Uconn in CR

[upstater]

Here is what I know:

Louisville expanded their stadium and sells out their games.

They won two BCS bowls in recent history.

They have a very good coach who is committed to them.

It was enough to vault them over UConn into the ACC even with laughable academics.

So while you guys want to act like there is no difference between UConn and Louisville because of one game last season that's nice - the ACC and most of the rest of the world perceive it differently.

Strawman arguments.

So while you guys want to act like there is no difference between UConn and Louisville because of one game last season that's nice - the ACC and most of the rest of the world perceive it differently.

No one ever said this.

You are impressed way too easily.

How long have you been watching college football?

 

[whaler11]

Strawman arguments.



No one ever said this.

You are impressed way too easily.

How long have you been watching college football?

Yes Upstater people did say exactly that. Louisville was described as middling. I asked what describes UConn and I was told middling.

Some one uses THE EXACT SAME WORD TO DESCRIBE something how is that no one ever said this?

I'm impressed too easily? This coming in an argument where UConn's football program is being compared to Louisville's as similar because of 8 head to head games in conference?

 

[whaler11]

The difference between UConn and Louisville is Teddy Bridgewater.

Sorry but it's really that simple and if you don't believe me then you didn't watch the UConn/UL game or the UL/Florida game.

This type of ridiculous thinking is why Louisville is in the ACC and UConn is in the AAC.

If you can't see the difference in how Louisville approached football and how UConn approaches football you are lost.

One of them has shown that they value it. The other one makes you wonder if they wouldn't just prefer to quit and call it a day.

 

[SubbaBub]

UCONN isn't in the ACC because BC, FSU, Clemson (and presumably now Syracuse) didn't want them, period. All this talk of attendance, wins, (and lol) QB's is just untrue. If you want to say that if we beat OU and sold 50,000 seats per game and FSU and Clemson wouldn't object, then you still have BC (and presumably Syracuse). You'd have to project our program to ND level to make these arguments, in which case we'd be in the B1G.

I don't know why some don't want to believe all the reporting on this.

 

[upstater]

Yes Upstater people did say exactly that. Louisville was described as middling. I asked what describes UConn and I was told middling.

Some one uses THE EXACT SAME WORD TO DESCRIBE something how is that no one ever said this?

I'm impressed too easily? This coming in an argument where UConn's football program is being compared to Louisville's as similar because of 8 head to head games in conference?

Do you know what middling means? There are about 30 programs out there that one would describe as middling. I've never actually tried this, but off the top of my head, I'm assuming 40 are top tier, 30 are middling, 40 are bad. Let me try:

TOP: Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan St., Purdue, North Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Florida St., Miami, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Texas, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Kansas St., Arizona, Arizona St., BYU, Cal., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Oregon St., Notre Dame.

Struggled with Boise St., TCU, Colorado, Utah and Ole Miss. Up or down on these.

MIDDLING: Baylor, Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, BC, Virginia, Maryland, Mississippi St., Cincy, Rutgers, Texas Tech, Kansas, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, NC State, USF, UCF, Nevada, San Diego St., Washington St., Kentucky, Navy, Air Force, etc.

BOTTOM: Temple, the MAC, the Sun Belt, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Baylor, some of the AAC (not all), Army, some of the MWC (not all), all of CUSA.

 

[pj]

Vanderbilt's on the rise. Baylor is middling. Both are ahead of UConn in football.

 

[upstater]

Vanderbilt's on the rise. Baylor is middling. Both are ahead of UConn in football.

Ahead historically? Yes. Now?

You realize UConn has played these teams recently, right?

Vandy has had nothing but losing seasons until last year (in a very tough league, which explains it) but when you look at the OOC for that school, there's nothing there to tell you they'd be better outside it. Yes, Vandy nipped UConn in a game UConn threw away (and which Vandy tried to give back to them multiple times). But UConn blew them out the previous year.

Frankly, I hedged putting Vandy into the middling bracket.

As for Baylor, UConn beat them twice.

For the record, no way do I believe that UConn football is better than Louisville football. 2 years ago, yes. But 2 years ago was a lifetime away.

It's hard to figure out how those 2 programs are better when head-to-head they have losing records, and those losses weren't upsets as the teams were considered even. It's not like UConn upset them as they did Louisville.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Ahead historically? Yes. Now?

You realize UConn has played these teams recently, right?

