(06-22-2013 09:36 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  If the B1G expands again, I would have to think their eyes would be on UVA and UNC.

They may be looking at Carolina and UVa, but will be more likely to end up with UConn and West Virginia.

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  - the question is why does UConn deserve to move up, when others do not?

Deserve has nothing to do with it.

(06-23-2013 11:04 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-23-2013 10:17 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  If true, is this news really that surprising?

UConn to the B1G is not likely. Could it happen? Yes. But I believe it's less a than 50-50 chance. Maybe we have a 10% chance.

Two things I expect to happen:

1) UConn will continue to move up the academic ladder.
2) UConn will be in the AAC for a while.

What I meant was a school in the AAC talking to a P5 conference is not that surprising. Do I expect these conversations to go anywhere, no.

(06-24-2013 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 09:36 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  If the B1G expands again, I would have to think their eyes would be on UVA and UNC.

They may be looking at Carolina and UVa, but will be more likely to end up with UConn and West Virginia.

WVU in the B10. Do you really want me to list all the reasons that will never happen? C'mon man.

(06-22-2013 09:36 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  If the B1G expands again, I would have to think their eyes would be on UVA and UNC.

Yes, but those two already said no. That's why Rutgers and Maryland are in the B1G.

UConn would be the big winner EVER if they got a (well-deserved) B1G invite. However, given that Delaney is in pursuit of southern locales, UConn seems strange.

(06-24-2013 07:33 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  - the question is why does UConn deserve to move up, when others do not?

Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Agree with this 100%. If it makes financial sense for both parties...it will happen no matter how old/new a program is.

(06-23-2013 10:12 PM)AntiG Wrote:  As far as AAU goes, UConn I've heard is coming close. I wouldn't say its a longshot.

Look at the numbers, not internet message board fans citing press releases from UConn.

UConn is not on the short list. #82 overall R&D, #84 Federally sponsored R&D...and that includes its med campus in Farmington which the AAU will not consider.

The following schools are just some of the ones seeking AAU status that have more federal R&D on their primary undergrad campus than UConn has combined...

UAB
Cincinnati
Utah
UIC
USF
Colorado State
Miami
Hawaii
Yeshiva
Virginia Tech
Arizona State
Kentucky
Wake Forest
New Mexico
NC State
VCU
Oregon State

Not to mention Nebraska, Tennessee, LSU which have split campuses with more research not to mention some prestigious, smaller private schools that may be in line ahead of them like Dartmouth, Georgetown, Tufts, and Rockefeller.

And that is if the AAU adds more members, which it likely won't without kicking out additional current members.

(06-22-2013 08:29 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  UConn big dollar insider:

"it is coming from non-university affiliated people, so no chance of Susan getting caught professing love of AAC while lobbying B1G."

Out of curiosity, do you know this person? Is there a written article?

UConn is doing everything it can to move out of the AAC, and if not then its leaders should be fired. The alumni, donors, students and fans all want the school to leave and feel gutted about how the last realignment shook out.

I think UConn eventually lands in the ACC, I think it's their only realistic landing spot. It will all depend on the next wave of realignment/movement - whenever that is.

(06-24-2013 08:21 AM)lofi Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 07:18 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 09:36 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  If the B1G expands again, I would have to think their eyes would be on UVA and UNC.

They may be looking at Carolina and UVa, but will be more likely to end up with UConn and West Virginia.

WVU in the B10. Do you really want me to list all the reasons that will never happen? C'mon man.

Agree. WVU will end up in the SEC one of these days anyway...

(06-24-2013 03:00 PM)Flying Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 08:29 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  UConn big dollar insider:

"it is coming from non-university affiliated people, so no chance of Susan getting caught professing love of AAC while lobbying B1G."

Out of curiosity, do you know this person? Is there a written article?

An anonymous poster on the UConn message board, with no known history of posting insider stuff. Who knows, it's ineffective enough to be true.

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Perhaps someone can answer this question - why does UConn deserve special treatment?

First off, I can't stand UConn. I've hated them ever since the Unfair Catch. But despite that, I think they have a good argument. In the early 2000s, and at the Big East's request, they made the decision to invest nearly $100 million into their football program to move it up to the BCS level.

They did that with the full expectation of always being part of the BCS. They did it before the ACC fiasco with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Had they known Miami was going to bail out of the conference before the Huskies were ever able to even play a single football game at the BCS level, I have no doubt they would have decided NOT to move up.

And because of that, I think they have a far better argument than Cincinnati, USF or anyone else that they should be included at the top level. Cincinnati and USF were playing with house money. UConn was playing with borrowed money that was borrowed with the understanding that they were "in" from the start.

