B1G

[itgoeslike]

Considering how many people tailgate without actually buying tickets or having any desire to see the game I'm not sure this is true.

You may be right. Maybe they should build an outer perimeter, charge $5 to tailgate, and count them towards attendance.

 

[BoatShow]

You may be right. Maybe they should build an outer perimeter, charge $5 to tailgate, and count them towards attendance.

As if the slow congregation into the game isn't bad enough the people walking INTO the tailgate area 10 minutes before kick-off should take a long walk off a short plank.

 

[pj]

Just to give some data on this, you can search NIH awards online. Here is data for Massachusetts for FY 2012:

http://report.nih.gov/award/index.c...orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail

HARVARD affiliates:

• Brigham & Women's $263 mn
• Beth Israel Deaconess $109 mn
• Children's Hospital Boston $98 mn
• Dana-Farber Cancer Institute $92 mn
• Harvard University $46 mn
• Harvard Medical School $124 mn
• Harvard School of Public Health $103 mn
• Mass General Hospital $286 mn

Total Harvard: $1121 mn

Boston University $33 mn
Boston University Medical Campus $91

Total BU: $124 mn

http://report.nih.gov/award/index.c...orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail

Yale University: $286 mn
UConn (Storrs + Med Ctr) $61 mn

BU does pretty well, and UConn worse than I expected, in the NIH data. Looks like UConn has a lot of non-NIH federal research funding.

 

[upstater]

It's hard to take you seriously when you don't know that the vast majority of Harvard's $750 mn+ went to 5 Harvard-affiliated hospitals -- Massachusetts General Hospital, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Children's Hospital Boston, and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute -- and some other institutions chipped in: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/harvard-affiliated-hospitals-and-research-institutes/.

Your non-link didn't give any info.

Let me say this again: the AAU is interested in competitive research grants. Not in the funding of hospitals!

Besides that, I am saying, 100%, what the AAU thinks about medical centers. I have been on committees on these very issues!

This article says something else about where Harvard's research funding goes: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/5/30/sequester-harvard-research-funding/#

As a whole, federal sources provided Harvard with $650 million in the fiscal year 2012, but those funds were not distributed evenly. Investigators at schools like SEAS, the Medical School, the School of Public Health, and FAS rely more on funding from Washington than their colleagues at the University’s other schools.

SEAS is Engineering and FAS is Arts & Sciences. The Medical School and Public Health are the other two.

These are university wide. Its affiliations with hospitals have little to do with the money.

 

[upstater]

Just to give some data on this, you can search NIH awards online. Here is data for Massachusetts for FY 2012:

http://report.nih.gov/award/index.c...orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail

HARVARD affiliates:

• 
  [ ]Brigham & Women's $263 mn
  [ ]Beth Israel Deaconess $109 mn
  [ ]Children's Hospital Boston $98 mn
  [ ]Dana-Farber Cancer Institute $92 mn
  [ ]Harvard University $46 mn
  [ ]Harvard Medical School $124 mn
  [ ]Harvard School of Public Health $103 mn
  [ ]Mass General Hospital $286 mn

Total Harvard: $1121 mn

Boston University $33 mn
Boston University Medical Campus $91

Total BU: $124 mn

http://report.nih.gov/award/index.c...orgid=&distr=&rfa=&om=n&pid=&view=statedetail

Yale University: $286 mn
UConn (Storrs + Med Ctr) $61 mn

BU does pretty well, and UConn worse than I expected, in the NIH data. Looks like UConn has a lot of non-NIH federal research funding.

Your link proves that the Harvard funding that counts for AAU is NOT the funding used for those hospitals.

NIH funding totals show $1.1b in your aggregate. Whereas the NIH's funding of research grants to Harvard in total -- according to this link http://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm -- is $134m

I'll say it again: awards are different from funding.

The link above is for awards.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Have we proven in this thread yet that we're smarter than Rutgers fans?

 

[upstater]

According to the UNL AAU doc, the AAU looks at seven indicators. They outline them in the letter to the Chancellor of UNL.

The research grant money, the research grant money, the research grant money!

No matter how many times they tell you they consider faculty awards and honors--as determined by Carnegie--the biggest factor by far is the research money.

The complainers about the AAU -- and I have very little stake in what the AAU is about -- seem to treat it like some sort of prestigious fraternity. As I've been saying for ages, it's a lobbying firm trying to shakedown mainly STEM research funds from the gov't. It is NOT a prestigious academic organization. People like GW's former prez complain that the AAU deemphasizes the great research going on in fields that are not as cost intensive. He's right. Sometimes, research in Physics or say Biomed can be incredibly costly, but relatively unimportant in relation to research going on elsewhere. The AAU, they complain, is valorizing expenditures over value and quality. My reaction: No (e) sherlock! It's a lobbying firm trying to shakedown lots of money for costly research. Of course the parameters it's using are going to emphasize that.

