Melky,

Your post is understandable. You want to maximize you basketball NC to propel your school into a P5 conference. I don't blame you for that. However, your post is based on assumptions that are your own, and are not facts, but wishful thinking. And once again, I get it. The B1G already has NYC with Rutgers. I know you'll argue that, but Rutgers is as much an NYC school as UCONN is. So, I don't see the need for the B1G to bring in UCONN for the NYC market.

The ACC might make more sense, but once again there is no real evidence that they are interested in UCONN because of your basketball success. Once again it seems like fan driven enthusiasm, not P5 conference's interest.

Sorry, but I think UCONN fans may be setting themselves up for heartbreak. Why not focus on making the AAC better, instead of hoping for that miracle P5 invite? I just don't see UCONN getting that invite, even with all the wishful thinking.

(04-14-2014 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:09 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 10:52 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 10:35 AM)TerryD Wrote:  It has to make financial sense for the ACC to add a single school in UConn.

In what manner can UConn's addition to the ACC pay for itself and add to the per team TV payout?

I think that is the issue.

P.S. Melky, did I miss some announcement about the Big 12 not wanting UConn?

The rumor was that UConn was the first choice to join with Syracuse until BC made a stink. I don't think UConn to the ACC is such a wild notion.

They wouldn't have got in even if BC hadn't been opposed because the number of yes votes isn't close enough for one school to swing the outcome one way or another. Just because BC was the only school to come out and say it publicly doesn't mean they are the only one that vehemently opposes UConn as things stand right now.

that is BCs version.

what actually happened:

the ACC wanted cuse. The acc was never seriously considering uconn because SU was never for that idea and wanted pitt as their partner.

Oh man, John you crack me up.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(04-14-2014 10:59 AM)esayem Wrote:  I understand you guys are flying high from the improbable title run, and that's to be expected. I don't see how this is any different than if Memphis or Butler would have won just one more game a few years ago: a great performance by a non-power conference school.

Let's be real here on the bolded part, UConn is an elite basketball program. They've made 5 Final Fours and won the title on 4 of those trips. And for that matter the American while not a power football conference is for the foreseeable future a power basketball conference.

(04-14-2014 11:17 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:09 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 10:52 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 10:35 AM)TerryD Wrote:  It has to make financial sense for the ACC to add a single school in UConn.

In what manner can UConn's addition to the ACC pay for itself and add to the per team TV payout?

I think that is the issue.

P.S. Melky, did I miss some announcement about the Big 12 not wanting UConn?

The rumor was that UConn was the first choice to join with Syracuse until BC made a stink. I don't think UConn to the ACC is such a wild notion.

They wouldn't have got in even if BC hadn't been opposed because the number of yes votes isn't close enough for one school to swing the outcome one way or another. Just because BC was the only school to come out and say it publicly doesn't mean they are the only one that vehemently opposes UConn as things stand right now.

that is BCs version.

what actually happened:

the ACC wanted cuse. The acc was never seriously considering uconn because SU was never for that idea and wanted pitt as their partner.

Oh man, John you crack me up.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

yeah it must suck that I am right. SUs blocking of uconn is well documented. they were huge supporters of ville.

Just what is it about Uconn football that is attractive to the ACC, let alone the B1G? Bad location, poor fan support, unsuitable stadium. What are we missing?

Again, it wouldn't matter if both BC and Syracuse were in favor of UConn, the votes still aren't there. We aren't talking about flipping one or two schools here, we are talking closer to four or five. Things would have to drastically change for there to be a different outcome.

UConn only has 2 options: B1G or ACC

B1G is unlikely because UConn is non-AAU and the NYC market is covered with Rutgers (I know you Husky fans disagree)

ACC is unlikely because SU and BC and the southern football schools would be dead against it.

It's not impossible, just incredibly unlikely

(04-14-2014 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:17 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:09 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 10:52 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  The rumor was that UConn was the first choice to join with Syracuse until BC made a stink. I don't think UConn to the ACC is such a wild notion.

They wouldn't have got in even if BC hadn't been opposed because the number of yes votes isn't close enough for one school to swing the outcome one way or another. Just because BC was the only school to come out and say it publicly doesn't mean they are the only one that vehemently opposes UConn as things stand right now.

that is BCs version.

what actually happened:

the ACC wanted cuse. The acc was never seriously considering uconn because SU was never for that idea and wanted pitt as their partner.

Oh man, John you crack me up.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

yeah it must suck that I am right. SUs blocking of uconn is well documented. they were huge supporters of ville.

