Report: UConn, Rutgers did not pledge to stay in the Big East
by Andrew Porter on Sep 21, 2011 4:23 PM EDT
in Big East News
Email
PrintAfter last night's Big East football meeting commissioner John Marrinatto said that all of the remaining Big East football schools pledged to stay together. Reports surfaced almost instantly that despite the pledge UConn was still looking to go elsewhere. Now, the AP is reporting that multiple UConn officials are saying that not only is UConn continuing to explore its options, but that the school did not pledge to stay in the conference. The officials added that Rutgers also refused to take the pledge.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
not surprising
I figured that the whole pledge thing was a load of hoowee. Especially with UConn’s wanting out (and hopefully into the ACC). I’m still rooting for UConn and WVU to be 15 and 16 there (whatever the odds look like now).
Wait, what?
Shouldn't we just give up!
According to BC folks, they have the whole leagues support in blocking us from getting into the ACC. Haha they crack me up.
Anyways, definitely smart by UConn and Herbst to keep our options open because this could take a while. Hopefully we can secure a spot in the ACC sooner than later, but were going to have to wait around for a few more moves to happen in some of the other leagues. That will prompt the ACC to scoop more schools up.
According to BC folks, they have the whole leagues support in blocking us from getting into the ACC. Haha they crack me up.
It just takes a measly 4 votes to reject UConn’s application in the ACC. Given the history between UConn and a few major players in this decision-making process, it’s a daunting obstacle to reconcile unless anyone here can offer a clear refutation.
Everything else you read on the internet about potential supporters or opponents in the Conference is conjectural or anecdotal at best.
Anyways, definitely smart by UConn and Herbst to keep our options open because this could take a while
Smart? In business, savvy Executives usually keep their cards close to their vest to protect strategic planning goals and possibly, intellectual property.
“Keeping options open” is code for “hedging” because of institutional uncertainty.
it’s a daunting obstacle to reconcile unless anyone here can offer a clear refutation.
Are you really going to bring this up again, but over here now? I’m pretty sure both myself and the editors of this blog have provided very clear reasoning that the “history” between UConn and the other schools is going to be irrelevant.
What I find ironic about this entire discussion around the impact of the past history on UConn’s admittance into the ACC is that both myself and other UConn fans seem to have a better view of the BC administration than yourself and the other BC fans I have interacted with. We don’t think they will be so petty as to let a lawsuit by people no longer associated with the university get in the way of good business. While you seem to have this negative view of your own administration.
Smart? In business, savvy Executives usually keep their cards close to their vest to protect strategic planning goals and possibly, intellectual property.
You are correct that it would have been best to keep their cards close to the vest like Syracuse and Pittsburgh did. However, in this situation it was nearly impossible. That would have required publicly telling the league they are “committed to the Big East.” But that would have been hypocritical because, well you know, that’s exactly what BC was sued for. Furthermore, with Syracuse and Pittsburgh moving that put a spot light on the league and teams in the league. With so many reporters snooping around, someone would have said something anyway about Connecticut’s interest in the ACC.
So in this situation, I think the approach being taken is business savvy. And of course Herbst is hedging, do you think the future of the Big East is solid? I certainly don’t.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
I’m pretty sure both myself and the editors of this blog have provided very clear reasoning that the "history" between UConn and the other schools is going to be irrelevant.
Relationships of any nature are shaped by the past. You know who your friends are and who you can trust in business because of mutual understanding and respect.
High-profile Executives for the most part are rational people. They’re usually willing to set aside petty differences for the good of the organization or conference. However, these Execs achieved their lofty positions in life through their commendable deeds and good name.
The powers that be who could decide UConn’s fate in the ACC were directly named in Blumenthal’s career-enhancing political crusade.
UConn fans seem to have a better view of the BC administration than yourself and the other BC fans I have interacted with.
Extrapolate, please.
We don’t think they will be so petty as to let a lawsuit by people no longer associated with the university get in the way of good business
Again, the law suits were just a precursor to the litany of appalling behavior on the part of UConn as an institution and student body.
But that would have been hypocritical because, well you know, that’s exactly what BC was sued for.