Vandy has had nothing but losing seasons until last year (in a very tough league, which explains it) but when you look at the OOC for that school, there's nothing there to tell you they'd be better outside it. Yes, Vandy nipped UConn in a game UConn threw away (and which Vandy tried to give back to them multiple times). But UConn blew them out the previous year.

Frankly, I hedged putting Vandy into the middling bracket.

As for Baylor, UConn beat them twice.

For the record, no way do I believe that UConn football is better than Louisville football. 2 years ago, yes. But 2 years ago was a lifetime away.

It's hard to figure out how those 2 programs are better when head-to-head they have losing records, and those losses weren't upsets as the teams were considered even. It's not like UConn upset them as they did Louisville.

college football is a class system. using on the field results to support arguments of which program is better is no different than using cost of tuition, academic rankings, or even mascots as the basis for the arguments.
It's not fair, but its reality.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Vanderbilt's on the rise. Baylor is middling. Both are ahead of UConn in football.

One thing that hurt us tremendously during the decade (spring 2003 - fall 2012) that realignment consumed college sports as we once knew it was that, for the most part, with schools outside of the handful of historic programs the general public believes what they are told and nobody, anywhere, was telling anyone anything about UConn building a solid football program (we were during the bulk of this time period). Rutgers wouldn't stop preaching about the (supposed) fantastic win over Louisville. They got more mileage out of that story than any school has the legitimate right to expect and enough people who couldn't tell Rutgers from Temple bought it hook, line and sinker that they ended up in the B1G.

Both Baylor and Vandy have what appear to be quality HC's but neither school will ever be able to aspire to more than middle of the pack (which may well be outside if Vandy's reach) in their respective conferences. We could very easily have been 4-0 against those schools in recent competition, 3-1 is still something to hold our hat on if you are claiming each is ahead of UConn.

 

[upstater]

college football is a class system. using on the field results to support arguments of which program is better is no different than using cost of tuition, academic rankings, or even mascots as the basis for the arguments.
It's not fair, but its reality.

Are you saying we shouldn't use results? Not certain about your post.

A single head-to-head result is meaningless. I agree with whaler there.

But when coupled with long years of losing records, year-after-year, even in a tough conference, when outside that conference in OOC games you don't show much better, that tends to drag down a program. It highlights the head-to-head measurements in fact. Even in the middling category UConn football is toward the bottom. On the field, I think they've shown that they can beat Baylors and Dukes and Indianas regularly. In games against Virginia and Maryland, they've competed. Wins over South Carolina or Notre Dame or even Louisville don't elevate Uconn over those programs, not even a .667 record against Cuse and Pitt do that.

 

[UConn990411]

The difference between UConn and Louisville is Teddy Bridgewater.

Sorry but it's really that simple and if you don't believe me then you didn't watch the UConn/UL game or the UL/Florida game.

whaler is correct in saying UConn and Louisville are perceived differently by the general public. Those perceptions are based mostly on misperceptions (UConn got blown out in their lone BCS game, when they really didn't), and the fact that Louisville had a better team this year.

But he's very, very wrong when he implies the Louisville and UConn football programs are on different levels. They are, in fact, both middling programs that do nothing to improve the ACC's (deserved) reputation for being a crap football conference.

Louisville's invite was another in a long line of shortsighted decisions by the ACC. Unfortunately for UConn, FSU was calling the shots this time rather than the North Carolina schools.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

If the Rent had 55k seats there would be 16,500 more empty every week.

The inherent difference is their commitment to athletics. When the door opened they knocked UConn out of the way and walked through it.

I keep reading here how there is no difference. Yet, the ACC held their nose on Louisville's academics. The perception elsewhere is different than the perception here. Now maybe that's because people have short memories, but it's like the Big 10 talk here - it only exists in this bubble.

I don't tend to overstate UConn football, i understand clearly where we stand on a national level.

I don't buy the Louisville commitment to athletics is so far greater than UConn argument being a valid one.

They simply made a home run hire in Coach Strong and we were stuck with P.

Go back a few years, as Louisville was going into its 3rd season with Kragthorpe after 6-6 and 5-7, with a pissed off fan base, just like ours now.

Point blank does ville have an overall better football program than UConn, yes because of their history and higher highs.

Perception of the two programs? today, obviously everyone thinks we suck (we do right now) and ville is legitimate (they are).

Just two short years ago, i think people say UConn is solid and growing, where as Ville is looked at as the program that has fallen off a cliff.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with you that Ville is better overall, but the idea they are a world ahead and always will be is solely based on Strong and P.

