Conference Realignment: Separating Fact From Spin In UConn's Latest Media Plea For Sympathy
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 8:01 AM EDT
in Conference Expansion
Email
PrintYesterday, we mentioned that some dude named Ed Diagneault, who writes for the Waterbury (CT) Republican-American, cited an anonymous source that Boston College was trying to block UConn's entry into the Atlantic Coast Conference. After Diagneault tweeted this, he backed it up with a story published in the Republican-American.
Let's dissect the three paragraphs of the article that I can read -- I really have no interest in paying to read the Waterbury Republican-American -- to separate anonymously sourced fact from spin.
Spin:
"UConn President Susan Herbst was far removed from the lawsuit filed against Boston College and the Atlantic Coast Conference in 2003, but she is trying to mend those lingering wounds as she fights to put her school in the best position in the conference shuffle.
[See below] ... and when ... [see below]. Herbst has attempted to smooth that rift by ... [see below].
BC still has lingering anger about the lawsuit, filed by former Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal in 2003. Among those directly sued for conspiring "to weaken the Big East" were BC Athletic Director Gene DeFilippo and ACC Commissioner John Swofford. Miami and Virginia Tech, who also left for the ACC in 2003, were not sued."
Anonymously sourced facts:
"According to sources, BC is not willing to allow UConn into the ACC without a major fight and is working to garner enough votes to block a move if ... [see above] ... it is considered. [See above] ... reaching out to BC President the Rev. William P. Leahy recently, a source said."
As for the spin, even if there is a BC block on any move by UConn, again, it has little to do with hurt feelings and past litigation. It does, however, have everything to do with BC wanting exclusive conference rights over New England. And again, this is consistent with:
-- South Florida's desire to keep Central Florida out of the Big East
-- The Texas Longhorns reportedly needing to be convinced to let TCU join the Big 12
-- The supposed "gentlemen's agreement" between Florida, Georgia and South Carolina to keep Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson, respectively, out of the SEC.
-- The University of Kentucky being "not cool" with Louisville joining the SEC.
Again, this situation is no different. If there is a block, it doesn't have much to do with the lawsuit, so let's all stop spinning it as such.
One thing is clear. If UConn doesn't kill Big East football by getting that coveted ACC invite, someone else is going to finally put Big East football out of its misery. And not a moment too soon. Orangeblood.com's Chip Brown is reporting that TCU has become the top target of the Big 12 to become team #10, replacing Texas A&M. Other schools mentioned in the report include the Big East's West Virginia Mountaineers, Cincinnati Bearcats and Louisville Cardinals.
60 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tangent
The Big XII X staying together (for now) seems to make Missouri to the SEC a no go. Will be much more comfortable when the SEC as at an even number of programs.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 8:13 AM EDT reply actions
This is really UConn’s only shot at the moment. One of the 14 ACC schools jumps to become #14 in the SEC. UConn backfills.
Still seems like a long shot.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 8:16 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Btw
Anonymously sourced facts
Pic or it didn’t happen…
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 8:52 AM EDT reply actions
call Ed and ask him
I bet his source is postings on this blog… what a joke reporter!
maybe some one can clal him and ask.
This is from the Republican-American Website:
Ed Daigneault – Sports writer. He primarily covers UConn football and men’s basketball. Ed has more than 10 years at Republican-American. Before that, he spent six years at two papers in North Carolina. Ed is a graduate of Springfield College. Email: edaigneault Phone: (203) 574-3636 ext. 1406
paper also notes
(Note: To reduce spam, full e-mail addresses and mail links have been removed from this page. All newsroom e-mail addresses are in the format first initial, last name @ rep-am.com, so John Doe would be jdoe@rep-am.com.)
so… his email is edaigneault@rep-am.com
But, but ...
He worked in North Carolina, so he’s an ACC homer and its legit. #Twitter argument
“RT @epark88 @bcinterruption Ed Daigneault is an ACC homer; no friend of UConn. He’s worked in ACC country so maybe his info is legit.”
