Yes, it's incredibly difficult for a recruit to get an information packet from a school, and not know who they are. Of course, you mean they knew before they got the packet. Yes, they knew UConn has a great basketball program. So does Duke. How does that help their recruiting? Boston College has killed us in football recruiting. How has that helped their basketball program?I can guarantee you that every single kid that UConn has recruited knows who UConn is. At the start, that was due to basketball. It's all about name recognition. Herbsteit and Rece Davis even said the same thing last year on ESPNU. UConn has a step up on all of the new Big East schools because the school is very well known, mostly due to basketball.
Umm....yes, actually, people would want to go to study psychology at Harvard because they have a great Law school. So it is not "beyond stupid." It is about name recognition! The chances are very good that if Harvard has a great law school, that their psychology degree brand name would also be worth a great deal, even if their psychology department is not well known (I don't know if it is or isn't, but maybe that in and of itself supports my point....the high probability that it is a great program even though I don't know anything about it). If a kid gets a visit from RichRod from Arizona to play football, you don't think that it matters any that the team has built their name recognition through basketball?? How about a visit from Kansas? You don't think they get any name-value from basketball either.
In my opinion, it is "beyond stupid" to believe that the concept of name recognition doesn't matter. In almost every aspect of life, it DOES MATTER!
then your argument is "Uconn never won the big east, just like Temple, USF, and RU" and "UConn has been so mediocre, they were asked to leave the conference, just like Temple". And "UConn has never even competed at a BCS level, just like UCF"Are you making my argument? The jobs done at RU and Temple and USF and UCF are comparable to what Edsall did. Come on, top 35 is really good enough for heaps of praise?
I can understand appreciating he didn't kill the program before it started. But that's it. He didn't suck.
fhcRE's body of work was not exceptional. Never had a year end top 25 team. How can that be exceptional? Didn't say needed a top 10 or top 5 team, just one top 25 finish.
UConn has a step up on all of the new Big East schools because the school is very well known, mostly due to basketball.
Poor example by me.
Here's a better one. CCSU is (or was) known as a quality school for an education major. Would you go there to major in economics because they have such a fine education program?
Does name recognition help? For the under the radar, under-valued, chip on the shoulder recruits that we feasted on, yes, sure. If a kid has eyes for Michigan, has the heart, may have the talent, but doesn't have the measurables, he can "settle" for UConn and go to a "name" school. A school famous for basketball. But that's not the basis of the criticism on Edsall and his recruiting. The argument has always been that he should have been able to recruit better because we are nationally known in basketball. That argument is beyond stupid. Big name football recruits want to go to big name football programs. That's one of the main reasons the big time programs have traditionally been able to stay big time programs as long as they avoid bad hires, and off the field scandals. Big name football recruits are not impressed by schools that have a much deeper tradition in excelling, and supporting, a different sport than the one they play. This should be common Fecundity sense.
I can just imagine the tag line that you guys would use "Come to UConn, I guarantee you've heard of us!"
There is no way on earth that you could convince me that CCSU is nationally known for its education majors.
The poster made the claim we were nationally known in 1999 when the former coach took over. Edsall was named coach in December of 1998. We hadn't even won our first national championship. To support this argument he referenced a comment made in 2011, after UConn won 2 conference titles, had 5 bowl trips, and won its third men's bball championship.
You don't have to like my analogy, but his comment was insane.
The poster made the claim we were nationally known in 1999 when the former coach took over. Edsall was named coach in December of 1998. We hadn't even won our first national championship. To support this argument he referenced a comment made in 2011, after UConn won 2 conference titles, had 5 bowl trips, and won its third men's bball championship.
You don't have to like my analogy, but his comment was insane.
I think you have it backwards. It's not as much a defense of the former coach as it is the program.From one former Apologista to another.....let it go man. You're never going to convince sdhusky or any of the others to change their opinions. And, to be frank, you're taking the Edsall criticism almost personally and your defense of him is a bit over the top.
We were tied for 25th in the BCS standings in 2007 BEFORE the bowl game.
Not to go all Bill Parcells on everyone, but you are what your record says you are. He was 74-70 at UConn, and 22-26 in conference. Edsall did some good things and even some great things, but he's won less than half of his games in his career.
It's not as much a defense of the former coach as it is the program.
The most vocal critics don't go after his shortcomings, they criticize the accomplishments, and that's what I defend. (and no, I don't take it personal)
Criticize the man sure, but stop ripping the accomplishments that the program and players are responsible for.
What apoligistas refuse to acknowledge is the effect a crappy ending has on the rest of the story. It's human nature, it's true for books, movies and for real life. It's not Benedict Arnold, hero of the battle of Saratoga - the turning point of the American Revolution. It's Benedict Arnold, traitor.
The fact that you can write about Benedict Arnold as the hero of Saratoga means that you can appreciate what he did for this country without ignoring it due to his treason, right? Why can't you do the same for Edsall's accomplishments in light of his treason? Odd...
Not odd. Normal. What's odd is the figurative ball licking of a guy who just pissed in your face.
This. 1000%, perfectly said, this.
If that quote just gets saved somewhere on the board, so that anyone who cares about rationality has access to it, I think I could resist coming in to defend against the silly attacks again and again when goodness forbid someone questions anything about our present regime.
The fact that you can write about Benedict Arnold as the hero of Saratoga means that you can appreciate what he did for this country without ignoring it due to his treason, right? Why can't you do the same for Edsall's accomplishments in light of his treason? Odd...
The rest of the story? So we can't improve because he quit when he did? Interesting logic. You believe he sucked at coaching, he sucked at quitting, and now UConn sucks because he's not here. Let us know when it's officially Pasqualoni's team and we can stop blaming the former regime Mr. Axelrod.What apoligistas refuse to acknowledge is the effect a crappy ending has on the rest of the story.
Why does saying IMHO that Edsall didn't suck but I don't honestly feel he accomplished much more than that is so unreasonable?
This isn't the 70's. The rules when Edsall came to the program were more in the favor of the little guy than ever before. By 2005, we had great facilities, were in a BCS conference and on national TV. I think our situation was about the same as UofL, Cincy and RU. We never had a season like their best years.
He wasn't Krag or GROB or Terry Shea. For that I am thankful but I'm not willing to go much beyond that.
I think Kelly or Petrino or RR all would have done much better so I don't think he should be held in that high of esteem. There is a reason why nobody else wanted him and he kept getting turned down for new jobs.
I would also say that he was better than Wannstadt, a former professional coach, by the way. He certainly did more with less than what Wanny had. He was also better in my opinion than Schiano (a current professional coach) and also did more than him with less. He was better, in my opinion, than Leavitt, who....wait for it....ALSO had more than he had!