Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
Author Message
JunkYardCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #41
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't think the lawsuit had anything to do with any of the factors listed in this thread. I also don't believe that the ACC's passing over of UConn (twice) had much to do with the Huskies' Fiesta Bowl appearance or lobbying against them by Boston College.

When I suggested the Fiesta Bowl attendance was a bigger factor than the lawsuit, I didn't mean that it was a major or deciding factor. I just meant it probably counted for more than the lawsuit. I don't think either of these issues had much to do with anything. But I think the lawsuit is closer to the bottom than the bowl game attendance.

Not showing up for a major bowl game can affect what bowls are available to the conference in the future. That's a money topic. It at least gets factored in. The lawsuit is total water under the bridge. UConn went to court to avoid precisely the situation they are in now. It's kind of hard to blame them.
05-10-2013 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #42
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 11:52 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Looking at the link Cuse and Temple got a 0.4 and UConn Cinci got a 1.0. What would that suggest?

That's a fair question. The timeslots and networks can be very important factors. SU-TU was a Friday morning kickoff on ESPN2, while UConn-Cincy was a Saturday 3:30 regional game on ABC. Therefore, what we know is (UC+UConn+Timeslot+ABC) >(SU+TU+Timeslot+ESPN2). Since there is no common opponent, timeslot or network, these games don't provide any relative information.

Using Cincinnati as a common denominator over the season, UC drew a 1.6 vs. Pitt, a 1.4 vs. UL, a 1.0 vs. USF and a 1.0 vs. UConn. This was over a variety of networks and timeslot, but suggests a ranking among UC's opponents of (1) Pitt, (2) UL, (3t) USF and (3t) UConn.
05-10-2013 12:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #43
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 11:01 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 10:31 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 12:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 09:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  If you look at:

1) the overall quality of the athletic department/commitment to success
2) local market/fan support
3) national brand
4) academics

UConn is as good (or better) than Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and Virginia Tech. Therefore, the only two possible explanations on why UConn isn't in the ACC would be our lack of FB tradition (1-AA until 2000) and the lawsuit. Maybe it's a combination of both of those reasons. But it's NOT due to #1 to #4 listed above.

BTW, the lawsuit was justified. The people of Connecticut spent a lot of money to upgrade the UConn FB program based on the Big East schools remaining together. And at that time, certain schools were working privately to get out of the conference. If we had known that the Big East was not long for this Earth, the upgrade expenses may not have been spent.

You do realize that "UCONN" stand for the "University of Connecticut," and not "Notre Dame," right?

UCONN does not have better academics than more than half the schools that you listed, UCONN doesn't have a better national brand than any of the schools that you listed (other than possibly BC), UCONN does not have better fan support than about half the schools that you listed, and UCONN has a football stadium 20-30 miles from campus, so it's safe to say that UCONN doesn't have better facilities than most D-I schools in America, let alone schools like UL.

FWIW, I'm not even anti-UCONN. Honestly, UCONN is in my dream northeastern conference.

Just curious . . .

How did either of you measure the value of anyone's national brand?

UConn was recently ranked #21 among public research universities, putting it ahead of Louisville. BC doesn't even attempt to do the level of research that UConn does. Syracuse was recently dropped from AAU for its level or research in the sciences, precisely the area where UConn has been expanding.

UConn's stadium is where it is for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest was fan access and traffic patterns. The 21 miles that the stadium is from campus is a non-issue because of the ease of travel around central CT. Students are easily bused. Every other facility on campus is top shelf and everything is being constantly modernized. After much investment in football facilities, their is currently a $35 million project under way for basketball practice facilities. Unless you've actually been to the UConn facilities on campus and experienced a UConn football game in East hartford, you're not really in a position to comment.