It's the pride you say it with that gets me. Plus your assumption the ACC gave two hoots about what Syracuse preferred.

Syracuse couldn't hang on the field or the court, so resorted to abandoning the Big East, and actively blocking UConn's entrance into a conference. And yet, UConn continues to win championships.

While what you say being true is debatable, Uconn's athletic results are not.

why do you think I have pride?

and fyi syracuse got a full tv payout in year #1. obviously cuse was able to leverage their terms and thus the ACC did give a hoot about what cuse preferred.

kudos to uconn athletics in the past 15 years. considering the circumstances they were incredibly well run in that time period.

and you are correct: syracuse & BC legitimately fear uconn. they see uconn as a threat and a school that will always steal recruits, students, & fans from them.

(04-14-2014 11:18 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Let's be real here on the bolded part, UConn is an elite basketball program. They've made 5 Final Fours and won the title on 4 of those trips. And for that matter the American while not a power football conference is for the foreseeable future a power basketball conference.

UConn being elite has nothing to do with their conference of also-rans.

If the AAC is a power conference then the A10, Big East, and Mtn West are power conferences too. Otherwise, I would call that group along with the AAC as Major conferences.

The latest title is significant in that it allows UConn to assert that their hoops program's success wasn't just the product of one very tournament-savvy coach.

At the same time, fair or not (and many would say that it is not), one good tournament run doesn't guarantee sustained success. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Mike Davis made the tournament his first year, and made it to the championship game in his second year. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Kevin Ollie missed the tournament in year 1, and won that last game in year 2. Yes, the significance of winning that "one game" is big, but on a broad scale there's not a whole lot separating those two up to now.

In quick terms, is Kevin Ollie Mike Davis (who followed a legend and quickly flamed out), or is he Tom Izzo (who followed a local legend, and may not have won another title, but who has been a Final Four regular)?

If UConn fits for other reasons (geography/market/football/academics/etc) they'll get an invitation to a P5 conference. It may happen later rather than sooner, and it could well be that the big boys are in no rush at this point, and are looking to see the results of the Maryland lawsuit, potential NCAA legislation changes, and waiting out the future (or lack thereof) of the Big 12 before they make a move on UConn. In the meantime, if UConn continues to build their brand, that just makes them a better addition when it occurs.

(04-14-2014 12:01 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The latest title is significant in that it allows UConn to assert that their hoops program's success wasn't just the product of one very tournament-savvy coach.

At the same time, fair or not (and many would say that it is not), one good tournament run doesn't guarantee sustained success. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Mike Davis made the tournament his first year, and made it to the championship game in his second year. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Kevin Ollie missed the tournament in year 1, and won that last game in year 2. Yes, the significance of winning that "one game" is big, but on a broad scale there's not a whole lot separating those two up to now.

In quick terms, is Kevin Ollie Mike Davis (who followed a legend and quickly flamed out), or is he Tom Izzo (who followed a local legend, and may not have won another title, but who has been a Final Four regular)?

If UConn fits for other reasons (geography/market/football/academics/etc) they'll get an invitation to a P5 conference. It may happen later rather than sooner, and it could well be that the big boys are in no rush at this point, and are looking to see the results of the Maryland lawsuit, potential NCAA legislation changes, and waiting out the future (or lack thereof) of the Big 12 before they make a move on UConn. In the meantime, if UConn continues to build their brand, that just makes them a better addition when it occurs.

really???????

(04-14-2014 11:29 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Just what is it about Uconn football that is attractive to the ACC, let alone the B1G? Bad location, poor fan support, unsuitable stadium. What are we missing?

UConn's 2012 attendance in a down year was better than Duke or Wake Forest and only 3K a game less than Syracuse and BC. How is there fan support, stadium or location a problem for the ACC.

(04-14-2014 11:52 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:18 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Let's be real here on the bolded part, UConn is an elite basketball program. They've made 5 Final Fours and won the title on 4 of those trips. And for that matter the American while not a power football conference is for the foreseeable future a power basketball conference.

UConn being elite has nothing to do with their conference of also-rans.

If the AAC is a power conference then the A10, Big East, and Mtn West are power conferences too. Otherwise, I would call that group along with the AAC as Major conferences.

I don't think there is even a debate any more. The power 5 are majors, the rest are mid majors, low majors, whatever.

Among the mid majors, of course there are some better teams.

But the athletic world looks at a umass the same as uconn, creighton and Butler. Their accomplishments are something fans of the schools should be proud of. But let's be realistic, a Uconn in the AAC is just a relatively good team in a non power 5 conference.

