(08-07-2013 01:51 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  Correct, they would be G5, but they would have more $ than any other G5 conference, otherwise it would disband. The western AAC and C-USA teams would jump in a heartbeat, as would the eastern MWC teams. Those 7 leftovers would have stronger pull.

Or....Kansas and Oklahoma can go B1G. Texas can take TCU and Baylor to the ACC. The SEC can pick up OSU and WVU then the PAC takes the rest and one more. Everyone school maintains themselves in a P5. Every conference boosts their value and they all get to 16 so that they can easily agree on rule changes once all the power is in their hands.

Why any of those schools would choose to remain in a G5 equivalent conference rather than moving on to greener pastures is beyond me.

They have to be invited first, and those leftovers aren't attractive enough. WVU is the best school left, and even they'll tell you the ACC has no interest. Why would the ACC want Baylor and/or TCU? I can see WVU to the SEC, but that's not a sure thing. The PAC 12 wanted Texas and Oklahoma and without them, there's no reason to expand eastward.

Those leftover schools just might have to make do.

This is certainly a nightmare scenario for those 7 schools.

And they break out in cold sweats every time one of these rumors comes up.

(08-07-2013 02:05 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  They have to be invited first, and those leftovers aren't attractive enough. WVU is the best school left, and even they'll tell you the ACC has no interest. Why would the ACC want Baylor and/or TCU? I can see WVU to the SEC, but that's not a sure thing. The PAC 12 wanted Texas and Oklahoma and without them, there's no reason to expand eastward.

Those leftover schools just might have to make do.

Why would they? Because it may very well be contingent upon Texas agreeing. Without any of that then no movement happens. Do you know how much Bowl value the ACC stands to gain if they bring in Texas, Baylor and TCU? First off....Sugar Bowl. Second, with that line up of Texas schools they stand strongly at picking up some of those bowl contracts that the Big 12 would no longer fill.

There is plenty of reason for the PAC to take others. They were just trying to jump the gun to get the best options.

Know what realignment really did? Made Boston College, Syracuse, and Uconn fans more vocal and annoying.

(08-07-2013 12:23 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 07:42 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:23 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:57 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Always enjoy to read the delusional rantings of Uconn fans. Dude, Uconn has quality athletic programs, but to claim they would "blow away" the other schools you mentioned is ludicrous.

FACT: check the W-L records of the games Uconn and BC have played in the sports they still play one another in since BC joined the ACC. I think you will be surprised.

FACT: BC is the "Alabama" of college hockey. To even suggest that Uconn would "blow away" BC hockey simply because it decides to upgrade is simply absurd. You might as well say that Uconn football will "blow away" Alabama - its the same thing.

The only school that the poster claimed that UConn would blow away was BC EXCEPT for hockey. He never suggested that UConn would blow away BC in hockey. He just mentioned that UConn was upgrading in hockey, which I took to mean that UConn would be more competitive in that sport.

Forgive us for not taking BC seriously in Connecticut but their basketball program had become something of a joke around here. In their last 18 years in the Big East, UConn was 29-4 against them including a run of 23 wins in a row.

In football, BC made no secret of the fact that they didn't want UConn in the ACC because they don't want the competition of another major program in New England. They're obviously terrified of competing against UConn in football.

Well, it depends on your interpretation.....he indicated Uconn would blow BC away in all sports...except for hockey...but then he added ..."and we are upgrading there to"...we disagree on the intent there...but be that as it may.

Regarding all the other sports that BC and Uconn HAVE played against each other in the 8 years since BC joined the ACC, check the records - the two schools have been very competitive. BC sports winning records agains Uconn in some sports, Uconn has a winning record in others. Bottom line, the facts don't support this absurd boast.

Regarding the BB record you quote above, BC fans feel the same way about Uconn FB as BC is 12-0-1 lifetime against Uconn.:) Seriously, though, things change. While you correctly quote the Men's BB record, you fail to mention that in the last 4 or so years BC played Uconn in Men's BB, it was much more competitive. Also, given what we now know about the recent Uconn Men's BB NCAAA issues - recruiting and GPA issues - it is hard to compete on a level playing field when one program appears to give itself a leg up by ignoring some of the rules. Uconn has tightened the ship, of course, and it will be interesting to see how that impacts their program going forward now that they are on the same playing field as everyone else.

Regarding BC being "terrified" of Uconn, these kind of comments make Uconn fans look silly and strip you of any credibility to discuss the topic of BC. Look, I am sure BC does not want Uconn in the ACC for the same reasons that other schools don't want other programs in the same region in their conferences. BC is hardly alone here. If the situation were reversed, Uconn would in all likelihood do the EXACT same thing. Just look at how you guys view Umass. I haven't seen Uconn pushing to get UMASS into their conference and Uconn has only played Umass FB ONCE in over a decade (BC plays Umass every few years). BY your logic, Uconn FB must be "terrified" of Umass.

You're the one who's losing credibility by demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the facts.

1. UConn received absolutely no benefit from the recruiting violations for which they received minor penalties because the kid in question never played for them. Where's the advantage in that?

2. The recruiting violation in question was from sending too many text messages. Do you think in the digital age, they were alone in that? The policy they violated was a classic example of the rules not having caught up with the technology. The NCAA has since changed that rule.

3. UConn's problem with graduation rate was one more NCAA fiasco. UConn met the standard that was in effect at the time. The NCAA then changed the standard and implemented a penalty retroactively! You think that's fair? In fact, UConn actually met the alternative 2-year standard, but the NCAA refused to use it becaue they said they couldn't process the grades fast enough. The whole thing was ridiculous.

4. As for your claim that UConn was obtaining an advantage by violating rules, the irony of the whole thing is that academic performance and graduation rates were actually excellent under Jim Calhoun. That particular issue was an isolated aberration.

5. Shall we go through all of the issues that BC has faced over the years which far outnumber any at UConn? Give me the word and I'll list them.

Your reference to BC's football record vs UConn is nonsense because the only record that is relevant is what the two teams have done against each other since UConn elevated its program to FBS. Unfortunately BC has not wanted to play UConn since it joined the ACC.

I have been a big advocate of adding UMass to the AAC, so any reluctance to oppose an upgrade at UMass is not universally held by the Uconn community. The two schools played each other in basketball for 15 years when UConn was in the Big East until Calhoun broke it off due to his contempt for Calipari especially after Calipari came into CT and recruited Marcus Camby. Calhoun felt that Calipari was a cheat and wasn't going to help him by allowing his program to be on the UMass schedule. There have actually been some rapprochement between the 2 schools lately.

Wow...where to begin...

1. If you want to play the game of who has had the most incidents...fine. BC certainly has had its share of problems - but so has Uconn. I remember seeing the list a few years ago for both schools. Trust me, it is longer for both than either you or I would like. That was never my point. You can argue whether or not the NCAA penalties were fair or unfair - I won't argue that point as I can see both sides of that issue. However, what is not in dispute was the shockingly low Men's BB graduation issues which drove the penalties (whether you think they were fair or not). BC would never tolerate those grad rates and that forms the crux of the issue - whether you can recruit with a far more "flexible" standard. As fas as this is concerned, yes, I think it does make a big difference in the talent you can put on the floor. Of course, this is a much more pervasive problem, IMO. It seems to me that Men's college BB has more issues with things such as the "one and done's" and other outside influences than, say CFB, and this creates the competitive disparity that I think exists.

2. I mentioned the 12-0-1 FB record more tongue and cheek, only pointing out that you cannot take a period of time where it was decidedly in the favor of one program and project that to be ongoing forever and forever. BC hockey was once a "poor cousin" to BU. In the last dozen year, BC has blown by them - but that could always change. Regarding FB, like so many other Uconn fans, you disregard BC's history as a program and the many natural advantages it has - choosing only to focus on the last couple of years which were clearly the result of a huge coaching mistake (see Louisville if you want to see another example).

3. Concerning your playing or not playing Umass, regardless of your personal view, your athletic program's philosophy to them seems to be identical to the philosophy you claim BC operates under. Regarding the "rapprochement" you claim is developing between the two schools, I have yet to see the evidence of this. Uconn did not seem to support their entrance into the AAC, nor have they scheduled them for any future FB series which, to me, is telling. Heck, you have two flagship state universities situated close to one another and Uconn has not scheduled them for future games - despite a clear preference from Umass to get a series going Of course, I think we both know why Uconn does not want to give them a leg up in New England - same as for BC regarding Uconn. If your going to claim that BC is "terrified" of Uconn, then applying the same standard to Uconn, they must be "terrified" of Umass.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact UConn scheduled Umass last year in football.