(06-24-2013 06:28 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Perhaps someone can answer this question - why does UConn deserve special treatment?

First off, I can't stand UConn. I've hated them ever since the Unfair Catch. But despite that, I think they have a good argument. In the early 2000s, and at the Big East's request, they made the decision to invest nearly $100 million into their football program to move it up to the BCS level.

They did that with the full expectation of always being part of the BCS. They did it before the ACC fiasco with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Had they known Miami was going to bail out of the conference before the Huskies were ever able to even play a single football game at the BCS level, I have no doubt they would have decided NOT to move up.

And because of that, I think they have a far better argument than Cincinnati, USF or anyone else that they should be included at the top level. Cincinnati and USF were playing with house money. UConn was playing with borrowed money that was borrowed with the understanding that they were "in" from the start.

But alas, life isn't fair. I agree that they got screwed, but that doesn't mean that the B1G, ACC, Pac-12, Big XII should be the ones making things right.

FWIW, they aren't Temple, who arguably got screwed worse. (Admittedly there are two sides to that argument and I really, really don't want to get in the middle of that debate.)

(06-24-2013 06:28 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Perhaps someone can answer this question - why does UConn deserve special treatment?

First off, I can't stand UConn. I've hated them ever since the Unfair Catch. But despite that, I think they have a good argument. In the early 2000s, and at the Big East's request, they made the decision to invest nearly $100 million into their football program to move it up to the BCS level.

They did that with the full expectation of always being part of the BCS. They did it before the ACC fiasco with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Had they known Miami was going to bail out of the conference before the Huskies were ever able to even play a single football game at the BCS level, I have no doubt they would have decided NOT to move up.

And because of that, I think they have a far better argument than Cincinnati, USF or anyone else that they should be included at the top level. Cincinnati and USF were playing with house money. UConn was playing with borrowed money that was borrowed with the understanding that they were "in" from the start.

There are legitimate reasons to consider including UConn in whatever number the final number winds up being. But, imho, none of them are in your post.

They were promised a spot in Big East football in exchange for a vote to allow WVU and Rutgers to join the league for all sports, the same as Villanova back in 1994. There wasn't even a BCS back then. They could have chosen not to upgrade, like Nova. It was ultimately their choice.

They had to know in the late 1990s when they finally decided to upgrade that Miami was interested in the ACC. And if they didn't know what was basically common knowledge to the average joe following conference realignment back then, who's fault is that?

They had the luxury of being a BCS team almost from the very start, spending only one year in the Rent prior to being able to join the Big East. And when the things started going crazy in terms of conference realignment, they replaced Edsall with Coach P, whose better days are far, far behind him?

I have a great deal of admiration for UConn's overall athletics department. But that was a very odd move considering the dire circumstances they were faced with at that time.

Again, there are other reasons why they could and perhaps should wind up with a seat at the table at some point, but "entitlement" isn't one of them.

Cheers,
Neil

In theory, UConn, Cincinnati, and South Florida should have an easier path than their conference mates in the American while the Big East settlement money is there for the taking. The only theoretical roadblock to an Access (née BCS) bowl is an undefeated champion from another G5 conference.

Ideally UMass and UConn would both be Big XII material and the Big XII would lock up New England on its way to 14 members-but that isn't happening anytime before 2025.

(06-24-2013 07:45 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  In theory, UConn, Cincinnati, and South Florida should have an easier path than their conference mates in the American while the Big East settlement money is there for the taking. The only theoretical roadblock to an Access (née BCS) bowl is an undefeated champion from another G5 conference.

Ideally UMass and UConn would both be Big XII material and the Big XII would lock up New England on its way to 14 members-but that isn't happening anytime before 2025.

Why do they rate any better than BYU or Houston? BYU has an MNC. UH was big-time prior to the SWC breakup. Cincinnati and USF were better geographically situated for the BE. Why do they deserve a better shot than SMU?

(06-24-2013 07:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 06:28 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Perhaps someone can answer this question - why does UConn deserve special treatment?

First off, I can't stand UConn. I've hated them ever since the Unfair Catch. But despite that, I think they have a good argument. In the early 2000s, and at the Big East's request, they made the decision to invest nearly $100 million into their football program to move it up to the BCS level.

They did that with the full expectation of always being part of the BCS. They did it before the ACC fiasco with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Had they known Miami was going to bail out of the conference before the Huskies were ever able to even play a single football game at the BCS level, I have no doubt they would have decided NOT to move up.

And because of that, I think they have a far better argument than Cincinnati, USF or anyone else that they should be included at the top level. Cincinnati and USF were playing with house money. UConn was playing with borrowed money that was borrowed with the understanding that they were "in" from the start.