A Wake Forest or Oregon State beats perception wise a decent team in a non major conference. Even in this NCaa tournament, the world looked at Uconn as an underdog. Power schools are just going to be treated and looked at differently.

(04-14-2014 12:07 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:29 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Just what is it about Uconn football that is attractive to the ACC, let alone the B1G? Bad location, poor fan support, unsuitable stadium. What are we missing?

UConn's 2012 attendance in a down year was better than Duke or Wake Forest and only 3K a game less than Syracuse and BC. How is there fan support, stadium or location a problem for the ACC.

are you sure those numbers are accurate?

UConn is a power program in hoops but looking at the average RPI (past 7 years) of the members of each league going forward the AAC isn't any different than the MWC or A-10 and only a little step up from the WCC or MVC.

You have some consistently strong programs anchoring the AAC with UConn, Memphis, (average RPI's over 7 years of 28.57, 23.57) and then a step down to Temple (51.29) Cincinnati (63.29) and Tulsa (86.00). The rest average a combined 174.79 but should improve in coming years as SMU has the coaching and recruiting to blow away their 229 average prior to this past season.

This is pretty similar to the MWC where SDSU (31.43), UNM (38.43), UNLV (46.71), and USU (77.00) carry the banner and the rest average out to 163.


Average 7 Year Men's Hoops RPI for all FBS leagues as well as the Big East, A-10, MVC, WCC, CAA, and Ivies.

ACC 68.38
Big 12 75.16
Big East 77.14
Big Ten 83.49
SEC 89.92
Pac 12 97.98
A-10 113.63
American 118.31
MWC11 121.35
Mo Valley 140.76
WCC 144.79
CUSA 154.67
MAC 185.33
CAA 187.33
Ivies 205.13
Sun Belt 222.83

Weighted 7 year averages for the same leagues (Weighted factors the most recent year 7 times, last year 6 times, and so on until the oldest year of the past 7 is counted once. So a team like SMU that became strong recently gets a huge boost compared to a team that was good 7 years ago)

ACC 73.38
Big 12 76.28
Big Ten 78.06
Big East 78.21
SEC 92.22
Pac 12 98.05
A-10 111.16
MWC11 116.30
American 116.47
WCC 138.43
Mo Valley 143.64
CUSA 155.99
MAC 183.16
CAA 189.14
Ivies 198.29
Sun Belt 228.38

(04-14-2014 12:01 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The latest title is significant in that it allows UConn to assert that their hoops program's success wasn't just the product of one very tournament-savvy coach.

At the same time, fair or not (and many would say that it is not), one good tournament run doesn't guarantee sustained success. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Mike Davis made the tournament his first year, and made it to the championship game in his second year. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Kevin Ollie missed the tournament in year 1, and won that last game in year 2. Yes, the significance of winning that "one game" is big, but on a broad scale there's not a whole lot separating those two up to now.

In quick terms, is Kevin Ollie Mike Davis (who followed a legend and quickly flamed out), or is he Tom Izzo (who followed a local legend, and may not have won another title, but who has been a Final Four regular)?

If UConn fits for other reasons (geography/market/football/academics/etc) they'll get an invitation to a P5 conference. It may happen later rather than sooner, and it could well be that the big boys are in no rush at this point, and are looking to see the results of the Maryland lawsuit, potential NCAA legislation changes, and waiting out the future (or lack thereof) of the Big 12 before they make a move on UConn. In the meantime, if UConn continues to build their brand, that just makes them a better addition when it occurs.

That's right Phog. There is a waiting list on realignment:
1. Will the NCAA commit to the proposed changes?
2. What will the decision of the O'Bannon case be?
3. What will the decision of the Maryland case be?
4. If the NCAA commits what will autonomy mean?
5. If the NCAA doesn't commit will there be a breakaway?
6. If the ruling in the Maryland case is unfavorable to the ACC will there be pressure on their membership to consider moving?
7. If the ruling in the Maryland case is unfavorable to the ACC will there be pressure on the members of the Big 12 to consider moving?
8. If the ACC gets a favorable ruling and stands firm will there be pressure on the Big 12 members to move anyway?
9. If the Big 12 stands firm, or if Texas and Oklahoma aren't inclined to move to the Big 10 will that accompanied by the ACC's solidarity force them to act quickly upon Connecticut?
10. If the ACC thinks that the Big 10 will act upon UConn is that enough to prompt them to strike first to cut off the Big 10's further move into New England?

