Reading the SU board

[jbdphi]

I just want to get this thread up to 100.

By the way, this makes for fun reading on a slow work day...

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

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 never said name recognition didn't matter, sure it helps people to know who the school is. That's all it does. Having a great basketball program doesn't help close a FOOTBALL recruit because they aren't playing basketball.

Herbie and Davis said it LAST YEAR? Oh, then please explain why they didn't say it in 1999 when "he" took over the job? Because as you said, "When Edsall took over UConn was already a national brand athletically because of basketball."

Want to actually defend that statement, or do you want to pretend UConn was a national name in 1999 because we would eventually win 2 more championships in the next 12 years???

Would you like to continue discussing Boise State, or are you going to concede talking out of your @ss on that subject as well?

 

[BlueMAB]

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!

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 sense.

I can just imagine the tag line that you guys would use "Come to UConn, I guarantee you've heard of us!"

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

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"

Nevermind the built-in recruiting advantages of being in Florida like two of those schools.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

This is false. The 2007 team finished ranked in the BCS top 25. The problem is that most of his haters completely discount where UConn started when they criticize what was achieved.

Is one top 25 finish, two conference championships, and 5 bowl bids in 10 years exceptional for Alabama? No.

Most "traditional" college football fans recognize that relative to what UConn football was pre 1999, what was accomplished here was nothing short of extraordinary. That isn't all on the former coach. It took a lot of hard work from a lot of people.

It is a sad commentary on this fanbase that we can't celebrate what was accomplished by the PROGRAM, without being accused of wanting him back, or (as Palatine suggested) annointing him a saint. Every time a portion of this fanbase devalues the accomplishments, they are, in fact, sh!tt!ng on the players who were largely responsible for those accomplishments.

 

[BlueMAB]

UConn has a step up on all of the new Big East schools because the school is very well known, mostly due to basketball.

I can't edit my post, so I'll add this.

By adding this statement in support of your point, you are also saying we should have recruited better from 1999-2010, and therefore had better results in a BCS conference; because in 2012 UConn has an advantage over other schools who are just now making the leap from D1A to BCS.

Are you kidding?

 

[UConnDan97]

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!"

I agree with some of your premise, but I can't give you "full credit." What I mean by that is, yes you are correct in stating that a top recruit that has his eyes on Michigan is more likely to go there than to go to UConn for football, but that's because Michigan has nationally recognized football tradition. That fact doesn't discredit the fact that our nationally recognized basketball program gives us an edge over similar football programs that don't have that nationally recognized basketball. A good analogy would be a 3-star recruit comparing UConn versus Minnesota, or UConn versus BC. UConn versus Michigan or UConn versus Ohio State is always going to be a tough sell for us.

And although I have a soft spot in my heart for CCSU, that's a terrible analogy. They might be recognized as a good school for an education major, but really only in our state's borders. There is no way on earth that you could convince me that CCSU is nationally known for its education majors. If they were, my aunt and brother would both be ecstatic about their degrees right now (I'm sure they are both proud alums either way).

"Come to UConn. We are good at MULTIPLE sports!"

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

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.

 

[UConnDan97]

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.

And let me add to Jimmy's comment that I could be classified as an "Apologista" as well (just look at my post on page 4 or 5, where I caught crap for calling his UConn record "exceptional"). All I was commenting on was the fact that having name recognition helps recruiting, even if the recognition comes from another sport. And even in 98-99, we were a national brand. We had almost a decade of NCAA tourney appearances and big wins / big players (Marshall, Allen, etc.), as well as big wins in the Big East. We weren't Valparaiso...

...but we Apologistas do need to stick together, so...

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

I think you have it backwards. 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)

He has no offensive vision, he's a great evaluator, but piss poor recruiter, he's not as genuine as he portrays himself, and doesn't hold himself to the same standards he holds his players. Criticize the man sure, but stop ripping the accomplishments that the program and players are responsible for.

 

[johnhuskies95]

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.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

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.

Rough start, stronger finish against a higher level of competition.

 

[Pudge]

Boise ... UConn. Boise ... UConn.

Both impressive (they are more so ... ok???). My compelling thought, though, is that: WE in the BE have seen this play out perfectly. A Cincy or a USF; a UConn NOW Houston, SMU, UCF, Boise, SDSt given a chance can have a wonderful half decade & skunk a Syracuse or a Pitt or a Duke or a Kansas or a Mississippi State. Programs with just a little platform makes college football far more interesting. That's where we go with this new NBC/FOX and whatever stuff. I expect Brett McMurphy will be proven, as most sportswriters are (HEAR ME Mike DiMauro) to know didly in the world of economics. This package is valuable ... not ACC numbers; but, the schools are IN because the number will be over $10m for the All-in Schools (less for Football only) and that is many times the MWC dollars. Or C-USA.

Given a slim chance at the 4 team Playoff, you can see Boise or Houston WIN the National Championship. Get hot for 2 games. Hey ... that's why they play the games.

You all know who you are now. Some UConn fans want to just wallow in crap.

 

[businesslawyer]

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.

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.

 

[Palatine]

Edsall was a good not great coach. It is impossible to say if another coach would have done better, worse or about the same.

Regardless, I will never lower my expectations for the football program. If BYU can earn a national championship, anything is possible. The goal should be to go undefeated, to win the conference and win the national championship. There is no other reason to play.

 

[Waquoit]

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.

 

[UConnDan97]

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...

 

[Waquoit]

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.

 

[UConnDan97]

Not odd. Normal. What's odd is the figurative ball licking of a guy who just pissed in your face.

That guy pissed in our faces, and now he is paying a humorous price for it. It is my absolute wish and desire to continue the humorous price by beating the urine out of them this coming football year. It doesn't mean that he wasn't a very good coach for us. Period.

 

[sdhusky]

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...

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.

 

[BlueMAB]

What apoligistas refuse to acknowledge is the effect a crappy ending has on the rest of the story.

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.

In fact, let us know how the revolutionary war turned out for Mr. Arnold and the British. Were the colonies able to overcome the traitorous actions of Benedict Arnold?

God Save the Queen.

 

[UConnDan97]

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 respect your opinion. And I am not going to argue that Edsall was as good as Kelly, Petrino, or RR. Each one of those individuals was so good that they were pulled away by some of the most coveted positions a coach could be pulled by (ND, the Atlanta Falcons, and Michigan respectively).

However, are you telling me that there are only two levels of coaches; those that went on to the most highly coveted jobs in the country, and those that "didn't suck"?? Is that seriously the only two options? You're right, Edsall wasn't Kragthorpe or Grob, or Shea, (and thank God, he wasn't Robinson!) but 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!

So, I guess my only struggle is with the idea that Edsall's only claim to fame was that he "didn't suck"...

 

[johnhuskies95]

If you look at his record, he's an average coach. And then if you look at the rebuilding job he had, he becomes an above average/pretty good coach.

The fact that he couldn't recruit even a halfway decent quarterback after Danny O is the most disappointing thing during his time here, and the reason UConn never had a 10 win season IMO. In addition, he consistently got killed with in-state recruiting.

 

[pj]

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!

Maybe Edsall should be in the pros, since he does more with what he has than Schiano; and pro coaches don't have to recruit. But isn't recruiting a pretty significant part of being a college coach? If Edsall recruited worse than Schiano and then outcoached him to get to rough parity in performance, isn't he at best Schiano's peer as a college coach?

I'm guessing that not many people in the pros believe that Edsall is better than Schiano, or Edsall might be working there instead of at Maryland.