It's funny that you choose Louisville to compare with regard to facilities since their new basketball facility is off campus. Like Louisville and many large state universities. UConn's facilities are not all located in one place. While the main campus is located 21 miles from The Rent in East Hartford, UConn's Law School, Medical School, School of Social Work, and a satellite undergraduate/graduate campus are all located in Hartford. For UConn fans and students, the East Hartford site made the most sense for the football stadium. I have no idea why you have a problem with it and why your thoughts would bring into question the quality of the facility or be relevant in any way. At least UConn is not playing in a pro stadium like Pitt

National Brand = ability to deliver national TV ratings for football and basketball.

This value can be teased out of comparing ratings of similar matchups with different schools over a period of time. A very simple example could be derived from the Big East Friday night football games this past year. SU-Pitt earned a 1.0, SU-UConn earned a 0.8, and UConn-Pitt earned a 0.6. http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/12/...s-season/. If all schools are equally competitive, i.e. are similarly positioned for success during the ongoing season, and the timeslots are equal, the relative ratings would define who has more National Brand. Assuming this were true for SU, Pitt and Uconn for football in 2012, these three ratings would suggest that SU has the strongest National Brand of the group for football, Pitt second, and UConn third.

The reasoning is sound but it's myopic to look at only one season. Coincidentally, your SU-Pitt-UConn rank order also coincides with their relative positions in the standings and with the fact that Syracuse tied for the conference title, Pitt went bowling, and Uconn had a down year. Go back 5 years to a season when UConn tied for the conference title, Pitt missed a bowl game by one win, and syracuse finished at the bottom of the conference and I bet you'd get different results.

For this kind of analysis to be meaningful period of time, not just one year - at least 5 years and preferably 10.
05-10-2013 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #44
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 12:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The reasoning is sound but it's myopic to look at only one season. Coincidentally, your SU-Pitt-UConn rank order also coincides with their relative positions in the standings and with the fact that Syracuse tied for the conference title, Pitt went bowling, and Uconn had a down year. Go back 5 years to a season when UConn tied for the conference title, Pitt missed a bowl game by one win, and syracuse finished at the bottom of the conference and I bet you'd get different results.

For this kind of analysis to be meaningful period of time, not just one year - at least 5 years and preferably 10.

I agree completely about the need for a larger sample. I was merely trying to do a simple example.

Not sure that the final standing, though, are as important as how the teams were doing up to that point in the season. All three schools stumbled out of the gate last year. Pitt was 2-2 when it faced SU (1-3), UConn was 3-4 when it faced SU (2-4), UConn was 3-6 when it faced Pitt (4-5).
05-10-2013 12:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #45
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

Looks like Pitt was well down the list of schools the Big 12 was considering, if it was considering them at all. That would hardly seem to motivate an ACC move to get Pitt and Syracuse.

The obvious motivation - to knock out the Big East, a far bigger threat to the ACC than the Big 12 - still seems to stand.
05-10-2013 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #46
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 07:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 07:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Two years earlier it was Pitt and Syracuse getting the nod over the Huskies. In that instance, I believe that the B12's reconstruction plans were the biggest factor in the ACC's decision making.

After losing four of its members over the previous two years, the Texas-based league reached out to Arkansas, Notre Dame and Pitt to gauge those schools' interest in joining their league. ARK and ND quickly said no but Pitt did not, opting instead to flirt with the B12.

In fact, Pitt was trying to put together a trio of themselves along with West Virginia and Syracuse to go to the B12. Syracuse was hesitant to leave the East but, given the state of the crumbling Big East, was at least willing to listen.

I'm not sure the timeline adds up here. IIRC, Pitt and Syracuse joined the ACC in mid-September 2011, about at the same time that the SEC was inviting TAMU and Missouri. Probably a little after TAMU joined but before Mizzo joined. These events were essentially contemporaneous so there surely was no time for Pitt to try and cobble together a group to join the Big 12, so that kind of talk likely could not have influenced ACC thinking.

IMO, the ACC invited Pitt and Syracuse not to thwart a weakened Big 12 but to defeat a threat they perceived to be a much more salient one to their "east coast" footprint: A Big East that had received a media deal offer from ESPN that was about as valuable as the one the ACC had just signed, and was feeling confident enough to actually turn it down and hold out for more.