They can get everything they want with just Texas. Why add Baylor and TCU? Texas would make 16 in the ACC. I doubt that they're in a hurry to get to 18. You think Texas cares about Baylor and TCU?

(08-07-2013 04:00 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  They can get everything they want with just Texas. Why add Baylor and TCU? Texas would make 16 in the ACC. I doubt that they're in a hurry to get to 18. You think Texas cares about Baylor and TCU?

Do I think Texas cares directly about Baylor and TCU? No I do not.

Do I think Texas would see value in bringing along two programs with them? Yes I do. I do not propose the two out of thinking that Texas would be acting in an altruistic manner. Politics and protecting their own position. That is two more votes they would have within the ACC.

(08-07-2013 03:32 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 12:23 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 07:42 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 01:23 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  The only school that the poster claimed that UConn would blow away was BC EXCEPT for hockey. He never suggested that UConn would blow away BC in hockey. He just mentioned that UConn was upgrading in hockey, which I took to mean that UConn would be more competitive in that sport.

Forgive us for not taking BC seriously in Connecticut but their basketball program had become something of a joke around here. In their last 18 years in the Big East, UConn was 29-4 against them including a run of 23 wins in a row.

In football, BC made no secret of the fact that they didn't want UConn in the ACC because they don't want the competition of another major program in New England. They're obviously terrified of competing against UConn in football.

Well, it depends on your interpretation.....he indicated Uconn would blow BC away in all sports...except for hockey...but then he added ..."and we are upgrading there to"...we disagree on the intent there...but be that as it may.

Regarding all the other sports that BC and Uconn HAVE played against each other in the 8 years since BC joined the ACC, check the records - the two schools have been very competitive. BC sports winning records agains Uconn in some sports, Uconn has a winning record in others. Bottom line, the facts don't support this absurd boast.

Regarding the BB record you quote above, BC fans feel the same way about Uconn FB as BC is 12-0-1 lifetime against Uconn.:) Seriously, though, things change. While you correctly quote the Men's BB record, you fail to mention that in the last 4 or so years BC played Uconn in Men's BB, it was much more competitive. Also, given what we now know about the recent Uconn Men's BB NCAAA issues - recruiting and GPA issues - it is hard to compete on a level playing field when one program appears to give itself a leg up by ignoring some of the rules. Uconn has tightened the ship, of course, and it will be interesting to see how that impacts their program going forward now that they are on the same playing field as everyone else.

Regarding BC being "terrified" of Uconn, these kind of comments make Uconn fans look silly and strip you of any credibility to discuss the topic of BC. Look, I am sure BC does not want Uconn in the ACC for the same reasons that other schools don't want other programs in the same region in their conferences. BC is hardly alone here. If the situation were reversed, Uconn would in all likelihood do the EXACT same thing. Just look at how you guys view Umass. I haven't seen Uconn pushing to get UMASS into their conference and Uconn has only played Umass FB ONCE in over a decade (BC plays Umass every few years). BY your logic, Uconn FB must be "terrified" of Umass.

You're the one who's losing credibility by demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the facts.

1. UConn received absolutely no benefit from the recruiting violations for which they received minor penalties because the kid in question never played for them. Where's the advantage in that?

2. The recruiting violation in question was from sending too many text messages. Do you think in the digital age, they were alone in that? The policy they violated was a classic example of the rules not having caught up with the technology. The NCAA has since changed that rule.

3. UConn's problem with graduation rate was one more NCAA fiasco. UConn met the standard that was in effect at the time. The NCAA then changed the standard and implemented a penalty retroactively! You think that's fair? In fact, UConn actually met the alternative 2-year standard, but the NCAA refused to use it becaue they said they couldn't process the grades fast enough. The whole thing was ridiculous.

4. As for your claim that UConn was obtaining an advantage by violating rules, the irony of the whole thing is that academic performance and graduation rates were actually excellent under Jim Calhoun. That particular issue was an isolated aberration.

5. Shall we go through all of the issues that BC has faced over the years which far outnumber any at UConn? Give me the word and I'll list them.

Your reference to BC's football record vs UConn is nonsense because the only record that is relevant is what the two teams have done against each other since UConn elevated its program to FBS. Unfortunately BC has not wanted to play UConn since it joined the ACC.

