Used to be mad at USF and UConn since they were able to get in a BCS conference without having established football programs. It wasn't fair Life isn't fair, so I got over it.

I really like the teams in the AAC, so it was hard to choose one to hate. I feel the most animosity towards Memphis right now due to the bowl game. However, I'm much more angry at our (BYU) coaching staff that didn't clean up penalties all year, and had a person who never played college football as the defensive coordinator (only such case in all FBS!). It truly was Bronco's worst coaching year last year in all 10 he's been here. So, my bad feelings aren't so much directly due to Memphis, the Tigers are more a reminder of how bad our football season went last year.

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:55 PM)primus74 Wrote:  There's only one team on this list that wins championships. I guess there are a lot of jealous fan bases out there.

who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

(07-01-2015 03:46 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:55 PM)primus74 Wrote:  There's only one team on this list that wins championships. I guess there are a lot of jealous fan bases out there.

who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

That we actually win them and field a real football team?

(07-01-2015 03:46 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:55 PM)primus74 Wrote:  There's only one team on this list that wins championships. I guess there are a lot of jealous fan bases out there.

who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

Oh yeah? LOL

(07-01-2015 04:00 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 03:46 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:55 PM)primus74 Wrote:  There's only one team on this list that wins championships. I guess there are a lot of jealous fan bases out there.

who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

Oh yeah? LOL

UConn won a power conference title once outright (yes, they got blown out by Oklahoma in the BCS game, just like Cincy got blown out by Florida... but even with those games the Big East had a winning record in AQ bowl games... look it up) and also tied for a conference title once and another year won road games at Baylor and Notre Dame and beat South Carolina in a bowl game and during those three given seasons their home games were at 95% capacity and RG3 said it was the toughest road environment he ever played in.

UConn has no football history.

(07-01-2015 04:42 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 04:00 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 03:46 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 09:55 PM)primus74 Wrote:  There's only one team on this list that wins championships. I guess there are a lot of jealous fan bases out there.

who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

Oh yeah? LOL

UConn won a power conference title once outright (yes, they got blown out by Oklahoma in the BCS game, just like Cincy got blown out by Florida... but even with those games the Big East had a winning record in AQ bowl games... look it up) and also tied for a conference title once and another year won road games at Baylor and Notre Dame and beat South Carolina in a bowl game and during those three given seasons their home games were at 95% capacity and RG3 said it was the toughest road environment he ever played in.

UConn has no football history.

Oh gotcha! k, carry on. Your Husky Logo is still ugly though!

(07-01-2015 04:46 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 04:42 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 04:00 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 03:46 PM)uconnwhaler Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 10:05 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  who was champions last year in the AAC? Wasn't it like a three way tie, non of them were UCONN

The fact that you view championships to be a reference to the conference tells you everything you need to know about NIU.

Oh yeah? LOL

UConn won a power conference title once outright (yes, they got blown out by Oklahoma in the BCS game, just like Cincy got blown out by Florida... but even with those games the Big East had a winning record in AQ bowl games... look it up) and also tied for a conference title once and another year won road games at Baylor and Notre Dame and beat South Carolina in a bowl game and during those three given seasons their home games were at 95% capacity and RG3 said it was the toughest road environment he ever played in.

UConn has no football history.

Oh gotcha! k, carry on. Your Husky Logo is still ugly though!

Well, I may agree with you there.. maybe... Liked the old one better. And still rooting for you guys in Chestnut Hill.

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:17 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:48 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:43 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Sure about that?

It may grab someone's attention, but football success is not king. Conference musical chairs is all about what school best fits the current agenda of the conference expanding.

One of the Huskies is trending upward the other fields a football team my nephew could be recruited by (he's 5'10 and 155 with very average stats in most every case). You must be Jewish man cuz damn does your school love experiencing that Passover (for a P5 spot) hahaha

If we were starting from scratch today to fill about 64 spots in P5, UConn would be P5. NIU wouldn't even be in the conversation.

That's a pretty arrogant thing to say! Why was UConn passed over during the last major reshuffling of the P5?

Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, of course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single-handily pushed the ACC to not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh?

