(03-26-2017 07:23 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I think Cincinnati and Connecticut football would improve in the ACC. Both would help improve ACC basketball.

(03-26-2017 07:15 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:04 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 04:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  FWIW, I'd invite UConn to join the ACC as a non-football member (w/ the understanding that IConn would never be a football member) if I had the power. UConn Olympic sports, basketball, and academics would all be positive additions.

Maybe that's the deal the ACC should have offered Syracuse because when we were in the Big East together Syracuse sure as ____ wasn't any better at football than UConn.

Yes, SU went 3-6 gains UConn in the worst decade of SU football ever/the best decade of UConn football ever.

The difference between the two programs is that I've seen SU go undefeated, be in contention for a heisman, and finish the season ranked - in some instances, highly ranked.

UConn has yet to do any of that. In fact, UConn has yet to have a good season - ever.

So yes, while the '00's were kinder to UConn, SU's proven ceiling is markedly higher.

You've seen Syracuse go undefeated? How old are you? New recruits haven't seen them go undefeated, the new recruits have never even seen a Syracuse player be in contention for a Heisman, Donovan McNabb is doing commentary now. SU's ceiling may have been higher in the future who knows. SU has the already received their golden ticket, if UConn gets one why would the ceiling be any different?

1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:15 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:04 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 04:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  FWIW, I'd invite UConn to join the ACC as a non-football member (w/ the understanding that IConn would never be a football member) if I had the power. UConn Olympic sports, basketball, and academics would all be positive additions.

Maybe that's the deal the ACC should have offered Syracuse because when we were in the Big East together Syracuse sure as ____ wasn't any better at football than UConn.

Yes, SU went 3-6 gains UConn in the worst decade of SU football ever/the best decade of UConn football ever.

The difference between the two programs is that I've seen SU go undefeated, be in contention for a heisman, and finish the season ranked - in some instances, highly ranked.

UConn has yet to do any of that. In fact, UConn has yet to have a good season - ever.

So yes, while the '00's were kinder to UConn, SU's proven ceiling is markedly higher.

You've seen Syracuse go undefeated? How old are you? New recruits haven't seen them go undefeated, the new recruits have never even seen a Syracuse player be in contention for a Heisman, Donovan McNabb is doing commentary now. SU's ceiling may have been higher in the future who knows. SU has the already received their golden ticket, if UConn gets one why would the ceiling be any different?

1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:15 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:04 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  Maybe that's the deal the ACC should have offered Syracuse because when we were in the Big East together Syracuse sure as ____ wasn't any better at football than UConn.

Yes, SU went 3-6 gains UConn in the worst decade of SU football ever/the best decade of UConn football ever.

The difference between the two programs is that I've seen SU go undefeated, be in contention for a heisman, and finish the season ranked - in some instances, highly ranked.

UConn has yet to do any of that. In fact, UConn has yet to have a good season - ever.

So yes, while the '00's were kinder to UConn, SU's proven ceiling is markedly higher.

You've seen Syracuse go undefeated? How old are you? New recruits haven't seen them go undefeated, the new recruits have never even seen a Syracuse player be in contention for a Heisman, Donovan McNabb is doing commentary now. SU's ceiling may have been higher in the future who knows. SU has the already received their golden ticket, if UConn gets one why would the ceiling be any different?

1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:15 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 06:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Yes, SU went 3-6 gains UConn in the worst decade of SU football ever/the best decade of UConn football ever.

The difference between the two programs is that I've seen SU go undefeated, be in contention for a heisman, and finish the season ranked - in some instances, highly ranked.

UConn has yet to do any of that. In fact, UConn has yet to have a good season - ever.

So yes, while the '00's were kinder to UConn, SU's proven ceiling is markedly higher.

You've seen Syracuse go undefeated? How old are you? New recruits haven't seen them go undefeated, the new recruits have never even seen a Syracuse player be in contention for a Heisman, Donovan McNabb is doing commentary now. SU's ceiling may have been higher in the future who knows. SU has the already received their golden ticket, if UConn gets one why would the ceiling be any different?

1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we played in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

Well, this thread didn't end well...

Assuming it's near the end.

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:15 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  You've seen Syracuse go undefeated? How old are you? New recruits haven't seen them go undefeated, the new recruits have never even seen a Syracuse player be in contention for a Heisman, Donovan McNabb is doing commentary now. SU's ceiling may have been higher in the future who knows. SU has the already received their golden ticket, if UConn gets one why would the ceiling be any different?

1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1) How young are you? SU went undefeated in '87.
2) UConn had a golden ticket and didn't do anything w/ it.
3) Whether or not today's high school kids remember McNabb, Harrison, Freeny, and the rest of the great SU players from the '90's, SU still demonstrated that it could win at a high level. The infrastructure is there. UConn hasn't, and UConn has brand new facilities in a P6 conference.

1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't yay blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

That last statement is true and we started and were competitive and even stronger than some teams in the conference.

I mean did you guys still have that sky high ceiling in the 2000's or did it go away and come back?