I have been a big advocate of adding UMass to the AAC, so any reluctance to oppose an upgrade at UMass is not universally held by the Uconn community. The two schools played each other in basketball for 15 years when UConn was in the Big East until Calhoun broke it off due to his contempt for Calipari especially after Calipari came into CT and recruited Marcus Camby. Calhoun felt that Calipari was a cheat and wasn't going to help him by allowing his program to be on the UMass schedule. There have actually been some rapprochement between the 2 schools lately.

Wow...where to begin...

1. If you want to play the game of who has had the most incidents...fine. BC certainly has had its share of problems - but so has Uconn. I remember seeing the list a few years ago for both schools. Trust me, it is longer for both than either you or I would like. That was never my point. You can argue whether or not the NCAA penalties were fair or unfair - I won't argue that point as I can see both sides of that issue. However, what is not in dispute was the shockingly low Men's BB graduation issues which drove the penalties (whether you think they were fair or not). BC would never tolerate those grad rates and that forms the crux of the issue - whether you can recruit with a far more "flexible" standard. As fas as this is concerned, yes, I think it does make a big difference in the talent you can put on the floor. Of course, this is a much more pervasive problem, IMO. It seems to me that Men's college BB has more issues with things such as the "one and done's" and other outside influences than, say CFB, and this creates the competitive disparity that I think exists.

2. I mentioned the 12-0-1 FB record more tongue and cheek, only pointing out that you cannot take a period of time where it was decidedly in the favor of one program and project that to be ongoing forever and forever. BC hockey was once a "poor cousin" to BU. In the last dozen year, BC has blown by them - but that could always change. Regarding FB, like so many other Uconn fans, you disregard BC's history as a program and the many natural advantages it has - choosing only to focus on the last couple of years which were clearly the result of a huge coaching mistake (see Louisville if you want to see another example).

3. Concerning your playing or not playing Umass, regardless of your personal view, your athletic program's philosophy to them seems to be identical to the philosophy you claim BC operates under. Regarding the "rapprochement" you claim is developing between the two schools, I have yet to see the evidence of this. Uconn did not seem to support their entrance into the AAC, nor have they scheduled them for any future FB series which, to me, is telling. Heck, you have two flagship state universities situated close to one another and Uconn has not scheduled them for future games - despite a clear preference from Umass to get a series going Of course, I think we both know why Uconn does not want to give them a leg up in New England - same as for BC regarding Uconn. If your going to claim that BC is "terrified" of Uconn, then applying the same standard to Uconn, they must be "terrified" of Umass.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact UConn scheduled Umass last year in football.

Yes, one time over the past 13 seasons with, to date, no plans for any further games. This for two flagship universities of neighboring states that are closer to each other than either is to BC. UMASS would like to schedule a long-term series with Uconn for FB. So far, no response from Uconn. My above point still holds.

(08-07-2013 04:28 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 03:32 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 12:23 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:38 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 07:42 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Well, it depends on your interpretation.....he indicated Uconn would blow BC away in all sports...except for hockey...but then he added ..."and we are upgrading there to"...we disagree on the intent there...but be that as it may.

Regarding all the other sports that BC and Uconn HAVE played against each other in the 8 years since BC joined the ACC, check the records - the two schools have been very competitive. BC sports winning records agains Uconn in some sports, Uconn has a winning record in others. Bottom line, the facts don't support this absurd boast.

Regarding the BB record you quote above, BC fans feel the same way about Uconn FB as BC is 12-0-1 lifetime against Uconn.:) Seriously, though, things change. While you correctly quote the Men's BB record, you fail to mention that in the last 4 or so years BC played Uconn in Men's BB, it was much more competitive. Also, given what we now know about the recent Uconn Men's BB NCAAA issues - recruiting and GPA issues - it is hard to compete on a level playing field when one program appears to give itself a leg up by ignoring some of the rules. Uconn has tightened the ship, of course, and it will be interesting to see how that impacts their program going forward now that they are on the same playing field as everyone else.

Regarding BC being "terrified" of Uconn, these kind of comments make Uconn fans look silly and strip you of any credibility to discuss the topic of BC. Look, I am sure BC does not want Uconn in the ACC for the same reasons that other schools don't want other programs in the same region in their conferences. BC is hardly alone here. If the situation were reversed, Uconn would in all likelihood do the EXACT same thing. Just look at how you guys view Umass. I haven't seen Uconn pushing to get UMASS into their conference and Uconn has only played Umass FB ONCE in over a decade (BC plays Umass every few years). BY your logic, Uconn FB must be "terrified" of Umass.

