I don't think the lawsuit had anything to do with any of the factors listed in this thread. I also don't believe that the ACC's passing over of UConn (twice) had much to do with the Huskies' Fiesta Bowl appearance or lobbying against them by Boston College.

I think the problems most fans have in understanding expansion come when they continually try to apply one-size-fits-all principles to highly individualized circumstances.

For example, had the expansion landscape been in 2012 what it was in 2010, the Huskies likely would have gotten in ahead of Louisville. However, the ACC's most football-centric schools had grown nervous after Maryland left and were threatening to leave if the ACC didn't make a football-first addition. Nevermind that the school they added - Louisville - would go on to become the men's basketball national champion. The Cardinals were also seen by most as a stronger football candidate so they got the nod.

Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen. West Virginia on the other hand, told them to hold off until the SEC resolved its expansion situation. Pitt then began to talk to Syracuse, Rutgers and Louisville about forming a group to approach the B12. Pitt did not want to go alone and made that very clear to the B12. They feared ending up isolated on an island.

The ACC, fearing that the B12 would end up permanently in their natural territory (East Coast/East Coast-ish) then sprung into action and quickly invited Pitt and Syracuse into its league. Naturally, Pitt and Syracuse quickly accepted and the rest is history. The whole process took less than two weeks from start to finish. Notre Dame and Louisville soon followed suit and with the GOR now signed, sealed and delivered, I think it is now crystal clear that Pitt's decision to choose the ACC over the B12 was the correct one.

That's what happened to UConn, not this "Young and the Restless" bullschitt.

Also, and I don't mean to piss on anyone's grave, but I must warn that I'm not convinced that UConn is next in line either. As I have said repeatedly, I think these situations are highly variable and the line to get into the club is not a linear one. If the ACC were to expand again, depending on the need, I would not be surprised if it was to take another Florida school instead of UConn or Cincy.

UConn

1) never expand with a school whose football stadium seats less than your average conference attendance (also applies to Cincinnati).

2)there aren't enough college football fans in New England to support two "big time" college football teams (and we already have BC).

3)Lawsuit

(05-09-2013 10:26 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 08:42 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  UConn fans have been playing this down with Cuse fans in Internet threads...but this to me is the "Smoking Gun" that UConn and their CT Attorney General really upset folks by personally naming university officials in the lawsuit 10 years ago. Cincy and USF fans gotta like that development.

Great point, thanks for posting this. The bottom line here is that UConn's lawsuit was just stupid. The idea that the ACC owed UConn damages because UConn "made investments in football" on the presumption that Miami's popularity would translate into more dollars for UConn, even though the Big East bylaws permitted Miami to leave, was just laughable, embarrassing to UConn. I understand why the ACC still holds a grudge about that.

You know that every school still in the Big East was part of that law suit.

No i didn't, but that doesn't change its silliness. What I remember was lots of whining by UConn and VT, but what VT in was good football plus juice from VA politicians.

(05-09-2013 10:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:52 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  didnt vtech initially file suit as well, but dropped it once they got the invite?

Yes, and so did Pitt.

Yes but UConn led the effort and the attorney general is now the Senator.

(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't think the lawsuit had anything to do with any of the factors listed in this thread. I also don't believe that the ACC's passing over of UConn (twice) had much to do with the Huskies' Fiesta Bowl appearance or lobbying against them by Boston College.

I think the problems most fans have in understanding expansion come when they continually try to apply one-size-fits-all principles to highly individualized circumstances.

For example, had the expansion landscape been in 2012 what it was in 2010, the Huskies likely would have gotten in ahead of Louisville. However, the ACC's most football-centric schools had grown nervous after Maryland left and were threatening to leave if the ACC didn't make a football-first addition. Nevermind that the school they added - Louisville - would go on to become the men's basketball national champion. The Cardinals were also seen by most as a stronger football candidate so they got the nod.

Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen. West Virginia on the other hand, told them to hold off until the SEC resolved its expansion situation. Pitt then began to talk to Syracuse, Rutgers and Louisville about forming a group to approach the B12. Pitt did not want to go alone and made that very clear to the B12. They feared ending up isolated on an island.