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 08:35 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  1)28
2) I guess we proved we could be better than Syracuse given the same resources at the same time so I don't see why we couldn't do it again if we do manage to get in the ACC. We did win the conference as well. You remember Cuse was there.
3) It does matter what todays recruits think, you need them to reach that "high ceiling". There have been plenty of football powers of yesteryear.

Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  I mean did you guys still have that sky high ceiling in the 2000's or did it go away and come back?

There's a difference between ceiling and results. UConn basketball has a very high ceiling, but it wasn't good this year (we weren't terribly good, either).

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:09 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Once again, the best decade of UConn football's short history playing at the FBS level is marginally better than Stracuse's worst. That's what the '00's proves.

It's not like SU hasn't been down before. Unlike UConn, we've consistently bounced back.

So yes, Syracuse undeniably has s higher ceiling than UConn, a school that has yet to have a good season and isn't competitive in the AAC.

UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

(03-26-2017 10:05 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:24 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  UConn football was better than High Ceiling U when we play in the same conference. I mean its not UConns fault High Ceiling U wasn't at its high ceiling. We haven't had a great season but we've had good seasons, people are always bragging about bow games. I can't see the future but UConn had a higher ceiling in the 2000's who's to say what happens when you in the 2020's.

No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

Syracuse has a 100+ year history of ups and downs. Those cycles have lasted 20-30 years. So yes, I think we'll be back. My faith is especially confirmed given that the impetus to get SU out of the last down cycle was a large facilities investment, like the one that the school is debating right now.

BC was very, very good within the last 10 years (BC was #2 in the nation for 2 weeks 10 seasons ago, and BC has won several division titles over FSU and Clemson in that time). So yes, I think that'll be back.

UConn has never been good - not even for a season. So no, I'm not sold that you will ever get there on a consistent basis. And as a mirror to SU, P&E was built in 1998(?), which means it's just south of 20 years old, so you have another ~20-30 years before there are going to be significant investments in it. Unlike at SU, the cavalry isn't coming for UConn.

(03-26-2017 10:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:05 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:38 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No, you did better during a small segment of time, and you're erroneously extrapolating that small sample size to the whole. The flaws in your logic are obvious, but to illustrate the point, Syracuse is .500 against Alabama. Do you honestly think that Syracuse fb is equal to Alabama? I don't.

Until 2014, SU was 3-3 against ND. Do you think that SU fb was equal to ND fb? I don't.

But given that UConn has literally never had a good season (you went 8-5 and finished I ranked in your best season), there's no reason to think that UConn has a higher ceiling than either BC or SU. And don't blame that on conference membership. You've had it easier than most schools. UConn was in a power conference. It's because UConn has never cared about FB, and UConn started trying to care about FB about 100 years too late.

And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

Syracuse has a 100+ year history of ups and downs. Those cycles have lasted 20-30 years. So yes, I think we'll be back. My faith is especially confirmed given that the impetus to get SU out of the last down cycle was a large facilities investment, like the one that the school is debating right now.

BC was very, very good within the last 10 years (BC was #2 in the nation for 2 weeks 10 seasons ago, and BC has won several division titles over FSU and Clemson in that time). So yes, I think that'll be back.

UConn has never been good - not even for a season. So no, I'm not sold that you will ever get there on a consistent basis. And as a mirror to SU, P&E was built in 1998(?), which means it's just south of 20 years old, so you have another ~20-30 years before there are going to be significant investments in it. Unlike at SU, the cavalry isn't coming for UConn.

I guess we're at an impass. I think Northeast football above Penn State is perminantly down. The Northeast conference got blown up, no more kings up here, college football has changed since the glory days. In my opinion if Kalpony wants to tell me we're not worthy I can take it. If a Cuse of BC fan tells me we're not worthy I'll tell them we're in the same sinking ship.

(03-26-2017 10:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  I mean did you guys still have that sky high ceiling in the 2000's or did it go away and come back?

There's a difference between ceiling and results. UConn basketball has a very high ceiling, but it wasn't good this year (we weren't terribly good, either).

a year, 2 decades, don't worry about it. How do you feel about Minnesota football returning to glory?

(03-26-2017 10:23 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:05 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

Syracuse has a 100+ year history of ups and downs. Those cycles have lasted 20-30 years. So yes, I think we'll be back. My faith is especially confirmed given that the impetus to get SU out of the last down cycle was a large facilities investment, like the one that the school is debating right now.

BC was very, very good within the last 10 years (BC was #2 in the nation for 2 weeks 10 seasons ago, and BC has won several division titles over FSU and Clemson in that time). So yes, I think that'll be back.

UConn has never been good - not even for a season. So no, I'm not sold that you will ever get there on a consistent basis. And as a mirror to SU, P&E was built in 1998(?), which means it's just south of 20 years old, so you have another ~20-30 years before there are going to be significant investments in it. Unlike at SU, the cavalry isn't coming for UConn.

I guess we're at an impass. I think Northeast football above Penn State is perminantly down. The Northeast conference got blown up, no more kings up here, college football has changed since the glory days. In my opinion if Kalpony wants to tell me we're not worthy I can take it. If a Cuse of BC fan tells me we're not worthy I'll tell them we're in the same sinking ship.

