Why No Alarm???

[RSTuthill]

Or is it the argument against pointless reactionism?

This board has never missed an opportunity to react in the past. Why now? If pointlessness is the bar, three quarters of the chatter here would meet that criterion. Don't you think?

 

[Jetskies]

What can you do?

In five or ten years there will be a ca. 48-team semi-pro super conference with a division below it that will include P-5 cast offs, G-5, and some newbies willing to invest in upgrading. Second division conferences TBD but wouldn't be surprised if two of them were named the ACC and PAC-10.

There will be lots of transfer churn as the good players from the second division get pulled up and players not seeing time in the first division drop down to prove themselves on the field hoping to get called back up to the bigs.

Where does UConn land? Odds say the reimagined ACC with our old Big East buddies.

Will there be mobility between first and second divisions? Wouldn't be a bad idea from a marketing perspective but not likely.

Bowl games could be back in vogue for the second division - separate from the first division playoffs.

Or something completely different could happen.

this sounds oddly like european soccer league model, except there isn't a promotion/relegation system. the only thing you can do as a university, is win enough and spend enough to get called "up" to the big leagues (assuming the big leagues is B1G/SEC/Big12 + Notre Dame).

what did I just write, ew. i'm sick of where CFB is headed

 

[Samoo]

Long time lurker on the Boneyard.

I don't understand why UConn isn't in a major conference given the success of it's programs outside of Football.
In a major conference, Football would be as good as the Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Wake, Vande, South Carolina and all the other programs that get 6 win seasons.

There's like a rule man; didn't you know?

 

[CL82]

UConn arguably was more successful than Syracuse during the time they both shared a conference.

2004: Syracuse 4-2* / UConn 3-3
2005: Syracuse 0-7 / UConn 2-5
2006: Syracuse 1-6 / UConn 1-6
2007: Syracuse 1-6 / UConn 5-2*
2008: Syracuse 1-6 / UConn 3-4
2009: Syracuse 1-6 / UConn 3-4
2010: Syracuse 4-3 / UConn 5-2*+ won tiebreak
2011: Syracuse 1-6 / UConn 3-4
2012: Syracuse 5-2* / UConn 2-5

Both teams won conference co-championships twice, UConn claiming the only BCS bid during that time. Syracuse's co-championship years were the only years they had better conference records than UConn. Neither team was outstanding, but UConn went 27-35 during that time with Syracuse going 18-44. Syracuse's edge came with it's decades of successful history at the major college level that easily put it in the drivers seat for a spot (first in 2004, then again in 2011)

Ultimately the problem for UConn is it started "big time" football too late to build a name or history to make it attractive outside of basketball (and you could argue it's basketball success started too late to make it attractive enough to the only conference (the ACC) that still valued basketball on par or ahead of football when things started). Then taking the lead on a lawsuit, plus the misguided fear of competition from a nearby neighbor built enough animous to make the only conference still valuing basketball highly in the 2010s willing to look at alternatives (reportedly Pitt got a spot originally earmarked for UConn). Finally football first forces reportedly carried the day, the final time around.

Since then UConn made two additional hires that proved disastrous putting the football program into laughing stock range. That, coupled with a couple of unconventional decisions for a football first culture that reigns in conference governance (going independent in football & canceling the COVID season in its entirety) has led to the impression that the school doesn't care about the #1 revenue sport, creating an even bigger hole to dig out of if they are to find a desirable conference home.

Best summary that I've seen.

 

[CL82]

This board has never missed an opportunity to react in the past. Why now? If pointlessness is the bar, three quarters of the chatter here would meet that criterion. Don't you think?

Shrug.

You asked a question and got it answered multiple times in the thread that's now run four pages. That's not enough reaction for you?

 

[RSTuthill]

You asked a question and got it answered multiple times in the thread that's now run four pages. That's not enough reaction for you?

It's more than adequate. I was just replying to those objecting to the thread.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I can only speak for myself but the thread appeared (by the title, questioning why people weren't alarmed) to be you complaining that there wasn't an uproar about the player compensation ruling and then, people gave their comments (as your initial posts requested), you appeared to be overly critical of those that weren't open complaints. Evidently those who prefer to take a wait and see attitude shouldn't post their thoughts on this.