The ACC was smart enough to perceive that a powerful Big East meant that the ACC would always be squeezed by the Mason-Dixon line to the north and the SEC to the south. That's why it struck at the Big East in 2003, dealing what it believed to be a mortal blow. But miraculously, by 2011 that rump Big East rebounded well enough to merit ACC-level media money so the ACC decided to strike again. This time it worked, killing the Big East as a major conference and opening up the northeast corridor to ACC exploitation. Fundamentally, the Big East died because it never realized that the ACC considered a strong Big East as inherently incompatible with a strong ACC and thus would always seek to undermine/destroy the Big East. The Big East should have learned this after the near-mortal wounds it suffered in 2003, but it didn't. Had the Big East realized this, it would have struck at the ACC first circa 2011, inviting schools like Maryland and BC to join or invaded ACC territory with an invite to ECU.

Of course now having vanquished the Big East, the ACC has to contend with B1G invasion of that same space.

August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain

Looks like Pitt was well down the list of schools the Big 12 was considering, if it was considering them at all. That would hardly seem to motivate an ACC move to get Pitt and Syracuse.

The obvious motivation - to knock out the Big East, a far bigger threat to the ACC than the Big 12 - still seems to stand.

How did you come up with that conclusion?
05-10-2013 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #47
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 09:59 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Stadium size is not the factor it once was. TCU is in the process of downsizing its stadium in order to install more lucrative luxury boxes. Despite the plans for the smaller size stadium already on the table, the Big XII took them anyway.

The primary factor driving all of this is TV revenue, which means access to markets. That's why the SEC is only considering expansion with new members who bring them new markets, not with any who duplicate existing markets.

UConn and Cincy both bring new markets to both the ACC and the Big XII. UConn in particular is the flagship university of a state with a population of almost 4 million that has no instate competition from either college or pro sports. They dominate the state's sports coverage.

1) Stadium size is a factor in that it typically reflects fan interest. I bet that UofL's expansion of PJS, and its attendance consequently leaping from 38,000 in 2010 to 50,000 in 2011 helped convince the ACC that they have big-time football fan interest and support, moreso than UConn or Cincy. This mattered even though UofL was no better than UConn or Cincy.

2) IMO, neither UConn nor Cincy "bring" substantial new markets. In football, neither is much of a TV draw anywhere, even in their home states. Ohio is dominated by the B1G and Ohio State and Cincy would give the Big 12 or ACC precious little penetration there. And are you really saying that UConn football gets more coverage in Connecticut than say Patriots, Giants, or Jets football?
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 01:35 PM by quo vadis.)
05-10-2013 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,019
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2374
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #48
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 01:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Looks like Pitt was well down the list of schools the Big 12 was considering, if it was considering them at all. That would hardly seem to motivate an ACC move to get Pitt and Syracuse.

The obvious motivation - to knock out the Big East, a far bigger threat to the ACC than the Big 12 - still seems to stand.

How did you come up with that conclusion?

See post #26. 04-cheers
05-10-2013 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,208
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 354
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #49
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Looks like Pitt was well down the list of schools the Big 12 was considering, if it was considering them at all. That would hardly seem to motivate an ACC move to get Pitt and Syracuse.

The obvious motivation - to knock out the Big East, a far bigger threat to the ACC than the Big 12 - still seems to stand.

"Well down the list?" The list was 1) Notre Dame, 2) Arkansas, 3) BYU, 3a) Pitt. 1) and 2) were completely unrealistic, and 3) turned out to be unworkable.

At the time, I believed the primary motivation of grabbing Pitt and SU was 1) to allow the ACC to reopen its TV deal, and 3) to buy insurance against the SEC grabbing an ACC school. I don't recall thinking about the ACC needing to protect itself against B12 incursion into its territory. Now, having thought about it, I would think the bigger concern was to avoid having preferred expansion candidates taken off the board by the B12, since the ACC knew it would have to expand to improve its TV contract and possibly to respond to losing one or more of its own members.
05-10-2013 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #50
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 01:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 01:29 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 01:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Looks like Pitt was well down the list of schools the Big 12 was considering, if it was considering them at all. That would hardly seem to motivate an ACC move to get Pitt and Syracuse.