See: Minutes of Meeting with Big East Presidents.
Fr. Leahy said this: “never felt the Big East had a commitment to excellence and, further it had difficulty in balancing football/basketball issues. If people within the room at some point feel uncomfortable about the direction of the league and, secondly, is presented with an attractive alternative, they would pay the $5M penalty and give the 27-month notice.”
The charge of hypocrisy is a popular internet smear job but has no basis in historical realities. Interesting you’re now arguing for ACC inclusion but you have no problems playing up the hypocrisy angle.
So in this situation, I think the approach being taken is business savvy.
Bold, perhaps but savvy is far too generous a description at this stage.
You know who your friends are and who you can trust in business because of mutual understanding and respect.
Exactly, but GDF and Swofford have no history with the current group of people running UConn. Your insistence on treating the University as a faceless entity that does not change with the changes in who is operating the school is baffling to me.
The powers that be who could decide UConn’s fate in the ACC were directly named in Blumenthal’s career-enhancing political crusade.
Not Herbst, not the as of yet named AD, but Blumenthal. Current UConn administration=/=past administration.
Extrapolate, please.
I think I did with this?
We don’t think they will be so petty as to let a lawsuit by people no longer associated with the university get in the way of good business
Again, the law suits were just a precursor to the litany of appalling behavior on the part of UConn as an institution and student body.In regards to the student body I’ll answer this with a quote from you (tweaked a bit):
It’s not a fair assessment ofBCUConn. It’s a convenient straw man for critics.
They use the worse aspects of the student body at theHeightsRent and make them the object of their refutation.Source
Minutes of Meeting with Big East Presidents. Do you happen to have a link with the source of this quote? I would like to read the rest to get better context.
The charge of hypocrisy is a popular internet smear job but has no basis in historical realities. Interesting you’re now arguing for ACC inclusion but you have no problems playing up the hypocrisy angle.
Me writing “that’s what BC was sued for” does not equal me saying BC was hypocritical at the time. The point of that statement, which is out of context without the statement before it, is that back in 2003, UConn charged BC with telling the Big East they were committed while making a deal with the ACC in the background. Would it not be hypocritical for UConn to do exactly that by pledging solidarity to the Big East while trying to get into the ACC in the background?
True, use of savvy is probably too generous. Savvy should be reserved for hindsight.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
Exactly, but GDF and Swofford have no history with the current group of people running UConn.
A mark of a great organization or society is an ability to make principled arguments acknowledging past wrongs. I’ve yet to read a single blurb or epigram or running commentary on how poorly conceived the law suits were. I have yet to read anything but anyone affiliated with UConn about the criminal behavior of its students and fans during BC’s last visit at the Rent.
In your world view, you think something like this should be casually dismissed?
I think I did with this?
Wild subjective speculations about your opponents hardly qualifies as a sound rejoinder. So how do you know the BC Administration more than BC people?
In regards to the student body I’ll answer this with a quote from you
The same doesn’t apply because you incorrectly used it in a different context. Your State AG led the campaign. UConn’s Administration acquiesced and complied. Arguably the “face” of UConn in Calhoun repudiated BC and vowed never to compete against us again. Students and Fans at the Rent threw beer bottles and shouted obscenities and BC fans which included young children.
This is a consistent picture not a selective view based on isolated incidents and therefore, not a straw man.
Do you happen to have a link with the source of this quote? I would like to read the rest to get better context.
Here is the Law Suit referencing the Minutes.
“"At the October 1, 2003 subcommittees meeting, William P. Leahy, S.J. ("Father Leahy”), the President of Boston College, is recorded in the minutes as having spoken "to the potential of a possible marriage between Boston College and the ACC." Father Leahy is further recorded as explaining "that because of recent media reports—and at his board’s urging—he must determine how genuine the ACC’s reported interest in Boston College as a potential 12th member is before he is willing to commit BC to an exit penalty larger than the already agreed to $ 5M." n5 Shortly before that time, the University of Notre Dame had suggested imposing an even larger withdrawal penalty, but no action on that suggestion was taken at the October 1, 2003 subcommittees meeting.
