OT: BC football to renew historic rivarly...with Holy Cross

[Yawkey Way]

You won't play us because you have too much to lose, that's the reality. And no Sherlock of course nd and real football powers draw better then us. I thought that was common sense?

I really do think that ultimately Uconn will get to play BC in football once again down the road something most casual college football fans in Greater Boston would probaby support and in which there is ongoing heightened interest here anong UConn football fans. I think it will happen probably after the retirement of the current school president, Fr. William Leahy. He's really not a football fan, and really not even a sports fan. Reports are, rightly or wrongly,that he did not want his name attached to the lawsuit generated out of Connecticut by Blumenthal, as he felt, rightly or wrongly, that the accusations made in the legal briefs about his actions were false. Now maybe they were all true, who knows, but thats not the point, the point is that the lawsuit left in his mind that he would prefer that BC no longer play Uconn. This became reinforced when students and cheerleaders in the BC bus were subjected to some bad stuff at the last football game in Hartford. This is all regrettable, as BC was one of the BE Schools as you probably are aware that voted " yes " for Uconn's admittance to the BE, and lately,under their new AD Bates, have reinstated the playing of basketball with Uconn even though Uconn has dominated BC in basketball for decades. So its not like BC " is scared "of athletic competition with Uconn in my view.. Leahy's decision has nothing at all to do with football competition and being scared of Uconn football. The same with Syracuse, and the same with the other ACC schools. Its frankly got nothing to do with UConn football at all, imo. UConn will get their need to play BC in football again fulfilled in time. And it probably will be when the defendants in the lawsuit all all fully retired. They are all getting on in years, so they'll be retiring, the same as Blumenthal, Calhoun, etc... then it will happen, imo. Just be patient, thats all.

 

[BC1978]

I'm calling bull . Of course UCONN acts in its own best interest, but UCONN recognizes full well that college sports is driven largely by regional interests. It has never excluded regional interests because it recognizes that regional interest is in it's own best interest and because UCONN has never shied away from competition. BC is trying its best to exclude UCONN from the ACC and direct football competition largely out of fear and vengeance.and it's absolutely moronic from a business perspective, because a vibrant UCONN athletic program is good for college athletics in the region.

Just to be clear, I don't worry about UCONN remaining competitive with BC and Syracuse even with our crappy conference affiliation. What disappoints me is that with this affiliation UCONN's opportunity to be visible on a national level in football is greatly diminished. UCONN's view of the world is a lot different than BC's.

With all due respect, Uconn, I think you have your blue colored glasses firmly affixed.

IMO, Uconn has done EXACTLY what I have indicated. Exhibit A: UMass Amherst.

In the 10+ years, Uconn has been FBS, Uconn has played Umass Amherst ONCE in FB, with no future games scheduled. Even more interesting, Uconn Men's BB has played Umass Amherst Men's BB (arguably the #2 program in New England) I think ONCE during that same span. Oh, Uconn has played Umass-Lowell multiple times, BU, Northeastern, etc. but Umass Amherst, what? once? Wonder why?

You may think that Uconn is different than BC or SU with regard to regional rivalries, but, IMO, the evidence says otherwise. Both BC and Uconn play plenty of "regional" games - when it is beneficial to them. IMO, both shy away from the games that they perceive are NOT beneficial to them. The record speaks for itself!

 

[The Viking]

this is not equivalent to UConn and UMass.
this is about two former conference partners trying to extinguish UConn football. I'm sure both BC and a Cuse have been none to happy that in the past 10 years UConn football has ALREADY had better football seasons then them in such a short period of time.
The best way to get rid of what potentially could be the best Northeast football program outside of PSU is to keep UConn out of a P5 conference and to cut off as much of the money supply as possible.
It's why BC pushed to keep UConn out over Pitt and it's why BC and Cuse pushed for an awful academic school in Louisville over UConn.
and it doesn't hurt that the stiff-arming May affect non-football sports as well in the long run.

just pray that we never get an invite to the B1G because if we do there will be two sets of people going to BC's tombstone. BC fans to mourn and UConn fans to pi$$ on it.

 

[uconndogs]

UCONN scheduled UMASS to a hoop series when UMASS was at its peak 10-15 years ago. Toe-to-toe, two of the then best programs in the country. Something like a 5 game series. Unfortunately for UMASS the Ws in that series went entirely to UCONN and it was not renewed. Might very well have been in UCONN's interest not to move forward, but we had plenty of regional games as a member of the Big East. UCONN ducked nothing! I believe UMASS is on future schedules for football, although I don't really know what that has to do with anything.