 

[Dann]

Here is what ppl miss perception wise with Lville. They have climbed and climbed for years. The perception is that they have arrived now with the acc invite but that they can sustain it over time and be a powerhouse athletics wise without fail. That's the image we lack

 

[Marty Jackson]

Are you saying we shouldn't use results? Not certain about your post.

A single head-to-head result is meaningless. I agree with whaler there.

But when coupled with long years of losing records, year-after-year, even in a tough conference, when outside that conference in OOC games you don't show much better, that tends to drag down a program. It highlights the head-to-head measurements in fact. Even in the middling category UConn football is toward the bottom. On the field, I think they've shown that they can beat Baylors and Dukes and Indianas regularly. In games against Virginia and Maryland, they've competed. Wins over South Carolina or Notre Dame or even Louisville don't elevate Uconn over those programs, not even a .667 record against Cuse and Pitt do that.

just stating facts. didn't say it was right.
programs aren't measured by wins and losses. they are measured by tradition, history, final season rankings, recruiting class, coaches salaries, facilities, national championships, pre-season rankings, # of announcers on ESPN, stadium size, conference affiliation, draft picks, current coach, and probably 100 other intangible metrics as well. Tenn hasn't done anything in a long time. Haven't been ranked at the end of the season in even longer. Boise has done everything in their power to prove they are on the level of the big boys including winning games on the field against the big boys. are you really telling me Boise's program is ahead of Tenn?

you can keep touting Uconn's wins. I care because I remember those games and they are big wins to a Uconn fan. Fact is, like it or not Indiana, WF, Baylor, and even Duke are in. they don't have to prove they belong because they already do. Beating them only means that Uconn has proven they can compete with the lowest performing programs of the power conferences. Yeah!!!! I don't see how it helps Uconn in the CR game. I also hope Uconn has their sites a little higher than Indiana or Duke football.

And I'm guessing you do as well.

 

[whaler11]

I don't tend to overstate UConn football, i understand clearly where we stand on a national level.

I don't buy the Louisville commitment to athletics is so far greater than UConn argument being a valid one.

They simply made a home run hire in Coach Strong and we were stuck with P.

Go back a few years, as Louisville was going into its 3rd season with Kragthorpe after 6-6 and 5-7, with a pissed off fan base, just like ours now.

Point blank does ville have an overall better football program than UConn, yes because of their history and higher highs.

Perception of the two programs? today, obviously everyone thinks we suck (we do right now) and ville is legitimate (they are).

Just two short years ago, i think people say UConn is solid and growing, where as Ville is looked at as the program that has fallen off a cliff.

So, I guess I'm agreeing with you that Ville is better overall, but the idea they are a world ahead and always will be is solely based on Strong and P.

I'm merely talking about their commitment to football, not athletics in general. They are vocal and have a presence. Strong found it compelling enough to stay. We couldn't keep Edsall nevermind a Strong.

 

[whaler11]

Here is what ppl miss perception wise with Lville. They have climbed and climbed for years. The perception is that they have arrived now with the acc invite but that they can sustain it over time and be a powerhouse athletics wise without fail. That's the image we lack

This is seriously a crazy thread. Louisville won a men's basketball title, finished 2nd in women's hoops, made the CWS and blew out an SEC team in a BCS bowl over the last 6 months.

They had an athletic department that delivered them to a legitimate conference.

College sports is about perception. The perception is that Louisville is on the rise across the board. The idea that they can't sustain what they have built in football is silly.

The Boneyard might think Louisville football doesn't add more than UConn football, but the football schools in the ACC certainly saw it differently. Yes I know everyone involved with the ACC has been declared incompetent here, but maybe take the blue glasses off for a few seconds and look at what happened, instead of building a narrative around what you think is right.

 

[The Viking]

This type of ridiculous thinking is why Louisville is in the ACC and UConn is in the AAC.

If you can't see the difference in how Louisville approached football and how UConn approaches football you are lost.

One of them has shown that they value it. The other one makes you wonder if they wouldn't just prefer to quit and call it a day.

For all the ballwashing of Jurich - and I do like him a lot - a very simple answer for why we aren't in the ACC is Teddy Bridgewater.

If that little Doug Flutie wannabe runt is under center last year - or even a moderately better version of Flutie runt - than Louisville finishes with 6 wins maybe 7. You could fill the seats all you want and you can value football all you want but the ACC isn't taking a 6 win Louisville over a 5 win UConn. Louisville is a putrid school academically, the greatness of Teddy Bridgewater is what got the ACC to close their eyes and let them in while letting go of their uppity academic standards.

