Toldedo newspaper: UConn success Clouds B1G pick | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Toldedo newspaper: UConn success Clouds B1G pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
junglehusky said:
I have to disagree, as long as UVA, UNC, Duke and even Florida State are in the ACC, UConn would do very well to associate with these schools to attract out-of-state students to apply to UConn when they are applying to those schools. They are high level, Research-I universities just as the Big Ten universities are, but those states are in the same time zone, and have growing demographics / economies. If the ACC invites UConn before the B1G does, UConn will accept at the drop of a hat. (It should go without saying that the reverse is true too). The only thing, and I mean the ONLY THING that would cause Uconn to hesitate would be if UVA and UNC have left for other conferences.
Expand ...
UVA and UNC are not leaving for anywhere. They are both banking on ND as a half member in football being the final piece of the puzzle to step up ACC football.
 
MSNDfan said:
UVA and UNC are not leaving for anywhere. They are both banking on ND as a half member in football being the final piece of the puzzle to step up ACC football.
Expand ...
I don't think they are leaving either. Just saying that if TuxedoYoda & other B12's fantasies come true then, and only then would UConn hesistate about joining an unstable ACC (which would basically be the old Big East).
 
dayooper said:
I think it's also a problem that there has never been a team to rally around. The predominant schools in the Greater NYC area either don't play, or just started playing big time college football in past couple of decades.

NYU - No football team
St. Johns - No Football
SUNY Stony Brook (On Long Island and Manhattan) - FCS Football
Cornell - FCS
Rutgers - Periodic success mixed with bad football. Only playing major football since the 1970's
UConn - Only playing D1 football for about 20 years
Syracuse - Too far away and haven't won enough
Suny Buffalo - LOL

More than rooting for their "home" teams, New Yorkers want a winner. If UConn or Rutgers were to win something (like UConn has in BB) New Yorkers will make them their team.
Expand ...

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the New York sports market by many. This is a pro sports town that has some college basketball history.

New Yorkers care more about the Giants, Jets, Mets, Yankees, Knicks and Rangers. They will go on for days about Eli, ARod, Jeter, why the Knicks still suck etc.
 
freescooter said:
You left out Army, which has history but no recent success to speak of. They were in many ways New York's team through the 60s. the combination of the Viet Nam War and bad football pushed them off the stage. And with respect to Rutgers, they have historically played major college football, just not very well. Like a lot of people, you confuse their historic opponents with what they are today. divisions were much less stringent before 1975 or so. Until the mid-70s schools like the Patriot League members, and the Ivies were all considered "University division." Heck, Coast Guard played in the Tangerine Bowl in the 1960s. Rutgers and BC were sort of similar. They were more or less MAC-level football schools in the 1960s and early 70s. Also, I guess you have a different definition of periodic success than most of the world.
Expand ...

If RU's success is only periodic, what is UCONN's... since RU has had more overall wins, and a better winning percentage than UCONN...and less losing seasons than UCONN? Please answer that. You talk as if UCONN has had a more successful history than Rutgers, and that is flat out false.

RU has not historically played major college football. For the first 100 years or so, our biggest rivals were the IVY's , Colgate, Lehigh, Swarthmore, etc. Only in 1980 did we go full scholarship.
 
.-.
Duncan Idaho said:
no. you were D1 prior to 1979. The schedule wasn't that great and transitioning but you had the scholarships. You were ranked top 20 in '76.
Expand ...

We were not in the same category as D1A back then.We were only ranked that year because we were undefeated. We were not full funded scholarship-wise, or program support-wise. We played in a 20,000 seat stadium, and played similar schools to us back then...including UCONN.

Yes, we offered some scholarships, but so did UCONN then. Does that mean you were also D1? Did you see the schedule we played that year? Every team was a D1AA team, even though they were not called D1AA back then.
 
Hoops is important on the east coast and the B1G will have no compelling east coast rivalries in hoops. Rutgers vs. Maryland and/or vs. Penn State games are not interesting enough in hoops to compete with the ACC for east coast attention. From my mega-homer perspective, it seems obvious that adding a UConn - Maryland rivalry to the the B1G East portfolio would lift all B1G boats in the region. I also think the refrain that realignment is only about football is too simple. Rivalries build conferences. From hoops rivalries, football rivalries follow.

Plus, we could kick Indiana's @$5 for an out of town @$5 kicking.

Jimmy D, hook us up B1G brother. For all your peoples!
 