Yea, BC and Cuse signed up to be bodybag games for the southern teams. Same reason I don't get excited about the thought of a theoretical B1G invite. I get that the monetary aspect means they can't turn an invite down, but I'd rather play basketball in the Big East and go 8-4/9-3 as a football indy playing a couple P5 teams and a group of other indys/G5s.

(03-26-2017 10:03 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:59 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  I mean did you guys still have that sky high ceiling in the 2000's or did it go away and come back?

There's a difference between ceiling and results. UConn basketball has a very high ceiling, but it wasn't good this year (we weren't terribly good, either).

I think Syracuse basketball has a high ceiling

(03-26-2017 10:27 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:23 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:05 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

Syracuse has a 100+ year history of ups and downs. Those cycles have lasted 20-30 years. So yes, I think we'll be back. My faith is especially confirmed given that the impetus to get SU out of the last down cycle was a large facilities investment, like the one that the school is debating right now.

BC was very, very good within the last 10 years (BC was #2 in the nation for 2 weeks 10 seasons ago, and BC has won several division titles over FSU and Clemson in that time). So yes, I think that'll be back.

UConn has never been good - not even for a season. So no, I'm not sold that you will ever get there on a consistent basis. And as a mirror to SU, P&E was built in 1998(?), which means it's just south of 20 years old, so you have another ~20-30 years before there are going to be significant investments in it. Unlike at SU, the cavalry isn't coming for UConn.

I guess we're at an impass. I think Northeast football above Penn State is perminantly down. The Northeast conference got blown up, no more kings up here, college football has changed since the glory days. In my opinion if Kalpony wants to tell me we're not worthy I can take it. If a Cuse of BC fan tells me we're not worthy I'll tell them we're in the same sinking ship.

Yea, BC and Cuse signed up to be bodybag games for the southern teams. Same reason I don't get excited about the thought of a theoretical B1G invite. I get that the monetary aspect means they can't turn an invite down, but I'd rather play basketball in the Big East and go 8-4/9-3 as a football indy playing a couple P5 teams and a group of other indys/G5s.

I'd rather hold out and hope for the ACC or Big 10. They're both premier basketball conferences. Our football might get killed in them but it will probably get killed outside them. At least inside the cartel we get the built in recruiting advantages.

(03-26-2017 10:23 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:14 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:05 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 10:01 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 09:50 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  And after everything you said UConn performed better than Syracuse on the field I don't see why 1987 matters more than 2000-2010. A sample is a sample mine is more recent. UConn has had it better than a lot of schools, we've had it better than ECU, Southern Miss, etc we happened to get in the right conference back in the day like a lot of schools.

Are you saying conference memberships don't matter? Leave the ACC and you are exactly us, good basketball questionable football. I don't think there is any reason to think Syracuse or BC has a higher ceiling other than conference. We share sucky recruiting areas and Rutgers has taken both your bread and butter state. That's a 2000's problem not a 1980's problem.

UConn (and UMass) screwed up by considering their peers to be the UNH and Vermont even though Connecticut and Massachusetts have far larger populations.
There was always the culture of the privates are the best in New Englan, UConn has broken through the safety school barrier. Obviously we're not Yale but we're not the 1980's UConn.

Here's the difference. I'm pointing out the fact that SU and BC are capable of being great when the stars align. You're pointing out that UConn is capable of being decent when the stars align, and decent is better than SU and BC when they're down.

See the difference?

And SU spent a long, long time not being ina power conference. We were Indy until '91. We literally ate what we killed for about 100 years.

I'm saying why should the future be different than the recent past, your saying why should the future be different than the recent past and not the same as 20 or more years ago.

Syracuse has a 100+ year history of ups and downs. Those cycles have lasted 20-30 years. So yes, I think we'll be back. My faith is especially confirmed given that the impetus to get SU out of the last down cycle was a large facilities investment, like the one that the school is debating right now.

BC was very, very good within the last 10 years (BC was #2 in the nation for 2 weeks 10 seasons ago, and BC has won several division titles over FSU and Clemson in that time). So yes, I think that'll be back.

UConn has never been good - not even for a season. So no, I'm not sold that you will ever get there on a consistent basis. And as a mirror to SU, P&E was built in 1998(?), which means it's just south of 20 years old, so you have another ~20-30 years before there are going to be significant investments in it. Unlike at SU, the cavalry isn't coming for UConn.

I guess we're at an impass. I think Northeast football above Penn State is perminantly down. The Northeast conference got blown up, no more kings up here, college football has changed since the glory days. In my opinion if Kalpony wants to tell me we're not worthy I can take it. If a Cuse of BC fan tells me we're not worthy I'll tell them we're in the same sinking ship.

I don't think that there are any kings in the NE (other than possibly PSU). I agree there.

I do, however, think that stars can align at SU and BC for a year/a couple of years. And when they do, I think that either school can field a team as good as anyone - even if our program isn't as good as the southern teams.

UConn hasn't shown that it can make stars align. That's the difference in my mind.