Editor, BC Interruption
Clearly has no incentive to see the team he covers join a better conference …
Editor, BC Interruption
Well since you called me out, let's do this...
About this Daigneault dude:
The Rep-Am is the local rag where I live, and it sucks. Daigneault covers UConn sports as if he’d rather be anyplace else on Earth, and he’s been writing hit pieces on the school for years. Among other things, he’s the only member of The Horde that actually uses the term ‘Big Least’ in his headlines. These past couple of years he’s also been fond of writing fluff pieces on Brian Mulrooney during the league’s Media Days, during Spring Practice, during fall camp…
Get get the picture?
He used to cover the ACC for some podunk paper in NC so maybe he has sources, that’s all I was intimating. But trust me: he hates his beat, hates UConn and is tickled that we’re in the situation that we’re in (and maybe frightened that we might manage to get invited). Of course, most UConn fans couldn’t give a flying flip what Daigneault thinks.
Me, I haven’t purchased a Rep-Am in years. I wouldn’t even line a birdcage with that rag; it would just be redundant…
And the whole point of this post is not that his sources are incorrect. Daigneault could very well have legit sources and this meeting could have actually happened.
The whole point is that if Herbst and Leahy met up, it’s because BC is blocking UConn’s entry into the ACC. Completely unrelated is the 2003 lawsuit. See above for other examples. The marrying of a Herbst-Leahy meet up with the 2003 bad blood lawsuit is spin on behalf of a pro-UConn member of the media.
Please tell me how this situation is different from any of the other situations listed above, and see Eagle in Brighton’s note below about how UConn’s inclusion is not beneficial to BC. Let’s stop pretending that BC-UConn is the next Duke-Carolina, please.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Daigneault covers UConn sports as if he’d rather be anyplace else on Earth, and he’s been writing hit pieces on the school for years.
Sadly, we know that phenomenon all too well with the Boston Globe…
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Btw, the decline of the once great Boston Globe sports section is one of the saddest casualties of the “Death of the Modern Newspaper.”
/Personal Editorial
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
So what?
What I don’t get is that even if BC is blocking UConn because of the lawsuit, what is the problem with that? It doesn’t matter if the players have changed, UConn and the state of CT cost BC a lot of money in attorneys and a lot of wasted time and negative press, I see nothing wrong with BC or GDF not wanting to be associated with an institution like that. I don’t know about anyone else, but if someone frivolously sued me, you better believe I would not be going out of my way to welcome them into my group of friends!
The state also sued Swofford. Not sure how that buys you brownie points for a future conference invite.
Editor, BC Interruption
Lawsuit aside, the main argument (as Brian mentions above) is: why aid the growth of UConn? In a cost-benefit analysis, how would their addition appreciably benefit BC on the aggregate?
It wouldn’t. And that alone will be why BC will oppose UConn (like numerous other schools have and will block regional up-and-comers). It’s a valid technique, one that has been employed by other BCS schools on a multitude of occasions within the past year alone. Just from a business prospective, BC would be foolish not to try to keep another regional school out.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
And to be honest, I can’t imagine the football-first programs in Tallahassee or Death Valley supporting the move.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions
Provided...
that those teams are still in the ACC themselves.
We still don’t know what’s blowing in the wind with the SEC, and 20M is not enough of a deterrent for an ACC team to make the jump.
As far as the blocking technique apparently being employed by BC in this case, I’m pretty sure that the content of Herbst’s phone call to Leahy included assurances of mutual cooperation in expanding each other’s brand in our region (New England) – and that technique has been mutually employed by rival institutions for decades as well.
Word on the street is that Herbst is also trying to arrange a face-to-face sitdown with Fr. Leahy in the near future. I wholeheartedly agree with her approach here: heal the wounds, stress the real economic benefits of two major athletic programs in New England – and acting collegially for a change. Our previous President, AD, AG and Governor would never have done this. It’s a well-needed breath of fresh air around here.