Last edited:
freescooter said:
You left out Army, which has history but no recent success to speak of. They were in many ways New York's team through the 60s. the combination of the Viet Nam War and bad football pushed them off the stage. And with respect to Rutgers, they have historically played major college football, just not very well. Like a lot of people, you confuse their historic opponents with what they are today. divisions were much less stringent before 1975 or so. Until the mid-70s schools like the Patriot League members, and the Ivies were all considered "University division." Heck, Coast Guard played in the Tangerine Bowl in the 1960s. Rutgers and BC were sort of similar. They were more or less MAC-level football schools in the 1960s and early 70s. Also, I guess you have a different definition of periodic success than most of the world.
Expand ...

Before 1974 (the year the D2 playoffs started) there was a blur between the divisions. The issue was, during the mid '70's, teams started really putting money into the programs and the divisions really started to separate. "The Middle Conference" had 2 teams that dropped down to division 2 (Lehigh and Layfayette) while Rutgers started giving full scholarships.

As a side, I played D2 football in the '90's and we had scholarships, albeit not full ones. Only 3 or 4 of my teammates had full rides. We had 36 scholarships to split between the 65 or so members of the team. D3 is the division that doesn't award scholarships.
 
buggsy said:
We were not in the same category as D1A back then.We were only ranked that year because we were undefeated. We were not full funded scholarship-wise, or program support-wise. We played in a 20,000 seat stadium, and played similar schools to us back then...including UCONN.

Yes, we offered some scholarships, but so did UCONN then. Does that mean you were also D1? Did you see the schedule we played that year? Every team was a D1AA team, even though they were not called D1AA back then.
Expand ...
mainly because there was no D1A back then. Rutgers, Temple, BC, were sort of like Ohio, Central Michigan, Northern Iowa are today. They were "university division" programs while UConn was "college division." The Ivies were also University Division at the time. Generally speaking the differences were in number of scholarships, facilities but they weren't as big as they are today, at least in this part of the country. For UConn, UMass and the rest of the old Yankee Conference, our "Big" games were an Ivy opponent and usually a lower level "university" level program. For us it was often Rutgers or Temple. For UMass it was BC, Buffalo, sometimes Rutgers. As I said the lines weren't anywhere near as tightly drawn at that time. In the late 60's-70s, the Yankee Conference capped scholarships at 12, in theory 1 for each starter and a kicker was how they arrived at the number, for example. Holy Cross and Temple, who played schedules similar to what Rutgers played, had more as did BC. If you look at those schedules from say 1960-70, they are pretty similar, especially Holy Cross, Rutgers and Temple--a couple of Ivies, a couple of "eastern powers" (i.e. Penn State, Syracuse,Pitt, West Virginia, Army, Navy), a couple of Yankee conference types, and a couple of other locals like Lehigh, Colgate, BU, and each other. BC tended to play more Catholics in those days rather than what are now Patriot League schools. So they played Detroit, Villanova, Marquette before those schools dropped football. Afterwards they replaced them with a bunch of Virginia schools like Richmond, William & Mary and of all places VMI who they played regularly between the late 60s and early 70s.
 
dayooper said:
I think it's also a problem that there has never been a team to rally around. The predominant schools in the Greater NYC area either don't play, or just started playing big time college football in past couple of decades.

NYU - No football team
St. Johns - No Football
SUNY Stony Brook (On Long Island and Manhattan) - FCS Football
Cornell - FCS
Rutgers - Periodic success mixed with bad football. Only playing major football since the 1970's
UConn - Only playing D1 football for about 20 years
Syracuse - Too far away and haven't won enough
Suny Buffalo - LOL

More than rooting for their "home" teams, New Yorkers want a winner. If UConn or Rutgers were to win something (like UConn has in BB) New Yorkers will make them their team.
Expand ...

NYC used to have major college football teams in Princeton and Yale, both easily reached by train, with a smidge of Columbia thrown in. When the Ivy League pulled back from ‘major’ football in the 1950’s, the NFL filled in the gap and has dominated the NYC football scene since. There is a reason that the NY Titans (Jets) were founded in 1959 by the AFL. The loss of Yale and Princeton put into play a large market segment that had not previously followed the NY Giants thus allowing a new pro team to succeed.
 
.-.
junglehusky said:
I don't think they are leaving either. Just saying that if TuxedoYoda & other B12's fantasies come true then, and only then would UConn hesistate about joining an unstable ACC (which would basically be the old Big East).
Expand ...