Given the events during the summer of 2003 regarding the withdrawal of the University of Miami and Virginia Polytechnic Institute from the Big East, particularly the heavy press coverage and speculation about Boston College becoming the next Big East Member to leave, Father Leahy’s comments should hardly have come as a surprise to the assembled Presidents/Chancellors at the subcommittees meeting. Nor should those comments have lulled the Presidents/Chancellors into some form of complacency that Boston College was not going to withdraw from the Big East if given an invitation from the ACC."
Would it not be hypocritical for UConn to do exactly that by pledging solidarity to the Big East while trying to get into the ACC in the background?
I’m not opposed to UConn seeking out the best strategy to preserve its market share. What I find reprehensible is that people affiliated with UConn would not hold themselves to the same standards they insisted in BC back in 2003.
Based on the aforementioned Minutes, Fr. Leahy was remarkably candid about BC’s intentions and what its objectives are—Academic primacy and Athletic balance.
A mark of a great organization or society is an ability to make principled arguments acknowledging past wrongs. I’ve yet to read a single blurb or epigram or running commentary on how poorly conceived the law suits were. I have yet to read anything but anyone affiliated with UConn about the criminal behavior of its students and fans during BC’s last visit at the Rent.
In your world view, you think something like this should be casually dismissed?
Ok. To summarize all of this debate. You think the lawsuit will be very important in UConn’s acceptance by BC because the people currently in charge were personally sued by Blumenthal and that since there has been no apology (that you have seen) that GDF and company will block UConn no matter what, solely based upon this lawsuit (this is quite the run-on sentence, but I don’t care). To retort, I will say that if indeed that is the ONLY thing blocking UConn getting a yes vote from BC that the current administration will do as Pitt must have done and apologize behind closed doors to those in charge of BC.
Wild subjective speculations about your opponents hardly qualifies as a sound rejoinder. So how do you know the BC Administration more than BC people?
That was a statement by me, not a reply to anything. The charge is based upon our viewpoints of what a refusal by BC to admit UConn solely due to the lawsuit means. I say it would be petty and do not think the BC administration would be petty. You think it would be highly moral of them since there has (to your knowledge) been no apology from UConn.
The same doesn’t apply because you incorrectly used it in a different context.
I believe it is you good sir that do not have the correct context. That game happened on September 13, 2003. At that time Boston College had not yet accepted the invitation to the ACC and obviously the lawsuit against them could not have occurred yet. Furthermore, your own school paper at the time ended with a nice little blurb about the actions of the Boston College student body at a football game:
BC students certainly are no strangers to be a little on the raucous side. During the Eagles’ game last season against Virginia Tech, head coach Tom O’Brien had to walk down his own sideline and tell the crowd to refrain from throwing projectiles at the officials.SourceSo I say to you, would you like me to paint the entire student body of Boston College with the brush that is the behavior of those students plus those that made that lovely video posted over on BCI? I am guessing not.
What I find reprehensible is that people affiliated with UConn would not hold themselves to the same standards they insisted in BC back in 2003.
Is UConn not doing that by NOT proclaiming allegiance to the Big East…? What are the standards UConn held BC to in 2003 that they are currently breaking?
Based on the aforementioned Minutes, Fr. Leahy was remarkably candid about BC’s intentions and what its objectives are—Academic primacy and Athletic balance.I would say good ole Susan is doing the same.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
To retort, I will say that if indeed that is the ONLY thing blocking UConn getting a yes vote from BC that the current administration will do as Pitt must have done and apologize behind closed doors to those in charge of BC.
Market territory. When G. Tech attempted to coerce its way back into the SEC despite boasting an impressive revenue base and performance track record, Georgia protested the inclusion citing market encroachment. Exceptions are based on mutual benefit. If Miami and FSU had a preexisting rivalry, no harm would follow.
I say it would be petty and do not think the BC administration would be petty. You think it would be highly moral of them since there has (to your knowledge) been no apology from UConn.
In other words, your view trumps your opponents because you presuppose insider knowledge?
Given GDF’s response to the law suit by vowing never to schedule UConn, why should residual animosity be excluded in his evaluation?
I believe it is you good sir that do not have the correct context.