The obvious motivation - to knock out the Big East, a far bigger threat to the ACC than the Big 12 - still seems to stand.

How did you come up with that conclusion?

See post #26. 04-cheers

OIC. Just your opinion and not intended a statement of fact.
05-10-2013 02:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #51
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 11:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 10:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 11:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 10:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  When will UCONN fans stop with the delusional BS that their school was going to the ACC except for the block by BC. It's a stupid argument that simply does not hold water. First, BC does not have the juice to single handedly nix UCONN. Second, the ACC could have "corrected the first error" by taking UCONN the second time around - but again failed to get this awesome gem that is head and shoulders above our schools.

I get the red ass you fans have, but c'mon and finally recognize that UCONN was not wanted. It sucks, but it's the truth. UCONN is a basketball school. Despite the recent football foray, UCONN is limited in potential to be a regular FB competitor. Your geography sucks for becoming a FB school. Therefore, you were too much of a risk for a P5 conference to invite you. No one cares about how many BB titles you have nor how dynastic your women's BB school is. FB is easily 80 percent of the equation. Limited upside, no tradition and no AAU membership hurts UCONN.

BTW...I wouldn't put too much stock in Jurich's comments concerning UCONN's name being inked for the ACC. Recall that Luck stated WVU was off to the SEC, so...

UConn FB has just as much going for it as Pitt, plus we have other several other successful sports programs that have lapped Pitt several times. For example, our hockey program is going into the top NCAA hockey conference next year. Multiply that by 100 and you get an idea of how strong the UConn athletic program is.

No one gives a rat's ass about Pitt's glory days 40 years ago. UConn was able to match Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers over the last nine years despite our late start into 1-A FB. Given another 10 years with a playing level field, UConn would have blown past Pitt in FB. Our trajectory was up. Your trajectory has been flat or sinking since the Ford Administration.

You don't get it. No one cares about your other athletic programs. It's not unique to just UCONN but everywhere. A great hockey team will NOT get you an invite to the P5 conferences. A dynastic women's BB team will NOT get you an invite to a P5 conference. A great track and field team... By now, you SHOULD get the picture. Sadly, you and most UCONN fans will simply never get it. The tangible things that the P5 conferences were looking for are football, football potential, how likely are the people in your TV footprint will want to consume the football product and how fertile are your local recruiting grounds? So despite your awesome athletic programs, UCONN is located in a part of the country that could give a rat's ass about CFB, your recruiting grounds suck and you have no tradition in CFB. It cannot be made any simpler for you than that. Wake up.

Don't even bother to try to spin the story that UCONN's trajectory is soooo much greater than Pitt's or Syracuse's. It isn't, and it's stupid to even suggest this to be true. Again, it ties back to the same reasons I gave above. Pitt and Syracuse royally screwed up their coaching hires the past decade, and this is why both schools have been down in FB. UCONN was lucky to have Edsall at the beginning. And common sense tells you that when you start something, your gains will be significant up front. Don't be stupid and try to project the initial early gains of your young program to continue indefinitely. When you start from basically nothing, you have only one way to go but up. Bottom line is that you have garbage for a recruiting region, you're located in a region of the country that does not care for CFB and you have no tradition. It should be obvious why UCONN is not in a P5 conference. Men's BB doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to realignment.

Yeah, the 41,000 fans that Pitt drew in a 65,000 seat stadium last year speaks volumes about the interest and fan support for this legendary program. 01-wingedeagle

03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao

Great move to avoid what was stated clearly and going for the ad-hominem attack. Clearly, you cannot respond to it the way you would like to because you cannot disagree with it. It is what it is.

