Ha, I was thinking the exact same thing. Couple months ago I googled "treadmills" and when i came back to the BY treadmill banner ads were all I got on top of screen.As a side note, I was told that the ads on this site adjust themselves to your browser history. Asian brides, huh? Not sure how true that is, but right now, I'm looking at ads for SmartCarpet and also to learn more about constipation and diarrhea...
ありがとうHa, I was thinking the exact same thing. Couple months ago I googled "treadmills" and when i came back to the BY treadmill banner ads were all I got on top of screen.
CL82, an early congrats on your eventual nuptials. Konechiwa to your bride to be .
ありがとう
Close... it was only 1 revenue sport we were lacking, and that was mostly terrible timing. More championships than anyone else in the last 15 years does indicate value in MBB to anyone that watches the sport.The B1G never broadcast they were expanding and here is the criteria. They explained their logic after it happened. They never came out and said "we are expanding and this time it is all about TV sets". After the first ACC expansion, the ACC never broadcast their expansion plans or their criteria. It is all after the fact that they explain why they chose a school and of course they always present it as the most logical ever. The ACC is no different than the B1G. The first ACC expansion was about growth and survival. Get to 12 and get a championship game. The second was about expanding the northeast footprint with schools that pleased primarily the BB schools and had a long football history that could enhance TV ratings and matchups. The last was about upgrading football and keeping FSU and Clemson happy, and, oh yeah, with the added benefit of a very strong BB program. Uconn fans don't understand being left out and that makes sense. Uconn fans believe they a much better choice than Pitt, Ville, RU, Cuse....if only objective criteria was used. But if it was so self evident that Uconn was the best choice, why is Uconn still in the AAC? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Uconn did not provide the same added value across the two big revenue sports using very specific criteria. Not a conspiracy, not blackballing, not ESPN. Just simple (probably very complex formulas) dollars and cents at the end of the process. As the original post states, numbers don't lie. All of these posts focus on the wrong number$.
If the past has proved anything, the value of BB is dwarfed by the value of FB. You could have the top valued MBB team and a weakly valued FB team and lose out to programs with two mediocre valued teams in both sports because the incremental value assigned to football means more than the high value in BB. FB drives the bus in the P5. I am not discounting the value of Uconn BB, it is just not a significant part of the equation, no matter how much people want it to be. The terrible timing for Uconn FB was that it did not make the move-up 20-25 years earlier. The option existed to fill a void when Holy Cross and the Ivies all moved down a class in FB but it was not on anyone's radar at that time. Uconn BB was in its ascendency at that time and we all know what the commitment to BB did for the school's BB reputation over 25 years. The history, or lack thereof, is reflected in the national ratings for Uconn FB which is then reflected in the calculated value of the program. It is all about money. If Uconn had the greater value proposition in football, they would not be in the AAC. I believe that at the end of the day, it is that simple because that is how business works. Add the best value when you have the chance.Close... it was only 1 revenue sport we were lacking, and that was mostly terrible timing. More championships than anyone else in the last 15 years does indicate value in MBB to anyone that watches the sport.