The ACC, fearing that the B12 would end up permanently in their natural territory (East Coast/East Coast-ish) then sprung into action and quickly invited Pitt and Syracuse into its league. Naturally, Pitt and Syracuse quickly accepted and the rest is history. The whole process took less than two weeks from start to finish. Notre Dame and Louisville soon followed suit and with the GOR now signed, sealed and delivered, I think it is now crystal clear that Pitt's decision to choose the ACC over the B12 was the correct one.

That's what happened to UConn, not this "Young and the Restless" bullschitt.

Also, and I don't mean to piss on anyone's grave, but I must warn that I'm not convinced that UConn is next in line either. As I have said repeatedly, I think these situations are highly variable and the line to get into the club is not a linear one. If the ACC were to expand again, depending on the need, I would not be surprised if it was to take another Florida school instead of UConn or Cincy.

I tend to agree. Their last real shot was lost when the Cardinals were picked instead. Pick any reason you like but I don't see UConn ever being a member of the ACC.

(05-10-2013 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

If the Big 12 really thought Arkansas would leave the SEC, or that ND would join, then there's definitely something interesting being smoked at conference HQ.

Assuming that this all adds up, either the Big 12 missed an opportunity to make a play for a group of BE schools that could have been a good group addition (Pitt/WVU/Louisville and Syracuse or Cincinnati), or else the preference of Pitt (and perhaps others) for ACC membership precluded that being a possibility.

(05-10-2013 07:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  UConn

1) never expand with a school whose football stadium seats less than your average conference attendance (also applies to Cincinnati).

2)there aren't enough college football fans in New England to support two "big time" college football teams (and we already have BC).

3)Lawsuit

Stadium size is not the factor it once was. TCU is in the process of downsizing its stadium in order to install more lucrative luxury boxes. Despite the plans for the smaller size stadium already on the table, the Big XII took them anyway.

The primary factor driving all of this is TV revenue, which means access to markets. That's why the SEC is only considering expansion with new members who bring them new markets, not with any who duplicate existing markets.

UConn and Cincy both bring new markets to both the ACC and the Big XII. UConn in particular is the flagship university of a state with a population of almost 4 million that has no instate competition from either college or pro sports. They dominate the state's sports coverage. There simply aren't schools out there with that kind of dominance of their market and with a market that size.

BTW, the UConn stadium was built to be expandable. They're not locked into a capacity of 40,000. They are on the same path that Louisville was on a decade ago.

(05-10-2013 09:49 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

If the Big 12 really thought Arkansas would leave the SEC, or that ND would join, then there's definitely something interesting being smoked at conference HQ.

Assuming that this all adds up, either the Big 12 missed an opportunity to make a play for a group of BE schools that could have been a good group addition (Pitt/WVU/Louisville and Syracuse, UConn, or Cincinnati), or else the preference of Pitt (and perhaps others) for ACC membership precluded that being a possibility.

They definitely did miss an opportunity and were clearly outflanked by the ACC, who was more experienced at this sort of thing. The question is whether they're going to make the same mistake again.

(05-10-2013 09:49 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

If the Big 12 really thought Arkansas would leave the SEC, or that ND would join, then there's definitely something interesting being smoked at conference HQ.

Assuming that this all adds up, either the Big 12 missed an opportunity to make a play for a group of BE schools that could have been a good group addition (Pitt/WVU/Louisville and Syracuse or Cincinnati), or else the preference of Pitt (and perhaps others) for ACC membership precluded that being a possibility.

The ACC being focused and well organized no doubt allowed them to outflank the B12 during this period. You will recall that the the quartet of UT/TTU/OU/OSU were flirting with the P12 during the same period, which would have made it impossible for them to complete a deal with Pitt and Friends, in addition to scaring any rational school away until the B12 worked their internal issues out. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ing-source

(05-10-2013 07:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:52 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  didnt vtech initially file suit as well, but dropped it once they got the invite?

Yes, and so did Pitt.

Yes but UConn led the effort and the attorney general is now the Senator.