Not at all. You made a claim and I'm simply posting the data that shows your claim is unsupported by the facts. You're the one now with the ad hominem attack whose refusing to address the fact that I've raised.

Please, pray tell, in a year when Pitt was good enough to go to a bowl, it could only draw 41,000 fans and left more than a third if its stadium empty if it has all the interest that you claim and if its tradition means all that much.

Last time UConn went to a bowl, 2 years ago, it drew 38,000 fans, putting it right in the same neighborhood as Pitt was this past season.

So, why don't you address them apples?
05-10-2013 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gpburdell Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 128
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Georgia Tech
Location: ATL
Post: #52
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 07:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  UConn

1) never expand with a school whose football stadium seats less than your average conference attendance (also applies to Cincinnati).

2)there aren't enough college football fans in New England to support two "big time" college football teams (and we already have BC).

3)Lawsuit

Or when the football stadium is 20 miles from campus.
05-10-2013 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #53
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 09:59 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Stadium size is not the factor it once was. TCU is in the process of downsizing its stadium in order to install more lucrative luxury boxes. Despite the plans for the smaller size stadium already on the table, the Big XII took them anyway.

The primary factor driving all of this is TV revenue, which means access to markets. That's why the SEC is only considering expansion with new members who bring them new markets, not with any who duplicate existing markets.

UConn and Cincy both bring new markets to both the ACC and the Big XII. UConn in particular is the flagship university of a state with a population of almost 4 million that has no instate competition from either college or pro sports. They dominate the state's sports coverage.

1) Stadium size is a factor in that it typically reflects fan interest. I bet that UofL's expansion of PJS, and its attendance consequently leaping from 38,000 in 2010 to 50,000 in 2011 helped convince the ACC that they have big-time football fan interest and support, moreso than UConn or Cincy. This mattered even though UofL was no better than UConn or Cincy.

2) IMO, neither UConn nor Cincy "bring" substantial new markets. In football, neither is much of a TV draw anywhere, even in their home states. Ohio is dominated by the B1G and Ohio State and Cincy would give the Big 12 or ACC precious little penetration there. And are you really saying that UConn football gets more coverage in Connecticut than say Patriots, Giants, or Jets football?

Now you're just being silly.

I live in CT. Everything UConn is news in this state and dominates both the electronic and print media.

You're treating this like football is all that matters. It's money that matters and UConn basketball is big money. Basketball is an important money maker in the ACC.

Your first point is a good one about stadium size. I'm just saying that it's not the only thing. UConn's market is important because it's probably the biggest market available that can be had with one school. And that's important for TV contracts regardless of attendance.

How can you possible say that UConn does not bring a new market? No other conference has penetration in the Connecticut market, which is 3.6 million. As for the NFL, they get no coverage in CT on Saturdays, which is mostly when college football is played. Why would you bring the NFL into this discussion? Most other college football programs these days are also competing against the NFL if you want to look at it that way. In the Northeast, BC, Rutgers, Maryland, and Pitt are competing against the NFL much more directly than UConn is.
05-10-2013 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #54
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 09:59 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 07:30 AM)XLance Wrote:  UConn

1) never expand with a school whose football stadium seats less than your average conference attendance (also applies to Cincinnati).

2)there aren't enough college football fans in New England to support two "big time" college football teams (and we already have BC).

3)Lawsuit

Stadium size is not the factor it once was. TCU is in the process of downsizing its stadium in order to install more lucrative luxury boxes. Despite the plans for the smaller size stadium already on the table, the Big XII took them anyway.

The primary factor driving all of this is TV revenue, which means access to markets. That's why the SEC is only considering expansion with new members who bring them new markets, not with any who duplicate existing markets.

UConn and Cincy both bring new markets to both the ACC and the Big XII. UConn in particular is the flagship university of a state with a population of almost 4 million that has no instate competition from either college or pro sports. They dominate the state's sports coverage. There simply aren't schools out there with that kind of dominance of their market and with a market that size.