Look, sure, BC was a most likely a "no" vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion? If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first, major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this:

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 seasons in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this past season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the action of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of most of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:17 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 03:48 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  One of the Huskies is trending upward the other fields a football team my nephew could be recruited by (he's 5'10 and 155 with very average stats in most every case). You must be Jewish man cuz damn does your school love experiencing that Passover (for a P5 spot) hahaha

If we were starting from scratch today to fill about 64 spots in P5, UConn would be P5. NIU wouldn't even be in the conversation.

That's a pretty arrogant thing to say! Why was UConn passed over during the last major reshuffling of the P5?

Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:17 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If we were starting from scratch today to fill about 64 spots in P5, UConn would be P5. NIU wouldn't even be in the conversation.

That's a pretty arrogant thing to say! Why was UConn passed over during the last major reshuffling of the P5?

Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

I wonder if there is an easy way to sort out the responses from the non-aac fans. I am curious what the non-aac fans think.

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:17 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  That's a pretty arrogant thing to say! Why was UConn passed over during the last major reshuffling of the P5?

Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

(07-02-2015 06:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

Well...not surprising......you frame a response by posting another ridiculous inaccuracy. Just to inform you, BC has several very active fan boards. "Eagleaction" has a very active Premium Board, which I post on. Also, "BCInterruption" is a very active blog, which I likewise post on. But, hey, making inaccurate statements about BC is a passion for many of you Uconn fans, isn't it?

(Of course, I could always respond with something equally foolish like: "too bad Uconn doesn't have a FB team for you to follow", but that does nothing for good discourse, does it?)

I know full well what GDF said back in 2011. You obviously didn't post the follow-up where he apologized for his remarks and stated they were related to his being upset by being personally sued by CT state officials.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ZU02Er3arU

But, hey, for sake of this discussion, let's just assume that this was his intent, OK?

None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above:

BC is one vote in the ACC. Four votes were needed to deny membership to a school. BC is not capable of "blocking" anyone by itself. That's a simple fact. For any Uconn fan to suggest otherwise sounds ridiculous, especially given the running narrative by many Uconn fans that BC had no influence whatsoever in the ACC. (Also, to restate my point above, probably not a good idea, IMO, to sue the very conference that you might need a lifeline from later on.)

Uconn football has been terrible, and fan support has often been lackluster. 5300 fans showing up for a game, even in a 2 win season, is pretty terrible, no matter how you slice it.

Again, my point is simple. BC is not the reason that Uconn is not in the ACC. If you guys are looking for someone to blame, I might suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That was my point.

Just my 2 cents.

(07-02-2015 08:28 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 06:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

Well...not surprising......you frame a response by posting another ridiculous inaccuracy. Just to inform you, BC has several very active fan boards. "Eagleaction" has a very active Premium Board, which I post on. Also, "BCInterruption" is a very active blog, which I likewise post on. But, hey, making inaccurate statements about BC is a passion for many of you Uconn fans, isn't it?

(Of course, I could always respond with something equally foolish like: "too bad Uconn doesn't have a FB team for you to follow", but that does nothing for good discourse, does it?)

I know full well what GDF said back in 2011. You obviously didn't post the follow-up where he apologized for his remarks and stated they were related to his being upset by being personally sued by CT state officials.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ZU02Er3arU

But, hey, for sake of this discussion, let's just assume that this was his intent, OK?

None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above:

BC is one vote in the ACC. Four votes were needed to deny membership to a school. BC is not capable of "blocking" anyone by itself. That's a simple fact. For any Uconn fan to suggest otherwise sounds ridiculous, especially given the running narrative by many Uconn fans that BC had no influence whatsoever in the ACC. (Also, to restate my point above, probably not a good idea, IMO, to sue the very conference that you might need a lifeline from later on.)

Uconn football has been terrible, and fan support has often been lackluster. 5300 fans showing up for a game, even in a 2 win season, is pretty terrible, no matter how you slice it.

Again, my point is simple. BC is not the reason that Uconn is not in the ACC. If you guys are looking for someone to blame, I might suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That was my point.

Just my 2 cents.