The ACC will exist as long as UNC wishes for it to exist as there is only a slight chance that the ACC could stay together if UNC bolted for the B1G or SEC. The XII will not exist the moment Texas leaves for the PAC, SEC, or B1G.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
The ACC will exist as long as UNC wishes for it to exist as there is only a slight chance that the ACC could stay together if UNC bolted for the B1G or SEC. The XII will not exist the moment Texas leaves for the PAC, SEC, or B1G.
Expand ...
ODU, Temple, etc, to the ACC. Where else are they going to go? Plenty of schools can reform a Texas-centric conference, as well.

I think we are VERY far from this musical chairs game being over. Way too many schools/markets that are being developed and are not in "power" conferences, in the AAC and the MWC.
 
dayooper said:
They were in "The Middle Three" conference with Lehigh and Lafayette until 1975 and regularly played the Ivy League schools through that period as well. When the division split happened in the mid '70's, they choose to start putting money into their athletics and went D1. They joined the Big East in 1991.
Expand ...

LOL we didn't start putting real money into athletics until 2000. From 1980-2000 we were playing D1 with D1AA funding for 32 sports. Since then we cut 5 sports (men's and women's fencing, men's swimming & diving, men's rowing, men's tennis, ironically rowing and fencing were our most accomplished sports) funding for FB has increased but has increased only marginally for the rest of the sports.
 
blitz8ru said:
LOL we didn't start putting real money into athletics until 2000. From 1980-2000 we were playing D1 with D1AA funding for 32 sports. Since then we cut 5 sports (men's and women's fencing, men's swimming & diving, men's rowing, men's tennis, ironically rowing and fencing were our most accomplished sports) funding for FB has increased but has increased only marginally for the rest of the sports.
Expand ...

Don't forget THE RAC the glorified high school basketball court, I can't wait to see the look and laughs that B1g teams will have when they play at that dump. I don't care how much Rutgers spent, it's still a dump.
 
buggsy said:
Rutgers was a D1AA school just like UCONN until 1979. We made the jump to 1A in the 1980 season.
Expand ...
False. Rutgers was University Division when UConn was College Division in the 70's. Rutgers continued to 1-a when UConn was 1-aa. Rutgers continued to play a mixed schedule for years, however.
 
buggsy said:
If RU's success is only periodic, what is UCONN's... since RU has had more overall wins, and a better winning percentage than UCONN...and less losing seasons than UCONN? Please answer that. You talk as if UCONN has had a more successful history than Rutgers, and that is flat out false.

RU has not historically played major college football. For the first 100 years or so, our biggest rivals were the IVY's , Colgate, Lehigh, Swarthmore, etc. Only in 1980 did we go full scholarship.
Expand ...
We played PoSU in the 20s and Nebraska. But generally the perception about RU is false. Not too many people know anything about RU football or UCONN for that matter.
 
.-.
blitz8ru said:
LOL we didn't start putting real money into athletics until 2000. From 1980-2000 we were playing D1 with D1AA funding for 32 sports. Since then we cut 5 sports (men's and women's fencing, men's swimming & diving, men's rowing, men's tennis, ironically rowing and fencing were our most accomplished sports) funding for FB has increased but has increased only marginally for the rest of the sports.
Expand ...
I think we can all stipulate that Rutgers has been half-assing its attempts at big time college athletics for years.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
The ACC will exist as long as UNC wishes for it to exist as there is only a slight chance that the ACC could stay together if UNC bolted for the B1G or SEC. The XII will not exist the moment Texas leaves for the PAC, SEC, or B1G.
Expand ...

Where would all of the other acc teams go? Same for xii. That's over 20 schools and we would be down to 3 conferences. There is too much demand for regional content to have only 3 conferences left.
 
blitz8ru said:
LOL we didn't start putting real money into athletics until 2000. From 1980-2000 we were playing D1 with D1AA funding for 32 sports. Since then we cut 5 sports (men's and women's fencing, men's swimming & diving, men's rowing, men's tennis, ironically rowing and fencing were our most accomplished sports) funding for FB has increased but has increased only marginally for the rest of the sports.
Expand ...

You are proud of this? Am I reading your response wrong?
 
“But it’s at least a foot in the door in that market and it was the best available option. Even with a program like UConn being the basketball power it is, the Big Ten would still pick Rutgers for the long term.”
Expand ...
I had to stop myself from laughing out loud from this ending line....in what world do these people live in to think that RU is a long term success??? What have they done to even warrant this type of thinking? If anything, they are going to do worse for awhile because they won't be playing anything close to a Big East/AAC schedule. It's going to be much harder. In basketball, well I won't even waste my time with that line of thought....