Look, I get the intense dislike you guys have for us inferior, cow-milking, safety-school loving, ignorant dolts from America’s Filing Cabinet, and truth be told, we kinda don’t like you guys much either. But that hatred sells in college sports, and our schools are sitting on a mint here. Marketed correctly – and together – a BC-UConn matchup would become white-hot in the northeast before the decade passes.
And as much as you guys downplay this, chances are likely that this will not happen with BC-Pitt or BC-SU. Heck, it hasn’t even happened with BC-UMd yet…
Fair points
I think we’ll have to just agree to disagree regarding:
the [existance of] real economic benefits [from having] two major athletic programs in New England…marketed correctly – and together – a BC-UConn matchup would become white-hot in the northeast before the decade passes
Viewing fickle NE college football fans as a market, I think the argument comes down to market-share v. market size. If the inclusion of UConn would drum up enough interest locally (albeit on their own merits, or due to a BC-UConn annual matchup) to grow projected fan interest/tv ratings, than I could see GDF coming around to the idea. The competing notion is that UConn (or any other regional addition to the ACC) won’t move the needle among casual fans/viewers (thus not growing the pie), and thus at best would just eat into casual fan market share. In an ideal world, the former would be true; however, I’m inclined to subscribe to the latter. To be 100% honest, the playful BC-UConn vitriol online isn’t commensurate with that same passion among the BC fanbase at large. Skewed by our older alumni, the only ACC addition that would move the needle for the average BC fan would be ND. If the market doesn’t grow, and the addition doesn’t stimulate adequate fan response among Eagle alumni, it just doesn’t seem a viable choice. Therefore, from a rational market prospective, I would oppose the inclusion of Connecticut.
With that said, I think "choice" is the operative term. To be honest with you, if FSU or Clemson leave for the SEC, I would assume you would be the first program- that would accept the invitation- that would be considered (ND, though I’m strongly in support of their inclusion, would be a longshot abscent other macro changes). The resulting matchup of NE based schools would indeed be a lively contest. I just think from BC’s prospective, that would be an adequate consolation (in the event of a loss to the SEC, or the addition of a ND program in need of dancing partner), not an outcome the Eagle athletic department should strive for. Just don’t think the marginal value is there for BC.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
“The competing notion is that UConn (or any other regional addition to the ACC) won’t move the needle among casual fans/viewers (thus not growing the pie), and thus at best would just eat into casual fan market share. In an ideal world, the former would be true; however, I’m inclined to subscribe to the latter. To be 100% honest, the playful BC-UConn vitriol online isn’t commensurate with that same passion among the BC fanbase at large. Skewed by our older alumni, the only ACC addition that would move the needle for the average BC fan would be ND. If the market doesn’t grow, and the addition doesn’t stimulate adequate fan response among Eagle alumni, it just doesn’t seem a viable choice. Therefore, from a rational market prospective, I would oppose the inclusion of Connecticut.”
Indeed. Look at the NCAAF Common Consensus map. Most of New England already skews heavily towards BC, even parts of Connecticut. This seems very much like erosion of market share, not expanding the pie.
Editor, BC Interruption
And as much as you guys downplay this, chances are likely that this will not happen with BC-Pitt or BC-SU. Heck, it hasn’t even happened with BC-UMd yet…
We can agree to disagree. BC-Syracuse was one of the best rivalries in the Big East, and will be again as the two northeastern-most private schools are reunited in the ACC. No one is touting BC-Maryland as a rivalry … because the two schools are quite dissimilar. As are BC and UConn.
A rivalry implies competitiveness, and that simply has not been the case in football (lopsided in favor of BC) and basketball (lopsided in favor of UConn).
Like I said, a much better target of UConn’s ire should be UMass. Two New England, public state flagship universities that draw on a similar student body. At least more similar than BC and UConn.
Editor, BC Interruption
BC-Syracuse
I know we already had SU lined them up for 10-year deal, but I’m stoked for this to be an indefinite, annual matchup.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Me too. And I’m sure more of the older alum that you mentioned above are too. I have a bunch of friends that went to Syracuse, which provides some good back-and-forth.
