(10-11-2019 10:32 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:29 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 09:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 09:00 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 08:44 AM)stever20 Wrote:  UConn's problems IMO were far more Ollie than they were the AAC. Extremely similar to what happened at Georgetown with JT3.

Agree to an extent, S20.

And good luck to the Nationals.

Thanks..... 10 hours until game 1....

As a Cubs fans since the late 1960s, I will be rooting for the Cards (makes the division look good anytime St. Louis wins). But the Nats are tough. Enjoy the series.

Cubs fan rooting for the Cardinals? That's a new one.....

You should come over to the pro sports section of this(under lounge). We have a hearty MLB thread(it's over 110 pages now).

I'm friends with three major Cards fans (three brothers) and they were happy for the Cubs to win the Worlds Series in 2016. I need to reciprocate for them. I try to be fair.

Thanks for the invite to the MLB board but one sports message board is enough for me, S20.

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

(10-10-2019 12:02 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  UConn was a topic today too.

I've been a Memphis fan since the late 1960s and am on record on this board as saying Penny Hardaway came across as a buffoon for recently predicting the Tigers would win the national title. Some Memphis fans hammered me for not "standing up for Penny." So be it. It was embarrassing for Hardaway and the program.

Similarly, I will call the comment Willard made toward Tulane and ECU as classless. Nothing clever or appropriate about it. He came across as a you know what.

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

Sure, we'd love to be associated with Memphis and Cincy (and Temple), but from a basketball standpoint, the C7 and even the Big East newbies (Xavier/Butler/Creighton) are FAR more appealing than the majority of AAC schools.

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

I don't speak for all UConn fans by any stretch, but for me Xavier and Cincinnati are basically interchangeable. Neither was an original Big East school, Cincy has the better overall history but X has been better recently. Both in Cincinnati, a city I doubt I'll wind up visiting (no offense to any fans, I just don't see it in the cards).

I'd go Memphis over Butler or Creighton, but not by a massive margin. I'd take Nova over Temple every time, and it's not close.

The AAC wasn't a terrible place to be for a few years, and more UConn fans do need to realize that we put ourselves in an impossible situation the minute we hired Ollie. I do think Ollie could have been a good coach here, but he gave up and we needed to move on.

(10-11-2019 04:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

Sure, we'd love to be associated with Memphis and Cincy (and Temple), but from a basketball standpoint, the C7 and even the Big East newbies (Xavier/Butler/Creighton) are FAR more appealing than the majority of AAC schools.

Agree 100 percent.

(10-11-2019 08:50 PM)breinin2 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

I don't speak for all UConn fans by any stretch, but for me Xavier and Cincinnati are basically interchangeable. Neither was an original Big East school, Cincy has the better overall history but X has been better recently. Both in Cincinnati, a city I doubt I'll wind up visiting (no offense to any fans, I just don't see it in the cards).

I'd go Memphis over Butler or Creighton, but not by a massive margin. I'd take Nova over Temple every time, and it's not close.

The AAC wasn't a terrible place to be for a few years, and more UConn fans do need to realize that we put ourselves in an impossible situation the minute we hired Ollie. I do think Ollie could have been a good coach here, but he gave up and we needed to move on.

No doubt that Xavier has the better recent history, and as a long-time UC follower ... I acknowledge that.

I appreciate your honest take, breinin2

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

The AAC held not one, but two, men’s basketball tournaments in UConn’s backyard. In games that did not feature UConn, the attendance was pitiful, and that is not an exaggeration. A majority of NE fans could have cared less about the AAC membership.

Are there pockets of fans in the NE that support and/or root for AAC teams? Absolutely. It is one of most diverse collegiate sports markets out there. However, unlike the B1G’s acquisition of Rutgers, or the ACC’s acquisition of Syracuse, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh, or the Big East’s retained collection of the C7, an overwhelming majority of the AAC does not have large alumni bases in NYC or the Northeast. What you are referring to is a small fraction of a fraction of an entire market, which (again) would have been an incredibly poor business and marketing plan had the Big East continued the hybrid format along with the C-USA call-ups.

(10-12-2019 10:40 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

The AAC held not one, but two, men’s basketball tournaments in UConn’s backyard. In games that did not feature UConn, the attendance was pitiful, and that is not an exaggeration. A majority of NE fans could have cared less about the AAC membership.