In the end, either the ACC or the B1G will win the war by signing us up. The ACC would be widely successful at locking up the East Coast with the addition of UConn and would ward off the B1G's attempt to penetrate this region. The B1G would solidify the NYC market by adding UConn. I don't care what sport drives the bus. UConn is a brand across the board and both those conferences are kicking themselves for not taking us. It will be interesting to see what occurs in the next few years. I think with the addition of Diaco, our FB team is going to add to that buyers remorse that those two conferences are having after our 2nd dual NC.
 
Stinger92860 said:
Where would all of the other acc teams go? Same for xii. That's over 20 schools and we would be down to 3 conferences. There is too much demand for regional content to have only 3 conferences left.
Expand ...

In my opinion, the ACC or the XII will not survive next round of conference realignment and it will be driven by UNC or Texas's decision. That would leave 4 major conferences with 16 to 20 schools each. If I had to bet, I would pick to ACC as the survivor.
 
Mr. Conehead said:
In my opinion, the ACC or the XII will not survive next round of conference realignment and it will be driven by UNC or Texas's decision. That would leave 4 major conferences with 16 to 20 schools each. If I had to bet, I would pick to ACC as the survivor.
Expand ...
I agree that the ACC is in a better position....The Big 12 will fall apart once Texas and OU pick up and move. Okie St will likely tag along with OU and someone will join Texas. If they go Pac-12 look for Kansas to go to B1G, WVU maybe to ACC(??? The ACC swallowed a big one academically for Louisville), leaving Baylor, K-State, TCU, Texas Tech, and Iowa St scrambling....The ACC has too many schools that have no where to go that losing FSU, UNC, and probably Clemson won't be the death knell that losing Texas and OU would be for the Big 12.
 
.-.
freescooter said:
When it comes down to it, the Big argument is very similar to what you see politicians say when they screw up. They are realizing that adding Rutgers was a mistake, but they are stuck with the Rutties so what can they say except "we still support our pick," and"We are looking long term." To call Rutgers a dumpster fire is an insult to dumpster fires. There's an old Irish saying, Too cute by half. That describes Jim Delany's Rutgers move. I will say, though, that saying Rutgers was a disaster isn't the same as saying they should have picked UConn. I still believe that the ACC is the most logical and appropriate home for the Huskies. Similar institutions, traditional rivals as well as some not exactly traditional one but rivals none the less. If you don't think Duke and North Carolina care what UConn basketball does, you haven't met a Duke or UNC fan.
Expand ...
I've met a lot of both and they don't. The only thing Duke fans KNOW is that Langdon was fouled.
 
This guy just said the B1G did make the right decision in taking RU over Uconn. http://www.landgrantholyland.com/20...ig-ten-shouldnt-have-added-uconn-over-rutgers
This quote is a classic "in terms of pure, New York City, ahem, footprint, if the Nate Silver study is to be believed, there are four times as many Rutgers fans in the area, and given the terrible performance of UConn on the football field as of late, there is little reason to suggest that has dramatically changed. Given that football revenue vastly outpaces that of basketball, the Huskies' domination in basketball wouldn't be enough to justify a bump up in league. By virtually every other metric, the Huskies lag behind."
 
I don't see this as being really complicated. The B1G took Rutgers over UCONN because of market size and POTENTIAL share. If Rutgers uses the B1G affiliation to improve its abysmal athletic programs then it is logical to assume that given its huge market POTENTIAL, Rutgers will grow its following significantly.

I see one major obstacle to realizing on all this POTENTIAL. To grow their following and market share Rutgers will need on field and court performance. They will need to win. The big problem there of course is that they never do. In fact, whenever a little success comes their way they always manage to screw up and take multiple steps backwards. And sure, football is a lot more important than basketball, but when you can't put 1,000 fannies in your gym for a men's hoops game I think that is pretty symptomatic of something very, very wrong.

And do not mistake growing one's market share for big draws from Michigan and Ohio fans. That's market share the B1G already has from the great traveling fan base of those programs. You could play those games in New Jersey or Wyoming, doesn't matter, those folks are coming no matter what.

Bottom line. UCONN wins and football, even with the debacle under Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, has been a dramatic success given it's recent entry into big-time football.

UCONN will continue to win....it always does. Rutgers will continue to lose.....it always does.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,333
Messages
4,564,911
Members
10,464
Latest member
Rollskies27


Top Bottom