Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="jostar1, post: 5270783, member: 1737"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach