(04-02-2014 07:48 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:01 PM)prp Wrote:  Inviting UMass to the AAC would be like inviting an FCS school into a BCS conference. The football team would be a total failure and would never be able to compete.

Didn't that essentially happen in 2004 when brand new Division 1 football program UCONN joined the Big East. The same thing with USF in 2005?

In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:48 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:01 PM)prp Wrote:  Inviting UMass to the AAC would be like inviting an FCS school into a BCS conference. The football team would be a total failure and would never be able to compete.

Didn't that essentially happen in 2004 when brand new Division 1 football program UCONN joined the Big East. The same thing with USF in 2005?

In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

I keep thinking UMass and Delaware are going to head to CUSA. In terms of flagships, academics and having good market size, I think they fit.

I see the American taking from CUSA in the long run...but CUSA is the feeder league.

(04-01-2014 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm up for adding UMASS because they are a flagship. Don't know why, but on this board many fans seem to think a conference can work their way up to being a power conference. Can it? Maybe, but I don't think it's possible simply because I've never seen it done. When looking at the P5 conferences there's something that they have in common, and that is they are made up of mostly state flagships or the "2nd fiddle" in the state. Example: The University of ________ and _____ State. The last component is wealthy private schools, which they all have a few. UMASS to AAC would give the league 2 Flagships. It would be a start.
Big 10-Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland. Rutgers. 11 state flagships, 1 Second fiddle.
SEC . 11 Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Louisiana St, Texas A&M. 9 State Flagships, 2, 2nd Fiddles
Big 12 7 West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Big 12,4 State Flagships, 3 2nd fiddles.
PAC:9Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, California, Washington St, Oregon St. Arizona St. [u] 6 state flagships,3 2nd Fiddles
ACC: Florida st, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virgina, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech. 2 Flagships, 3 2nd Fiddles the rest are wealthy privates and "city state schools" `
AAC 2 (With inclusion of UMASS, UCONN AND UMASS. The rest are a military institution and a few wealthy private schools, and several "city-state schools" and "directional schools"
MWC 6 4 Flagships:Hawaii, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico. 2 "2nd Fiddles" Colorado St and Utah St. Also has a military institution
SBC/MAC/CUSA: All three of these conferences are made up almost entirely of "directional schools and "city-state schools".
My point is this: The only hope for a "6th power conference would be to grab all the remaining state flagships left and put them in the same conference plus sprinkle in a couple wealthy private schools and the military institutions. It would obviously have to be a coast to coast league meaning it probably wouldn't work unless you have 8 of these lumped close enough together for an eastern division, and 8 lumped close enough together for a western division creating a 16 Team National Conference.

This is riddled with errors.

First, Purdue is a state flagship. It's actually the land-grant school in Indiana. It's a more important and prestigious university than IU in every field except law and medicine. It's also a bigger school with a bigger endowment.

Second, Florida State is not a state flagship. Florida is. According to the state's funding and classification systems, FSU is on the same level as UCF and USF. It's actually below USF in the quality of its graduate and research programs.

Third, Arizona State is not a state flagship. It was originally a teachers' college and now is more similar to a metro university (similar to UCLA in both respects). Except that other metro universities like UC and Louisville have much bigger endowments than them.

Fourth, Texas Tech and Texas State are technically flagships. Although in reality they're 3rd and 4th fiddle.

Fifth, Georgia Tech is not a flagship, despite it's $1.7 billion endowment.

Sixth, several AAC "city" schools have branch campuses and qualify as flagships under most standard definitions. Cincinnati, Temple, USF, and UCF each have several branch campuses. They are also larger, more elite, and wealthier than a lot of the SEC & MWC flagships.

Seventh, the MAC technically has 1 flagship: Buffalo. New York State technically has no flagship, but its 4 biggest and best schools are generally considered flagships. Although Ohio could also be considered flagship because of its extensive branch system. Kent and Miami also have several branch campuses.

Sheesh, with your logic you may as well refer to tiny HBCU's like Kentucky State and West Virginia State as "2nd fiddle flagships."

(04-02-2014 06:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 12:52 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  I'm up for adding UMASS because they are a flagship. Don't know why, but on this board many fans seem to think a conference can work their way up to being a power conference. Can it? Maybe, but I don't think it's possible simply because I've never seen it done. When looking at the P5 conferences there's something that they have in common, and that is they are made up of mostly state flagships or the "2nd fiddle" in the state. Example: The University of ________ and _____ State. The last component is wealthy private schools, which they all have a few. UMASS to AAC would give the league 2 Flagships. It would be a start.
Big 10-Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Maryland. Rutgers. 11 state flagships, 1 Second fiddle.
SEC . 11 Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Louisiana St, Texas A&M. 9 State Flagships, 2, 2nd Fiddles
Big 12 7 West Virginia, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa St, Kansas St, Oklahoma St, Big 12,4 State Flagships, 3 2nd fiddles.
PAC:9Washington, Oregon, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, California, Washington St, Oregon St. Arizona St. [u] 6 state flagships,3 2nd Fiddles
ACC: Florida st, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virgina, North Carolina St, Virginia Tech. 2 Flagships, 3 2nd Fiddles the rest are wealthy privates and "city state schools" `
AAC 2 (With inclusion of UMASS, UCONN AND UMASS. The rest are a military institution and a few wealthy private schools, and several "city-state schools" and "directional schools"
MWC 6 4 Flagships:Hawaii, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico. 2 "2nd Fiddles" Colorado St and Utah St. Also has a military institution
SBC/MAC/CUSA: All three of these conferences are made up almost entirely of "directional schools and "city-state schools".
My point is this: The only hope for a "6th power conference would be to grab all the remaining state flagships left and put them in the same conference plus sprinkle in a couple wealthy private schools and the military institutions. It would obviously have to be a coast to coast league meaning it probably wouldn't work unless you have 8 of these lumped close enough together for an eastern division, and 8 lumped close enough together for a western division creating a 16 Team National Conference.

This is riddled with errors.

First, Purdue is a state flagship. It's actually the land-grant school in Indiana. It's a more important and prestigious university than IU in every field except law and medicine. It's also a bigger school with a bigger endowment.

Second, Florida State is not a state flagship. Florida is. According to the state's funding and classification systems, FSU is on the same level as UCF and USF. It's actually below USF in the quality of its graduate and research programs.

Third, Arizona State is not a state flagship. It was originally a teachers' college and now is more similar to a metro university (similar to UCLA in both respects). Except that other metro universities like UC and Louisville have much bigger endowments than them.

Fourth, Texas Tech and Texas State are technically flagships. Although in reality they're 3rd and 4th fiddle.

Fifth, Georgia Tech is not a flagship, despite it's $1.7 billion endowment.

Sixth, several AAC "city" schools have branch campuses and qualify as flagships under most standard definitions. Cincinnati, Temple, USF, and UCF each have several branch campuses. They are also larger, more elite, and wealthier than a lot of the SEC & MWC flagships.

Seventh, the MAC technically has 1 flagship: Buffalo. New York State technically has no flagship, but its 4 biggest and best schools are generally considered flagships. Although Ohio could also be considered flagship because of its extensive branch system. Kent and Miami also have several branch campuses.

Sheesh, with your logic you may as well refer to tiny HBCU's like Kentucky State and West Virginia State as "2nd fiddle flagships."

You're making his point a little. I've never heard anyone refer to Cincinnati, Temple, USF or UCF as flagships. And Texas Tech and Texas State aren't flagships at all. Texas State isn't 4th fiddle or 5th or 6th.

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:48 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:01 PM)prp Wrote:  Inviting UMass to the AAC would be like inviting an FCS school into a BCS conference. The football team would be a total failure and would never be able to compete.

Didn't that essentially happen in 2004 when brand new Division 1 football program UCONN joined the Big East. The same thing with USF in 2005?

In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:48 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:01 PM)prp Wrote:  Inviting UMass to the AAC would be like inviting an FCS school into a BCS conference. The football team would be a total failure and would never be able to compete.

Didn't that essentially happen in 2004 when brand new Division 1 football program UCONN joined the Big East. The same thing with USF in 2005?