As I recall, Nordenberg at Pitt was out in front leading the charge as well.

(05-10-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If you look at:

1) the overall quality of the athletic department/commitment to success
2) local market/fan support
3) national brand
4) academics

UConn is as good (or better) than Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Virginia Tech. Therefore, the only two possible explanations on why UConn isn't in the ACC would be our lack of FB tradition (1-AA until 2000) and the lawsuit. Maybe it's a combination of both of those reasons. But it's NOT due to #1 to #4 listed above.

BTW, the lawsuit was justified. The people of Connecticut spent a lot of money to upgrade the UConn FB program based on the Big East schools remaining together. And at that time, certain schools were working privately to get out of the conference. If we had known that the Big East was not long for this Earth, the upgrade expenses may not have been spent.

You do realize that "UCONN" stand for the "University of Connecticut," and not "Notre Dame," right?

UCONN does not have better academics than more than half the schools that you listed, UCONN doesn't have a better national brand than any of the schools that you listed (other than possibly BC), UCONN does not have better fan support than about half the schools that you listed, and UCONN has a football stadium 20-30 miles from campus, so it's safe to say that UCONN doesn't have better facilities than most D-I schools in America, let alone schools like UL.

FWIW, I'm not even anti-UCONN. Honestly, UCONN is in my dream northeastern conference.

Just curious . . .

How did either of you measure the value of anyone's national brand?

UConn was recently ranked #21 among public research universities, putting it ahead of Louisville. BC doesn't even attempt to do the level of research that UConn does. Syracuse was recently dropped from AAU for its level or research in the sciences, precisely the area where UConn has been expanding.

UConn's stadium is where it is for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest was fan access and traffic patterns. The 21 miles that the stadium is from campus is a non-issue because of the ease of travel around central CT. Students are easily bused. Every other facility on campus is top shelf and everything is being constantly modernized. After much investment in football facilities, their is currently a $35 million project under way for basketball practice facilities. Unless you've actually been to the UConn facilities on campus and experienced a UConn football game in East hartford, you're not really in a position to comment.

It's funny that you choose Louisville to compare with regard to facilities since their new basketball facility is off campus. Like Louisville and many large state universities. UConn's facilities are not all located in one place. While the main campus is located 21 miles from The Rent in East Hartford, UConn's Law School, Medical School, School of Social Work, and a satellite undergraduate/graduate campus are all located in Hartford. For UConn fans and students, the East Hartford site made the most sense for the football stadium. I have no idea why you have a problem with it and why your thoughts would bring into question the quality of the facility or be relevant in any way. At least UConn is not playing in a pro stadium like Pitt

(05-09-2013 11:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  When will UCONN fans stop with the delusional BS that their school was going to the ACC except for the block by BC. It's a stupid argument that simply does not hold water. First, BC does not have the juice to single handedly nix UCONN. Second, the ACC could have "corrected the first error" by taking UCONN the second time around - but again failed to get this awesome gem that is head and shoulders above our schools.

I get the red ass you fans have, but c'mon and finally recognize that UCONN was not wanted. It sucks, but it's the truth. UCONN is a basketball school. Despite the recent football foray, UCONN is limited in potential to be a regular FB competitor. Your geography sucks for becoming a FB school. Therefore, you were too much of a risk for a P5 conference to invite you. No one cares about how many BB titles you have nor how dynastic your women's BB school is. FB is easily 80 percent of the equation. Limited upside, no tradition and no AAU membership hurts UCONN.

BTW...I wouldn't put too much stock in Jurich's comments concerning UCONN's name being inked for the ACC. Recall that Luck stated WVU was off to the SEC, so...

UConn FB has just as much going for it as Pitt, plus we have other several other successful sports programs that have lapped Pitt several times. For example, our hockey program is going into the top NCAA hockey conference next year. Multiply that by 100 and you get an idea of how strong the UConn athletic program is.

No one gives a rat's ass about Pitt's glory days 40 years ago. UConn was able to match Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers over the last nine years despite our late start into 1-A FB. Given another 10 years with a playing level field, UConn would have blown past Pitt in FB. Our trajectory was up. Your trajectory has been flat or sinking since the Ford Administration.