This will be my last post - I'll let you get the last word on this in afterwards and will read and appreciate what you have to say, but we will never see eye to eye on this and this board has seen enough of these conversations.

you state "None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above"

The simple point I make is that none of those facts mattered in 2011. I can nitpick and state that UConn FB had 95% capacity attendance for the past whatever amount of years leading up to the raid while you cite 2014 numbers in the AAC, or the fact that they were coming off a BCS bowl - but neither mattered. Those facts mattered a TON when Louisville was chosen over UConn, but not when the ACC went with Pitt. You simply ignore Pitt's involvement in the lawsuit, Noremburg's comments, and Pitt's nonexistant football attendance. Like you said - facts are a stubborn thing, because they work both ways. I find it a bit disingenuous when nearly the same factsyou lay out for UConn exist for Pitt (Pitt has a football history I get that - no one is disputing it), yet you conveniently ignore them.

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:54 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:32 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-30-2015 06:17 PM)HuskieAlumnus03 Wrote:  That's a pretty arrogant thing to say! Why was UConn passed over during the last major reshuffling of the P5?

Mainly because BC is terrified of competing with UConn on a level playing field. Even though we're in separate TV markets, BC doesn't want serious competition 90 miles away.

And Louisville had a 20 year head start on us in building a solid football program.

Geez...yet another example of the massive delusions that some Uconn fans seem to operate under. So many things wrong with this statement.

Let's start with the the fact that since BC went to the the ACC in 2005, many Uconn fans have ridiculed BC as being the "red-headed stepchild" in the ACC. Uconn fans claimed that BC was just added "to get to 12 teams", and that no one listened or cared what BC had to say about anything. Then, or course, when it suited their narrative, these same fans claimed that BC was now suddenly this all powerful colossus in the ACC that virtually single handily pushed the ACCto not select Uconn. Little bit of a disconnect, huh!

Look, sure, BC was a no vote. Why should that be shocking or unexpected? CT state officials sued BC, and sued BC admins PERSONALLY. These state officials, in a very public way, accused BC's admins of engaging in virtual criminal behavior. All this helped to delay BC's entry into the ACC by a year - and they were lucky to get in at all (probably wouldn't have if the NCAA ruled in favor of the ACC request to have a championship game with 11 teams). Do you honestly think after all this, BC was just going to just say "oh well, let bygones be bygones" and support their inclusion. If the situation was reversed, I am sure Uconn and the Uconn fan base would have the same reaction as BC and its fans did.

Again, BC was ONE VOTE. Not anywhere near enough to block an invitation to the ACC. Obviously, a number of other schools also voted no.

(By the way, when Uconn first announced their decision to move up to what was then FBS, no school was more welcoming than BC. Boston College was one of, if not the first major college program that Uconn played during their transition and BC played Uconn more than any other FBS program during its transition in 2000-2004).)

Just my opinion, but Uconn's problems in getting a P5 invite stem from the following basic fact: CR is largely about Football. Basketball, is NOT a driver - something that many Uconn fans seem to have a hard time accepting. To that end, I would only offer this.

1. It is not BC's fault that Uconn has only had 5 winning seasons in its first 11 years in a Div. 1 conference. BC didn't hire the last two Uconn FB coaches that have delivered 5, 5, 3, and 2 win seasons respectively. BC is not responsible for Uconn being ranked as one of the worst FB programs in Division 1 the last couple of years. BC is also not responsible for the lackluster Uconn FB fan support. Despite what many Uconn fans say here, it seems pretty clear that Uconn often substantially inflates its game attendance numbers. Case in point, Uconn reported attendance at its last game this last season against SMU as 22,951 yet, according to the media, only about 5,300 fans actually went to the game (You don't think the P5 conferences took note of this?)

http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-foot...tml#page=1

2. BC had nothing to do with the decision of CT state officials to sue not only BC but the ACC, and ACC admins. Gee, that turned out to be a smart move, huh? Sue the very conference, and personally sue the very conference officials, you need to extend to you a lifeline down the road. Talk about burning bridges!