In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

(04-02-2014 06:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Seventh, the MAC technically has 1 flagship: Buffalo. New York State technically has no flagship, but its 4 biggest and best schools are generally considered flagships. Although Ohio could also be considered flagship because of its extensive branch system. Kent and Miami also have several branch campuses.

Kent's network of branch campuses rivals OhioU's, but to the extent that either could be said to be a "flagship", they would be aim to be regional rather than statewide, for NE and SE Ohio respectively ... MiamiU stands fairly high in academic status, but has a fairly small branch campus network. I guess UC, Akron, Toledo, Wright State, YSU are more urban metro universities, with from zero to two branches.

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:48 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Didn't that essentially happen in 2004 when brand new Division 1 football program UCONN joined the Big East. The same thing with USF in 2005?

In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or
3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or
3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

You're so full of sh!t, it's not even funny.

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 05:56 PM)prp Wrote:  In UConn's case, yes. Which is why some of the comments by certain UConn fans sound more than a little hypocritical. UConn only upgraded and was successful at it because of the guarantee of BCS football and BCS money. And they tried to sue everyone they could when their security blanket was being threatened. No other school has ever gotten that sort of sweetheart deal. Criticizing UMass for not being immediately successful when they've had to play in a lower tier league with no local rivals and a tiny payout is pretty unfair when UConn has never had to go through that struggle.

I'm not advocating UMass to the AAC, but it's no worse an idea than UConn to the Big East in 2004.

As for USF, they upgraded without a BCS guarantee. Their plan was for Conference USA until Miami left the Big East and the conference wanted a Florida replacement. It didn't take the promise of guaranteed money for them to take the plunge.

Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or
3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or

3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Georgetown was invited but wasn't interested. So were Seton Hall, Providence and St John's. Villanova and UConn were the ones that didn't say no right away.

"What the Big East has done is extend an invitation to each of its members -- including Notre Dame -- to join the football conference. If all had accepted, it would be easy to envision a 16-team megaconference ready to join the national picture."
http://articles.courant.com/1997-11-02/s...eton-hall/

This was entirely a basketball school initiative. The football members had about the same interest in UConn football as they did in Seton Hall and Providence football which was pretty much zero.

(04-03-2014 01:02 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or

3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Georgetown was invited but wasn't interested. So were Seton Hall, Providence and St John's. Villanova and UConn were the ones that didn't say no right away.

"What the Big East has done is extend an invitation to each of its members -- including Notre Dame -- to join the football conference. If all had accepted, it would be easy to envision a 16-team megaconference ready to join the national picture."
http://articles.courant.com/1997-11-02/s...eton-hall/

This was entirely a basketball school initiative. The football members had about the same interest in UConn football as they did in Seton Hall and Providence football which was pretty much zero.

The Big East did not invite Seton Hall and Providence football...primarily because those programs do not exist. Georgetown was also never invited.

(04-03-2014 01:02 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or

3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Georgetown was invited but wasn't interested. So were Seton Hall, Providence and St John's. Villanova and UConn were the ones that didn't say no right away.

"What the Big East has done is extend an invitation to each of its members -- including Notre Dame -- to join the football conference. If all had accepted, it would be easy to envision a 16-team megaconference ready to join the national picture."
http://articles.courant.com/1997-11-02/s...eton-hall/

This was entirely a basketball school initiative. The football members had about the same interest in UConn football as they did in Seton Hall and Providence football which was pretty much zero.

This was most definitely NOT a basketball initiative. It grew out of the desire of the football schools to develop an eastern all sports conference. Here are the reasons why it was not a basketball initiative.

1. Big East Football was a separate entity. The non-football schools had no control over it, received no money from it, and had no vote in who could participate and who couldn't. It simply wasn't possible for them to force such an initiative on the football schools if they didn't want it.

2. It defies common sense. Why would the basketball schools insist on such a football initiative and then turn it down when the invitation came? They didn't. It never happened that way.

UConn was interested in upgrading football. UConn AD Lew Perkins advocated for that since he arrived from Maryland in 1990. The football schools were in fact interested and decided to extend an invitation to everyone rather than to single out UConn. It turned out that UConn was in fact the only one interested. Villanova turned down the invitation not once but twice. There simply never was any such interest among the basketball-only schools.

