty Oklahoma State and a couple other Heartland Rubes and Chuckleheads.

Do we really want to play a conference tournament in KC? I mean that's great for me, but not for the fanbase. ACC is the way.

 

[UConnTrumbull]

Not about CR but felt important on a sporting basis

 

[Ha Who]

Project 2031.

We got bigtimed by Poverty Oklahoma State and a couple other Heartland Rubes and Chuckleheads.

Do we really want to play a conference tournament in KC? I mean that's great for me, but not for the fanbase. ACC is the way.

Please don’t make me bring out Charlie Brown, but if we must talk about this, all I can say is beggars can’t be choosers. You jump at the first offer when the boat is sinking.

 

[LetsGoUC]

https://www.heartlandcollegesports.com/2026/04/07/did-the-big-12-miss-on-expansion-with-uconn/

Well now that basketball is over, its officially #ConferenceExpansionSZN.

Time for the hypotheticals to start where we never actually get added.

 

[ZooCougar]

Well now that basketball is over, its officially #ConferenceExpansionSZN.

Time for the hypotheticals to start where we never actually get added.

This shouldn’t even be in Key Tweets.

If I said this was nothingburger it would still be an exaggeration.

 

[CL82]

Not about CR but felt important on a sporting basis

Interesting. What I like most about it is that it eliminates discretionary action by the NCAA, which traditionally has not favored us.

 

[Fishy]

I really don’t think the richest conference getting even richer is a good thing. Indiana’s a nice story but then having UCLA AND Michigan winning natties is an omen imo. Maybe we’ll see in the next few years

It's not an omen. It's reality.

If you give one group of schools an immense advantage in resources, you're really reduced to hoping that somehow all of them screw up.

It's not a mystery why we faced four straight Big Ten schools in the tournament. That's $300,000,000 a year against our $8M. We're the exception, they're the rule.

 

[Purple Stein]

Interesting. What I like most about it is that it eliminates discretionary action by the NCAA, which traditionally has not favored us.

That was my thought. I actually don't hate this proposal, which leaves me feeling confused.

 

[Exit 4]

I would make the rule 6 years to play 4. Allowing for two possible injury years.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It's not an omen. It's reality.

If you give one group of schools an immense advantage in resources, you're really reduced to hoping that somehow all of them screw up.

It's not a mystery why we faced four straight Big Ten schools in the tournament. That's $300,000,000 a year against our $8M. We're the exception, they're the rule.

Being in the Big 12 or ACC doesn't help us if this is the case. Should we pack it in?

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Not about CR but felt important on a sporting basis

Doesn't strike me as particularly impactful. It seems like they're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Had they put in something like one free school change and any others require sitting, that would be impactful.

 

[Exit 4]

Doesn't strike me as particularly impactful. It seems like they're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Had they put in something like one free school change and any others require sitting, that would be impactful.

Aren’t they looking to put the kibosh on the possibility of a sudden flood of European BB players going “college” now that NIL pays more than euro ball? Seems we are poised to have a flood of 27 year old ballers.

 

[ZooCougar]

 

[ZooCougar]

Aren’t they looking to put the kibosh on the possibility of a sudden flood of European BB players going “college” now that NIL pays more than euro ball? Seems we are poised to have a flood of 27 year old ballers.

That would be grotesque.

The limits should be on age for players from Europe. They don’t have athletics linked to education like us, so basically kids “turn pro” even before they are 18. If you are 21 coming to play in the USA, then you should only be granted a year or two of eligibility at most.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

Aren’t they looking to put the kibosh on the possibility of a sudden flood of European BB players going “college” now that NIL pays more than euro ball? Seems we are poised to have a flood of 27 year old ballers.

I hadn't heard that, but the rule would put the kibosh to it. Hopefully there would be a provision for those that do military service. Thinking of "Fast" Eddie Williams while I write this. Might have to add something for missions as well, otherwise those folks could never redshirt.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Good school, better conference for them and UCSD.

 

[Fishy]

Being in the Big 12 or ACC doesn't help us if this is the case. Should we pack it in?

$45M is more than $8M.

 

[Kowalski]

Doesn't strike me as particularly impactful. It seems like they're fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Had they put in something like one free school change and any others require sitting, that would be impactful.

Yes, changing the rules on transfers would fix a lot. I like your suggestion.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Awesome. UC Santa Barbara and UC San Diego are awesome institutions. Glad Santa Clara University got some new teams in the state to play against.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

$45M is more than $8M.

Not if we get the SMU deal and have to pay $30MM+ for the football program.

 

[ZooCougar]

Not if we get the SMU deal and have to pay $30MM+ for the football program.

SMU isn’t paying. They also get like $25M for their lower tier rights. Which is light years better than the AAC and the Big East.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

SMU isn’t paying. They also get like $25M for their lower tier rights. Which is light years better than the AAC and the Big East.