3. BC had nothing to do with the decisions made by Uconn not to upgrade their FB program for so many years. Unlike BC, Pitt, Rutgers, and SU who played FB at the top level for many, many decades, Uconn was a "johnny-come-lately", without the FB resume of the other schools (compound this with the fact that only 5 of their short 11 seasons in Div. 1 have been winning seasons).

Look, I have no personal beef with any of you Uconn fans who post here. As those who follow my posts know, I don't initiative gratuitous slaps at other programs in my posts. I will, however, respond to nonsense like this. This stuff may fly on the echo chamber that is the Uconn fan board, but don't expect to post this here without a response.

Just my 2 cents.

OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

Well as an NIU fan i look forward to playing you all this year!

The lawsuit was a stupid move, but it was small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. UConn isn't in the ACC because the football schools didn't want to add any more dead weight football programs. If they had brought any football value whatsoever they would have likely got the invite.

And BC was one vote. They didn't block UConn and even if they had wanted them over any other program the votes simply were not there.

(07-02-2015 02:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The lawsuit was a stupid move, but it was small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. UConn isn't in the ACC because the football schools didn't want to add any more dead weight football programs. If they had brought any football value whatsoever they would have likely got the invite.

And BC was one vote. They didn't block UConn and even if they had wanted them over any other program the votes simply were not there.

Just so we are clear on the "dead weight" you brought into the ACC...
Last five years in the Big East:

Titles:
Cincinnati: 4 (1 outright, 3 tie)
UConn: 2 (1 outright, 1 tie) (also tied the year before, but I chose 5 so these aren't so "arbitrary".)
Syracuse: 1 (tie)
Pitt: 0.

Bowl Appearances:
Cincinnati: 4
Pitt: 3 (2 were 6 win years though)
UConn: 2 (plus 2 5 win years)
Syracuse: 1

UConn head to head vs:
Cincinnati: 1-4
Pitt: 2-3
Syracuse: 4-1
(3-2 against Louisville, but I'll exclude that as I do think Louisville was a solid add for the ACC).

Wins over ranked team:
Pitt: 1 (USF)
UConn: 1 (Louisville)
Syracuse: 1 (Louisville)
Cincinnati: 5 (4 in 2009)

Ranked end of the season:
UConn: 0 (also receiving votes 1)
Syracuse: 0 (also receiving votes 1)
Pitt: 1
Cincinnati: 2



Basketball NCAA titles:
UConn 1 (edit: I put 2... it is 1, the second one was as a member of the AAC, just as Louisville did)
(I'll throw it out there at well that Cincinnati and UConn were the only teams of these groups to not get upset twice in the NCAA tournament by lower seeded teams...)

I don't think there was much separation among these 4 schools... that is the point of this... if anything it proves Cincinnati may have been the best fit football-wise.

(07-02-2015 09:31 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:28 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 06:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 09:58 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  OOO KILL EM

Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

Well...not surprising......you frame a response by posting another ridiculous inaccuracy. Just to inform you, BC has several very active fan boards. "Eagleaction" has a very active Premium Board, which I post on. Also, "BCInterruption" is a very active blog, which I likewise post on. But, hey, making inaccurate statements about BC is a passion for many of you Uconn fans, isn't it?

(Of course, I could always respond with something equally foolish like: "too bad Uconn doesn't have a FB team for you to follow", but that does nothing for good discourse, does it?)

I know full well what GDF said back in 2011. You obviously didn't post the follow-up where he apologized for his remarks and stated they were related to his being upset by being personally sued by CT state officials.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ZU02Er3arU

But, hey, for sake of this discussion, let's just assume that this was his intent, OK?

None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above:

BC is one vote in the ACC. Four votes were needed to deny membership to a school. BC is not capable of "blocking" anyone by itself. That's a simple fact. For any Uconn fan to suggest otherwise sounds ridiculous, especially given the running narrative by many Uconn fans that BC had no influence whatsoever in the ACC. (Also, to restate my point above, probably not a good idea, IMO, to sue the very conference that you might need a lifeline from later on.)

Uconn football has been terrible, and fan support has often been lackluster. 5300 fans showing up for a game, even in a 2 win season, is pretty terrible, no matter how you slice it.