Are there pockets of fans in the NE that support and/or root for AAC teams? Absolutely. It is one of most diverse collegiate sports markets out there. However, unlike the B1G’s acquisition of Rutgers, or the ACC’s acquisition of Syracuse, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh, or the Big East’s retained collection of the C7, an overwhelming majority of the AAC does not have large alumni bases in NYC or the Northeast. What you are referring to is a small fraction of a fraction of an entire market, which (again) would have been an incredibly poor business and marketing plan had the Big East continued the hybrid format along with the C-USA call-ups.

You very well might be dead-on with your take. And, as I noted, I admitted I might be looking at this issue with an element of cluelessness.

But my overall point is solid: UConn is not a Catholic school and I don't necessarily see the average Husky fan being any more excited about seeing Creighton, Xavier and Butler (or even DePaul, for that matter, given how bad the program has been) than she/he would be seeing the four schools I clearly noted: Houston, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. I can't prove that but, on paper, it seems to make sense.

Your overall point is the most important one: For brand association, for overall fan interest, for alumni location, and for travel ... not even close. The BE is vastly better for UConn than the American.

However, I look at this issue from what might be a somewhat unusual perspective. The university for which I'm most passionate (and the only school for which I follow all sports, including women's sports, and various academic matters) is a member of the SEC. As such, I can take a somewhat dispassionate view of UConn, the Big East and the American.

You and I sometimes see things differently but I do feel we are about 75 to 80 percent on the same page.

There are about 20 posters whose info they share on this board I consistently find interesting and helpful. You're one of those. You always respond to me and in a respectful manner and I appreciate that.

(10-12-2019 11:40 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 10:40 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

The AAC held not one, but two, men’s basketball tournaments in UConn’s backyard. In games that did not feature UConn, the attendance was pitiful, and that is not an exaggeration. A majority of NE fans could have cared less about the AAC membership.

Are there pockets of fans in the NE that support and/or root for AAC teams? Absolutely. It is one of most diverse collegiate sports markets out there. However, unlike the B1G’s acquisition of Rutgers, or the ACC’s acquisition of Syracuse, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh, or the Big East’s retained collection of the C7, an overwhelming majority of the AAC does not have large alumni bases in NYC or the Northeast. What you are referring to is a small fraction of a fraction of an entire market, which (again) would have been an incredibly poor business and marketing plan had the Big East continued the hybrid format along with the C-USA call-ups.

You very well might be dead-on with your take. And, as I noted, I admitted I might be looking at this issue with an element of cluelessness.

But my overall point is solid: UConn is not a Catholic school and I don't necessarily see the average Husky fan being any more excited about seeing Creighton, Xavier and Butler (or even DePaul, for that matter, given how bad the program has been) than she/he would be seeing the four schools I clearly noted: Houston, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. I can't prove that but, on paper, it seems to make sense.

Your overall point is the most important one: For brand association, for overall fan interest, for alumni location, and for travel ... not even close. The BE is vastly better for UConn than the American.

However, I look at this issue from what might be a somewhat unusual perspective. The university for which I'm most passionate (and the only school for which I follow all sports, including women's sports, and various academic matters) is a member of the SEC. As such, I can take a somewhat dispassionate view of UConn, the Big East and the American.

You and I sometimes see things differently but I do feel we are about 75 to 80 percent on the same page.

There are about 20 posters whose info they share on this board I consistently find interesting and helpful. You're one of those. You always respond to me and in a respectful manner and I appreciate that.

Thanks, Bill.

I used to think about this version of the Big East as Private/Catholic first, hence why I consistently pushed for SLU (and to a lesser extent, Dayton) as easier fits into this mold of the conference. However, listening to Val announcing UConn back into the league, she highlighted how the Big East is a collection of basketball-first institutions, with it's main presence in NYC. UConn definitely embodies that.

In relation to Creighton, Xavier, DePaul, Marquette and Butler compared to Temple, Memphis, Cincinnati and Houston, the Big East schools are all clearly established basketball-first schools (much like UConn has now revealed itself to be, which it has really always been). On the surface, its easy to point to "well, none of the above schools are NE-based, so they really all are interchangeable". However, if dug deeper, UConn is really much more aligned with these BE programs now because of the focus towards men's basketball (rather than a prioritized football program). Every single AAC program, today, priorities football, with exception to Wichita State, which was added to compliment Navy. This is yet another area where UConn was just a bad fit in the AAC.