Editor, BC Interruption
UConn vs. UMass: A Parable
Please read. This is from April 2011 after UMass announced its intentions to move to Division I-A.
“The Minutemen were gaining in national prominence, thanks largely to Calipari. According to the Boston Globe’s Mark Blaudschun, Calipari once remarked that "We will play anyone, anywhere, anytime,’” presumably in an effort to get the Huskies on the schedule.
Calhoun’s response at the time: "Calipari said he plays a national schedule, so obviously he doesn’t need us. We play Kansas and Duke, and we think those are pretty good teams. We’re happy with who we are playing now."
Replace Kansas and Duke with Notre Dame, Florida State, Virginia Tech and Clemson. BC plays a national schedule. A local, New England rivalry game does nothing for BC’s efforts to recruit in the Midwest and Southeast given the limited exposure any game gives to the program’s recruiting efforts.
This is the same reason I oppose BC scheduling an annual series with UMass. The program would be much better served playing 2-for-1s against MAC opponents from the Midwest for recruiting exposure instead of playing in front of a half-filled Gillette Stadium crowd in a game televised by ESPN3.com.
Now it appears there will be another means for renewing this rivalry. Last week, UMass announced that the football program is moving to the FBS and joining the MAC conference beginning in 2012. One problem, though: some fans are worried that UMass’ new status could hurt UConn’s recruiting efforts.
The response from ESPN.com’s Brian Bennett during a recent Q & A:
“I wouldn’t worry too much about the recruiting aspect. UMass might pose more competition for players in the Northeast, but if you can’t outrecruit the MAC as a school in an [automatic qualifier] league, you’ve got much bigger problems. This might have been more of a concern for the Huskies if Randy Edsall were still the coach, since his recruiting philosophy centered around under-the-radar players. But Paul Pasqualoni was hired in large part for his ability to connect with high school coaches and recruit high-caliber players. If that’s true, he shouldn’t lose out to UMass on many prospects.
Great points, all of them, and the Hartford Courant’s Desmond Connor agrees, writing that “Until the program upgrades those facilities and becomes part of a BCS conference it poses no real threat to UConn anywhere.”
Why would BC want to split the pie with UConn in terms of regional recruiting efforts, when the Northeast is one of the least talent-rich parts of the country already?
“Bennett adds an interesting footnote: “UMass-UConn is a natural rivalry, though I don’t think the Huskies should accept a home-and-home series. A 2-for-1 is a better deal for them.”
This also makes sense; UMass would get more out of hosting UConn than the other way around. For now, anyway."
UConn would get INFINITELY more out of hosting UConn than the other way around. For all the economic benefits you tout for a possible BC-UConn annual series, rational economic actors at UConn are doing the EXACT SAME THING to UMass that BC is reportedly doing to UConn. Clearly UConn sees no economic benefit in striking a rivalry with UMass, but then you turn around and expect BC to see some untapped New England rivalry growing between BC and UConn?
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
UConn would get INFINITELY more out of hosting BC than the other way around.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Couldn’t agree more. That sentence alone is adequate argument against the inclusion of Connecticut.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Out of general curiosity:
Assuming UConn remains in the BE or some derivative conference for the next decade, thoughts on a 2-for-1 football series with the Huskies (Alumni, Alumni, Rent)?
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:41 PM EDT reply actions
For the same reasons Brian outlines, I think a 2-for-1 lacks adequate value-added for GDF to act. If the Athletic Department won’t even schedule the Huskies, why would they want to go a degree further and pursue a permanent conference marriage?
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Calhoun has vowed not to schedule the Eagles either, and we mustn’t upset Coach Calhoun now, should we?
Editor, BC Interruption
One big difference, guys...
Both UConn and BC are both BCS teams from BCS conferences; UMass isn’t.
Even the most jaded, condescending BC fan can observe that the ‘BC to UConn = UConn to UMass’ dynamic is flawed. UConn has paid its dues, won games, won bowls, won league titles. We deserve tons more respect than you’re willing to give us.