In the context of the comment, I alluded to your incorrect charge of a straw man since I offered a pattern of consistent behavior resulting from the exodus.
Boston College student body at a football game
:
Link?
So I say to you, would you like me to paint the entire student body of Boston College with the brush that is the behavior of those students plus those that made that lovely video posted over on BCI?
It’s not the argument I’m making. Again, it’s consistent behavior on the part of people associated with UConn which reveals an irrational hatred of all things BC based on the aforementioned events.
What are the standards UConn held BC to in 2003 that they are currently breaking?
Through its law suits and criticism and tossed beer bottles, UConn obviously appealed to an objective sense of fairness by citing betrayal as the source of bitterness. So now that the BE is on the verge of collapse, it’s convenient for UConn to “look out for its own interest” but yet, this standard of fair play in the competitive market wasn’t adhered to in the last 8 years, was it?
I capitalized “ONLY” for a reason.
Since when is presupposing that someone would not be petty a bad thing?
In the context of the comment, I alluded to your incorrect charge of a straw man since I offered a pattern of consistent behavior resulting from the exodus.
But the context of the comment was incorrect. You state “the law suits were just a precursor to the litany of appalling behavior on the part of UConn as an institution and student body.” The incident in question happened before the lawsuits, so not a precursor. The “appalling behavior” by UConn after the lawsuit was the same conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, the two lawsuits.
:
Link?
I am starting to get the feeling you are not even reading my comments. Click on the word “Source” right after the quote from the article from the BC school paper. It is the last paragraph.
It’s not the argument I’m making. Again, it’s consistent behavior on the part of people associated with UConn which reveals an irrational hatred of all things BC based on the aforementioned events.
That is exactly the argument you are making. You are using three incidents in short period of time (and in the wrong historical order) 10 years ago to paint a picture of the current University administration and student body.
Through its law suits and criticismand tossed beer bottles, UConn obviously appealed to an objective sense of fairness by citing betrayal as the source of bitterness. So now that the BE is on the verge of collapse, it’s convenient for UConn to "look out for its own interest" but yet, this standard of fair play in the competitive market wasn’t adhered to in the last 8 years, was it?
I ask that you stop revising history to make a point. I don’t see how UConn is “betraying” the Big East when they are publicly stating their intentions of not committing to the Big East.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
But the context of the comment was incorrect.
The “context” I alluded to was the definition of a straw man. See earlier explanation.
You state "the law suits were just a precursor to the litany of appalling behavior on the part of UConn
Yes as night follows day but I also included events prior to official law suit and departure. Actual origins of the negotiation occurred earlier in 2003 as you know. So not only was context correct but the timeline was consistent.
I am starting to get the feeling you are not even reading my comments
I did read it. The “source” confirmed my earlier comment.
However, the VT episode was in the spirit of the game where built-up tension unfortunately reared its ugly head in response to a poor call. I’m in no way condoning this but how does this connect? The “projectiles” were paper debris not beer bottles at young children.
10 years ago to paint a picture of the current University administration and student body.
No I’m not. I cited the events to illustrate the pattern of behavior which until today, no higher-ups at UConn acknowledged. And according to the “Minutes”, it was very clear that every Big East President who attended knew exactly what BC’s intentions were. Yet, they manufactured a story about betrayal. It’s irresponsible and incredibly dishonest.
When evaluating UConn as an institution, I don’t factor in how they’ve behaved in the ACC mess from 8 years ago.
When evaluating their candidacy into the ACC, I think its important to understand various arguments from the opposition.
I don’t see how UConn is "betraying" the Big East when they are publicly stating their intentions of not committing to the Big East.
Here’s the argument again. By its earlier repudiation of BC’s departure for the ACC, UConn presupposed justice or fairness or principles in loyalty. Given everything that’s transpired since then, it would certainly appear BC’s decision was the correct strategic one in retrospect. GDF was vindicated in other words.
Yet UConn is publicly seeking ACC membership without acknowledging how it treated BC.
Your list of comments creating the straw man using the behavior of UConn students at that game:
Again, the law suits were just a precursor to the litany of appalling behavior on the part of UConn as an institution and student body.
