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

[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.

 

[BC1978]

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

Well, you have beaten Umass Lowell, Northeastern, et al, lots of times too, yet you still play them. The fact is Uconn no longer play Umass Amherst. The timing is interesting. To Umass' credit, they have become the #2 program in New England. One might think that it would make sense that Uconn resume playing them. But, again, Uconn doesn't; and I am left with the question: why? Nobody has answered that yet. My hypothesis: it is not in Uconn's best interest at this point, which I completely understand and is central to my main point.

 

[uconndogs]

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.

See, this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. State a position by another party that the party never made and then base your argument around that fictitious position. It's either intentional and dishonest; or you are just incapable of logical discourse.

I'm out. BC board must be a pile of , so enjoy the Boneyard. I've got better things to do than follow homeless BC posters.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Well, you have beaten Umass Lowell, Northeastern, et al, lots of times too, yet you still play them. The fact is your no longer play Umass Amherst. The timing is interesting. To Umass' credit, they have become the #2 program in New England. One might think that it would make sense that Uconn resume playing them. But, again, Uconn doesn't; and I am left with the question: why? Nobody has answered that yet. My hypothesis: it is not in Uconn's best interest at this point, which I completely understand and is central to my main point.

Buddy there are plenty of D1 in state teams we don't play. When we signed on for the 10 game series it was probably at the worst time according to your hypothesis. UConn had everything to lose and nothing to gain. UMass had everything to gain. We pasted them and cemented our status as the premier basketball program in the Northeast. Of course, we did go on to bigger and better things, but it started by showing some testicular fortititude and scheduling UMass at a time where it made no sense to do so (according to you).

So why don't we play them now? Who knows? But I doubt it's because it doesn't make sense for us to do so.

 

[BC1978]

See, this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. State a position by another party that the party never made and then base your argument around that fictitious position. It's either intentional and dishonest; or you are just incapable of logical discourse.

I'm out. BC board must be a pile of , so enjoy the Boneyard. I've got better things to do than follow homeless BC posters.

Intellectual dishonesty? Here is what you said: "BC has deliberately and has stated as such it's desire to keep UCONN out of major college athletics to protect its perceived interests."

My limited point is that BC has done noting of the sort. It probably opposes Uconn coming to the ACC for the very same reasons that other teams oppose nearby teams from joining their conference. Tell me where BC has acted to impair Uconn's ability to get into the BiG?, B12? That was my point. Read my response again,

 

[Carl Spackler]

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.

What's crystal clear, is that UCONN does NOT need anything from Boston College University. UCONN has won multiple championships in all three money making sports in the current century. National chamiponships in basketball programs, and conference titles and bowl games in division 1A football. We've been able to do that, being completely untied from any relationship at all with Boston College University. While we have attendance issues in sports right now, we are not unique in that regard, across the country, and we are not in the painfully embarrassing category of attendance in money making sports that some are in. It has also yet to be shown, in football at least, that a winning program, will not generate box office draw and sold out games. The same can't be said for some programs with a lot more "tradition".

As for Boston College University needing anything from UCONN? I can think of at least one thing, that would benefit BCU from a conference relationship with UCONN - and that is at least one game a year at Conte Forum in basketball that would be sold out.

It's all about football though, and it's just blind ignorance, to think that a UCONN v. BCU football game at either home venue, would not be a regular high volume box office draw, as well as a television ratings draw, regardless of win/loss records. UCONN fans recognize this would be case, as do UCONN administrators....but BCU fans, clearly don't get it, and I can't speak for BCU administrators.

Now go away. Shoo.

 

[PRHusky]

Well, you have beaten Umass Lowell, Northeastern, et al, lots of times too, yet you still play them. The fact is Uconn no longer play Umass Amherst. The timing is interesting. To Umass' credit, they have become the #2 program in New England. One might think that it would make sense that Uconn resume playing them. But, again, Uconn doesn't; and I am left with the question: why? Nobody has answered that yet. My hypothesis: it is not in Uconn's best interest at this point, which I completely understand and is central to my main point.

Are You aware that schedules are set before seasons actually start, sometimes years in advance? UMass is finally having a good season after years of mediocrity. I can all but guarantee you that if they keep it up for at least a couple more seasons we will play them.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Are You aware that schedules are set before seasons actually start, sometimes years in advance? UMass is finally having a good season after years of mediocrity. I can all but guarantee you that if they keep it up for at least a couple more seasons we will play them.

You're conversing with a BCU lackey.....keep that in mind with the level of understanding........

 

[BC1978]

What's crystal clear, is that UCONN does NOT need anything from Boston College University. UCONN has won multiple championships in all three money making sports in the current century. National chamiponships in basketball programs, and conference titles and bowl games in division 1A football. We've been able to do that, being completely untied from any relationship at all with Boston College University. While we have attendance issues in sports right now, we are not unique in that regard, across the country, and we are not in the painfully embarrassing category of attendance in money making sports that some are in. It has also yet to be shown, in football at least, that a winning program, will not generate box office draw and sold out games. The same can't be said for some programs with a lot more "tradition".

As for Boston College University needing anything from UCONN? I can think of at least one thing, that would benefit BCU from a conference relationship with UCONN - and that is at least one game a year at Conte Forum in basketball that would be sold out.