(04-04-2014 10:21 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 01:02 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or

3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Georgetown was invited but wasn't interested. So were Seton Hall, Providence and St John's. Villanova and UConn were the ones that didn't say no right away.

"What the Big East has done is extend an invitation to each of its members -- including Notre Dame -- to join the football conference. If all had accepted, it would be easy to envision a 16-team megaconference ready to join the national picture."
http://articles.courant.com/1997-11-02/s...eton-hall/

This was entirely a basketball school initiative. The football members had about the same interest in UConn football as they did in Seton Hall and Providence football which was pretty much zero.

This was most definitely NOT a basketball initiative. It grew out of the desire of the football schools to develop an eastern all sports conference. Here are the reasons why it was not a basketball initiative.

1. Big East Football was a separate entity. The non-football schools had no control over it, received no money from it, and had no vote in who could participate and who couldn't. It simply wasn't possible for them to force such an initiative on the football schools if they didn't want it.

2. It defies common sense. Why would the basketball schools insist on such a football initiative and then turn it down when the invitation came? They didn't. It never happened that way.

UConn was interested in upgrading football. UConn AD Lew Perkins advocated for that since he arrived from Maryland in 1990. The football schools were in fact interested and decided to extend an invitation to everyone rather than to single out UConn. It turned out that UConn was in fact the only one interested. Villanova turned down the invitation not once but twice. There simply never was any such interest among the basketball-only schools.

I should apologize. I was wrong when I said it was a basketball initiative. My memory from that time is a little spotty. I looked it up and it looks like it was all part of the power struggle between football and basketball and the offer came from football to stack the votes for their side. I can say though, as a Big East football fan back then, my feeling and that of most people I knew was hating the decision, and like most issues with Big East football, we blamed basketball. Sorry, but our excitement for 1AA teams in our conference was zero. Our first choice was leaving the conference. For football expansion, we were naive enough back then to think Notre Dame and Penn State were real possibilities or barring that, thought we should be looking at existing 1A school. When we heard not only was football staying in the Big East, but we were adding UConn and Villanova, we were pretty disappointed and a bit angry at the decision makers.

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:30 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 08:05 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:33 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Not the same case. UCONN had been a member of the Big East for over 20 years at that point. UCONN also just won the men's basketball championship in 99 and multiple women's titles. UCONN contributed more than enough to earn the right to upgrade its football (in a conference that UCONN was a member of from the very start).

Whether they deserved it or not is a different debate. At the time of the invite, though, they were still an 1-AA program in a small and out-of-date stadium with a questionable football fan base. UMass is ahead now of where UConn was then. UConn took full advantage of the opportunity they were given and were able to build their program to a level they probably could not have achieved if they had to go the mid-major or independent route. It's not unreasonable to believe that UMass could do something similar with the same opportunity.

So then ask yourself why the Big East gave UCONN that opportunity...Here are the answers:

1. UCONN was rising athletically with success in other Big East sports (as I previously posted).

2. UCONN had the full backing and undivided attention of the state of Connecticut. Connecticut had been building and putting its full resources into the university for many years by that point. The athletic department and university were able to take the next step and upgrade football as well. Until UMASS has a firm commitment, where the state of Massachusetts puts UMASS first (like most states do with their flagships), UMASS won't be ready.

And no, I'm not anti-UMASS, but rather, I'd like to see the state stop treating UMASS like the unwanted red-headed stepchild. I'm not convinced Massachusetts is willing to make that commitment, and that's the big difference between where UCONN was and where UMASS is today.

Or
3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Uhh . . .

Georgetown was invited. It was an open invitation to all of the basketball schools.

(04-07-2014 03:04 AM)prp Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 10:21 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 01:02 PM)prp Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 07:17 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 03:00 AM)prp Wrote:  Or

3. UConn and Villanova (who was given the same invitation) played basketball in a dysfunctional conference that also sponsored football. They were the choices forced upon the football schools by the basketball schools. The football schools wanted to expand and go outside to add existing 1A schools but were blocked by the basketball schools who refused to approve any new members. UConn and Villanova were the only expansion options the football schools had available short of blowing up the conference. This was also in 1996 when the initial invite went out, pre-basketball championship at a time when two of the eight football schools were football only and pissed about not being full members, two were in their first year of full sports participation and still pissed at having had to wait 5 years to become full members and another in its fifth year as a full member but only ever cared about football. None of those five schools gave a damn that UConn was a founding Big East member or had a good basketball program or had any sort of loyalty to the Huskies. And neither did the other three when it came to football who would have left a year earlier if Rutgers and WVU weren't brought on as full members.