The same doesn’t apply because you incorrectly used it in a different context. Your State AG led the campaign. UConn’s Administration acquiesced and complied. Arguably the "face" of UConn in Calhoun repudiated BC and vowed never to compete against us again. Students and Fans at the Rent threw beer bottles and shouted obscenities and BC fans which included young children.
In the context of the comment, I alluded to your incorrect charge of a straw man since I offered a pattern of consistent behavior resulting from the exodus.I know you have made similar claims over at BCI when we were discussing before that actions of the student body came after the lawsuit against BC was filed. You have continually linked the actions of the student body to the lawsuits. This is false, so yes you have been building a straw man by selectively picking three “incidents” between UConn and BC ten years ago.
but I also included events prior to official law suit and departure.What events?
So not only was context correct but the timeline was consistent.The timeline is clearly not correct when you use words like “precursor” and “resulting from the exodus.”
I did read it. The "source" confirmed my earlier comment.Then what link did you want? And your welcome for confirming it. I never said that incident didn’t happen.
The "projectiles" were paper debris not beer bottles at young children.The source I linked never said what the projectiles at the VT game were and it said the beer bottles were thrown at students, no mention of young children. Unless you consider college students, “young children.” I would like sources confirming both those claims before I believe you. And to that point, I am going to claim that the BC student body was throwing ninja stars at the officials who were reffing from wheel chairs. See? I can demonize by tweaking events as well as you!
Yet, they manufactured a story about betrayal. It’s irresponsible and incredibly dishonest.And one of the ones to manufacture that story was Pittsburgh! So when evaluating their candidacy into the ACC are you opposed to them joining as well? Because the only difference I am seeing between UConn and Pitt is the incident with beer bottle throwing that had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Neither has publicly apologized for the lawsuits to my knowledge.
When evaluating UConn as an institution, I don’t factor in how they’ve behaved in the ACC mess from 8 years ago.Glad you at least admit this because others use it to disparage the university today.
Here’s the argument again. By its earlier repudiation of BC’s departure for the ACC, UConn presupposed justice or fairness or principles in loyalty.I don’t see how that second sentence about vindication has anything to do with this first statement. Ok, so in response to this statement I am going to loop back up to something I already said.
Me writing "that’s what BC was sued for" does not equal me saying BC was hypocritical at the time. The point of that statement, which is out of context without the statement before it, is that back in 2003, UConn charged BC with telling the Big East they were committed while making a deal with the ACC in the background. Would it not be hypocritical for UConn to do exactly that by pledging solidarity to the Big East while trying to get into the ACC in the background?
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
This is false, so yes you have been building a straw man by selectively picking three "incidents" between UConn and BC ten years ago.
It’s patently false. You’re cherry-picking comments beneficial for this thread. I’ve also made fundamental arguments predicated on Football viability and Market Share and/or potential redundancy.
Then what link did you want?
A link where actual harm was done. Otherwise, the comparison is weak.
The source I linked never said what the projectiles at the VT game
Alumni Stadium serve drinks in paper cubs. I doubt students were able to smuggle cases of PBR.
Because the only difference I am seeing between UConn and Pitt is the incident with beer bottle throwing that had nothing to do with the lawsuit.
Emancipate yourself from the law suit argument for a moment and consider other rebuttals which I’ve introduced and broached over at BCI.
1. Market Share/Redundancy
2. Football viability
Pitt simply brings more to the table if the objective is Football first. I think they’re hypocritical and deserve criticism but the ACC are more than willing to cater to $$$ to set aside past wrongs, assuming they’ve made amends.
Glad you at least admit this because others use it to disparage the university today.
The reality is most BC people I know don’t really care that much about UConn. I’ve been on other message boards and in particular the one in Boston.com and the tension appears to be one-sided.
Since UConn is seeking membership in the ACC, it’s in BC’s interest to use their leverage and influence.
I don’t see how that second sentence about vindication has anything to do with this first statement.
I pointed out a logical fallacy. It’s a contradiction. By criticizing BC, UConn appealed to an objective standard of right and wrong. But they’re not holding themselves to the same standard in which they accuse BC of violating.