I’ll leave you two guys to your own devices now…
The Big East is a BCS AQ conference in name only. Don’t forget how you got into a BCS conference in the first place, simply by UConn’s Big East basketball affiliation. Without that, you would have had to take the much longer road to BCS AQ status. See also: ECU, UCF, UMass.
And the Big East won’t be a BCS AQ conference when the SEC or Big 12 pick off Louisville, West Virginia and/or TCU.
There are numerous examples of local BCS AQ programs that either don’t play one another or have discontinued any sort of regular season.
Notre Dame and Indiana
Cincinnati and Ohio State
USF and UCF
Kentucky and Cincinnati
Florida and Miami
Once again, geographic proximity does not imply rivalry.
Editor, BC Interruption
“We deserve tons more respect than you’re willing to give us.”
Honest question: what level of respect should we be affording the UConn football program?
Your fans tout “we went to the Fiesta Bowl!” while “BC has been irrelevant in the ACC.” How so?
UConn managed all of zero offensive TDs in its final three games but still won a share of the Big East and got promptly beat down by a much more talented Oklahoma team. UConn doesn’t have a Big East Championship game to play and an extra hurdle to the BCS. You backed into a share of the Division title in 2007 after getting smoked by the conference’s co-champion. Further, you’ve experienced success in a conference only after three of its marquee football programs left for the ACC.
Contrast with BC, which has won a share of the Atlantic Division in half of the years they’ve been in the ACC and has made two ACC Championship Game appearances. The program has appeared in 12 straight bowl games (though that streak ends this year). Going further back, BC has a Heisman Trophy winner, a major bowl victory (Sugar Bowl) and undefeated season and is one of only a select number of programs that has a winning record in bowl games. BC’s all-time winning percentage ranks 35th all-time, fourth among private schools behind only Notre Dame, Miami and USC. BC produces more NFL players than over half of the programs in the ACC and consistently ranks in the top tier of the country when it comes to graduating its players.
If anything, it’s UConn fans who don’t show the proper amount of respect to the BC program when they say we are “irrelevant” (check a history book), “don’t have any rivals” (Notre Dame and Syracuse say hello) or “the school spends too much in travel” (yet UConn is practically begging to incur the same amount of travel expenses as BC). Rings hollow when any UConn fan would kill to be in BC’s position wrt its football program.
But keep heaping insults on our football team, and keep thinking your football program of 12 years is on par with or better than Boston College’s football program.
Editor, BC Interruption
UConn is very similar to UMass. It is a lot closer in almost way – georgraphy, environment, academic pedigree, student life, sports tradition — to UMass than it is to BC. UConn… UMass …. newbies..
the MAC is great place for UConn to go, get competitive, create a rivalry with UMass and prosper.
In fact, I think the 1-91 corridor would luv to see an annual match between the dominant powers in of the greater Hartford/Springfield valley!
More UConn spin -- this time really low point shaving comment
Clearly there are still some hard feelings about the lawsuit, but enough to carry an eight-year grudge?
There also may be some hard feelings about Jim Calhoun’s 2003 quote: “I have no desire to play Boston College. Not for the fact they are leaving, but how they did it. I will not play Boston College as long as I’m here.” Calhoun could clear that up in a hurry with a conciliatory message. Or is there some larger problems with NCAA violations and APR? Surely, with Miami facing a death penalty, and BC with a point-shaving scandal in its past, few schools can afford to cast too many stones these days.
Or is this about geographics? Does BC want to own the ACC in New England? That seems irrational. Duke and North Carolina are seven miles from each other and they’ve made an industry of “hating” each other A BC-UConn rivalry on the field would be off great benefit to both. I’d argue ESPN would be hotter for BC if UConn was involved. Play some of their football games at Gillette Stadium. Play some of their basketball games at the TD Garden. Get it all hot and bothered on the field of play.
So this is where UConn fans get their inane Duke-Carolina rivalry comparisons, eh?
