(05-11-2013 07:06 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: You can make far-fetched claims about the ACC being worried about Big 12 (!!) incursions into Pennsylvania (!!) and New York (!!!) if you want, but the obvious motivation for taking Big East teams was to combat the Big East, not anybody else.

No, the ACC expanded into the East/Northeast to expand their footprint and television markets. The Big East never a threat to the ACC.

Ridiculous, since by your own admission the Big East had the schools that occupied those east/northeast footprint areas and TV markets that the ACC coveted.

It's axiomatic that if I want something and you have it and are determined to keep it, then you are a threat to me.

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  If the ACC decision makers have the opinion that UConn was the "bad guy" in the lawsuit, they are entitled to their opinion.

They own it. It is theirs.

Their position on this matter is the only viewpoint that counts in this situation. Not yours, not mine. Theirs.

If they have this opinion/viewpoint, it is not an excuse. It is their position on the issue.

If that is their opinion, reasonable or not to others, game over for UConn (no matter what others think).

Either they really believe this or it is an "excuse". Either way, game over for UConn as far as ACC membership is concerned.

Thanks, TerryD.........there's not much left to say.

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

(05-11-2013 08:06 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  If the ACC decision makers have the opinion that UConn was the "bad guy" in the lawsuit, they are entitled to their opinion.

They own it. It is theirs.

Their position on this matter is the only viewpoint that counts in this situation. Not yours, not mine. Theirs.

If they have this opinion/viewpoint, it is not an excuse. It is their position on the issue.

If that is their opinion, reasonable or not to others, game over for UConn (no matter what others think).

Either they really believe this or it is an "excuse". Either way, game over for UConn as far as ACC membership is concerned.

Thanks, TerryD.........there's not much left to say.

Well, I understand it.

A whole bunch of people thought it was "inevitable" that ND would join the Big Ten, some even up to the signing of the ACC GOR.

After all, ND could make more TV money, it was a great geographic "fit" and travel costs would go way down.

So, the idea that ND people refused join the Big Ten and that they wanted to cling to independence was seen by outsiders as "unreasonable".

It didn't seem to matter to those people that the only opinion that counted was that of ND folks, nobody else.

If they didn't think it was unreasonable, then well, it wasn't. Game over.

There was really never a chance that ND would join the Big Ten, despite how "natural" and attractive that option seemed to be to non-ND people.

It is the same with the ACC. Their opinion on the matter is what counts.

Everything else is just outsider opinion BS that means zero.

Some people make the mistake of applying their "logic", opinion, viewpoint and bias to others, then wondering why the outcome was different than they expected.

(The signing of the ACC GOR is one recent example of this. It really caught a lot of folks off guard because they misread the motivations of the players involved).

I have learned through a large number of jury trials and especially in the mediation process that people have their own subjective reasons for making decisions.

We often guess wrong when trying to ferret them out and understand their true motivations, even in business and $$ dealings.

My guess is that UConn won't get an ACC bid for a multitude of factors, including market, history, TV $$ potential and all of that other stuff.

There may also be some lingering bitterness or bad taste towards UConn in the minds of ACC decision makers.

We just will never really know.

In truth, none of us truly know because we weren't behind the "closed doors" when the various decisions were made.

We can apply critical thinking skills and make an educated guess as to why this or that school over another, but ultimately it's still a guess.

Of the 11 Big East programs, arguments could be made that 6 logically could have wound up in either ACC or the BiG and the other 5 could have logically wound up in either the ACC or the SEC.

And since I believe conference realignment is only dormant at this time, not dead, the endgame has not yet been reached.

Cheers,
Neil

I still think the BIG is looking at UCONN due to Hartford's TV market. The ACC doesn't really need to add UCONN for another northeast market due to having Syracuse, BC, Pitt, and ND already.

(05-11-2013 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:06 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: You can make far-fetched claims about the ACC being worried about Big 12 (!!) incursions into Pennsylvania (!!) and New York (!!!) if you want, but the obvious motivation for taking Big East teams was to combat the Big East, not anybody else.

No, the ACC expanded into the East/Northeast to expand their footprint and television markets. The Big East never a threat to the ACC.

Ridiculous, since by your own admission the Big East had the schools that occupied those east/northeast footprint areas and TV markets that the ACC coveted.

It's axiomatic that if I want something and you have it and are determined to keep it, then you are a threat to me.

The Big East was never a threat to the ACC. There was 0% chance an ACC team would ever leave and go to the Big East. They were never a threat!. The ACC decided to pick and choose what teams had value from the Big East and offered them something much better.

It's asinine to suggest the Big East and ACC offered the same thing.

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I never once said it had a damn thing to do with on the field. Louisville is a much better program (i.e. - better support and better ratings and now a better product too).

If UConn had a TV market or any fan support at all, they would be in the ACC and no one would care about the lawsuits. The lawsuits are irrelevant and has nothing to do with the ACC not wanting UConn.

Hartford/New Haven is the 30 largest tv market, so saying no TV just seems factually incorrect.

