UConn @ BC -- 9/10/16?

[Yawkey Way]

A BC fan claiming UConn killed the Big East is rich. Leahy's hands are still stained red. Did he ever get rid of the knife?

I think Leahy might've given that knife then to Hathaway. Hathaway sliced and diced the Uconn football program to shreds by going out and hiring the over the hill Pasqualoni that was no longer good enough even for the ' Cuse. PP was worse than even BC's Frank Spaziani by the time Father Time caught up to Passthesalami. Will Diaco turn the Uconn football program around ? Perhaps he will. Time will tell.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I was on that train.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Well, its true...., BC CAN hold onto a share of a national football title ( beating Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl to go undefeated ) and Uconn can hold on to its loss in a Fiesta Bowl to finish out of the Top 25. But... whats the point you are attempting to make here with this ?

That you are bragging about something that happened prior to Pearl Harbor?[/QUOTE]
Thats right. Football National Titles ( even shared ones ) are honored no matter if it was 2014 or 1896. We do a disservice to those that accomplished undefeated seasons and ( shared ) National Titles by not doing so. Do the NY Yankees fans here disregard the accomplishments of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, and the NY Yankees great teams THAT WERE OVER A DECADE BEFORE PEARL HARBOR ? You tell me, if they want to dismiss the Babe, Gehrig, et el, and these legendary Yankees and their Titles because of some arbitrary date. Good luck with THAT, my friend.

 

[The Viking]

That you are bragging about something that happened prior to Pearl Harbor?

Thats right. Football National Titles ( even shared ones ) are honored no matter if it was 2014 or 1896. We do a disservice to those that accomplished undefeated seasons and ( shared ) National Titles by not doing so. Do the NY Yankees fans here disregard the accomplishments of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, and the NY Yankees great teams that were over a decade BEFORE Pearl Harbor ? You tell me, if they want to dismiss the Babe, Gehrig, et el, and these legendary Yankees and their Titles because of some arbitrary date. Good luck with THAT, my friend.[/QUOTE]
You're right, that was harsh.
Tell me, who recognizes BC as national champions in 1940? Because I know the NCAA does not.

 

[The Viking]

Can someone help me find Boston College on this last of NCAA national champions? My search function keeps coming up empty.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

 

[primus74]

Great thread. I think it would be great for both fan bases to play. Look how fired up everyone is getting in this one thread. It would make for a great time, assuming no knuckleheads throw things or get in fights.

A few things about UConn destroying the BCS. Sure UConn lost badly that day. Was it a down year for the BE? Absolutely. But, why focus on 1 year? That's just myopic. Over the course of the 15 or so years of the BCS, the BE did very well. They had a much better record than the ACC and that even includes post-2004 when Miami and VA Tech left and then BC a year later.

Getting back to the Fiesta Bowl game against Oklahoma, they were fired up for that game and came out and played great with more talent than UConn had. If memory serves me right, Coach Stoopes said in an interview before the game that they were in no way overlooking UConn. Remember that they had just recently had embarrassing BCS losses in the Fiesta Bowl to Boise St and WVU. Also, that same year, the ACCs BCS representative, VA Tech, lost to Stanford by the same margin of 28 points.

I sure hope this UConn-BC happens. I think it would be great for New England. The schools already face each other in hockey and lots of Olympic sports each year. Why not football and men's and women's basketball as well?

 

[Yawkey Way]

Can someone help me find Boston College on this last of NCAA national champions? My search function keeps coming up empty.

http://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

Cliff Morgan, Ray Byrne... Coaches poll. But the 1940 Coaches poll was not considered in the voting until 1950. BC finished undefeated at 11-0, beating previously #1 ranked Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. Remember this is 1940, and its undeniably true that there is anti catholic biases in these things back then. So does the NCAA of 1940 recognize BC as the National Champion for 1940 ? No. They have Minnesota as the National Champion for 1940. I am willing to accept that Minnesota is the NCAA's version of the 1940 National Champion. I also am willing to accept BC as the shared National Champion for that season. Thats how modern day NCAA would do it. If a team today was undefeated and beat the #1 team in the New Years Sugar Bowl, you can bet your life the modern day NCAA would acknowledge that undefeated Sugar Bowl Champion as its National Champion... or at the very least, the " shared " National Champion for doing so. So saying BC " shared " the National Title in 1940 seems a reasonable settlement to this, imo.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

I came here in peace, but if this is turning into a good ole fashioned game of poke-the-other-guy-in-the ribs, I suppose I'll play.

Yes, BC never played in a BCS game. BUT the BCS was only around for 16 years. BC has been playing football for 123. Seems kind of silly to say that UConn's best season was better than BC's best season by disregarding 90% of BC's history.

1.) BC has a shared national championship in 1940. UConn has never sniffed anything like that.

