This is a fine narrative. I just simply put more weight in the notion that media ran with the idea that UConn had the invite in the bag, but inside the ACC and the bean counters at ESPN that was far from the case. They wanted a larger state, with good potential for long run growth (demographically) and that wasn’t already covered by the existing footprint.
Don’t get me wrong, UConn has plenty of merits to get that last ACC slot, I just think that the truth of the matter is that it came down to a nudge from ESPN and the southern schools wanting a football add.
I think it’s possible if it wasn’t Louisville they might have delayed the decision another month to ponder some other ideas like Cincy.
I’m not looking to be disagreeable or persuade others, just sharing my view of what really went down. I’m not a believer that an all world campaign by Herbst and Warde would have ever changed the football problem and the ESPN bean counter argument.
Its been debated ad nauseam here. What no one here really knows and even the best business analysts at ESPN probably still guess at is the marginal benefit question of UConn vs Louisville. We all can pretend we know here, but I doubt anyone that participates on this board is that deeply knowledgeable about the cable box/cable ad/marginal gain metrics that drive these decisions. Its never been clear that adding UConn would add cable boxes to the ACC platform in a meaningful way given the proximity of BC and Syracuse that largely have the market covered (pains me to say!). Meanwhile Louisville has the potential to add southern Indiana, southern OH and all of Kentucky; three markets that are clearly new to the ACC platform with no internal contenders.They didn’t get a better market.
Louisville had the jump on UConn re sports infrastructure. We had a high school baseball field, they had a nice stadium. Papa Johns was big and growing , we had the Rent which was fine. Louisville was pouring money into athletics, UConn was not. Bottom line, FSU Clemson cabal got their way to rest power from the basketball centric conference.
If we had gotten into ACC state likely would have expanded the Rent and renovated XL Center.I don't buy we ever had a chance at the ACC based on what we offered in terms of infrastructure.. the XL Center, Gampel, The Rent and the facilities for Olympic sports 10 years ago were not enticing and still aren't - at least the first 3. Meanwhile, Louisville renovated their football stadium and built the KFC Yum! Center, we looked and still look small time in comparison to our peers in these areas. It's 2020 now and Gampel just got wifi, the XL Center is still a political landmine with no end in sight and The Rent will need an infusion of funds soon to stay ahead of the curve. Why would the ACC want to marry into that? Look at the hockey arena for instance. We can't even build that in a timely fashion. I doubt Hockey East is thrilled with our ineffectiveness on that front the past few years and has been a headache for them
It's the State of Connecticut you are talking about. Nothing different would have occurred!If we had gotten into ACC state likely would have expanded the Rent and renovated XL Center.
I think it's because people that work at UConn have always been so arrogant. I've always felt that and it was confirmed by Herbst in her first op-ed as UConn president. One of her bullet points was "UConn is not arrogant."Auriemma and Calhoun had such outsized personalities and i always got the sense from other administrators that the institution was difficult to work with. It was never anything specific.