BTW, the UConn stadium was built to be expandable. They're not locked into a capacity of 40,000. They are on the same path that Louisville was on a decade ago.

Sorry Melky, you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.04-cheers
05-10-2013 02:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #55
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
I'll drink to that!
04-cheers 04-rock 07-coffee3
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtYu8uFUHHbTBndtXQdx-...ONRtYjPScY]
[Image: BHmZWmZCMAApBXO.jpg]
05-10-2013 03:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ecuacc4ever Offline
Resident Geek Musician
*

Posts: 7,491
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 239
I Root For: ACC
Location:

SkunkworksDonatorsPWNER of Scout/Rivals
Post: #56
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
@Melky -- sorry bro. As much as I like Cincinnati, they don't bring a new market to the league at the point where the ACC's TV money goes up. Cincinnati would have to deliver most of the state of Ohio to be a valuable addition.

[nevergonna]
Funny, crazy and nutz as it sounds, Ohio University would be of more value the the ACC b/c they represent more of the state.
[/happen]

UConn shot itself in the foot with the lawsuit and every time someone claims UConn would be a good ACC addition, I always reply "They don't have the votes b/c of the lawsuit". Yes, I think they're a great fit for the ACC, but.. the lawsuit.
05-10-2013 03:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #57
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 10:02 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 09:49 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 09:39 AM)orangefan Wrote:  August 27, 2011 NYT article indicating that the B12 was looking at Pitt: http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08...ref=sports

Chip Brown reporting the same thing on August 30, 2011: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1258695

There's no mention of Pitt seeking to bring additional eastern schools, but if they were talking to the B12, that would not be surprising.

Three weeks later, Pitt and Syracuse were in the ACC: http://www.ncaa.com/news/ncaa/article/20...h-syracuse

TAMU was close to wrapping up discussions with the SEC at the time, which is why the B12 was looking for a replacement, but was not invited to the SEC until a week later: http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...cepted-sec

A few weeks later again, in early October, the B12 selected TCU over BYU to replace TAMU. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...u-perk-up/

Missouri was not officially invited by the SEC until November, although the SEC appears to have settled on them in late October. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...les-remain
If the Big 12 really thought Arkansas would leave the SEC, or that ND would join, then there's definitely something interesting being smoked at conference HQ. 04-cheers

Assuming that this all adds up, either the Big 12 missed an opportunity to make a play for a group of BE schools that could have been a good group addition (Pitt/WVU/Louisville and Syracuse or Cincinnati), or else the preference of Pitt (and perhaps others) for ACC membership precluded that being a possibility.

The ACC being focused and well organized no doubt allowed them to outflank the B12 during this period. You will recall that the the quartet of UT/TTU/OU/OSU were flirting with the P12 during the same period, which would have made it impossible for them to complete a deal with Pitt and Friends, in addition to scaring any rational school away until the B12 worked their internal issues out. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ing-source
That's a good point regarding the instability around the Big 12 at the time. Even if Pitt & Friends were to have been interested in the Big 12 as it was at the time, it's one thing to join a conference with OU and UT as football anchors, and another completely to join just KU, KSU, Missouri, et al (and there may have been some questions about Missouri's long-term commitment prior to the final SEC invitation, although speculation in the immediate aftermath of the B1G's selection of Nebraska seemed to be that they'd remain in whatever was left of the Big 12.)

I still tend to think that while there may have been some appeal to join a major football-oriented conference, the draw of the nearby ACC wasn't stronger, and they were savvy enough to use talks with the Big 12 to help secure that invitation.
05-10-2013 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,988
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #58
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-09-2013 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  I've been telling you for a long time that UConn would not be invited to join the ACC and that the lawsuit is one of the biggest reasons.03-banghead

pitt and cuse were part of that law suit. bc was as well. the law suit is an excuse. the accinvited schools based heavily on who bc wanted. bc does not want uconn in. that is the real reason.
05-10-2013 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,946
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #59
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-10-2013 02:41 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 11:41 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-10-2013 10:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 11:26 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(05-09-2013 10:51 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  UConn FB has just as much going for it as Pitt, plus we have other several other successful sports programs that have lapped Pitt several times. For example, our hockey program is going into the top NCAA hockey conference next year. Multiply that by 100 and you get an idea of how strong the UConn athletic program is.