The point is this. BC has deliberately and has stated as such it's desire to keep UCONN out of major college athletics to protect its perceived interests. It's words and deeds have made that very clear. Your argument that UCONN would do the same, I think, is just plain wrong. And, more to the point, you're argument is that the behavior is OK because somebody else might do it.

Small, insular = ethically challenged

 

[4BostonEagle]

this is not equivalent to UConn and UMass.
this is about two former conference partners trying to extinguish UConn football. I'm sure both BC and a Cuse have been none to happy that in the past 10 years UConn football has ALREADY had better football seasons then them in such a short period of time.
The best way to get rid of what potentially could be the best Northeast football program outside of PSU is to keep UConn out of a P5 conference and to cut off as much of the money supply as possible.
It's why BC pushed to keep UConn out over Pitt and it's why BC and Cuse pushed for an awful academic school in Louisville over UConn.
and it doesn't hurt that the stiff-arming May affect non-football sports as well in the long run.

just pray that we never get an invite to the B1G because if we do there will be two sets of people going to BC's tombstone. BC fans to mourn and UConn fans to pi$$ on it.

Still love the unintentional comedy on here. Maybe UCONN football should have a winning season before taking the Big 10 by storm.

Also this thread is an excellent illustration of why UCONN is alone conference affiliation wise. They just don't play well with others.

 

[uconndogs]

Still love the unintentional comedy on here. Maybe UCONN football should have a winning season before taking the Big 10 by storm.

Also this thread is an excellent illustration of why UCONN is alone conference affiliation wise. They just don't play well with others.

Wow! You really are a small person aren't you. Got those internet muscles all pumped up........fi

 

[Carl Spackler]

You know - it's a funny thing. BCU pretty much owes everything they are to Doug Flutie. He is the personification of BCU athletics, right down to the last time being relevant being decades ago, and the ongoing short man syndrome that exudes from everything the university and it's fanbase does.

 

[BC1978]

UCONN scheduled UMASS to a hoop series when UMASS was at its peak 10-15 years ago. Toe-to-toe, two of the then best programs in the country. Something like a 5 game series. Unfortunately for UMASS the Ws in that series went entirely to UCONN and it was not renewed. Might very well have been in UCONN's interest not to move forward, but we had plenty of regional games as a member of the Big East. UCONN ducked nothing! I believe UMASS is on future schedules for football, although I don't really know what that has to do with anything.

The point is this. BC has deliberately and has stated as such it's desire to keep UCONN out of major college athletics to protect its perceived interests. It's words and deeds have made that very clear. Your argument that UCONN would do the same, I think, is just plain wrong. And, more to the point, you're argument is that the behavior is OK because somebody else might do it.

Small, insular = ethically challenged

Oh, come on Uconn.

Uconn did play Umass 10-15 years ago. They also played Umass a couple of times earlier in the new millenium. Umass actually won one of those games, beating a ranked Uconn team. Since those couple of games, Uconn has studiously avoided the #2 BB program in New England. Sure, they have played lots of other New England games, which makes their obvious avoidance of the #2 New England team even more glaring, IMO. Again, that's my point.

BC trying to keep Uconn out of a major conference? Hey, I am sure that BC would be opposed to Uconn coming to the ACC (GDF said as much). But so what? Uconn is a competitor in the market and its not BC's job to aid them. How is that different from say, UF and FSU or S. Carolina and Clemson.

You seem to forget that when BC wanted to first jump to the ACC, Uconn took the lead in a lawsuit to prevent BC from moving out of the BE - a move that successfully delayed BC for a year. A lot of BC fans were quite upset by this suit. While I was angered by the inflammatory tone of the suit, ("conspiracies", "schemes", etc.) and the fact that individuals were sued PERSONALLY, I always understood that the plaintiffs were going to aggressively pursue their best interests; so I understood the nature of the suit. If the lawsuit was ultimately successful, it would have prevented BC from moving to the ACC (it almost did) and would have been very harmful to BC. But that's the nature of the business. IMO, Uconn fans need to realize that other schools are also going to play hardball as well when it suits their best interests. IMO, Uconn does not have a lock on playing hardball.

Look, I know is hard, but look at it from BC's point of view. Uconn was part of an effort that tried very hard to prevent BC from moving to the ACC. Now, when it suits them, Uconn fans would like BC to forget this and "do right by Uconn." Excuse me, but when did Uconn "do right by BC"? (This would probably also would apply to Miami, IMO.)

Besides, BC is ONE VOTE out of 14 in the ACC. The suggestion that BC is singularly keeping Uconn out of the ACC doesn't pass the sniff test. Also, BC has no say whatsoever about Uconn getting into the BiG or B12, so that doesn't pass the sniff test either.