You don't get it. No one cares about your other athletic programs. It's not unique to just UCONN but everywhere. A great hockey team will NOT get you an invite to the P5 conferences. A dynastic women's BB team will NOT get you an invite to a P5 conference. A great track and field team... By now, you SHOULD get the picture. Sadly, you and most UCONN fans will simply never get it. The tangible things that the P5 conferences were looking for are football, football potential, how likely are the people in your TV footprint will want to consume the football product and how fertile are your local recruiting grounds? So despite your awesome athletic programs, UCONN is located in a part of the country that could give a rat's ass about CFB, your recruiting grounds suck and you have no tradition in CFB. It cannot be made any simpler for you than that. Wake up.

Don't even bother to try to spin the story that UCONN's trajectory is soooo much greater than Pitt's or Syracuse's. It isn't, and it's stupid to even suggest this to be true. Again, it ties back to the same reasons I gave above. Pitt and Syracuse royally screwed up their coaching hires the past decade, and this is why both schools have been down in FB. UCONN was lucky to have Edsall at the beginning. And common sense tells you that when you start something, your gains will be significant up front. Don't be stupid and try to project the initial early gains of your young program to continue indefinitely. When you start from basically nothing, you have only one way to go but up. Bottom line is that you have garbage for a recruiting region, you're located in a region of the country that does not care for CFB and you have no tradition. It should be obvious why UCONN is not in a P5 conference. Men's BB doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to realignment.

Yeah, the 41,000 fans that Pitt drew in a 65,000 seat stadium last year speaks volumes about the interest and fan support for this legendary program.

Please YUM is like a mile from campus not a 40 min bus ride. Sports National brand has nothing to do with research.

(05-10-2013 03:03 AM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:26 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  You know that every school still in the Big East was part of that law suit.

Syracuse wasn't.

You are correct, i thought they joined once they were no longer a candidate for expansion.

But if this OP is to believed then why wasn't Pitt being blackballed?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/footbal...t_suit_ap/


This is just funny to me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/s...ortCat=ncf

(05-10-2013 10:31 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If you look at:

1) the overall quality of the athletic department/commitment to success
2) local market/fan support
3) national brand
4) academics

UConn is as good (or better) than Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Virginia Tech. Therefore, the only two possible explanations on why UConn isn't in the ACC would be our lack of FB tradition (1-AA until 2000) and the lawsuit. Maybe it's a combination of both of those reasons. But it's NOT due to #1 to #4 listed above.

BTW, the lawsuit was justified. The people of Connecticut spent a lot of money to upgrade the UConn FB program based on the Big East schools remaining together. And at that time, certain schools were working privately to get out of the conference. If we had known that the Big East was not long for this Earth, the upgrade expenses may not have been spent.

You do realize that "UCONN" stand for the "University of Connecticut," and not "Notre Dame," right?

UCONN does not have better academics than more than half the schools that you listed, UCONN doesn't have a better national brand than any of the schools that you listed (other than possibly BC), UCONN does not have better fan support than about half the schools that you listed, and UCONN has a football stadium 20-30 miles from campus, so it's safe to say that UCONN doesn't have better facilities than most D-I schools in America, let alone schools like UL.

FWIW, I'm not even anti-UCONN. Honestly, UCONN is in my dream northeastern conference.

Just curious . . .

How did either of you measure the value of anyone's national brand?

UConn was recently ranked #21 among public research universities, putting it ahead of Louisville. BC doesn't even attempt to do the level of research that UConn does. Syracuse was recently dropped from AAU for its level or research in the sciences, precisely the area where UConn has been expanding.

UConn's stadium is where it is for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest was fan access and traffic patterns. The 21 miles that the stadium is from campus is a non-issue because of the ease of travel around central CT. Students are easily bused. Every other facility on campus is top shelf and everything is being constantly modernized. After much investment in football facilities, their is currently a $35 million project under way for basketball practice facilities. Unless you've actually been to the UConn facilities on campus and experienced a UConn football game in East hartford, you're not really in a position to comment.