No one gives a rat's ass about Pitt's glory days 40 years ago. UConn was able to match Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt, and Rutgers over the last nine years despite our late start into 1-A FB. Given another 10 years with a playing level field, UConn would have blown past Pitt in FB. Our trajectory was up. Your trajectory has been flat or sinking since the Ford Administration.

You don't get it. No one cares about your other athletic programs. It's not unique to just UCONN but everywhere. A great hockey team will NOT get you an invite to the P5 conferences. A dynastic women's BB team will NOT get you an invite to a P5 conference. A great track and field team... By now, you SHOULD get the picture. Sadly, you and most UCONN fans will simply never get it. The tangible things that the P5 conferences were looking for are football, football potential, how likely are the people in your TV footprint will want to consume the football product and how fertile are your local recruiting grounds? So despite your awesome athletic programs, UCONN is located in a part of the country that could give a rat's ass about CFB, your recruiting grounds suck and you have no tradition in CFB. It cannot be made any simpler for you than that. Wake up.

Don't even bother to try to spin the story that UCONN's trajectory is soooo much greater than Pitt's or Syracuse's. It isn't, and it's stupid to even suggest this to be true. Again, it ties back to the same reasons I gave above. Pitt and Syracuse royally screwed up their coaching hires the past decade, and this is why both schools have been down in FB. UCONN was lucky to have Edsall at the beginning. And common sense tells you that when you start something, your gains will be significant up front. Don't be stupid and try to project the initial early gains of your young program to continue indefinitely. When you start from basically nothing, you have only one way to go but up. Bottom line is that you have garbage for a recruiting region, you're located in a region of the country that does not care for CFB and you have no tradition. It should be obvious why UCONN is not in a P5 conference. Men's BB doesn't mean a whole lot when it comes to realignment.

Yeah, the 41,000 fans that Pitt drew in a 65,000 seat stadium last year speaks volumes about the interest and fan support for this legendary program. 01-wingedeagle

03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao

Great move to avoid what was stated clearly and going for the ad-hominem attack. Clearly, you cannot respond to it the way you would like to because you cannot disagree with it. It is what it is.

Not at all. You made a claim and I'm simply posting the data that shows your claim is unsupported by the facts. You're the one now with the ad hominem attack whose refusing to address the fact that I've raised.

Please, pray tell, in a year when Pitt was good enough to go to a bowl, it could only draw 41,000 fans and left more than a third if its stadium empty if it has all the interest that you claim and if its tradition means all that much.

Last time UConn went to a bowl, 2 years ago, it drew 38,000 fans, putting it right in the same neighborhood as Pitt was this past season.

So, why don't you address them apples?

So your example is that a program in seemingly total disarray, with its third HC in 3 seasons and a pissed off fan base, that subsequently has one of the worst home schedules in its history, lost to an FCS team in its home opener, and "achieved" a bid to a meaningless, lowest rung bowl game with only 6 wins still outdrew UConn during its Fiesta Bowl/BE championship season, the best year in UConn's entire history? That's the logic you are going with to make your point?
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 04:00 PM by CrazyPaco.)
05-10-2013 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,988
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 118
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #60
RE: ACC Still Pissed at UConn After 10 Years
(05-09-2013 08:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  I've been telling you for a long time that UConn would not be invited to join the ACC and that the lawsuit is one of the biggest reasons.03-banghead

pitt and cuse were part of that law suit. vt was as well. the law suit is an excuse. the acc invited schools based heavily on who bc wanted. bc does not want uconn in. that is the real reason.
(This post was last modified: 05-10-2013 04:47 PM by mikeinsec127.)
05-10-2013 04:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.