It's all about football though, and it's just blind ignorance, to think that a UCONN v. BCU football game at either home venue, would not be a regular high volume box office draw, as well as a television ratings draw, regardless of win/loss records. UCONN fans recognize this would be case, as do UCONN administrators....but BCU fans, clearly don't get it, and I can't speak for BCU administrators.

Now go away. Shoo.

Carl, just 2 quick points:

I think you overestimate the impact of a BC Uconn FB game - at least at BC. They never sold out when they played at Alumni - and both teams were good at the time.

As far as BB, how will that help BC?? BB at BC is distant third in popularity behind FB and Hockey. BB at Uconn is the top sport. All a Uconn game at Conte will mean is that BC will likely get embarrassed by having more Uconn fans in the stands than BC fans! No thanks! (You see, I am a realist.)

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl, just 2 quick points:

I think you overestimate the impact of a BC Uconn FB game - at least at BC. They never sold out when we played at Alumni - and both teams were good at the time.

As far as BB, how will that help BC?? BB at BC is distant third in popularity behind FB and Hockey. BB at Uconn is the top sport. All a Uconn game at Conte will mean is that BC will likely get embarrassed by having more Uconn fans in the stands than BC fans! No thanks! (You see, I am a realist.)

I didn't write that football games would be sold out, I wrote "high volume draws". Reading comprehension.

....and the truth comes out - I stand by my Doug Flutie short man syndrome comment. BCU over the past 30 years has developed short man syndrome when it comes to anything related to UCONN. If Randy Edsall didn't regularly proverbially wet himself in high pressure situations, UCONN may have had a very good chance to knock off BCU at Chestnut Hill, and that scare, was probably way too much for any BCU fan or administrator to handle.

I'm finished with you. Have a nice day.

 

[BC1978]

You're conversing with a BCU lackey.....keep that in mind with the level of understanding...

Look. my simple question, which no one has answered is why haven't BC and Umass Amherst played in recent years. Uconn has played most other major NE programs multiple times in recent years - usually very one-sided affairs. It probably would not surprise you to believe that many Umass fans feel the same about Uconn re: scheduling as Uconn fans feel about BC.

 

[4BostonEagle]

See, this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty. State a position by another party that the party never made and then base your argument around that fictitious position. It's either intentional and dishonest; or you are just incapable of logical discourse.

I'm out. BC board must be a pile of , so enjoy the Boneyard. I've got better things to do than follow homeless BC posters.

No! You're too hilarious to leave! What will the "homeless" do now? Talk about "internet muscles"!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Look. my simple question, which no one has answered is why haven't BC and Umass Amherst played in recent years. Uconn has played most other major NE programs multiple times in recent years - usually very one-sided affairs. It probably would not surprise you to believe that many Umass fans feel the same about Uconn re: scheduling as Uconn fans feel about BC.

Your "simple question" cannot be answered by anyone on this board unless they are employed within either AD and have direct knowledge of the situation. Any "answer" is pure speculation. Given the history, that we scheduled them for 10 years at a time when it made no sense to do so (according to your idiotic logic) leads me to believe that it's factors other than what you want to believe.

You share the vision of your idiotic AD and have paid a steep price.

 

[ZooCougar]

Look. my simple question, which no one has answered is why haven't BC and Umass Amherst played in recent years. Uconn has played most other major NE programs multiple times in recent years - usually very one-sided affairs. It probably would not surprise you to believe that many Umass fans feel the same about Uconn re: scheduling as Uconn fans feel about BC.

That was part of a scheduling strategy that Jeff Hathaway had. If we were playing an FCS school, he wanted to play former conference mates and share the wealth.

UMass was an FCS when our game with them was scheduled. It turned into FBS game when the decided to upgrade after the game was put on the calendar.

 

[BC1978]

I didn't write that football games would be sold out, I wrote "high volume draws". Reading comprehension.

....and the truth comes out - I stand by my Doug Flutie short man syndrome comment. BCU over the past 30 years has developed short man syndrome when it comes to anything related to UCONN. If Randy Edsall didn't regularly proverbially wet himself in high pressure situations, UCONN may have had a very good chance to knock off BCU at Chestnut Hill, and that scare, was probably way too much for any BCU fan or administrator to handle.

I'm finished with you. Have a nice day.

OK...understand. Just remember that the "little man" that you refer to was the last person offered a BC scholarship in his class. All he did was reverse BC's FB fortunes, beat, Alabama, Clemson, Penn State, Miami (in what was arguably the most famous play in CFB history) and many other programs, electrify the country with his style of play, win the Cotton Bowl and, in the process, drive BC to a #4 finish, set NCAA passing records, and oh, win the Heisman Trophy. He had a long professional career, including one year as an All-Pro in the NFL, and he has been very active in funding the fight against Down Syndrome.

If linking BC to Doug Flutie is the worst thing you can throw at its door, by all means do so!

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

No! You're too hilarious to leave! What will the "homeless" do now? Talk about "internet muscles"!

Things slow on EO?

That was part of a scheduling strategy that Jeff Hathaway had. If we were playing an FCS school, he wanted to play former conference mates and share the wealth.

UMass was an FCS when our game with them was scheduled. It turned into FBS game when the decided to upgrade after the game was put on the calendar.

The idiot is talking about hoops. He's saying we won't play UMass in hoops for the same reason BCU won't play us in football.

Even though we pasted them 9 out of 10 years. Logic and reality escape those in Chestnut Hill.