Just as with many things here, things aligned perfectly for Louisville. If Shannon isnt' fired from Miami, Bridgewater doesn't play a snap for the Cards and UConn is in the ACC.

 

[upstater]

just stating facts. didn't say it was right.
programs aren't measured by wins and losses. they are measured by tradition, history, final season rankings, recruiting class, coaches salaries, facilities, national championships, pre-season rankings, # of announcers on ESPN, stadium size, conference affiliation, draft picks, current coach, and probably 100 other intangible metrics as well. Tenn hasn't done anything in a long time. Haven't been ranked at the end of the season in even longer. Boise has done everything in their power to prove they are on the level of the big boys including winning games on the field against the big boys. are you really telling me Boise's program is ahead of Tenn?

you can keep touting Uconn's wins. I care because I remember those games and they are big wins to a Uconn fan. Fact is, like it or not Indiana, WF, Baylor, and even Duke are in. they don't have to prove they belong because they already do. Beating them only means that Uconn has proven they can compete with the lowest performing programs of the power conferences. Yeah!!!! I don't see how it helps Uconn in the CR game. I also hope Uconn has their sites a little higher than Indiana or Duke football.

And I'm guessing you do as well.

We are not talking about the same subjects here. I including Tennessee in the top tier, and waffled about Boise St.
I also didn't rank Uconn higher than a team like Louisville or Cuse or Pitt because of head-to-head wins. But when you tout history or tradition, you seem to totally disregard LOSING history and LOSING tradition. You would think these programs would be able to be an upstart like UConn with all the advantages they have. Why couldn't they? I'll tell you why: because of their tradition of losing. Put it this way: long before I started watching Uconn football, I watched Penn state football, and my perception of these teams was that they were below even the middling level.

Several years ago, after Uconn pounded Indiana twice, the Penn state board was like, "Is Indiana at the point now where even a school with no history like Uconn could pound it into the ground?"

The answers were twofold. One, yes Indiana is now a bottom-tier football school with many empty seats in the stadium, and two, UConn was recruiting some good players and had already surpassed Indiana, even though all the fans (as we saw with Michigan last week) considered Uconn's future capped at that mid-level while also denigrating the level of Indiana football. To recap, it was not a surprise to the majority that UConn pounded Indiana.

What that told me is that the perception of Indiana is bottom-tier, and though the perception of UConn was not much better (at the time) the majority of people thought it wasn't a surprise at all that Uconn could so thoroughly dominate bottom-tier B1G team.

You keep saying I'm highlighting UConn's wins when I'm not. As I said earlier, if I were doing that, I would stick UConn football ahead of Pitt and Syracuse, by the number of wins alone. What I was doing, on the other hand, was saying that certain BCS schools have the stigma of losing repeatedly over the years attached to them. It's as simple as that.

 

[upstater]

Here is what ppl miss perception wise with Lville. They have climbed and climbed for years. The perception is that they have arrived now with the acc invite but that they can sustain it over time and be a powerhouse athletics wise without fail. That's the image we lack

Tell me how they climbed during the Kragthorpe years? And though I agree they've climbed (not steadily, obviously) they haven't gotten into the to level yet. They are better than UConn, but they are not of a caliber that can stabilize any conference. If they decided (for some bizarre reason) to stay in the AAC, they would not stabilize it. If Tennessee decided to join the AAC, that would add a lot more stability.

 

[upstater]

The Boneyard might think Louisville football doesn't add more than UConn football, but the football schools in the ACC certainly saw it differently. Yes I know everyone involved with the ACC has been declared incompetent here, but maybe take the blue glasses off for a few seconds and look at what happened, instead of building a narrative around what you think is right.

Again with the made-up arguments. Boneyard conventional wisdom since December has been exactly the opposite of what you state. Almost everyone here says Louisville got in over UConn BECAUSE of their football. Bizarre that you would portray many as saying otherwise.

 

[hthusky74]

We are not talking about the same subjects here. I including Tennessee in the top tier, and waffled about Boise St.
I also didn't rank Uconn higher than a team like Louisville or Cuse or Pitt because of head-to-head wins. But when you tout history or tradition, you seem to totally disregard LOSING history and LOSING tradition. You would think these programs would be able to be an upstart like UConn with all the advantages they have. Why couldn't they? I'll tell you why: because of their tradition of losing. Put it this way: long before I started watching Uconn football, I watched Penn state football, and my perception of these teams was that they were below even the middling level.