1) You are making up numbers on SMU.
2) We weren't offered the deal anyway and our alumni are not as rich, reckless and stupid as to commit to funding an athletic program to compete with Clemson in football and Duke in hoops with no money.

You should stick to complaining about how UConn is not in the Big 10, or NBA or NFL.

 

[ZooCougar]

SMU isn’t paying. They also get like $25M for their lower tier rights. Which is light years better than the AAC and the Big East.

And additionally SMU gets $12-14M from non TV revenue sources from the ACC just to cover expenses.

They are so much better off it’s not even funny. We wouid be supremely stupid to turn down a deal like that.

 

[buddy]

And additionally SMU gets $12-14M from non TV revenue sources from the ACC just to cover expenses.

They are so much better off it’s not even funny. We wouid be supremely stupid to turn down a deal like that.

There is no evidence that the ACC is interested in UConn. In addition, per my usual shpeil, ESPN will continue its blockade of UConn policy.

 

[ZooCougar]

There is no evidence that the ACC is interested in UConn. In addition, per my usual shpeil, ESPN will continue its blockade of UConn policy.

Irrelevant even if true. Nelson will literally say anything to make anything but the Big East out to be a bad deal.

2031 inches closer. UNC is gone and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Irrelevant even if true. Nelson will literally say anything to make anything but the Big East out to be a bad deal.

2031 inches closer. UNC is gone and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I am 100% on board that UConn should leave for a full membership in the ACC. When do we pack our bags?

 

[CL82]

There is no evidence that the ACC is interested in UConn.

True, at least nothing material that I am aware of. There is some evidence that the big 12 is interested, though nothing seems imminent.

As has been stated multiple times on this board, nothing is going to happen until 2030 when we will likely see whether there are defections from the ACC. If there are, it's likely we would be backfill. If there are none, it's possible the big 12 may decide to pick us up. I think they're waiting to see what happens with the ACC first. With the defection of a couple of the major pieces in the ACC, the big 12 may be able to pick off other existing P4 programs on a fire sale basis, just as they did with the Pac 12.

Whatever happens here, it appears to be the last potential for a lifeboat for us. Who knows though?

 

[buddy]

True, at least nothing material that I am aware of. There is some evidence that the big 12 is interested, though nothing seems imminent.

As has been stated multiple times on this board, nothing is going to happen until 2030 when we will likely see whether there are defections from the ACC. If there are, it's likely we would be backfill. If there are none, it's possible the big 12 may decide to pick us up. I think they're waiting to see what happens with the ACC first. With the defection of a couple of the major pieces in the ACC, the big 12 may be able to pick off other existing P4 programs on a fire sale basis, just as they did with the Pac 12.

Whatever happens here, it appears to be the last potential for a lifeboat for us. Who knows though?

It seems odd that they had no trouble adding Cal and Stanford when the PAC 12 dissolved as well as SMU,. but didn't give UConn a thought at that time. Maybe UConn would have accepted a reduced revenue share. In the scenario you describe, it seems to me that once the ACC implodes and they possibly invite UConn as one of the backfills, it will now longer be a "power" conference, but more like the current PAC 12 which will by and large resemble the AAC. They may actually take Tulane, Memphis and USF and ignore UConn again. I think UConn and the goverment of Ct should be more aggressive at this time in promoting UConn to the Big 12 or ACC and force ESPN to endorse and enable such a move through further incentives. The State of Ct I believes has a large surplus at this time. I hope we are back to the days of "monitoring", because that is what it seems like. I do believe AD Dave has been doing the very best he could with what support he has.

 

[CL82]

It seems odd that they had no trouble adding Cal and Stanford when the PAC 12 dissolved as well as SMU,. but didn't give UConn a thought at that time. Maybe UConn would have accepted a reduced revenue share. In the scenario you describe, it seems to me that once the ACC implodes and they possibly invite UConn as one of the backfills, it will now longer be a "power" conference, but more like the current PAC 12 which will by and large resemble the AAC. They may actually take Tulane, Memphis and USF and ignore UConn again. I think UConn and the goverment of Ct should be more aggressive at this time in promoting UConn to the Big 12 or ACC and force ESPN to endorse and enable such a move through further incentives. The State of Ct I believes has a large surplus at this time. I hope we are back to the days of "monitoring", because that is what it seems like. I do believe AD Dave has been doing the very best he could with what support he has.

Yes, they probably could've gotten Connecticut when the Pac 12 was raided. The big 12 could've as well, but neither did. For that matter either could today if they wanted to.

Whether any future departures will result in a de facto relegation of the ACC depends on which schools leave and how many. If only one or two schools, depart at the ACC continues as a P4 conference, although in all likelihood the weakest four conference. If it's more than that, they likely occupy a new high ground between the P6 and the existing G6 conferences. That's all speculation though. The devil will be in the details.

As a fan of Connecticut, I have grown fairly philosophical about conference realignment. Connecticut will either get an invite or it won't. I don't see much point in worrying about it one way or the other. In the meantime, we will just continue having great seasons, periodically resulting in national championships.