Rumor: A lot of big east teams to leave

[BlueMAB]

Another very real possibility could have been the ACC wanted to make a pre-emptive move to block the B1G and Big 12 from expanding east, so they took the two most logical B1G and Big 12targets that they (the ACC) was interested in themselves.

Which is why they are more valuable than UConn, and why we sit on the outside looking in. The wealth in the state of CT is completely irrelevant. (see my first post in this thread, page 2 if you don't understand the reference).

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Which is why they are more valuable than UConn, and why we sit on the outside looking in. The wealth in the state of CT is completely irrelevant. (see my first post in this thread, page 2 if you don't understand the reference).

This scenario proves they're more valuable in terms of a timing perspective, not necessarily in terms of an overall value perspective. None of the Big East teams are/were slam dunk candidates for the ACC or anyone, so there isn't a school that another conference is going to say, we have to have them NOW, no questions asked.

 

[HuskyHawk]

8ullsh1t

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

 

[UConnJim]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsm...-big-east-schools-in-mens-basketball-revenue/

Orangehomer - You need to study the stats to see how flawed the article is. Each school uses different accounting, so the numbers aren't comparable. The top 5 sports men's sports revenue generators (total revenues is probably the least flawed number) in the BE are:

1) Louisville $63.5 mill.
2) UConn $58.5 mill.
3) Rutgers $55.6 mill.
4) Syracuse $49.3 mill.
5) Pittsburgh $49.2 mill.

According to this article, UConn's men's basketball generates $7.8 mill. in revenues and UConn's football generates $14.4 mill. in revenues for a total of $22.2 mill in revenues. Yet, UConn's total men's revenues are $58.5 mill.! Doesn't make any sense.

 

[jpm25]

8ullsh1t

which part?

 

[BlueMAB]

No matter the thread, FUCRE is a .500 coach with exactly one win against a ranked opponent, and losing record against BCS competition.

Yes, when you say he is a .500 coach without mentioning the program he took over, the challenges we faced in upgrading, in recruiting, in competing with more established programs, in playing teams when we had fewer scholarship players, etc, you are definitely putting our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context. Nothing says pride and historical, fact-driven context like criticizing a .500 record for a guy taking UConn from the Yankee Conference to a BCS conference, and winning two conference championships in the process. Something our peers in NJ have never done, despite the recruiting advantage and 30 year head start.

 

[upstater]

upstater-

Again, I find it hard to believe that 11 of the 12 schools wanted UConn, and instead they took Quse/Pitt just because BCU was against it. And it has nothing to do with how the EU, or UN, or NATO, or your high school model UN operates.

A veto is a veto. You find it hard to believe one program could blackball another. I don't.

 

[BlueMAB]

This scenario proves they're more valuable in terms of a timing perspective, not necessarily in terms of an overall value perspective. None of the Big East teams are/were slam dunk candidates for the ACC or anyone, so there isn't a school that another conference is going to say, we have to have them NOW, no questions asked.

They are more valuable to the ACC in an overall perspective because adding them hurt the Big 10's options for expansion. UConn wouldn't have done that.

"Timing" is but one aspect, along with football, basketball, location, market, academics....etc. They all add up to value. Picking and choosing which ones to rely on in making the argument we are more valuable is pointless. It's the whole of them that matters, and it's why we aren't in the ACC........ yet.

 

[Uptop]

It doesn't say "only" Louisville, it just says Louisville. I have to imagine that any Presidents interested in rebuilding are going to demand a commitment with some teeth in it, effectively almost immediately.

Waylon, Air Force plays at Navy Saturday and the Presidents meet Sunday. Any relation to possible bids being extended this weekend or strickly a coincidence?

 

[UConnJim]

Blaudschun has excellent contacts in the Big East, including Calhoun. Although he covers BC, I don't think he has the best ACC contacts, relative to reporters in North Carolina, and he is generally considered a pro-Big East guy by most BC fans. Thus, I would believe his comments related to the BE, but I would be skeptical of his comments related to what the ACC is thinking or doing.

 

[BlueMAB]

A veto is a veto. You find it hard to believe one program could blackball another. I don't.

If there was no vote, why was there a veto?

Don't put words in my mouth.

If UConn was so clearly the front runner, then I find it hard to believe the other 11 schools couldn't convince BCU that UConn was in the conference's best interest, and BCU would be wise to be a team player.

 

[BlueMAB]

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

That comment was not for you. It was for the guy who thinks he provides context by pointing out Edsall was a .500 coach at UConn, while ignoring the fact that record includes games played while we were upgrading and playing with fewer scholarship players.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

You're right, sort of. All of this expansion has little to do with things that happened 25+ years ago, but about how you're doing now, and more importantly, how many people are going to tune in on TV and watch you.

Washington has four titles, only one of which is recognized by any real source - USA Today/Coaches, and none are recognized by the AP or other commonly accepted sources. By these standards of using obscure ranking sources, Oregon and TCU were also national champions last year, Missouri and USC were in 2007, and Boise State won in 2006. They also did not go to a bowl from 2002 until 2010, and have not won a Pac-10 title since 2000. Sure, we don't have such a resume in our past, but if you put us head to head over the last 10 years, it's a far more even comparison.