Imo, the issue of "ethically challenged" is nonsense, unless you want to make the case that ALL of big-time college athletics involve "ethical challenges"!

 

[CTGoonie]

Also this thread is an excellent illustration of why UCONN is alone conference affiliation wise. They just don't play well with others.

This is true. While schools like BC just roll over and suck at everything Uconn actually likes a challenge and wins championships. If I were another school near Uconn I wouldn't want to play Uconn either. It's so much easier to just continue to suck and avoid local (relatively speaking) competition.

 

[huskyblooz]

I have no problem with BC playing Holy Cross. Everyone should get one cupcake. Not 5 like Snookie did.
BC just has the most arrogant fans anywhere. Just go back to your board please.

 

[PRHusky]

Oh, come on Uconn.

Uconn did play Umass 10-15 years ago. They also played Umass a couple of times earlier in the new millenium. Umass actually won one of those games, beating a ranked Uconn team. Since those couple of games, Uconn has studiously avoided the #2 BB program in New England. Sure, they have played lots of other New England games, which makes their obvious avoidance of the #2 New England team even more glaring, IMO. Again, that's my point.

BC trying to keep Uconn out of a major conference? Hey, I am sure that BC would be opposed to Uconn coming to the ACC (GDF said as much). But so what? Uconn is a competitor in the market and its not BC's job to aid them. You seem to forget that when BC wanted to first jump to the ACC, Uconn took the lead in a lawsuit to prevent BC from moving out of the BE - a move that successfully delayed BC for a year. A lot of BC fans were quite upset by this suit. While I was angered by the inflammatory tone of the suit, ("conspiracies", "schemes", etc.) and the fact that individuals were sued PERSONALLY, I always understood that the plaintiffs were going to aggressively pursue their best interests; so I understood the nature of the suit. If the lawsuit was ultimately successful, it would have prevented BC from moving to the ACC (it almost did) and would have been very harmful to BC. But that's the nature of the business. IMO, Uconn fans need to realize that other schools are also going to play hardball as well when it suits their best interests. IMO, Uconn does not have a lock on playing hardball.

Look, I know is hard, but look at it from BC's point of view. Uconn was part of an effort that tried very hard to prevent BC from moving to the ACC. Now, when it suits them, Uconn fans would like BC to forget this and "do right by Uconn." Excuse me, but when did Uconn "do right by BC"? (This would probably also would apply to Miami, IMO.)

Besides, BC is ONE VOTE out of 14 in the ACC. The suggestion that BC is singularly keeping Uconn out of the ACC doesn't pass the sniff test. Also, BC has no say whatsoever about Uconn getting into the BiG or B12, so that doesn't pass the sniff test either.

You continue to refer to UMass as the second best bball program in New England, which is ridiculous conidering they have not made the tournament since Clinton was president.

As for implying that in fball UMass is to UConn what UConn is to BC, again, ridiculous. UMass has not done anything yet at the Div I- A level. UConn has been to five bowl games, has had multiple winning seasons and has won two conference championships. UConn is much more similar at the moment to BC than to UMass and that is not even debatable.

 

[SAMCRO]

I really do think that ultimately Uconn will get to play BC in football once again down the road something most casual college football fans in Greater Boston would probaby support and in which there is ongoing heightened interest here anong UConn football fans. I think it will happen probably after the retirement of the current school president, Fr. William Leahy. He's really not a football fan, and really not even a sports fan. Reports are, rightly or wrongly,that he did not want his name attached to the lawsuit generated out of Connecticut by Blumenthal, as he felt, rightly or wrongly, that the accusations made in the legal briefs about his actions were false. Now maybe they were all true, who knows, but thats not the point, the point is that the lawsuit left in his mind that he would prefer that BC no longer play Uconn. This became reinforced when students and cheerleaders in the BC bus were subjected to some bad stuff at the last football game in Hartford. This is all regrettable, as BC was one of the BE Schools as you probably are aware that voted " yes " for Uconn's admittance to the BE, and lately,under their new AD Bates, have reinstated the playing of basketball with Uconn even though Uconn has dominated BC in basketball for decades. So its not like BC " is scared "of athletic competition with Uconn in my view.. Leahy's decision has nothing at all to do with football competition and being scared of Uconn football. The same with Syracuse, and the same with the other ACC schools. Its frankly got nothing to do with UConn football at all, imo. UConn will get their need to play BC in football again fulfilled in time. And it probably will be when the defendants in the lawsuit all all fully retired. They are all getting on in years, so they'll be retiring, the same as Blumenthal, Calhoun, etc... then it will happen, imo. Just be patient, thats all.