Again, my point is simple. BC is not the reason that Uconn is not in the ACC. If you guys are looking for someone to blame, I might suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That was my point.

Just my 2 cents.

This will be my last post - I'll let you get the last word on this in afterwards and will read and appreciate what you have to say, but we will never see eye to eye on this and this board has seen enough of these conversations.

you state "None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above"

The simple point I make is that none of those facts mattered in 2011. I can nitpick and state that UConn FB had 95% capacity attendance for the past whatever amount of years leading up to the raid while you cite 2014 numbers in the AAC, or the fact that they were coming off a BCS bowl - but neither mattered. Those facts mattered a TON when Louisville was chosen over UConn, but not when the ACC went with Pitt. You simply ignore Pitt's involvement in the lawsuit, Noremburg's comments, and Pitt's nonexistant football attendance. Like you said - facts are a stubborn thing, because they work both ways. I find it a bit disingenuous when nearly the same factsyou lay out for UConn exist for Pitt (Pitt has a football history I get that - no one is disputing it), yet you conveniently ignore them.

Well, like you, I don't have any appetite for this to be a back-and-forth as little will be accomplished. We both have staked out our positions. Regarding your comments on Pitt and the lawsuit. I don't disagree with you. But, you have to admit, despite this point, most (not all) of the vitriol directed at BC came out of CT and CT state officials. After all, BC and ACC folks were sued in CT, not PA. It is no secret that the BC admins (and many others in the BC community) were VERY upset with the very public and vitriolic way the suit was conducted. BC felt they were leaving the conference in good standing, following the BE exit bylaws, and were, as a result, sued and branded as, for all intents and purposes, virtual criminals. If you have a few moments, Google the suit and you will quickly see what I am talking about. The piling-on comments of your former MBB coach didn't help either.

Many in the BC community feel that, whether intended or not, Uconn, through its state officials, took center stage in the suit. This whole matter has left scars that will probably only fully heal when the generation either involved or exposed to these matters are long gone. For perspective, BC's current AD, who was not at BC when any of this went down, acknowledged these scars when asked about the possibility of Uconn and BC playing each other again in FB at some point in the future.

I understand that many Uconn fans cannot appreciate this, but its how many in the BC community feel. If the roles were reversed and Uconn were sued and subjected to the same vitriol by Massachusetts state officials, I think many in the Uconn community would have a similar reaction.

You're a reasonable guy, Hank. At the very least, don't you think, in retrospect, the way the suit was conducted was ill advised?

(07-02-2015 04:22 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:31 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:28 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 06:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-01-2015 10:27 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Nah, I have no personal beef with any of these folks. I have an issue with the false narrative that they peddle and I posted a response accordingly. Nothing personal. The great thing about this board is that fans who are used to posting this kind of nonsense unchallenged on their own fan boards will not find that kind of "audience" here. That's what makes this such a fun place!

It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

Well...not surprising......you frame a response by posting another ridiculous inaccuracy. Just to inform you, BC has several very active fan boards. "Eagleaction" has a very active Premium Board, which I post on. Also, "BCInterruption" is a very active blog, which I likewise post on. But, hey, making inaccurate statements about BC is a passion for many of you Uconn fans, isn't it?

(Of course, I could always respond with something equally foolish like: "too bad Uconn doesn't have a FB team for you to follow", but that does nothing for good discourse, does it?)

I know full well what GDF said back in 2011. You obviously didn't post the follow-up where he apologized for his remarks and stated they were related to his being upset by being personally sued by CT state officials.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ZU02Er3arU

But, hey, for sake of this discussion, let's just assume that this was his intent, OK?

None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above:

BC is one vote in the ACC. Four votes were needed to deny membership to a school. BC is not capable of "blocking" anyone by itself. That's a simple fact. For any Uconn fan to suggest otherwise sounds ridiculous, especially given the running narrative by many Uconn fans that BC had no influence whatsoever in the ACC. (Also, to restate my point above, probably not a good idea, IMO, to sue the very conference that you might need a lifeline from later on.)