Several years ago, after Uconn pounded Indiana twice, the Penn state board was like, "Is Indiana at the point now where even a school with no history like Uconn could pound it into the ground?"

The answers were twofold. One, yes Indiana is now a bottom-tier football school with many empty seats in the stadium, and two, UConn was recruiting some good players and had already surpassed Indiana, even though all the fans (as we saw with Michigan last week) considered Uconn's future capped at that mid-level while also denigrating the level of Indiana football. To recap, it was not a surprise to the majority that UConn pounded Indiana.

What that told me is that the perception of Indiana is bottom-tier, and though the perception of UConn was not much better (at the time) the majority of people thought it wasn't a surprise at all that Uconn could so thoroughly dominate bottom-tier B1G team.

You keep saying I'm highlighting UConn's wins when I'm not. As I said earlier, if I were doing that, I would stick UConn football ahead of Pitt and Syracuse, by the number of wins alone. What I was doing, on the other hand, was saying that certain BCS schools have the stigma of losing repeatedly over the years attached to them. It's as simple as that.

Tenn draws over 100,000 to virtually every home game. How much does Boise St. draw? Case closed.

 

[Marty Jackson]

We are not talking about the same subjects here. I including Tennessee in the top tier, and waffled about Boise St.
I also didn't rank Uconn higher than a team like Louisville or Cuse or Pitt because of head-to-head wins. But when you tout history or tradition, you seem to totally disregard LOSING history and LOSING tradition. You would think these programs would be able to be an upstart like UConn with all the advantages they have. Why couldn't they? I'll tell you why: because of their tradition of losing. Put it this way: long before I started watching Uconn football, I watched Penn state football, and my perception of these teams was that they were below even the middling level.

Several years ago, after Uconn pounded Indiana twice, the Penn state board was like, "Is Indiana at the point now where even a school with no history like Uconn could pound it into the ground?"

The answers were twofold. One, yes Indiana is now a bottom-tier football school with many empty seats in the stadium, and two, UConn was recruiting some good players and had already surpassed Indiana, even though all the fans (as we saw with Michigan last week) considered Uconn's future capped at that mid-level while also denigrating the level of Indiana football. To recap, it was not a surprise to the majority that UConn pounded Indiana.

What that told me is that the perception of Indiana is bottom-tier, and though the perception of UConn was not much better (at the time) the majority of people thought it wasn't a surprise at all that Uconn could so thoroughly dominate bottom-tier B1G team.

You keep saying I'm highlighting UConn's wins when I'm not. As I said earlier, if I were doing that, I would stick UConn football ahead of Pitt and Syracuse, by the number of wins alone. What I was doing, on the other hand, was saying that certain BCS schools have the stigma of losing repeatedly over the years attached to them. It's as simple as that.

not trying to create a debate. you were suggesting that recent results against Vandy and Baylor suggested UConn's program had passed them.
all I responded with was that you really can't use on field results to measure a program and provided numerous intangible metrics that I've heard people reference when judging a program.
for the same reasons you used to support UConn on par with vandy or Baylor, I provided a program like Tennessee that has been down for a long time. their program, evidenced by your ranking as a top program should suggest there is more than wins and losses in ranking programs.
That's all I was saying.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Tenn draws over 100,000 to virtually every home game. How much does Boise St. draw? Case closed.

there you go. attendance to home games is a measure of programs.

 

[upstater]

not trying to create a debate. you were suggesting that recent results against Vandy and Baylor suggested UConn's program had passed them.

What I wrote was this: Vandy has had nothing but losing seasons until last year (in a very tough league, which explains it) but when you look at the OOC for that school, there's nothing there to tell you they'd be better outside it. Yes, Vandy nipped UConn in a game UConn threw away (and which Vandy tried to give back to them multiple times). But UConn blew them out the previous year.

The initial post that you responded to actually agreed with whaler that head-to-head is virtually meaningless.

This is why I pointed out that these are historically losing programs.

In the second post I reiterated that I was discussing the school's football program and not head-to-head matchups. Are head-to-heads relevant? Of course. A school like UConn can have success against, say, a Notre Dame or a South Carolina, but repeating that success is another thing altogether. Cuse, Pitt, Vandy and Baylor are not ND and South Carolina. Two totally different things.

 

[upstater]

Tenn draws over 100,000 to virtually every home game. How much does Boise St. draw? Case closed.

And your post is in response to what?