So Leahy was so upset about the lawsuit and his name attached to it that he was okay if BC played UConn in every other sport (basebal, softball, soccer, women's hoops, etc...), and supported UConn to Hockey East, but drew the line at Football.... because of the lawsuit.... got it.

Yawkey, it has everything to do with BC trying to keep whatever edge they can over UConn football. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BC1978]

So Leahy was so upset about the lawsuit and his name attached to it that he was okay if BC played UConn in every other sport (basebal, softball, soccer, women's hoops, etc...), and supported UConn to Hockey East, but drew the line at Football.... because of the lawsuit.... got it.

Yawkey, it has everything to do with BC trying to keep whatever edge they can over UConn football. Nothing more, nothing less.

With all due respect, that wasn't my central point in mentioning the lawsuit. My point was that schools will be aggressive in defending their investments. In Uconn's case, they were part of an effort that, if successful would have harmed BC but would have benefitted the plaintiffs. In BC's case, they are playing the same hard ball. It doesn't matter, that BC and Uconn play in other sports. In those instances it benefits BOTH schools. My limited point is that when circumstances arise where a school perceives its vital interests are at stake, it will act accordingly - hence you have the lawsuit against BC, Miami, and the ACC in 2003-2004 and BC allegedly not supporting Uconn for the ACC.

In the end, emotion has little to do with it. IMO, if the roles were reversed, Uconn would be fighting BC's inclusion in the ACC for the very same reasons. These are business with a lot of $$'s at stake. To pretend otherwise, IMO, is naive.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'm just glad this thread was started so that we can rehash all the BCU crapola all over again.

Nice job Conehead.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

In the end, emotion has little to do with it. IMO, if the roles were reversed, Uconn would be fighting BC's inclusion in the ACC for the very same reasons. These are business with a lot of 's at stake. To pretend otherwise, IMO, is naive.

You're assuming that BC's fight against UConn joing the ACC was a good move for BC athletics. I beg to differ.

 

[BC1978]

You continue to refer to UMass as the second best bball program in New England, which is ridiculous conidering they have not made the tournament since Clinton was president.

As for implying that in fball UMass is to UConn what UConn is to BC, again, ridiculous. UMass has not done anything yet at the Div I- A level. UConn has been to five bowl games, has had multiple winning seasons and has won two conference championships. UConn is much more similar at the moment to BC than to UMass and that is not even debatable.

Umass is the #2 program in NE right now. Who is better? BC? Not for a few years now. IMO, sadly, BC is behind Umass, Harvard, and BU. They are a non-factor in NE BB right now. I may be a BC fan, but I am also a realist and try not to let emotions guide my posts. Facts are facts.

Re: Umass FB. Sure they are not good right now. But they are a new program. The first time BC played Uconn, the pasted them 55-3. But Uconn got better, obviously. The same will hold true for Umass. Again, that's my central point. Uconn will play all the other New England schools who are far less competitive than Umass, but they will not play Umass. Why? IMO, for the same reasons that BC will not play Uconn, there is no incentive for helping a potential rival.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Umass is the #2 program in NE right now. Who is better? BC? Not for a few years now. IMO, sadly, BC is behind Umass, Harvard, and BU. They are a non-factor in NE BB right now. I may be a BC fan, but I am also a realist and try not to let emotions guide my posts. Facts are facts.

Re: Umass FB. Sure they are not good right now. But they are a new program. The first time BC played Uconn, the pasted them 55-3. But Uconn got better, obviously. The same will hold true for Umass. Again, that's my central point. Uconn will play all the other New England schools who are far less competitive than Umass, but they will not play Umass. Why? IMO, for the same reasons that BC will not play Uconn, there is no incentive for helping a potential rival.

Ummmmmm........we played UMass for 10 years and pasted them. I believe we only lost 1 game in the series.

 

[BC1978]

You're assuming that BC's fight against UConn joing the ACC was a good move for BC athletics. I beg to differ.

Well, it would definitely be better for Uconn. BC? They don't think so. In the same way that most assume that UF doesn't want FSU in the SEC, S. Carolina doesn't' want Clemson in the SEC, Georgia doesn't want GT in the SEC, etc., etc.

Uconn doesn't need BC...and BC doesn't need Uconn. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be on opposite sides of this issue. IMO, to suggest otherwise is naive.