Uconn football has been terrible, and fan support has often been lackluster. 5300 fans showing up for a game, even in a 2 win season, is pretty terrible, no matter how you slice it.

Again, my point is simple. BC is not the reason that Uconn is not in the ACC. If you guys are looking for someone to blame, I might suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That was my point.

Just my 2 cents.

This will be my last post - I'll let you get the last word on this in afterwards and will read and appreciate what you have to say, but we will never see eye to eye on this and this board has seen enough of these conversations.

you state "None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above"

The simple point I make is that none of those facts mattered in 2011. I can nitpick and state that UConn FB had 95% capacity attendance for the past whatever amount of years leading up to the raid while you cite 2014 numbers in the AAC, or the fact that they were coming off a BCS bowl - but neither mattered. Those facts mattered a TON when Louisville was chosen over UConn, but not when the ACC went with Pitt. You simply ignore Pitt's involvement in the lawsuit, Noremburg's comments, and Pitt's nonexistant football attendance. Like you said - facts are a stubborn thing, because they work both ways. I find it a bit disingenuous when nearly the same factsyou lay out for UConn exist for Pitt (Pitt has a football history I get that - no one is disputing it), yet you conveniently ignore them.

Well, like you, I don't have any appetite for this to be a back-and-forth as little will be accomplished. We both have staked out our positions. Regarding your comments on Pitt and the lawsuit. I don't disagree with you. But, you have to admit, despite this point, most (not all) of the vitriol directed at BC came out of CT and CT state officials. After all, BC and ACC folks were sued in CT, not PA. It is no secret that the BC admins (and many others in the BC community) were VERY upset with the very public and vitriolic way the suit was conducted. BC felt they left the conference in good standing, following the BE exit bylaws, and were, as a result, sued and branded as, for all intents and purposes, virtual criminals. If you have a few moments, Google the suit and you will quickly see what I am talking about. The piling-on comments of your former MBB coach didn't help either.

Many in the BC community feel that, whether intended or not, Uconn, through its state officials, took center stage in the suit. This has left scars that will probably only heal when the generation either involved or exposed to these matters are long gone. For perspective, BC's current AD, who was not at BC when any of this went down, acknowledged these scars when asked about the possibility of Uconn and BC playing each other again in FB at some point in the future.

I understand that many Uconn fans cannot appreciate this, but its how many in the BC community feel. You're a reasonable guy, Hank. At the very least, don't you think, in retrospect, the way the suit was conducted was ill advised?

The whole break up of the Big East was ill-advised in my opinion. If they could have kept the best of who was initially in the conference and who was added, you'd have a power conference (Miami, VT, BC, Louisville, WV, Syr, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, USF.. add in potentially UCF or Boise or TCU... it's a power conference - and a basketball beast).

Alas, it worked out for BC, other than being a geographic island.. and UConn still has an elite basketball program.

(07-02-2015 04:27 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 04:22 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 09:31 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 08:28 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(07-02-2015 06:11 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  It's too bad BC does not even have an active board for you to post your nonsense on.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1

Take a gander at the USA Today article attached that depicts a BC block of UConn back in 2011. Everything else you posted is background noise and does not address this quote -

"The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC’s move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.

BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month — that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.

'We didn’t want them in,’ DeFilippo told the Globe. 'It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.'"

If any of your points were the reason *IN 2011* that UConn did not join the ACC, then why does GDF simply state "it's a matter of turf."

You'll never agree with UConn fans on this and UConn fans will never agree with you on this.

Well...not surprising......you frame a response by posting another ridiculous inaccuracy. Just to inform you, BC has several very active fan boards. "Eagleaction" has a very active Premium Board, which I post on. Also, "BCInterruption" is a very active blog, which I likewise post on. But, hey, making inaccurate statements about BC is a passion for many of you Uconn fans, isn't it?

(Of course, I could always respond with something equally foolish like: "too bad Uconn doesn't have a FB team for you to follow", but that does nothing for good discourse, does it?)

