I truly don’t get your point. It’s shocking to you that a G-5 team has a player that can start at a much higher level? In a sport with rosters of 85 scholarship players and 20 or more walk ons?
There are many G-5 players who can make big contributions at a P-5 level. Just like every year there are good G-5 teams that will clearly be better than the worst P-5 teams. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t overall significant talent gaps between the levels.
My first point recognized how good Carter was in MSU's opener and how it looks as if MSU doesn't have much of a running game this year without him.
The second point was more complex and I gave the shortened version that it seems that no matter what we have, who we put on the field, how much we've improved since JM took over in football for example, how much excitement has returned (based on the NC State game's attendance), the P4's will take an SMU or Cal over UConn.
The rest of my comments are rhetorical regarding the leagues' choices of schools to add to their conferences. Specifically the additions of Cal and SMU to the ACC and the Arizona schools to the Big 12.
Cal and SMU? Because of what? Their success in football? Major bowl wins? NC's? Attendance? Success in the other major sports like men's and women's basketball, hockey and baseball?
Men's crew for Cal, but what else for Cal and what in any sport for SMU?
How about the Big 12's new additions? Arizona and Arizona State bring what? The third best coach in the Hurley family? Championships? And, a population made up of a large percentage of transplants from other regions, who likely have little to no interest in the Arizona schools or the Big 12, doesn't seem to offer much potential for adding the number of viewers a school like UConn will bring considering our dominance in New England and the NY Metro area in sports like basketball, baseball and hockey (on its current trajectory) and even football (based on BCU's recent trajectory). There's also a history of success nationally in men's and women's soccer and field hockey.
The most visible sports seem to be football, men's and women's basketball, hockey and baseball and we've shown we can win championships in two of them and improved dramatically in hockey and, to some degree, in football while baseball is always competitive in spite of being a northern school in a weak league and would be a stronger program in a league with better competition.
We may not excel at this point in football, but with JM we've shown we've made the commitment to improve and can become nationally competitive in football like we did in basketball after we moved to the Big East, hired the right coach, and built attractive facilities and support programs. That's already done for football. All that's missing is the competitive league.
Most importantly, we've proven in two leagues, without the cache' of a P5 label, that we can bring basketball championships to leagues like the B1G (maybe more accurately the B2G) that has one men's championship since 1989.........34 years with one championship while UConn has won five in the last 24 years. I didn't mention the women but the same has held true there to a larger degree. Since the B1G isn't exactly lighting it up with football championships, why aren't they beating down the door to add championships in the second most important college sports? We can help them say, "we may not win championships in football, but we're damn good in a few others".
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but those were the bulk of the thoughts that drove my comments.