With UConn's move, both the Big East and the AAC are much more institutionally aligned now IMO.

(10-12-2019 01:23 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 11:40 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-12-2019 10:40 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 03:37 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 10:38 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Emphasizing another previously-made point by me, it can not be overstated enough the value in brand associations for schools and athletic programs - especially for when programs are down and/or rebuilding. If Indiana Basketball or Michigan Football is not at historical levels, like each has been at various points in past decade, they still gain value by being associated with the Big Ten and its membership. The same goes for Florida Football, Kentucky Basketball, etc. At some point, every program goes through a rebuild - but it can survive and tread water through those by conference association (which can still maintain fan interest and loyalty). Here is where UConn's association in the AAC was never sustainable, and why the AAC membership was unable to provide those valuable associations even when football and men's basketball was down. No one in the Northeast has a connection, familiarity or fan interest in programs like Houston, SMU, ECU, Tulane, UCF, Memphis, Wichita State or Tulsa. As the data shows, especially in football, UConn couldn't draw fans to ranked opponents in the AAC (yet could when it was in the Big East). This is also why it is clear that any continuation of the hybrid Big East was doomed to fail - because there were no available programs to call-up to replace the lost value in members that left for the ACC, Big Ten and Big 12. It's not a knock to the AAC to highlight that; it's simply meant to show that a partnership between these two parties was never going to succeed or become sustainable.

Even if/when UConn needs to undergo a rebuild, they will now be joined by like-minded and regional members (basketball-first within geographic proximity and historical affiliations). That will always help the fan support and attendance (which they never had, nor will they have had, in the AAC).

I agree with you strongly — for the most part. I started following Indiana hoops in 1986 when my brother told our family he was Bloomington bound. One thing I've observed reading about and watching the Hoosiers over the years ... the fan support has remained despite lots of struggles. And that goes to your point about brand associations. IU "fits" in the Big Ten. UConn "fits" in the BE. The UConn/American experiment was doomed from the start. Very well put.

One thing I might disagree with you upon somewhat. I feel (and maybe I'm wrong) there are lots of African-American college hoops/Big East fans living in the Northeast who do, in fact, have at least some interest in the AAC teams located in cities with large black populations and that have been historically competitive: i.e., Cincinnati, Memphis, Houston and Temple. I see this living in Nashville with Tennessee State University and our black citizens (I once taught at TSU). Many are far more interested in Memphis Tiger hoops than Vanderbilt or Tennessee basketball.

So I'm suggesting that your point, though strong overall, is a bit too general. There are some BE/college hoops fans in the Northeast who probably do have a certain interest in the specific American teams I note. It's a cultural dynamic that is often overlooked.

Now, as to UConn specifically, I'm not convinced that the overwhelming majority of Husky fans would rather be affiliated with Midwest-based Xavier, Butler and Creighton (specifically) — and with which UConn has no history — over Memphis and Cincinnati (specifically). True, I'm biased toward the Tigers and Bearcats so maybe I'm a clueless bonehead. But UConn is not a Catholic university (obviously) so the dynamic you note (and very well, no doubt) is not as significant in certain very specific ways.

I'm on record as being 100 percent supportive of the UConn move. But it's easy for me to be. I like two schools in the Big East and want the league to do well. Conversely, I root for Memphis and Cincy and will speak up in their defense when needed (and criticize both programs, too). Memphis and Cincy (and Temple, for that matter) bring lots to the table — every bit as much so as many Big East programs — that the average UConn fan would find appealing.

You might disagree and that's fine. I'm sure others will, too. That's just how I see it.

The AAC held not one, but two, men’s basketball tournaments in UConn’s backyard. In games that did not feature UConn, the attendance was pitiful, and that is not an exaggeration. A majority of NE fans could have cared less about the AAC membership.

Are there pockets of fans in the NE that support and/or root for AAC teams? Absolutely. It is one of most diverse collegiate sports markets out there. However, unlike the B1G’s acquisition of Rutgers, or the ACC’s acquisition of Syracuse, Notre Dame and Pittsburgh, or the Big East’s retained collection of the C7, an overwhelming majority of the AAC does not have large alumni bases in NYC or the Northeast. What you are referring to is a small fraction of a fraction of an entire market, which (again) would have been an incredibly poor business and marketing plan had the Big East continued the hybrid format along with the C-USA call-ups.