I know full well what GDF said back in 2011. You obviously didn't post the follow-up where he apologized for his remarks and stated they were related to his being upset by being personally sued by CT state officials.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ZU02Er3arU

But, hey, for sake of this discussion, let's just assume that this was his intent, OK?

None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above:

BC is one vote in the ACC. Four votes were needed to deny membership to a school. BC is not capable of "blocking" anyone by itself. That's a simple fact. For any Uconn fan to suggest otherwise sounds ridiculous, especially given the running narrative by many Uconn fans that BC had no influence whatsoever in the ACC. (Also, to restate my point above, probably not a good idea, IMO, to sue the very conference that you might need a lifeline from later on.)

Uconn football has been terrible, and fan support has often been lackluster. 5300 fans showing up for a game, even in a 2 win season, is pretty terrible, no matter how you slice it.

Again, my point is simple. BC is not the reason that Uconn is not in the ACC. If you guys are looking for someone to blame, I might suggest you start by looking in the mirror. That was my point.

Just my 2 cents.

This will be my last post - I'll let you get the last word on this in afterwards and will read and appreciate what you have to say, but we will never see eye to eye on this and this board has seen enough of these conversations.

you state "None of what you said, refutes any of the facts I have outlined above. Not surprising that you did not to refute any of them because, frankly, I don't think you can. To employ the often used quote: "facts are stubborn things", seems appropriate. But, again, just to summarize what I stated above"

The simple point I make is that none of those facts mattered in 2011. I can nitpick and state that UConn FB had 95% capacity attendance for the past whatever amount of years leading up to the raid while you cite 2014 numbers in the AAC, or the fact that they were coming off a BCS bowl - but neither mattered. Those facts mattered a TON when Louisville was chosen over UConn, but not when the ACC went with Pitt. You simply ignore Pitt's involvement in the lawsuit, Noremburg's comments, and Pitt's nonexistant football attendance. Like you said - facts are a stubborn thing, because they work both ways. I find it a bit disingenuous when nearly the same factsyou lay out for UConn exist for Pitt (Pitt has a football history I get that - no one is disputing it), yet you conveniently ignore them.

Well, like you, I don't have any appetite for this to be a back-and-forth as little will be accomplished. We both have staked out our positions. Regarding your comments on Pitt and the lawsuit. I don't disagree with you. But, you have to admit, despite this point, most (not all) of the vitriol directed at BC came out of CT and CT state officials. After all, BC and ACC folks were sued in CT, not PA. It is no secret that the BC admins (and many others in the BC community) were VERY upset with the very public and vitriolic way the suit was conducted. BC felt they left the conference in good standing, following the BE exit bylaws, and were, as a result, sued and branded as, for all intents and purposes, virtual criminals. If you have a few moments, Google the suit and you will quickly see what I am talking about. The piling-on comments of your former MBB coach didn't help either.

Many in the BC community feel that, whether intended or not, Uconn, through its state officials, took center stage in the suit. This has left scars that will probably only heal when the generation either involved or exposed to these matters are long gone. For perspective, BC's current AD, who was not at BC when any of this went down, acknowledged these scars when asked about the possibility of Uconn and BC playing each other again in FB at some point in the future.

I understand that many Uconn fans cannot appreciate this, but its how many in the BC community feel. You're a reasonable guy, Hank. At the very least, don't you think, in retrospect, the way the suit was conducted was ill advised?

The whole break up of the Big East was ill-advised in my opinion. If they could have kept the best of who was initially in the conference and who was added, you'd have a power conference (Miami, VT, BC, Louisville, WV, Syr, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, USF.. add in potentially UCF or Boise or TCU... it's a power conference - and a basketball beast).

Alas, it worked out for BC, other than being a geographic island.. and UConn still has an elite basketball program.

I understand your point - the BE was a very good FB conference at one time - but, in the opinion of many, the hybrid nature of the BE was going to be its ultimate demise. IMO, ALL the BE FB schools knew that back in 2003. As results have shown, every one of them that could sought an exit out of the BE at the first opportunity.

Given the choice, BC gladly chose to move to the island (as, IMO, would have Uconn or any other BE FB school had they the opportunity to do so back then) rather than stay in the BE.