 

[SAMCRO]

With all due respect, that wasn't my central point in mentioning the lawsuit. My point was that schools will be aggressive in defending their investments. In Uconn's case, they were part of an effort that, if successful would have harmed BC but would have benefitted the plaintiffs. In BC's case, they are playing the same hard ball. It doesn't matter, that BC and Uconn play in other sports. In those instances it benefits BOTH schools. My limited point is that when circumstances arise where a school perceives its vital interests are at stake, it will act accordingly - hence you have the lawsuit against BC, Miami, and the ACC in 2003-2004 and BC allegedly not supporting Uconn for the ACC.

In the end, emotion has little to do with it. IMO, if the roles were reversed, Uconn would be fighting BC's inclusion in the ACC for the very same reasons. These are business with a lot of 's at stake. To pretend otherwise, IMO, is naive.

BC1978, my post was in response to Yawkey, not yours. He said Leahy preferred to not play UConn due to the lawsuit. I'm calling BS on that rationale since BC plays UConn in most other sports. I generally tend to agree with you point that BC is doing what's in their interest, I just disagree with the BC administration approach and shat I view as small mindedness. A rising tide lifts all ship, BC and UConn could have helped eachother by having a series, insteead BCcan have 30-35K come watch them play UCF or Kent St or whoever they bring in year to year, and UConn can have 30-35K watch them play Buffalo. Makes no sense to me.

 

[SAMCRO]

Well, it would definitely be better for Uconn. BC? They don't think so. In the same way that most assume that UF doesn't want FSU in the SEC, S. Carolina doesn't' want Clemson in the SEC, Georgia doesn't want GT in the SEC, etc., etc.

Uconn doesn't need BC...and BC doesn't need Uconn. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be on opposite sides of this issue. IMO, to suggest otherwise is naive.

Difference is in all your examples above is those schools at least play eachother OOC, and guess what happens, they SELL OUT EVERY GAME

 

[BC1978]

Ummmmmm...we played UMass for 10 years and pasted them. I believe we only lost 1 game in the series.

Yeah, but you haven't played them since what? 2004? 2005? And no future games scheduled? (And they did beat Uconn in one of the last two games you played). Question: why is Uconn no longer playing them??

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well, it would definitely be better for Uconn. BC? They don't think so. In the same way that most assume that UF doesn't want FSU in the SEC, S. Carolina doesn't' want Clemson in the SEC, Georgia doesn't want GT in the SEC, etc., etc.

Uconn doesn't need BC...and BC doesn't need Uconn. If the roles were reversed, all of us would be on opposite sides of this issue. IMO, to suggest otherwise is naive.

You're comparing apples to garage door openers. Neither UF, S. Carolina, or UGA are geographic outliers in their conference. It would've made good business sense for BC to have a regional in conference rival. The results since the move (excluding the first year or 2 when you had Matt Ryan) speak for themselves.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Yeah, but you haven't played them since what? 2004? 2005? And no future games scheduled? (And they did beat Uconn in one of the last two games you played). Question: why is Uconn no longer playing them??

Clearly because we are afraid of them after drubbing them in 9 out of 10.

 

[BC1978]

BC1978, my post was in response to Yawkey, not yours. He said Leahy preferred to not play UConn due to the lawsuit. I'm calling BS on that rationale since BC plays UConn in most other sports. I generally tend to agree with you point that BC is doing what's in their interest, I just disagree with the BC administration approach and shat I view as small mindedness. A rising tide lifts all ship, BC and UConn could have helped eachother by having a series, insteead BCcan have 30-35K come watch them play UCF or Kent St or whoever they bring in year to year, and UConn can have 30-35K watch them play Buffalo. Makes no sense to me.

Samco, I guess where I would disagree is that neither BC or Uconn really need each other. In Uconn's case, they need to continue scheduling and staring to beat the really big guys. Can you imagine the electricity in CT, if Uconn had held on and beaten Michigan this past season. Think your ND win X 100! Might have changed the trajectory of your season. For BC, they need to get back and start beating the ND's, FSU's, and Clemson's of the world - something they were doing just a few years ago. Games against BC and Uconn just don't have the same juice, IMO, and won't move the needle for either program.

 

[ZooCougar]

Samco, I guess where I would disagree is that neither BC or Uconn really need each other. In Uconn's case, they need to continue scheduling and staring to beat the really big guys. Can you imagine the electricity in CT, if Uconn had held on and beaten Michigan this past season. Think your ND win X 100! Might have changed the trajectory of your season. For BC, they need to get back and start beating the ND's, FSU's, and Clemson's of the world - something they were doing just a few years ago. Games against BC and Uconn just don't have the same juice, IMO, and won't move the needle for either program.

We might have kept Paul Pasqualoni. That would be bad.