(03-24-2017 11:20 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:06 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  As much as I like good 'ole northeastern hate - especially the BC-UConn institutional rivalry - the athletic side of it gets old. Both schools are pathetic at the other meaningful sport where the other school is competent.

The smack revolves around a peeing contest to see which is more impressive, being pretty good at football or being good at basketball.

I'll take national titles in both sides of basketball over being a below-average football team instead of a bad one with atrocious basketball.

...Yup. Then the BC fans will take football relevance over men's basketball success (nobody but UConn cares about WBB), and the cycle will begin anew.

Boston College isn't even football-relevant in Boston.

But they have been, and history repeats itself.

(03-24-2017 11:20 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:06 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 11:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  As much as I like good 'ole northeastern hate - especially the BC-UConn institutional rivalry - the athletic side of it gets old. Both schools are pathetic at the other meaningful sport where the other school is competent.

The smack revolves around a peeing contest to see which is more impressive, being pretty good at football or being good at basketball.

I'll take national titles in both sides of basketball over being a below-average football team instead of a bad one with atrocious basketball.

...Yup. Then the BC fans will take football relevance over men's basketball success (nobody but UConn cares about WBB), and the cycle will begin anew.

Boston College isn't even football-relevant in Boston.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bo...bowl_games

And to be fair to BC, although they're down right now, they are capable of being very good. They didn't finish #2, but just getting there is a huge accomplishment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Bosto...tball_team

The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

BC.

I don't have an issue with Uconn but the oACC seems to. The oBE members are not promoting Uconn either. It seems like there is more support for Cincy and WV among oBE schools in the ACC.

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

Well, you ask a hypothetical that could also apply to any number of teams. In your hypothetical, everything else being equal, BC would have better football (which drives the bus) and a bigger market. Uconn would have better basketball. As the Conference plans to build out the ACCN, cable boxes and carriage are important (as they were with the BiG and Rutgers), BC would have a decided edge there. I'll let the you decide who would get selected in your hypothetical.

The simple fact is that BC has been playing at the top level of CFB for its entire existence. As other programs in New England downsized or eliminated the sport, BC plowed forward and improved its Program. The ground was set for Flutie to take the Program where it needed to go. As a result, in the musical chairs of realignment, when the music began to stop, BC had a chair. Uconn, conversely, chose not to upgrade their football program until the late 1990's. As a result, they were nowhere near as well positioned to take advantage of realignment, IMO. On that score, that's the result of decisions they made, no?

Sure, you could follow this by asking "well, what if Uconn had upgraded earlier" but that's like saying "what if Florida State did not upgrade its FB until the late1990's, would they be a P5?", or something like that. IMO, the simple reality is that those programs who had established themselves in the top level of CFB the longest generally fared better in CFB realignment than the more "johnny-come-lately's". While not an absolute rule, this is a universal principle that applies to many types of situations, IMO.

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

they would take BC IMO.
1. location location location
2. former BE schools would prefer them (cuse, pitt, Miami , ND)
3. ACC old school would prefer them (duke, UVA,UNC wake) culturally and academically
4. FB has had more success than UConn and BB has had periods of success (not like UConn of course, but enough)

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

It's unknowable for many reasons, not the least because we don't know what BC athletics would look like right now in 2017 if they'd been in the Big East/AAC the past 13 years and not the ACC.

That said, I still think it overwhelmingly likely they go with BC. For some reason, many around her hold BC football in contempt, but BC has been playing major college football for a century and have far more of a football brand/presence than UConn.

That would be decisive, IMO.

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

BC. There's a reason they were added in the 2000's.

The people have spoken. Not even a single person so far thinks UConn would've had a chance against BC.

Just an off the wall hypothetical. Thanks all who answered.

(03-25-2017 08:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The people have spoken. Not even a single person so far thinks UConn would've had a chance against BC.

Just an off the wall hypothetical. Thanks all who answered.