It's funny that you choose Louisville to compare with regard to facilities since their new basketball facility is off campus. Like Louisville and many large state universities. UConn's facilities are not all located in one place. While the main campus is located 21 miles from The Rent in East Hartford, UConn's Law School, Medical School, School of Social Work, and a satellite undergraduate/graduate campus are all located in Hartford. For UConn fans and students, the East Hartford site made the most sense for the football stadium. I have no idea why you have a problem with it and why your thoughts would bring into question the quality of the facility or be relevant in any way. At least UConn is not playing in a pro stadium like Pitt

National Brand = ability to deliver national TV ratings for football and basketball.

This value can be teased out of comparing ratings of similar matchups with different schools over a period of time. A very simple example could be derived from the Big East Friday night football games this past year. SU-Pitt earned a 1.0, SU-UConn earned a 0.8, and UConn-Pitt earned a 0.6. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/...s-season/. If all schools are equally competitive, i.e. are similarly positioned for success during the ongoing season, and the timeslots are equal, the relative ratings would define who has more National Brand. Assuming this were true for SU, Pitt and Uconn for football in 2012, these three ratings would suggest that SU has the strongest National Brand of the group for football, Pitt second, and UConn third.

(05-10-2013 10:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 11:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 10:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  When will UCONN fans stop with the delusional BS that their school was going to the ACC except for the block by BC. It's a stupid argument that simply does not hold water. First, BC does not have the juice to single handedly nix UCONN. Second, the ACC could have "corrected the first error" by taking UCONN the second time around - but again failed to get this awesome gem that is head and shoulders above our schools.

I get the red ass you fans have, but c'mon and finally recognize that UCONN was not wanted. It sucks, but it's the truth. UCONN is a basketball school. Despite the recent football foray, UCONN is limited in potential to be a regular FB competitor. Your geography sucks for becoming a FB school. Therefore, you were too much of a risk for a P5 conference to invite you. No one cares about how many BB titles you have nor how dynastic your women's BB school is. FB is easily 80 percent of the equation. Limited upside, no tradition and no AAU membership hurts UCONN.

BTW...I wouldn't put too much stock in Jurich's comments concerning UCONN's name being inked for the ACC. Recall that Luck stated WVU was off to the SEC, so...

UConn FB has just as much going for it as Pitt, plus we have other several other successful sports programs that have lapped Pitt several times. For example, our hockey program is going into the top NCAA hockey conference next year. Multiply that by 100 and you get an idea of how strong the UConn athletic program is.

No one gives a rat's ass about Pitt's glory days 40 years ago. UConn was able to match Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers over the last nine years despite our late start into 1-A FB. Given another 10 years with a playing level field, UConn would have blown past Pitt in FB. Our trajectory was up. Your trajectory has been flat or sinking since the Ford Administration.

You don't get it. No one cares about your other athletic programs. It's not unique to just UCONN but everywhere. A great hockey team will NOT get you an invite to the P5 conferences. A dynastic women's BB team will NOT get you an invite to a P5 conference. A great track and field team... By now, you SHOULD get the picture. Sadly, you and most UCONN fans will simply never get it. The tangible things that the P5 conferences were looking for are football, football potential, how likely are the people in your TV footprint will want to consume the football product and how fertile are your local recruiting grounds? So despite your awesome athletic programs, UCONN is located in a part of the country that could give a rat's ass about CFB, your recruiting grounds suck and you have no tradition in CFB. It cannot be made any simpler for you than that. Wake up.

Don't even bother to try to spin the story that UCONN's trajectory is soooo much greater than Pitt's or Syracuse's. It isn't, and it's stupid to even suggest this to be true. Again, it ties back to the same reasons I gave above. Pitt and Syracuse royally screwed up their coaching hires the past decade, and this is why both schools have been down in FB. UCONN was lucky to have Edsall at the beginning. And common sense tells you that when you start something, your gains will be significant up front. Don't be stupid and try to project the initial early gains of your young program to continue indefinitely. When you start from basically nothing, you have only one way to go but up. Bottom line is that you have garbage for a recruiting region, you're located in a region of the country that does not care for CFB and you have no tradition. It should be obvious why UCONN is not in a P5 conference. Men's BB doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to realignment.