There are legitimate reasons to consider including UConn in whatever number the final number winds up being. But, imho, none of them are in your post.

They were promised a spot in Big East football in exchange for a vote to allow WVU and Rutgers to join the league for all sports, the same as Villanova back in 1994. There wasn't even a BCS back then. They could have chosen not to upgrade, like Nova. It was ultimately their choice.

They had to know in the late 1990s when they finally decided to upgrade that Miami was interested in the ACC. And if they didn't know what was basically common knowledge to the average joe following conference realignment back then, who's fault is that?

They had the luxury of being a BCS team almost from the very start, spending only one year in the Rent prior to being able to join the Big East. And when the things started going crazy in terms of conference realignment, they replaced Edsall with Coach P, whose better days are far, far behind him?

I have a great deal of admiration for UConn's overall athletics department. But that was a very odd move considering the dire circumstances they were faced with at that time.

Again, there are other reasons why they could and perhaps should wind up with a seat at the table at some point, but "entitlement" isn't one of them.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree with that. I don't think UConn is entitled to a spot in the P5.

But if we took away all conference memberships and started from scratch, then considered each school individually (based on academics, market, fan support, past athletic success, commitment to the future, facilities, budget, etc.), UConn would surely be in the top 64 or whatever the cut-off is.

(06-24-2013 08:13 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 07:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-24-2013 06:28 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(06-22-2013 10:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Perhaps someone can answer this question - why does UConn deserve special treatment?

First off, I can't stand UConn. I've hated them ever since the Unfair Catch. But despite that, I think they have a good argument. In the early 2000s, and at the Big East's request, they made the decision to invest nearly $100 million into their football program to move it up to the BCS level.

They did that with the full expectation of always being part of the BCS. They did it before the ACC fiasco with Miami, Syracuse and BC. Had they known Miami was going to bail out of the conference before the Huskies were ever able to even play a single football game at the BCS level, I have no doubt they would have decided NOT to move up.

And because of that, I think they have a far better argument than Cincinnati, USF or anyone else that they should be included at the top level. Cincinnati and USF were playing with house money. UConn was playing with borrowed money that was borrowed with the understanding that they were "in" from the start.

There are legitimate reasons to consider including UConn in whatever number the final number winds up being. But, imho, none of them are in your post.

They were promised a spot in Big East football in exchange for a vote to allow WVU and Rutgers to join the league for all sports, the same as Villanova back in 1994. There wasn't even a BCS back then. They could have chosen not to upgrade, like Nova. It was ultimately their choice.

They had to know in the late 1990s when they finally decided to upgrade that Miami was interested in the ACC. And if they didn't know what was basically common knowledge to the average joe following conference realignment back then, who's fault is that?

They had the luxury of being a BCS team almost from the very start, spending only one year in the Rent prior to being able to join the Big East. And when the things started going crazy in terms of conference realignment, they replaced Edsall with Coach P, whose better days are far, far behind him?

I have a great deal of admiration for UConn's overall athletics department. But that was a very odd move considering the dire circumstances they were faced with at that time.

Again, there are other reasons why they could and perhaps should wind up with a seat at the table at some point, but "entitlement" isn't one of them.

Cheers,
Neil

I agree with that. I don't think UConn is entitled to a spot in the P5.

But if we took away all conference memberships and started from scratch, then considered each school individually (based on academics, market, fan support, past athletic success, commitment to the future, facilities, budget, etc.), UConn would surely be in the top 64 or whatever the cut-off is.

And I agree with this. But unfortunately, that's not how the game is played. As I'm sure you and other Huskies fans know.

I hope UConn finds a seat at the table.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-24-2013 07:45 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  In theory, UConn, Cincinnati, and South Florida should have an easier path than their conference mates in the American while the Big East settlement money is there for the taking. The only theoretical roadblock to an Access (née BCS) bowl is an undefeated champion from another G5 conference.

Ideally UMass and UConn would both be Big XII material and the Big XII would lock up New England on its way to 14 members-but that isn't happening anytime before 2025.

Um..,FWIW, if you think that both Umass and Uconn together "locks up New England", then you really don't know New England (and that is not intended as any disrespect to either school).

(06-24-2013 07:45 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  In theory, UConn, Cincinnati, and South Florida should have an easier path than their conference mates in the American while the Big East settlement money is there for the taking. The only theoretical roadblock to an Access (née BCS) bowl is an undefeated champion from another G5 conference.

Ideally UMass and UConn would both be Big XII material and the Big XII would lock up New England on its way to 14 members-but that isn't happening anytime before 2025.

A.K.A. Boise State.