And Villanova didn't accept. Why? Because they weren't ready for the upgrade. Also if the invite was only because UCONN and Nova had football then why wasn't Georgetown also given the invite? Try again.

Georgetown was invited but wasn't interested. So were Seton Hall, Providence and St John's. Villanova and UConn were the ones that didn't say no right away.

"What the Big East has done is extend an invitation to each of its members -- including Notre Dame -- to join the football conference. If all had accepted, it would be easy to envision a 16-team megaconference ready to join the national picture."
http://articles.courant.com/1997-11-02/s...eton-hall/

This was entirely a basketball school initiative. The football members had about the same interest in UConn football as they did in Seton Hall and Providence football which was pretty much zero.

This was most definitely NOT a basketball initiative. It grew out of the desire of the football schools to develop an eastern all sports conference. Here are the reasons why it was not a basketball initiative.

1. Big East Football was a separate entity. The non-football schools had no control over it, received no money from it, and had no vote in who could participate and who couldn't. It simply wasn't possible for them to force such an initiative on the football schools if they didn't want it.

2. It defies common sense. Why would the basketball schools insist on such a football initiative and then turn it down when the invitation came? They didn't. It never happened that way.

UConn was interested in upgrading football. UConn AD Lew Perkins advocated for that since he arrived from Maryland in 1990. The football schools were in fact interested and decided to extend an invitation to everyone rather than to single out UConn. It turned out that UConn was in fact the only one interested. Villanova turned down the invitation not once but twice. There simply never was any such interest among the basketball-only schools.

I should apologize. I was wrong when I said it was a basketball initiative. My memory from that time is a little spotty. I looked it up and it looks like it was all part of the power struggle between football and basketball and the offer came from football to stack the votes for their side. I can say though, as a Big East football fan back then, my feeling and that of most people I knew was hating the decision, and like most issues with Big East football, we blamed basketball. Sorry, but our excitement for 1AA teams in our conference was zero. Our first choice was leaving the conference. For football expansion, we were naive enough back then to think Notre Dame and Penn State were real possibilities or barring that, thought we should be looking at existing 1A school. When we heard not only was football staying in the Big East, but we were adding UConn and Villanova, we were pretty disappointed and a bit angry at the decision makers.

I understand.

(04-03-2014 01:20 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 06:42 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Seventh, the MAC technically has 1 flagship: Buffalo. New York State technically has no flagship, but its 4 biggest and best schools are generally considered flagships. Although Ohio could also be considered flagship because of its extensive branch system. Kent and Miami also have several branch campuses.

Kent's network of branch campuses rivals OhioU's, but to the extent that either could be said to be a "flagship", they would be aim to be regional rather than statewide, for NE and SE Ohio respectively ... MiamiU stands fairly high in academic status, but has a fairly small branch campus network. I guess UC, Akron, Toledo, Wright State, YSU are more urban metro universities, with from zero to two branches.

Kent State is an interesting one because it was put in NE Ohio with the purpose of building a SUNY level school for that part of the state.

Fearing the power of a public liberal arts focused university in NE Ohio, Ohio State fought tooth and nail against its funding for the first 30-40 years of its existence. Back in the early 50's there was still bad blood between Ohio & Miami and OSU. To stick it to OSU they they brought Kent State into the MAC before they were ready to handle the conference athletically (much like Buffalo was brought in by the MAC after being DIII a few years before).

The result of this Kent State struggled athletically for the first few decades of the MAC but over the last 20 years has been the MAC's best all sport program. OSU slowed the schools development down with some of its maneuvers but economics of high tuition eventually turned the tide for Kent which has shot up in enrollment due to being a flagship school in a region of 6 million people. Kent State has 42,000 system wide students, double than Bowling Green which used to be the same size 25 years ago. Basic admission requirements may be higher than Ohio State now too.