Syracuse, much the same, has success from even farther back. Sure, Ernie Davis is a legend, and his Heisman win is a huge accomplishment for the program. That Cotton Bowl win over Texas was also huge for the program - in 1959 when it happened. But the ACC did not say "Oh wow, they won a Heisman and a national title 50 years ago, we can't pass this team up." If that were the standard, the ACC and the Big 10 would be lining up to take Army.

In terms of success on the field, unless your program is legitimately a blue blood, your isolated year or two of success from 25 years ago is not going to be much of a factor in expansion. Syracuse was not taken by the ACC for their football accomplishments on the field. They were taken because of a large alumni base in NYC who will flip on the TV. And make no mistake, they're by and large no flipping on the TV to watch Syracuse football first.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Orangehomer - You need to study the stats to see how flawed the article is. Each school uses different accounting, so the numbers aren't comparable. The top 5 sports men's sports revenue generators (total revenues is probably the least flawed number) in the BE are:

1) Louisville $63.5 mill.
2) UConn $58.5 mill.
3) Rutgers $55.6 mill.
4) Syracuse $49.3 mill.
5) Pittsburgh $49.2 mill.

According to this article, UConn's men's basketball generates $7.8 mill. in revenues and UConn's football generates $14.4 mill. in revenues for a total of $22.2 mill in revenues. Yet, UConn's total men's revenues are $58.5 mill.! Doesn't make any sense.

You haven't been paying the $500 admission price to a hockey game?

 

[jpm25]

Yes, when you say he is a .500 coach without mentioning the program he took over, the challenges we faced in upgrading, in recruiting, in competing with more established programs, in playing teams when we had fewer scholarship players, etc, you are definitely putting our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context. Nothing says pride and historical, fact-driven context like criticizing a .500 record for a guy taking UConn from the Yankee Conference to a BCS conference, and winning two conference championships in the process. Something our peers in NJ have never done, despite the recruiting advantage and 30 year head start.

so then you are the type of guy that says USF's accomplishments taking a team from NO conference, 1AA or otherwise, to a similar place is due to, wait for it, the weather. Fewer scholarship players? Is that what you want to use?

Edsall is a .500 coach - I stand by that. He was a below average (actually the worst) defensive coordinator in the ACC and beat only one ranked opponent in his head coaching career - a team that started its program from scratch in 1997 IN TRAILERS. I have said many times that he was an above average evaluator of talent but an average coach, below average recruiter and spokesperson. My criticism of Edsall does not diminish how I view the program's strides. I did not expect to share two conference championships. I also did not expect our two conference co-champs to fire their coaches because of performance.

Luckily for my argument, Edsall is no longer tethered to the wastland that UConn emerged from with its infinate excuses challanges that you speak of. He now has a team with a history, equal number of scholarships and talented players. He's below .500 and just got his doors blown off by a MAC team, but wait, it has only been a few games - let's give him a chance to fully implement his "multiple" offense so we won't judge until after next year.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You're right, sort of. All of this expansion has little to do with things that happened 25+ years ago, but about how you're doing now, and more importantly, how many people are going to tune in on TV and watch you.

Washington has four titles, only one of which is recognized by any real source - USA Today/Coaches, and none are recognized by the AP or other commonly accepted sources. By these standards of using obscure ranking sources, Oregon and TCU were also national champions last year, Missouri and USC were in 2007, and Boise State won in 2006. They also did not go to a bowl from 2002 until 2010, and have not won a Pac-10 title since 2000. Sure, we don't have such a resume in our past, but if you put us head to head over the last 10 years, it's a far more even comparison.

Syracuse, much the same, has success from even farther back. Sure, Ernie Davis is a legend, and his Heisman win is a huge accomplishment for the program. That Cotton Bowl win over Texas was also huge for the program - in 1959 when it happened. But the ACC did not say "Oh wow, they won a Heisman and a national title 50 years ago, we can't pass this team up." If that were the standard, the ACC and the Big 10 would be lining up to take Army.

In terms of success on the field, unless your program is legitimately a blue blood, your isolated year or two of success from 25 years ago is not going to be much of a factor in expansion. Syracuse was not taken by the ACC for their football accomplishments on the field. They were taken because of a large alumni base in NYC who will flip on the TV. And make no mistake, they don't flip on the TV to watch Syracuse football first.

I don't think we're far off on this. I think Washington is pretty much a blue blood that has fallen on hard times, much like Indiana basketball. Other than USC, and maybe Oregon, in the Pac I'd pick them as most likely to be a strong team in the future.

No, Pitt and Cuse are not blue-bloods. But Pitt has been better than UConn on the field of late, and Syracuse isn't that far removed from some success. Does UConn football turn on TV sets? Remains to be seen. One reason I have advocated that he best move for UConn football is the Big Ten, is that I think UConn vs Michigan, OSU and Penn State does turn on TVs in metro NY and even Boston. I'm not sure that is the case with Miami, VT and FSU. New England and New York markets are disinclined to associate with schools from the former confederate states. It's a fundamental mistake that BC made.

