Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CL82, post: 5042298, member: 44"] Agree. They were separate and distinct reasons for separate and distinct points of time. The problem is that, cumulatively, they have left a bit of a stank around us. we have been on the outside looking in for so long that there is almost a presumption that that result is due to us being somehow unworthy. It is fascinating though to look at the reasons for each rejection and how the eventual decision worked out for the conference. BCU "wanted to be the New England team" and didn't want to have to compete with us. Ironically, that left them floating on an island of irrelevancy. FSU decided to flex its muscles against tobacco road and push for the addition of "a football school". The ACC caved in order to placate FSU. But in the end FSU was not plated and still continues to be a source of instability for the league. Big 12 version 1 fizzled because BYU's "don't say gay" policy made them temporarily unpalatable as a conference realignment partner. If that expansion had taken place, Connecticut was considered one of the top prospects. In big 12 version 2 we were within 24 hours of being an addition, but the opportunity to add existing "P5" programs pushed us out at the 11th hour. The school that took her place has quietly indicated that it is unhappy with the big 12 and would go elsewhere if the opportunity presented itself. In each of these times a different reason came up to block Connecticut. In each of these times Connecticut would have been a better choice as things turned out. I don't know if we will ever get off the island of misfit toys, but in the near term I plan on continuing to enjoy winning national championships. It's not a bad "consolation prize". [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,400

Messages: 4,394,520

Members: 10,208

Latest member: jskwrite