You're the one who's losing credibility by demonstrating your lack of knowledge of the facts.

1. UConn received absolutely no benefit from the recruiting violations for which they received minor penalties because the kid in question never played for them. Where's the advantage in that?

2. The recruiting violation in question was from sending too many text messages. Do you think in the digital age, they were alone in that? The policy they violated was a classic example of the rules not having caught up with the technology. The NCAA has since changed that rule.

3. UConn's problem with graduation rate was one more NCAA fiasco. UConn met the standard that was in effect at the time. The NCAA then changed the standard and implemented a penalty retroactively! You think that's fair? In fact, UConn actually met the alternative 2-year standard, but the NCAA refused to use it becaue they said they couldn't process the grades fast enough. The whole thing was ridiculous.

4. As for your claim that UConn was obtaining an advantage by violating rules, the irony of the whole thing is that academic performance and graduation rates were actually excellent under Jim Calhoun. That particular issue was an isolated aberration.

5. Shall we go through all of the issues that BC has faced over the years which far outnumber any at UConn? Give me the word and I'll list them.

Your reference to BC's football record vs UConn is nonsense because the only record that is relevant is what the two teams have done against each other since UConn elevated its program to FBS. Unfortunately BC has not wanted to play UConn since it joined the ACC.

I have been a big advocate of adding UMass to the AAC, so any reluctance to oppose an upgrade at UMass is not universally held by the Uconn community. The two schools played each other in basketball for 15 years when UConn was in the Big East until Calhoun broke it off due to his contempt for Calipari especially after Calipari came into CT and recruited Marcus Camby. Calhoun felt that Calipari was a cheat and wasn't going to help him by allowing his program to be on the UMass schedule. There have actually been some rapprochement between the 2 schools lately.

Wow...where to begin...

1. If you want to play the game of who has had the most incidents...fine. BC certainly has had its share of problems - but so has Uconn. I remember seeing the list a few years ago for both schools. Trust me, it is longer for both than either you or I would like. That was never my point. You can argue whether or not the NCAA penalties were fair or unfair - I won't argue that point as I can see both sides of that issue. However, what is not in dispute was the shockingly low Men's BB graduation issues which drove the penalties (whether you think they were fair or not). BC would never tolerate those grad rates and that forms the crux of the issue - whether you can recruit with a far more "flexible" standard. As fas as this is concerned, yes, I think it does make a big difference in the talent you can put on the floor. Of course, this is a much more pervasive problem, IMO. It seems to me that Men's college BB has more issues with things such as the "one and done's" and other outside influences than, say CFB, and this creates the competitive disparity that I think exists.

2. I mentioned the 12-0-1 FB record more tongue and cheek, only pointing out that you cannot take a period of time where it was decidedly in the favor of one program and project that to be ongoing forever and forever. BC hockey was once a "poor cousin" to BU. In the last dozen year, BC has blown by them - but that could always change. Regarding FB, like so many other Uconn fans, you disregard BC's history as a program and the many natural advantages it has - choosing only to focus on the last couple of years which were clearly the result of a huge coaching mistake (see Louisville if you want to see another example).

3. Concerning your playing or not playing Umass, regardless of your personal view, your athletic program's philosophy to them seems to be identical to the philosophy you claim BC operates under. Regarding the "rapprochement" you claim is developing between the two schools, I have yet to see the evidence of this. Uconn did not seem to support their entrance into the AAC, nor have they scheduled them for any future FB series which, to me, is telling. Heck, you have two flagship state universities situated close to one another and Uconn has not scheduled them for future games - despite a clear preference from Umass to get a series going Of course, I think we both know why Uconn does not want to give them a leg up in New England - same as for BC regarding Uconn. If your going to claim that BC is "terrified" of Uconn, then applying the same standard to Uconn, they must be "terrified" of Umass.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact UConn scheduled Umass last year in football.

Yes, one time over the past 13 seasons with, to date, no plans for any further games. This for two flagship universities of neighboring states that are closer to each other than either is to BC. UMass would like to schedule a regular series with Uconn for FB. So far, no response from Uconn. My above point still holds.

If UConn & BC were in the ACC, it would probably be the #2 rivalry behind UNC-Duke.

But we'll never know. At this point, I've given up and I don't care. It's the AAC or B1G for UConn, and I put our B1G chances at 5%-10%.