Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

I'd love to know what obvious bias you are referring to.

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

Say what? Terrible for the BE conference at that time? What was terrible is that Pitt football was awful. WVU, UL, and UC carried the Big East banner because Syracuse and Pitt fell flat on their faces.

LOL @ Miko and his agenda

(08-21-2014 02:28 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  LOL @ Miko and his agenda

There is no agenda. I believe that wholesale realignment is over for awhile. This article affirms my belief.

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

Not sure why you are focusing on this point. It's not germane to the article, which is about how realignment appears to have wound down for a long time.

(08-21-2014 02:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

Again, I get your point. However, it's not what the article is about.

classic miko. still waiting on my bias question though. I legitamately can't even troll my way into figuring out what bias a guy from the LA Times has.

Pitt, Cuse, Cinci, UConn... all the same. 35k in the stands for football and good basketball

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

UConn carried Big East Basketball for 2 decades as of 2004? No way. They were a good program no doubt- but not head and shoulders ahead of Georgetown and Syracuse.

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

It was luck. Just because UCONN had great BB for the past 20 years, it doesn't mean that they should have been entitled to a shot at automatic inclusion into the BCS at the time. UCONN was playing Div2 football. It's FB program was elevated. I'm sure most Memphis, ECU, Houston, SMU and other established Div 1 fans who were outside the BCS would have the same belief. And plenty was written about that years ago on these forums.

Got 'em. Hook line and sinker.

(08-21-2014 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

UConn carried Big East Basketball for 2 decades as of 2004? No way. They were a good program no doubt- but not head and shoulders ahead of Georgetown and Syracuse.

Wrong. I acknowledge that UConn and Cuse performed fairly equally in Big East conference play since 1990. Georgetown wasn't in the same class as those two in that period, though (they were the team of the 80's).

However, in tournament play since 1990, UConn destroys Cuse and Georgetown!!!!

Sweet Sixteen appearances since 1990:
UConn – 14
Cuse - 11
Georgetown - 5

Elite Eight appearances since 1990:
UConn – 10
Cuse - 4
Georgetown - 2

Final Four appearances since 1990:
UConn – 5
Cuse – 2
Georgetown - 1

National Championships since 1990:
UConn – 4
Cuse - 1
Georgetown - 0

Next time do some homework before making silly claims.

(08-21-2014 03:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

It was luck. Just because UCONN had great BB for the past 20 years, it doesn't mean that they should have been entitled to a shot at automatic inclusion into the BCS at the time. UCONN was playing Div2 football. It's FB program was elevated. I'm sure most Memphis, ECU, Houston, SMU and other established Div 1 fans who were outside the BCS would have the same belief. And plenty was written about that years ago on these forums.

You don't seem very knowledgeable about sports. UConn was playing Div 1-A football before joining the Big East. Their inclusion in Big East football was earned as a member of the Big East. I am sure that Memphis, ECU, Houston, and SMU fans would not begrudge UConn that.

(08-21-2014 03:18 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 03:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

It was luck. Just because UCONN had great BB for the past 20 years, it doesn't mean that they should have been entitled to a shot at automatic inclusion into the BCS at the time. UCONN was playing Div2 football. It's FB program was elevated. I'm sure most Memphis, ECU, Houston, SMU and other established Div 1 fans who were outside the BCS would have the same belief. And plenty was written about that years ago on these forums.

You don't seem very knowledgeable about sports. UConn was playing Div 1-A football before joining the Big East. Their inclusion in Big East football was earned as a member of the Big East. I am sure that Memphis, ECU, Houston, and SMU fans would not begrudge UConn that.

I stand by what I wrote. UCONN doesn't elevate to D1 unless it was assured that it would have been included in the Big East conference lineup. The fix was in.

(08-21-2014 02:48 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Pitt, Cuse, Cinci, UConn... all the same. 35k in the stands for football and good basketball

2013 football home attendance

Cincinnati 31,771
UConn 30,932
Pittsburgh 49,741
Syracuse 38,277

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2013.pdf

(08-21-2014 03:18 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 03:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

It was luck. Just because UCONN had great BB for the past 20 years, it doesn't mean that they should have been entitled to a shot at automatic inclusion into the BCS at the time. UCONN was playing Div2 football. It's FB program was elevated. I'm sure most Memphis, ECU, Houston, SMU and other established Div 1 fans who were outside the BCS would have the same belief. And plenty was written about that years ago on these forums.

You don't seem very knowledgeable about sports. UConn was playing Div 1-A football before joining the Big East. Their inclusion in Big East football was earned as a member of the Big East. I am sure that Memphis, ECU, Houston, and SMU fans would not begrudge UConn that.

UConn was I-AA until the Big East invited them. Then the BE made them play as an independent for a couple of years before becoming full members.

(08-21-2014 03:15 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:50 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:36 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(08-21-2014 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Take it for what it's worth, written with an obvious bias, but otherwise seems OK.

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc...5597.story

I wouldn't say that UC, USF and especially UCONN were major losers in realignment primarily due to the fact that they weren't a part of the mainstream CFB world for all that long in the first place. They were in the BCS primarily due to timing and luck, which was great for them while being terrible for the rest of the BE conference at that time.

UConn was "lucky" to have their football program included in the conference that they were a founding member of and carried on their backs in basketball for two decades?

UConn carried Big East Basketball for 2 decades as of 2004? No way. They were a good program no doubt- but not head and shoulders ahead of Georgetown and Syracuse.

Wrong. I acknowledge that UConn and Cuse performed fairly equally in Big East conference play since 1990. Georgetown wasn't in the same class as those two in that period, though (they were the team of the 80's).

However, in tournament play since 1990, UConn destroys Cuse and Georgetown!!!!

Sweet Sixteen appearances since 1990:
UConn – 14
Cuse - 11
Georgetown - 5

Elite Eight appearances since 1990:
UConn – 10
Cuse - 4
Georgetown - 2

Final Four appearances since 1990:
UConn – 5
Cuse – 2
Georgetown - 1

National Championships since 1990:
UConn – 4
Cuse - 1
Georgetown - 0

Next time do some homework before making silly claims.

But 2 decades like you said would be 1984-2003. You are making claims based on the period from 2004 on which is meaningless in the terms of this conversation. You go back to 2003 when they got added- last 20 years they had 9 sweet 16's, 5 elite 8's, and 1 final 4. Syracuse had 9 sweet 16's, 4 elite 8's, and 3 final 4's. Georgetown had 7 sweet 16's, 5 elite 8's, and 2 final 4's. I'm sorry, but at the period that UConn was added to the big east, they had absolutely NOT carried the conference on their back.

Oh and another fact- Big East tourney final appearances 1984-2003
Syracuse 9, Georgetown 8, UConn 8. No way that UConn had carried on their back the Big East.