(05-11-2013 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

Well, actually, as of Fall 2012, I would have said UofL was ahead of UConn in football as well and if forced to pick one for the ACC based on football prospects I would have selected UofL. But, it would be based on attendance, not results. You can't seriously think anyone in the ACC cared about a Fiesta win 23 years ago, can you?

As for recent results, over the previous 5 full years, from 2007-2011, the relevant time frame for what a program looks like today if you are making a decision in Fall 2012, there was precious little to distinguish UConn and UofL. Both were highly mediocre teams. I mean, look at the 2007-2011 records of these two schools and you tell me if one stands out as clearly better:

Team A: 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 5-7
Team B: 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, 7-6

Not much to pick from between them.

(05-11-2013 09:54 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  Hartford/New Haven is the 30 largest tv market, so saying no TV just seems factually incorrect.

Yes, Hartford/New Haven is the #30 TV market. UConn also has 1+ million in NYC, which is a separate market. That's more than respectable.

People who have never been to the Northeast think Connecticut = Vermont. That's not true. Actually ... if you were to somehow mix New Jersey and Vermont together, the result would be something like Connecticut.

(05-11-2013 09:06 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:04 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:06 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 11:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Let's face it: You can make far-fetched claims about the ACC being worried about Big 12 (!!) incursions into Pennsylvania (!!) and New York (!!!) if you want, but the obvious motivation for taking Big East teams was to combat the Big East, not anybody else.

No, the ACC expanded into the East/Northeast to expand their footprint and television markets. The Big East never a threat to the ACC.

Ridiculous, since by your own admission the Big East had the schools that occupied those east/northeast footprint areas and TV markets that the ACC coveted.

It's axiomatic that if I want something and you have it and are determined to keep it, then you are a threat to me.

The Big East was never a threat to the ACC. There was 0% chance an ACC team would ever leave and go to the Big East. They were never a threat!. The ACC decided to pick and choose what teams had value from the Big East and offered them something much better.

It's asinine to suggest the Big East and ACC offered the same thing.

No ACC team would leave the Big East as of 2011, because the ACC was more prestigious and made more money. But objectively, Big East basketball was at least the equal of the ACC, and was the same in football as well. Combine that with the Big East signing a deal that would equal ACC money, really the biggest advantage the ACC had over the Big East, and with the ACC wanting to invade the northeast where the Big East had its home, and one would have to be a really dumb ACC administrator not to see the Big East as a threat and make a preemptive strike.

Fortunately for you, ACC administrators were not dumb.

(05-11-2013 08:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  In truth, none of us truly know because we weren't behind the "closed doors" when the various decisions were made.

We can apply critical thinking skills and make an educated guess as to why this or that school over another, but ultimately it's still a guess.

Of the 11 Big East programs, arguments could be made that 6 logically could have wound up in either ACC or the BiG and the other 5 could have logically wound up in either the ACC or the SEC.

And since I believe conference realignment is only dormant at this time, not dead, the endgame has not yet been reached.

Cheers,
Neil

It does appear that "conference realignment" will be an ongoing event rearing it's head any time media contracts expire. Realignmnet, like the Cicada, will become a cyclical event.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada
BTW, Cicadas only come out every 17 years.

(05-11-2013 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

Well, actually, as of Fall 2012, I would have said UofL was ahead of UConn in football as well and if forced to pick one for the ACC based on football prospects I would have selected UofL. But, it would be based on attendance, not results. You can't seriously think anyone in the ACC cared about a Fiesta win 23 years ago, can you?

As for recent results, over the previous 5 full years, from 2007-2011, the relevant time frame for what a program looks like today if you are making a decision in Fall 2012, there was precious little to distinguish UConn and UofL. Both were highly mediocre teams. I mean, look at the 2007-2011 records of these two schools and you tell me if one stands out as clearly better:

Team A: 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 5-7
Team B: 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, 7-6

Not much to pick from between them.

Quo..you know there's more to the story than just wins and losses. What was the avg attendance figures for both schools during those years? Ville's is much higher.

I noticed you left off Ville's 2006 Orange Bowl victory in this comparison. You have to consider a program's upside and Ville's is much higher (proven by a Sugar Bowl victory this past winter).

Finally, you have to look at TV markets. Hartford is a great TV market (top 30) but not for college football. Louisville is a smaller market (top 50) but great for college sports. It's ranked #1 for basketball and top 25 for college football.

It funny to me....BCS era...one program has two BCS Bowl wins...the other zero yet they are in Steve world equal...ok...whatever makes him feel btr...lol

(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,

not sure if that's something you want to brag about

(05-11-2013 10:23 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

Well, actually, as of Fall 2012, I would have said UofL was ahead of UConn in football as well and if forced to pick one for the ACC based on football prospects I would have selected UofL. But, it would be based on attendance, not results. You can't seriously think anyone in the ACC cared about a Fiesta win 23 years ago, can you?