In short, I don't think the ACC can capture the NY market for FB, ever. I think the Big Ten can, especially with ND.

 

[BlueMAB]

so then you are the type of guy that says USF's accomplishments taking a team from NO conference, 1AA or otherwise, to a similar place is due to, wait for it, the weather. Fewer scholarship players? Is that what you want to use?

What accomplishments?

They fired the coach that built the program, they never won a conference championship, never played in a BCS game, have a .500 record against UConn, all with much better recruiting grounds while playing in a pro stadium.

You believe having fewer scholarship players is an excuse for losing, but being located in Florida isn't an advantage for recruiting.

Yes, that's wideley recognized as honest, fact driven criticism.

 

[jpm25]

That comment was not for you. It was for the guy who thinks he provides context by pointing out Edsall was a .500 coach at UConn, while ignoring the fact that record includes games played while we were upgrading and playing with fewer scholarship players.

I excluded the upgrade/transition years - let's just count 1A games since UConn joined the BCS. Same results.

 

[BlueMAB]

I excluded the upgrade/transition years - let's just count 1A games since UConn joined the BCS. Same results.

Thank you for your historical, fact driven context.

from 2003-2010, playing a full 1A schedule UConn went 59-40, 19 games over .500.
take out the one game a year against 1AA teams and UConn went 51-40, 11 games over .500.

Stand by that, but just remember your "historical, fact driven context" is only loosely based on "facts".

 

[jpm25]

What accomplishments?

They fired the coach that built the program, they never won a conference championship, never played in a BCS game, have a .500 record against UConn, all with much better recruiting grounds while playing in a pro stadium.

You believe having fewer scholarship players is an excuse for losing, but being located in Florida isn't an advantage for recruiting.

Yes, that's wideley recognized as honest, fact driven criticism.

1. What accomplishments? 48-29 since joining BCS, 3 wins against ranked opponents, a bowl each year, with 4 bowl wins. Never played in a BCS game, you're right.
2. Again, I excluded UConn's transition years - equal scholarships.
3. USF did not fire their coach for performance
4. Is USF supposed to be better than .500 against UConn? You cannot argue both sides.
5. Now the stadium is a consideration?

So USF has not accomplished anything, but UConn has accomplished a lot. In my view, these are two programs that have enjoyed a very similar amount of success, starting from very similar starting points.

 

[jpm25]

Thank you for your historical, fact driven context.

from 2003-2010, playing a full 1A schedule UConn went 59-40, 19 games over .500.
take out the one game a year against 1AA teams and UConn went 51-40, 11 games over .500.

Stand by that, but just remember your "historical, fact driven context" is only loosely based on "facts".

I counted since joining the Big East - 43-37 or .538

 

[BlueMAB]

I counted since joining the Big East - 43-37 or .538

We went 9-3 against a full D1A schedule the year before.

But that doesn't help your argument so I can see why you would ignore it.

 

[BlueMAB]

1. What accomplishments? 48-29 since joining BCS, 3 wins against ranked opponents, a bowl each year, with 4 bowl wins. Never played in a BCS game, you're right.
2. Again, I excluded UConn's transition years - equal scholarships.
3. USF did not fire their coach for performance
4. Is USF supposed to be better than .500 against UConn? You cannot argue both sides.
5. Now the stadium is a consideration?

So USF has not accomplished anything, but UConn has accomplished a lot. In my view, these are two programs that have enjoyed a very similar amount of success, starting from very similar starting points.

we're 59-40 since the upgrade was complete - equal scholarships.
Basically we're pretty evenly matched....except UConn has 2 conference championships, a BCS bid, and 1 win over a top 25 team. USF has 3 wins over top 25 teams and.......nothing else.

oh wait, they are 4-2 in bowl games and we are 3-2. Yeah, i'd trade two top 25 wins and 1 more bowl bid for 2 conference titles and a bcs bid. both programs only have 1 win over a BCS team in a bowl game by the way.

Yup, pretty even amount of success.

 

[UCHuskies08]

we're 59-40 since the upgrade was complete - equal scholarships.
Basically we're pretty evenly matched....except UConn has 2 conference championships, a BCS bid, and 1 win over a top 25 team. USF has 3 wins over top 25 teams and.......nothing else.

oh wait, they are 4-2 in bowl games and we are 3-2. Yeah, i'd trade two top 25 wins and 1 more bowl bid for 2 conference titles and a bcs bid. both programs only have 1 win over a BCS team in a bowl game by the way.

Yup, pretty even amount of success.

We're pretty even. You're both splitting hairs.

 

[jpm25]

We went 9-3 against a full D1A schedule the year before.

But that doesn't help your argument so I can see why you would ignore it.

I omitted it because it is not apples-to apples. We played only half a schedule against BCS teams, and went .500 in those games. If you would like to include the MAC wins, Edsall is a "better than .500 coach".