Yeah, the 41,000 fans that Pitt drew in a 65,000 seat stadium last year speaks volumes about the interest and fan support for this legendary program.

Great move to avoid what was stated clearly and going for the ad-hominem attack. Clearly, you cannot respond to it the way you would like to because you cannot disagree with it. It is what it is.

(05-09-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Our trajectory was up. Your trajectory has been flat or sinking since the Ford Administration.

pitt still had good teams until '84

they started that season ranked but fell apart (3-7-1)
and darkness descended upon them

(05-10-2013 11:01 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:31 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 09:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If you look at:

1) the overall quality of the athletic department/commitment to success
2) local market/fan support
3) national brand
4) academics

UConn is as good (or better) than Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Virginia Tech. Therefore, the only two possible explanations on why UConn isn't in the ACC would be our lack of FB tradition (1-AA until 2000) and the lawsuit. Maybe it's a combination of both of those reasons. But it's NOT due to #1 to #4 listed above.

BTW, the lawsuit was justified. The people of Connecticut spent a lot of money to upgrade the UConn FB program based on the Big East schools remaining together. And at that time, certain schools were working privately to get out of the conference. If we had known that the Big East was not long for this Earth, the upgrade expenses may not have been spent.

You do realize that "UCONN" stand for the "University of Connecticut," and not "Notre Dame," right?

UCONN does not have better academics than more than half the schools that you listed, UCONN doesn't have a better national brand than any of the schools that you listed (other than possibly BC), UCONN does not have better fan support than about half the schools that you listed, and UCONN has a football stadium 20-30 miles from campus, so it's safe to say that UCONN doesn't have better facilities than most D-I schools in America, let alone schools like UL.

FWIW, I'm not even anti-UCONN. Honestly, UCONN is in my dream northeastern conference.

Just curious . . .

How did either of you measure the value of anyone's national brand?

UConn was recently ranked #21 among public research universities, putting it ahead of Louisville. BC doesn't even attempt to do the level of research that UConn does. Syracuse was recently dropped from AAU for its level or research in the sciences, precisely the area where UConn has been expanding.

UConn's stadium is where it is for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest was fan access and traffic patterns. The 21 miles that the stadium is from campus is a non-issue because of the ease of travel around central CT. Students are easily bused. Every other facility on campus is top shelf and everything is being constantly modernized. After much investment in football facilities, their is currently a $35 million project under way for basketball practice facilities. Unless you've actually been to the UConn facilities on campus and experienced a UConn football game in East hartford, you're not really in a position to comment.

It's funny that you choose Louisville to compare with regard to facilities since their new basketball facility is off campus. Like Louisville and many large state universities. UConn's facilities are not all located in one place. While the main campus is located 21 miles from The Rent in East Hartford, UConn's Law School, Medical School, School of Social Work, and a satellite undergraduate/graduate campus are all located in Hartford. For UConn fans and students, the East Hartford site made the most sense for the football stadium. I have no idea why you have a problem with it and why your thoughts would bring into question the quality of the facility or be relevant in any way. At least UConn is not playing in a pro stadium like Pitt

National Brand = ability to deliver national TV ratings for football and basketball.

This value can be teased out of comparing ratings of similar matchups with different schools over a period of time. A very simple example could be derived from the Big East Friday night football games this past year. SU-Pitt earned a 1.0, SU-UConn earned a 0.8, and UConn-Pitt earned a 0.6. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/...s-season/. If all schools are equally competitive, i.e. are similarly positioned for success during the ongoing season, and the timeslots are equal, the relative ratings would define who has more National Brand. Assuming this were true for SU, Pitt and Uconn for football in 2012, these three ratings would suggest that SU has the strongest National Brand of the group for football, Pitt second, and UConn third.

Looking at the link Cuse and Temple got a 0.4 and UConn Cinci got a 1.0. What would that suggest?