It's honestly common sense. Nobody is trying to make BC out to be Alabama or Michigan. Or to be FSU or Clemson for that matter. But BC has been a winning program at the highest level of football for a long time, with major bowl appearances going back to the 1940's. There's absolutely nothing about a program that not only chose to stay at lower levels but wasn't even competitive at the lower levels that says it would be a better choice.

(03-25-2017 06:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

BC. There's a reason they were added in the 2000's.

With the biggest reason being, "They asked!" :-)

Yanking your chain a little bit, but remember they went back to the ACC to see if there was still interest when the Big East opted for the 8 football/8 non-football configuration for the 2005 expansion.

There was, of course, still interest.

(03-25-2017 01:26 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The fact is that BC is in the ACC, and UConn is not.

But here's the real interesting question:

- what if the ACC and all the other confs were exactly as they were now ... except that BC was in the AAC, and the ACC was at 14 (w/ the Notre Dame deal, so only 13 full football teams), and for some reason -- I don't care, make it up -- it announced it would add either BC or UConn, but not both. And no one else would be considered.

Which one would they add?????

And which one would the different factions in the ACC most support, former Big East teams and core ACC teams???

For me? BC without a doubt.

Reasons:

1) It is the only other Catholic D1 football playing school other than ND and it is small/private, great "fit" for ND;

2) ND and BC have a football history that ND and UConn do not;

3) Boston;

4) BC has had a better football program than UConn over a longer period of time.

BC and not really a hard decision....

I don't like BC (Fredo), but I respect them for the reasons Terry stated above.

I'm pretty sure SU would vote for BC. We have more history w/ BC.

UConn basketball is great, and I think that most SU fans love those games, but BC is relevant in football, whereas UConn will never be, and BC and SU have a great relationship and have played each other in all sports for decades. That history matters.

(03-26-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm pretty sure SU would vote for BC. We have more history w/ BC.

UConn basketball is great, and I think that most SU fans love those games, but BC is relevant in football, whereas UConn will never be, and BC and SU have a great relationship and have played each other in all sports for decades. That history matters.

BC is not relevant in football. They are not particularly good and really never have been. Their entire history is summed up in the Flutie pass. That's literally the only highlight in BC football history.

The only reason BC would be selected over UConn is that they have Catholic ties with Notre Dame. In football terms of W/L, they are about the same (6 win programs).

(03-26-2017 11:20 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm pretty sure SU would vote for BC. We have more history w/ BC.

UConn basketball is great, and I think that most SU fans love those games, but BC is relevant in football, whereas UConn will never be, and BC and SU have a great relationship and have played each other in all sports for decades. That history matters.

BC is not relevant in football. They are not particularly good and really never have been. Their entire history is summed up in the Flutie pass. That's literally the only highlight in BC football history.

The only reason BC would be selected over UConn is that they have Catholic ties with Notre Dame. In football terms of W/L, they are about the same (6 win programs).

And that stacks up pretty highly against Uconn's football history which is ..... Uh......... Um........... Never mind.

(03-26-2017 10:57 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm pretty sure SU would vote for BC. We have more history w/ BC.

UConn basketball is great, and I think that most SU fans love those games, but BC is relevant in football, whereas UConn will never be, and BC and SU have a great relationship and have played each other in all sports for decades. That history matters.

Where Western New York?

https://www.boston.com/sports/untagged/2...atter-here

Are we sure BC's relevant in football? UConn was outdrawing them in attendance in the final years of Randy Edsall's first go-round, and even with all the advantages of ACC membership and higher-profile visiting teams through the conference they still barely outdraw UConn today (last year available through the NCAA, 2015, there was ~ 2k difference) despite UConn being in a conference where the fans don't recognize the opponents. Realignment is pretty much frozen until 2025, but it's pretty easy to make a case that if BC and UConn's situations were flipped UConn would be outdrawing BC at home by 10,000+ fans a game.

Would you rather travel to Boston or storrs, Ct ? Pretty easy choice

(03-26-2017 02:23 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Would you rather travel to Boston or storrs, Ct ? Pretty easy choice

Well, again, it certainly doesn't sound like anyone's traveling to Boston to see the Eagles play, as they're drawing similarly to UConn despite a huge leg up in opponents played.