3) UConn's appearance in a BCS Bowl was such a blackeye for the sport, such an intolerable embarrassment, that as soon as possible the powers-that-be changed the rules to ensure that no "Big East" "champion" would ever get an auto-bid ever again. That's right, the fact that UConn snuck into a BCS Bowl destroyed the Big East.

*** I really hope this game happens. This is getting fun! ***

Time to get some gasoline and a match…

OK, BC claims it won the national championship in 1940. In 1940, the polls weren’t unified yet. BC was selected by 2 guys, Cliff Morgan & Ray Byrne, as the national champions. Tennessee, even after losing the Sugar Bowl to BC, somehow was also voted #1 in a pair of different polls. Stanford, which was 10 – 0, was voted #1 by 3 polls. Minnesota, which went 8 – 0, was first in 10 polls, including the AP, which was the most closely watched of the time and had BC at #5. So, pardon me, put I would put a massive asterisk next to that national champion.

As for history, looks like BC has gone to 24 Bowls since 1938, which works out to 31% of the time. UConn began transitioning to D1A in 2000 became Bowl eligible in 2002 and joined the Big East in 2004. So from 2002, UConn has been to 5 Bowls, which works out to 38% of the time. And UConn has a BCS Bowl under its belt.

Yes, UConn was beaten by Oklahoma in the 2011 Fiesta Bowl by a score of 48 to 20; but, it was just 20 to 10 at half and 34 to 20 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Oklahoma was simply the better team and wore UConn down at the end highlighted by a few poor turnovers. Why does the media (plus BC and Syracuse fans) make such a big deal of UConn losing in the Fiesta Bowl? In 1999, BC was crushed by a 7 & 5 Colorado team by a score of 62 to 28 after falling behind 45 to 7 at the Half. In 2013, an 8 & 5 Arizona team beat BC 42 to 19. Not once after each loss did someone say that BC was an embarrassment and should never be allowed to play in a bowl game again. Heck, last year Oregon ripped Florida St 59 to 20 in the Rose Bowl/Semi-Final; but, no one in the media screams that the Seminoles should have never been in the game in the first place.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

A BC fan claiming UConn killed the Big East is rich. Leahy's hands are still stained red. Did he ever get rid of the knife?

Agree, BC was not the only reason the Big E failed. The fools in Providence brought the wood for bonfire that the old Big E became, not inviting Penn St for example; but, BC brought the matches.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Uconn has never beaten BC in football... in over a dozen tries.. Will they someday ? Who knows. Maybe they will. Uconn is attempting to move up to the stature of a BC, and many of its fans obsess over this quest to supplant BC as the dominant football program in New England some day in the future. I would like to see Uconn get its chance... and soon.... to win or lose again to BC.

 

[The Viking]

Cliff Morgan, Ray Byrne... Coaches poll. But the 1940 Coaches poll was not considered in the voting until 1950. BC finished undefeated at 11-0, beating previously #1 ranked Tennessee in the Sugar Bowl. Remember this is 1940, and its undeniably true that there is anti catholic biases in these things back then. So does the NCAA of 1940 recognize BC as the National Champion for 1940 ? No. They have Minnesota as the National Champion for 1940. I am willing to accept that Minnesota is the NCAA's version of the 1940 National Champion. I also am willing to accept BC as the shared National Champion for that season. Thats how modern day NCAA would do it. If a team today was undefeated and beat the #1 team in the New Years Sugar Bowl, you can bet your life the modern day NCAA would acknowledge that undefeated Sugar Bowl Champion as its National Champion... or at the very least, the " shared " National Champion for doing so. So saying BC " shared " the National Title in 1940 seems a reasonable settlement to this, imo.

The NCAA did not recognize then and it does not recognize now Boston College as a champion or a co-champion or a shared champion. They have had 75 years to re-assess and they have chosen not to. Stop with the non-sense.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

If I choose to believe that it is appropriate for BC to schedule Harvard and Uconn to schedule Yale once every decade or two, that is my opinion. If you believe that neither Uconn or BC should ever play an Ivy school that is in their state, that is your opinion, and I can respect that opinion of yours as well.

Actually, the reason why BC and UConn should never play an Ivy League team is for safety. The physical skill, size and training that a P5 football program has today (UConn is a P5 level school according to the B1G and UConn's football practices facilities are a lot better than what BC has today) if far greater than what the Ivy's have. Yes, a few players on an Ivy team maybe able to compete with a p5 team; but many cannot and they are going to get hurt.

Its similar to why the public high schools in Jersey refuse to play the power Catholics anymore. Eastside (Patterson) threatened to forfeit its game against Don Bosco Prep this year because in 2014 they lost 56 to 6 with Eastside suffering 12 injuries, several of which were season-ending.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Agree, BC was not the only reason the Big E failed. The fools in Providence brought the wood for bonfire that the old Big E became, not inviting Penn St for example; but, BC brought the matches.