You very well might be dead-on with your take. And, as I noted, I admitted I might be looking at this issue with an element of cluelessness.

But my overall point is solid: UConn is not a Catholic school and I don't necessarily see the average Husky fan being any more excited about seeing Creighton, Xavier and Butler (or even DePaul, for that matter, given how bad the program has been) than she/he would be seeing the four schools I clearly noted: Houston, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. I can't prove that but, on paper, it seems to make sense.

Your overall point is the most important one: For brand association, for overall fan interest, for alumni location, and for travel ... not even close. The BE is vastly better for UConn than the American.

However, I look at this issue from what might be a somewhat unusual perspective. The university for which I'm most passionate (and the only school for which I follow all sports, including women's sports, and various academic matters) is a member of the SEC. As such, I can take a somewhat dispassionate view of UConn, the Big East and the American.

You and I sometimes see things differently but I do feel we are about 75 to 80 percent on the same page.

There are about 20 posters whose info they share on this board I consistently find interesting and helpful. You're one of those. You always respond to me and in a respectful manner and I appreciate that.

Thanks, Bill.

I used to think about this version of the Big East as Private/Catholic first, hence why I consistently pushed for SLU (and to a lesser extent, Dayton) as easier fits into this mold of the conference. However, listening to Val announcing UConn back into the league, she highlighted how the Big East is a collection of basketball-first institutions, with it's main presence in NYC. UConn definitely embodies that.

In relation to Creighton, Xavier, DePaul, Marquette and Butler compared to Temple, Memphis, Cincinnati and Houston, the Big East schools are all clearly established basketball-first schools (much like UConn has now revealed itself to be, which it has really always been). On the surface, its easy to point to "well, none of the above schools are NE-based, so they really all are interchangeable". However, if dug deeper, UConn is really much more aligned with these BE programs now because of the focus towards men's basketball (rather than a prioritized football program). Every single AAC program, today, priorities football, with exception to Wichita State, which was added to compliment Navy. This is yet another area where UConn was just a bad fit in the AAC.

With UConn's move, both the Big East and the AAC are much more institutionally aligned now IMO.

All very good points, GW11. I’m with you overall. But, when you note “every single AAC program, today, prioritizes football,” it’s unclear if you mean “prioritizes football over basketball.” I would not think that’s the case at Memphis (but I could be wrong). Clearly Memphis prioritizes football ala Clemson or Alabama compared to UConn, so maybe there is nuance/context/subjectivity in your description.

Your point about institutional fit is extremely important. As such, the five Midwest BE schools offer much more appeal for Big East fans (and UConn fans specifically) who live in the Northeast than Houston, Cincy, Temple and Memphis. Now are the five Midwest BE schools collectively more appealing to the “average, non-Big East Northeast-based college hoops fan” than Houston, Cincy, Temple and Memphis, collectively? I’m not so sure. And, as noted, there are cultural and ethnic factors at play that make Houston, Cincy, Temple and Memphis appealing to some fans (including urban whites such as myself) regardless of where they live.

I sometimes struggled following the hybrid Conference USA in its glory years — 1995 to 2005 — because of its “hodgepodge” nature. But I was so pleased to have DePaul, Memphis and Cincinnati aligned. I enjoyed following DePaul more during that era than I have anytime since because the Blue Demons were actually fairly competitive (notwithstanding last year’s solid season in the NBE) in C-USA.

When C-USA lost DePaul and Cincy (and Louisville, too) to the Big East, as a long-time Memphis fan…devastating. That’s one reason I sometimes declined to “feel bad” for UConn fans after UConn got “left behind” in the American. I’m not sure many folks pitied Memphis back in 2005 (of course, there was no message board of this type then to have allowed fans to post well-wishes to the “left behind” Memphis, so perhaps I’m being overly sensitive).

No doubt, UConn makes far more sense in the BE than it does in the American. And I’m sincerely happy for the good, decent UConn fans (and the respectful Big East followers like you and me). The BE will be even better with UConn.

As to the American moving forward, all the schools are fairly similar in terms of overall athletic budgets, locations in large cities, history with one another, etc. (the exception being East Carolina overall and, to an extent, Temple due to geography). So if Memphis and Cincy are essentially “stuck” in the AAC long term, I take comfort knowing the league continues to make progress in both football and basketball. If the AAC could land the Army/VCU combo I desire, I would be extremely pleased.

Thanks for the reply.