And there are other questions to be answered even if all of the above are covered. So the likelihood that any quick movement on Connecticut, or anyone else, will be forthcoming is remote for a couple of years. Once the O' Bannon and Maryland cases are resolved then everyone will feel they have a clearer understanding of the potentialities and movement will be more likely. An upper tier where autonomy over the structure of conferences might spur realignment. A breakaway would probably feature some more realignment if it happened. But all of that is a lot of stuff to be resolved before Connecticut's place in all of this is determined.

(04-14-2014 12:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 12:01 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The latest title is significant in that it allows UConn to assert that their hoops program's success wasn't just the product of one very tournament-savvy coach.

At the same time, fair or not (and many would say that it is not), one good tournament run doesn't guarantee sustained success. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Mike Davis made the tournament his first year, and made it to the championship game in his second year. After following a legendary coach who won the NCAA tournament 3 times, Kevin Ollie missed the tournament in year 1, and won that last game in year 2. Yes, the significance of winning that "one game" is big, but on a broad scale there's not a whole lot separating those two up to now.

In quick terms, is Kevin Ollie Mike Davis (who followed a legend and quickly flamed out), or is he Tom Izzo (who followed a local legend, and may not have won another title, but who has been a Final Four regular)?

If UConn fits for other reasons (geography/market/football/academics/etc) they'll get an invitation to a P5 conference. It may happen later rather than sooner, and it could well be that the big boys are in no rush at this point, and are looking to see the results of the Maryland lawsuit, potential NCAA legislation changes, and waiting out the future (or lack thereof) of the Big 12 before they make a move on UConn. In the meantime, if UConn continues to build their brand, that just makes them a better addition when it occurs.

That's right Phog. There is a waiting list on realignment:
1. Will the NCAA commit to the proposed changes?
2. What will the decision of the O'Bannon case be?
3. What will the decision of the Maryland case be?
4. If the NCAA commits what will autonomy mean?
5. If the NCAA doesn't commit will there be a breakaway?
6. If the ruling in the Maryland case is unfavorable to the ACC will there be pressure on their membership to consider moving?
7. If the ruling in the Maryland case is unfavorable to the ACC will there be pressure on the members of the Big 12 to consider moving?
8. If the ACC gets a favorable ruling and stands firm will there be pressure on the Big 12 members to move anyway?
9. If the Big 12 stands firm, or if Texas and Oklahoma aren't inclined to move to the Big 10 will that accompanied by the ACC's solidarity force them to act quickly upon Connecticut?
10. If the ACC thinks that the Big 10 will act upon UConn is that enough to prompt them to strike first to cut off the Big 10's further move into New England?

And there are other questions to be answered even if all of the above are covered. So the likelihood that any quick movement on Connecticut, or anyone else, will be forthcoming is remote for a couple of years. Once the O' Bannon and Maryland cases are resolved then everyone will feel they have a clearer understanding of the potentialities and movement will be more likely. An upper tier where autonomy over the structure of conferences might spur realignment. A breakaway would probably feature some more realignment if it happened. But all of that is a lot of stuff to be resolved before Connecticut's place in all of this is determined.

The Maryland exit fee case has nothing to do with realignment. Why do people keep making this claim?

The GOR's are the key to realignment - and the resulting stability which has seemed to spread over college athletics since they have been adopted.

Louisville is the ONLY real Gang of Five program to get the call-up. Everyone else who has realigned has previously been with the major programs over the YEARS... UTAH was with Arizona and Arizona State for decades in the WAC before those other two joined the PAC and then UTAH followed in later with some football successes. TCU was with TEXAS and the gang in previous alignments, before football success in the last decade got them included again. Rutgers was in AQ conferences from the start of the AQ; Rutgers, despite not being all that good has been playing with the big boys since the 1800's... Then West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, and Maryland all just hopped from one AQ to another. UCONN just started playing with the big boys last decade.

Louisville lucked out with football success at the right time and the ACC needed a filler for Maryland and their programs across the board are winners with big budget / big time commitment and support. No other Go5 is even remotely close to that level of success across the board.

(04-14-2014 12:14 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 12:07 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(04-14-2014 11:29 AM)westwolf Wrote:  Just what is it about Uconn football that is attractive to the ACC, let alone the B1G? Bad location, poor fan support, unsuitable stadium. What are we missing?

UConn's 2012 attendance in a down year was better than Duke or Wake Forest and only 3K a game less than Syracuse and BC. How is there fan support, stadium or location a problem for the ACC.

are you sure those numbers are accurate?

Yes. See for yourself.
http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2012.pdf