Miami " brought the matches ". BC was committed to the BE, only so long as Miami stayed in the league. BC believed that the league would collapse if it lost Miami. Once Miami informed BC it was going to leave the BE, BC saw the handwriting on the wall, and decided to prepare itself to leave. ( even tied to get Syracuse to go then too... but Boeheim at the time was insistent on not leaving the BE). But it was Miami that set the dominos in motion... not BC. And Tranghese, the BE commish was caught up in the Basketball interests.

 

[The Viking]

Your boy Leahy didn't want Louisville in the Big East because he believed in academics. And then he allows them to scoot in over a much better academic instituion 10 years later.

Your thoughts?

 

[Yawkey Way]

The NCAA did not recognize then and it does not recognize now Boston College as a champion or a co-champion or a shared champion..

Perhaps you did not read my remarks on this above. If you had, there would be no apparent reason for you to reply in this fashion.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Your boy Leahy didn't want Louisville in the Big East because he believed in academics. And then he allows them to scoot in over a much better academic instituion 10 years later.

Your thoughts?

BC voted " yes" for West Virginia ( and Uconn's )admittance to the BE years earlier.... so " academics " was never an issue on who gets into these leagues and who does not. I would hope you would know this by now too. The NCAA , coaches, etc talks about " student- athletes ", and " academics " too on why they make the policies they do. Do you you believe them too ? You tell me. Does ND sign network TV contracts based upon the academic considerations of its " student athletes " ? You also can tell me. I say that Father Benjamins makes his rounds without fail each and every day in bigtime college football decision making.

 

[The Viking]

He is a president who has a voice at the table and he was in fact upset with the possible addition of Louisville after VT and Miami left. Granted his voice was just one and he was unable to curb the addition back then but we know where his allegiance was when the time came to pick Louisville over a top 20 national public university. It was not with the greater academic school.

How do you think Father is enjoying his Louisville companions now with their "hooker shows" on campus?

 

[Yawkey Way]

Actually, the reason why BC and UConn should never play an Ivy League team is for safety. .

If " safety" is the issue of primary concern, then perhaps no school should permit College Football on their campus. As for FBS playing FCS shools, while the scores tend to be lopsided, there is no data that shows that any more injuries are suffered in these games than when teams play teams from similar divisions. Uconn played Yale not that long ago. I don't recall Yale suffering any more serious injuries beyond the their fragile egos in the tilt.

 

[Yawkey Way]

i

How do you think Father is enjoying his Louisville companions now with their "hooker shows" on campus?

Thats probably for you to contemplate here ( or other Catholics here ), as I am not a Catholic. Besides, there are lots of secular Presidents of secular US Colleges and Universities that are the worst filth in the Country, imo. But we are talking college football here, so I really don't care what school presidents are doing or saying. But if that angle is important to you, thats cool and all as well. But I really have no interest on what BC's School President or any other School President for that matter thinks about " hooker shows on campus ".

 

[CAHUSKY]

. Remember this is 1940, and its undeniably true that there is anti catholic biases in these things back then.

To be fair, after reading your posts in this thread, I have a huge anti Catholic bias tonight. And I'm a Catholic.

 

[Yawkey Way]

To be fair, after reading your posts in this thread, I have a huge anti Catholic bias tonight. And I'm a Catholic.

Go to confession and beg for forgiveness then ... who knows, perhaps you'll feel better after you rid yourself of this anti catholic demonic hold upon you ( lol!) As for me, I'm now off to bed now to give my keyboard a well needed rest.

 

[Waquoit]

How do you think Father is enjoying his Louisville companions now with their "hooker shows" on campus?

You don't think Lyin' Leahy enjoyed his own hooker shows back in the day?

 

[Waquoit]

And you finished the year UNRANKED. Again, before you say anything about BC football, finish with a ranking at least once. Any ranking will do. Not even going to require you to finish with a Top 10 ranking (like BC has 4 times).

I've been to Yale, home of the most college championships, and I say your program is a joke. Given every advantage and in your best year you are no better than the common ruck. And has spent any political capital they had on blackballing UConn. What a bunch of losers. Even lost to UConn in hockey.

 

[Nostical]

Where's the wisdom of Rodney King when we need it?

 

[BugsyCT]

Actually, I wouldn't trade our BCS bowl loss to OU in for any semi-recognized national title in 1940. At least the majority of us got to watch it and enjoy the fact that they were participating in it it in our lifetime. (can't speak for everyone - some of you were around before 1940 that might still remember that).

Don't really care about national perception about not belonging there, but that's just me. We were in that bowl game because we did what was required to be in that bowl game - won the Big East (and beat the 2 teams head-to-head that we finished tied with). Disagree with it? Then they should have changed the rules. Did Pitt belong in the Fiesta Bowl in 2004 when they got stomped by Utah? Maybe, maybe not, but they met the requirements to be there.