Duke and Carolina share a state, a road, draw on the same types of students and a storied history on both the hardwood and the gridiron. Further, the series is competitive. BC-UConn has none of those things.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 6:28 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Dissimilar in terms of degree of proximity, student bodies, athletic culture, sports of strength, history, etc. Couldn’t be a more faulty comparison.
This same line of specious argumentation could be used for the addition of USF to the ACC simply because they happen to be relatively close to Miami.
Gimme a break.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure where to start – UNC and Duke are in the same league because in the 1930s you played who was relatively close, nowadays with air travel conference additions are about top programs with loads of history and new markets, UConn doesn’t add much from a football perspective on any of these points (how many people in CT follow college football – their stadium is smaller and less-filled than ours – don’t look at attendance figures, BC reports tickets scanned and UConn reports tickets sold).
NCAA violations
Can’t cast stones? Why would the ACC want to take on yet another program (UConn hoops) that has drawn the attention of the NCAA recently?
Already 1/3 of the league has either vacated wins or will be forced to in short order (Miami).
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 6:30 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
PS
No self-respecting sportswriter places the expression “hot and bothered” in an article, ever.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 6:32 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
UConn - epitomizes lack of institutional control
Nothing like drudging up dirt from 20 years ago in an effort to concoct a specious narrative.
There are few basketball programs dirtier this past decade than UCan’t. When they weren’t losing scholarships because of academic incomptence, they were stealing laptops, violating NCAA recruiting rules, and soliciting prostitutes for the love of James Naismith. Their AD was forced to resign because of, wait for it, lack of institutional control. Even their basketball alums carry on the tradition, as Tate George, Ponzi scheme leader, reinforced today.
Cast stones? Gimme a break.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions
This reads like a great FanPost.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 6:51 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Won’t be able to until Sunday at the earliest, but I’m thinking about eviscerating a Jeff Jacobs column graph-by-graph to reinforce how inane his daily drivel is.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Please do rip on JJ
These hacks for UConn are real scuz balls. Surprised there is no “DeZ” garbage on the issue
So when Boston College and Miami bolted, when Syracuse feigned South and returned to the flock, when Virginia Tech ultimately joined BC and Miami, there was every reason for Connecticut to be enraged. Connecticut believed it was getting into a BCS league and suddenly it was looking down the barrel of much less.
Caveat emptor. End of story.
Conference reallignment is as old as conferences themselves. It was no one’s fault but Connecticut’s that they had buyers’ remorse upon arriving at the big-boys football table in 2004.
by Eagle in Brighton on Sep 23, 2011 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Still looking down the barrel ...
Also, hasn’t UConn bailed on more confereces than BC? Yankee? A-10?
Gimme a break.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 6:55 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Bad mixed metaphor too
You look " down the barrel" of a shotgun – a source of pain. Less is good
I think he meant to say they were looking at a half empty basket or cupboard – less is bad.
No one put a gun to UConn’s head in the late 1990s begging them to start playing football. UConn and Villanova were afforded the same opportunity, but GDF didn’t pull the trigger for Nova. UConn had to know what they were getting into with the Big East – it’s a basketball-first conference that doesn’t have the slightest idea how to run a football league.
There’s no other explanation for the fact that the Big East has now successfully scared away every football program of any worth with the exception of West Virginia — Miami, Virginia Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pittsburgh.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Scared away those five programs, whiffed on Penn State, kicked out Temple and reloaded with a bunch of CUSA and Horizon League schools that have zero shared identity.
Big East has no one to blame but themselves.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Sep 23, 2011 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Call it the "providence syndrome"
by waterwater on Sep 24, 2011 9:09 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
UConn leverage
This is why UConn has no more leverage than any other current Big East football-playing member …
The Big East could just as easily go back to being a basketball and all-sports less football league, and reload on eastern basketball powers. Butler could fill the gap nicely. Doesn’t have the national championships, but at least runs a clean program.
At this point though, TCU, West Virginia and Louisville (all to the Big 12) are much bigger flight risks than either UConn or Rutgers.
Editor, BC Interruption
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
Related FanShots on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