As for recent results, over the previous 5 full years, from 2007-2011, the relevant time frame for what a program looks like today if you are making a decision in Fall 2012, there was precious little to distinguish UConn and UofL. Both were highly mediocre teams. I mean, look at the 2007-2011 records of these two schools and you tell me if one stands out as clearly better:

Team A: 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 5-7
Team B: 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, 7-6

Not much to pick from between them.

Quo..you know there's more to the story than just wins and losses. What was the avg attendance figures for both schools during those years? Ville's is much higher.

I noticed you left off Ville's 2006 Orange Bowl victory in this comparison. You have to consider a program's upside and Ville's is much higher (proven by a Sugar Bowl victory this past winter).

Finally, you have to look at TV markets. Hartford is a great TV market (top 30) but not for college football. Louisville is a smaller market (top 50) but great for college sports. It's ranked #1 for basketball and top 25 for college football.

First, didn't I say that based on attendance I would have taken UofL over UConn too? Yes, so obviously i know there's more to the story than attendance.

As for the markets, IMO both offer very little for ACC college football. The other poster said UofL offered far, far more than UConn. IMO that is an exaggeration. Take it all together and UofL has better football prospects, but not all that much better.

(05-11-2013 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 07:08 AM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  UConn isn't in the ACC because of any lawsuits or bitterness from the ACC. They aren't in the ACC because they offer nothing at all to the ACC in terms of television markets or in football. Period. If they did, everyone would shake hands and forget about prior litigation. When Maryland left it was a no-brainer to take Louisville over UConn. Louisville didn't get lucky because of bitterness towards UConn. Louisville offers 100 times more than UConn.

They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

Well, actually, as of Fall 2012, I would have said UofL was ahead of UConn in football as well and if forced to pick one for the ACC based on football prospects I would have selected UofL. But, it would be based on attendance, not results. You can't seriously think anyone in the ACC cared about a Fiesta win 23 years ago, can you?

As for recent results, over the previous 5 full years, from 2007-2011, the relevant time frame for what a program looks like today if you are making a decision in Fall 2012, there was precious little to distinguish UConn and UofL. Both were highly mediocre teams. I mean, look at the 2007-2011 records of these two schools and you tell me if one stands out as clearly better:

Team A: 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 5-7
Team B: 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, 7-6

Not much to pick from between them.

But the ACC chose Louisville over UConn.

Why do you think they did that? Coin flip?

(05-11-2013 12:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:23 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 10:05 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:23 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-11-2013 08:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  They aren't mutually exclusive. Louisville could offer more in football than UConn and also lack a taint associated with the lawsuit.

Looking at them objectively, Louisville and UConn are both A-level basketball brands but far less than that as football brands. As a TV brand, Louisville football is hemmed in by far greater interest in the B1G to the north and the SEC to the south, in UConn's case the problem is a football market that cares far more about the NFL. UofL's main advantage was having about 10,000 more paying football fans, as evidenced by increased attendance after the expansion of PJS. That speaks to UofL having the fan support needed to build a strong football program going forward. But before this past season, there was little to distinguish UofL and UConn in terms of results on the field.

I guess that Louisville having gone to 9 Straight Bowl games between 1998-2006 and the fact even before last year it had Fiesta Bowl Championship-(over Alabama) and a Orange Bowl Championship didn't matter either...whatever...

But hey, that your opinion and not that of the 14 Schools in the ACC...those opinion of those 14 Presidents are all that matter...

Well, actually, as of Fall 2012, I would have said UofL was ahead of UConn in football as well and if forced to pick one for the ACC based on football prospects I would have selected UofL. But, it would be based on attendance, not results. You can't seriously think anyone in the ACC cared about a Fiesta win 23 years ago, can you?

As for recent results, over the previous 5 full years, from 2007-2011, the relevant time frame for what a program looks like today if you are making a decision in Fall 2012, there was precious little to distinguish UConn and UofL. Both were highly mediocre teams. I mean, look at the 2007-2011 records of these two schools and you tell me if one stands out as clearly better:

Team A: 9-4, 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 5-7
Team B: 6-6, 5-7, 4-8, 7-6, 7-6

Not much to pick from between them.

Quo..you know there's more to the story than just wins and losses. What was the avg attendance figures for both schools during those years? Ville's is much higher.

I noticed you left off Ville's 2006 Orange Bowl victory in this comparison. You have to consider a program's upside and Ville's is much higher (proven by a Sugar Bowl victory this past winter).

Finally, you have to look at TV markets. Hartford is a great TV market (top 30) but not for college football. Louisville is a smaller market (top 50) but great for college sports. It's ranked #1 for basketball and top 25 for college football.

First, didn't I say that based on attendance I would have taken UofL over UConn too? Yes, so obviously i know there's more to the story than attendance.

As for the markets, IMO both offer very little for ACC college football. The other poster said UofL offered far, far more than UConn. IMO that is an exaggeration. Take it all together and UofL has better football prospects, but not all that much better.

How can you say a team that has won 2 BCS bowls in the last 7 years doesn't offer that much more than a team that's only been playing 1-A football since 1999?