This is what I am arguing
That in the grand scheme of things, the reason why UConn might not get into the ACC will not be because of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is irrelevant.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
That in the grand scheme of things, the reason why UConn might not get into the ACC will not be because of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is irrelevant.
This is what Brian at BCI and others have saying all along. The NYT article even made a similar argument.
The law suit may or may not factor in. If UConn is ultimately rejected, the reason will be cloaked in dense, opaque language or something sliced-up like “at this moment”. Whatever the real reason, few things happen without group consensus.
Did you create that chart from Excel?
This is what Brian at BCI and others have saying all along.
Not exactly. That quote you have is from an article by Brian today and based upon what I have been reading that is not what most others have been saying all along. For example:
Again this is a different argument. I am merely asking about whether the lawsuit has any bearing on the decision to accept UConn. I say it does not. While thisBrian replied with:BC and Miami were both named in the lawsuit when Blumenthal used the lawsuit for political posturing. The BC and Miami administrations are closely aligned, and both sets of administrators — Shalala and Leahy — are still at their respective schools. I wouldn’t count on either school’s vote for admission to the ACC.indicates to me that you think those two schools will vote against UConn no matter what. Even if it does turn out that UConn brings value to the ACC.
by derbyguy on Sep 20, 2011 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
CorrectI interpreted this as meaning that the lawsuit will be important in BC’s decision on whether UConn will get a yes vote from them.
I believe BC and Miami will vote no regardless of whatever value UConn adds. The additions of Pitt and Syracuse were unanimous. The possible additions of UConn and Rutgers will not be.
by Brian Favat on Sep 20, 2011 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Did you create that chart from Excel?Yes, I created the chart in Excel, numbers are completely made up. Copied into paint. Saved as a .jpg and uploaded to imgur.com so I could post in on here. Why do you ask?
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
I interpreted this as meaning that the lawsuit will be important in BC’s decision on whether UConn will get a yes vote from them.
Yes, No and Maybe. Vague enough?
If the decision to reject UConn is motivated by bitter memories resulting from Blumenthal’s law suit, I doubt it would ever be fully revealed.
Since Executives are more inclined towards profits, there are many arguments against UConn over market saturation and opportunity costs.
Boards and Conferences of this nature usually entail a level of understanding or in the modern vernacular, “secret handshakes”. It’s almost a given that Board Members have to be on the same philosophical page to conduct business. Dissenting voices are usually drowned out through what Drucker calls “synthesis” or building-consensus.
If GDF and Miami says “No way, no how!” for whatever reason, the Board would likely go along as to not disrupt the harmony. I suppose this is the same reason why UCF is now being put on the back burner because of USF’s protests.
Why do you ask?
The chart reminded me of a book “Proofiness”.
Yes, No and Maybe. Vague enough?
I guess my statement was missing an important piece. “I interpreted this as meaning that Brian thought that the lawsuit…”
I agree, we aren’t going to know. But this is the internet. Rampant speculation is encouraged!
Executive inclination towards profits. Exactly what I have been saying along. If there is a case for UConn providing enough value to BC and the ACC, the lawsuit should be irrelevant, I think.
These seem contradictory:
Dissenting voices are usually drowned out through what Drucker calls "synthesis" or building-consensus.
If GDF and Miami says "No way, no how!" for whatever reason, the Board would likely go along as to not disrupt the harmony.But I know what you mean.
The chart was intended to express what I thought in colorful form. It wasn’t meant to be taken as fact. Just my opinion.
That book sounds interesting and very inline with my sentiments about numbers presented on TV and elsewhere. It’s made me very pessimistic and unable to trust any “facts” presented to me.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
I agree, we aren’t going to know. But this is the internet. Rampant speculation is encouraged!
Higher Education is a business. The #1 job requirement of all College Presidents is to raise money. Some institutions raise money through their reputation while others must compensate for it through other venues like Athletics. Strong Athletics bolsters Alumni contributions which increases Endowments and logically follows, higher-rankings. Bragging rights fuel applications and thus, selectivity and the snob factor.
This brings us to the ACC. It’s very country club. Good schools with strong Athletic programs in growing geographical areas.
To join this exclusive group, candidates must bring something tangible to the table other than enthusiasm. Brand name helps. Money trumps other concerns. And Football is king.
So I would very surprised if UConn gains membership status on its own. Assuming ND is out of the picture, Herbst must offer a compelling reason on how UConn could add value to Football without encroaching on the tiny New England market.
The only way I see this happening is if they make a serious impact on the game at their current level. And this is why the NYT article is correct. Win small. Build-up a portfolio of victories. In a few years, ACC members will be asking Wake Forest: “what good are you?”.
These seem contradictory:
Drucker’s synthesis implies a predetermined objective. In this case, if BC and Miami declines as a precondition, any dissenting voices would be watered-down in the discussion. Sort of like Hegel’s dialectic.
It’s made me very pessimistic and unable to trust any "facts" presented to me.
Years ago at a Sell Side Research meeting, a very famous Analyst (since banned from the industry) looked everyone in the eye and supported his dubious data despite questions refuting it.
I hate to say this about my fellow Americans but most are brain-dead.
Higher Education is a business…"what good are you?".
All very true. My gut instinct is that UConn does not have quite enough value to the ACC currently for them to bring Connecticut into the fold. My hopes are:
1) Since I am not in marketing and business, etc. and don’t do brand valuation for a living my gut instinct is underselling the UConn brand name.
2) ACC is forced to expand to 16 due to the other conferences, internal desire or some other force and UConn is the best available option out there. I think this is the mostly likely scenario to occur as after ND and Texas, is there a better option out there?
Anyways. It’s been an interesting chat today. Have a good evening.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
Good thread guys
I’ve read the whole thing twice now. Some very good point/counter point and as good an example as any of what an internet message board can/should be. Well played.
“There are no plans to play UConn in football or in basketball any time in the future.” – G. DeFilippo
uttered in 2006 and he has not waivered since.
UConn fans seem to have a better view of the BC administration than yourself and the other BC fans
oh really now.
ps. is the word “yourself” in your sentence correctly used?
uttered in 2006 and he has not waivered since.
How do you know? Has he again commented on this situation since 2006? Are you in fact GDF?
ps. is the word "yourself" in your sentence correctly used?
I think it is? I was referring to epperson.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
my approach is to prefer the simple. If “you” works prefer it to “yourself” . I think ‘yourself’ is grammatically incorrect. .
6. Me me me, not I myself
Psychological factors make this an extremely common error.
WRONG Please send a list of staff addresses to Paul and I.
RIGHT Please send a list of staff addresses to Paul and me.
EASY FIX
To check which is correct, remove the other person or people in the equation.
The right answer will then be obvious:
Please send a list of staff addresses to [REMOVE “Paul and”] me.
Many people try to avoid the issue by writing “myself” or “yourself”.
That’s equally bad, if not worse! It’s grammatically wrong, and (oops!) is interpreted by some people as a sign of a poor education.
WRONG I’ll send a list of staff addresses to Paul and yourself.
RIGHT I’ll send a list of staff addresses to you and Paul.
“Myself” and “yourself” are correct in only two situations:
1.To emphasise or contrast: “Paul knows everyone, but I myself am new here.” “Your sister has blue eyes, but you yourself have brown eyes.”
2.When you’re doing something to yourself: “I ask myself…” “You set high standards for yourself.”
Well played
Does the source of that quote really say the incorrect use of “yourself” and “myself” are a sign of poor education? That seems harsh.
2011 National Champs in Men's Basketball
START NEBRICH
18-1
1967: Embrace it
New York Times: best option for UConn is MAC
No less of a source than the NYT states:
joining Massachusetts in the Mid-American Conference could be UConn’s best available option at this point.
I suggested this earlier. Look at Temple. They are a solid MAC team. Good spot to build up your program and get stronger. Build some real football tradition and then seek the ACC if you are successful. Toledo is a beautiful city to visit too and Central Michigan has great fans.
Yawn
Thoroughly enjoying life atop whatever conference UConn is in today.
by Kevin Meacham on Sep 22, 2011 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The UConn Blog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