Too many people mistake the AAU for some sort of club of academic excellence. It is not.

And the reason I'm saying this is because the AAU is very particular about how it assesses its members. It wants to emphasize award money coming out of the national institutes and foundations. Why? Because it can't control the other stuff. It can't lobby corporations to give schools money. It can't tell congressman to fork over pork to a pet project.

 

[pj]

Your link proves that the Harvard funding that counts for AAU is NOT the funding used for those hospitals.

NIH funding totals show $1.1b in your aggregate. Whereas the NIH's funding of research grants to Harvard in total -- according to this link http://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm -- is $134m

I'll say it again: awards are different from funding.

The link above is for awards.

No, the link was for competitive Non-SBIR/STTR Research Project Grants. Not all awards, only the grants to specific peer reviewed research projects. Check the link.

Since I haven't been able to open that PDF that supposedly states the 7 AAU criteria, I would like to see someone copy the criteria here. Upstater, I can believe that you have superior knowledge of the AAU criteria, and that UConn still has work to do to meet them.

But there's bound to be politics in how the numbers are interpreted. Take Harvard for instance. Harvard has a close relationship with its affiliated hospitals. Harvard University's NIH funding is $46 mn per year, UConn-Storrs is $20 mn (UConn Medical Ctr is another $40 mn), BU is $33 mn. If you are going to exclude hospitals and medical schools, then UConn is almost within a factor of two of Harvard. But why would you? Harvard specifically lodges its NIH funded research in hospitals and professional schools (Medical School, School of Public Health which is essentially a medical school). Excluding medical schools and hospitals gives a very misleading view and understates Harvard's research superiority over UConn and BU.

So to evaluate these research universities you need to respect their institutional structure and the way they've chosen to divide up activities. That introduces a lot of politics in which by the way you accept or don't accept funding, you can generate radically different answers.

 

[NEforceUConn]

OK can I have the crib notes on when UConn can obtain AAU status? Is it 2/3 years if things go our way or 8/9 years? Lets hope Emmert has nothing to do with the AAU

 

[Waquoit]

If UCONN actively took steps to create a great tail-gating atmosphere, fans would want to make it a weekly event, and they would sell more tickets.

UConn has great tailgating.

 

[upstater]

No, the link was for competitive Non-SBIR/STTR Research Project Grants. Not all awards, only the grants to specific peer reviewed research projects. Check the link.

Since I haven't been able to open that PDF that supposedly states the 7 AAU criteria, I would like to see someone copy the criteria here. Upstater, I can believe that you have superior knowledge of the AAU criteria, and that UConn still has work to do to meet them.

But there's bound to be politics in how the numbers are interpreted. Take Harvard for instance. Harvard has a close relationship with its affiliated hospitals. Harvard University's NIH funding is $46 mn per year, UConn-Storrs is $20 mn (UConn Medical Ctr is another $40 mn), BU is $33 mn. If you are going to exclude hospitals and medical schools, then UConn is almost within a factor of two of Harvard. But why would you? Harvard specifically lodges its NIH funded research in hospitals and professional schools (Medical School, School of Public Health which is essentially a medical school). Excluding medical schools and hospitals gives a very misleading view and understates Harvard's research superiority over UConn and BU.

So to evaluate these research universities you need to respect their institutional structure and the way they've chosen to divide up activities. That introduces a lot of politics in which by the way you accept or don't accept funding, you can generate radically different answers.

I never said they are excluding medical schools and hospitals. I said they are separating research grants from hospital expenses. I have had meetings on this and that's why I'm responding. I'd also ignore any letter from the AAU to Nebraska. All I can tell you is that research grants to conduct research are emphasized. Grants from not only the NIH but also Health and Human Services for running hospitals are not included. The gov't has a big interest in supporting hospitals nationally, so it funds them in this fashion. But these are not research projects. Those funds do not go through peer review. There are no faculty out there that sit on a board and decide to award Deaconess Hospital $100 in funding for hospital operations.

 

[itgoeslike]

The research grant money, the research grant money, the research grant money!

No matter how many times they tell you they consider faculty awards and honors--as determined by Carnegie--the biggest factor by far is the research money.

The complainers about the AAU -- and I have very little stake in what the AAU is about -- seem to treat it like some sort of prestigious fraternity. As I've been saying for ages, it's a lobbying firm trying to shakedown mainly STEM research funds from the gov't. It is NOT a prestigious academic organization. People like GW's former prez complain that the AAU deemphasizes the great research going on in fields that are not as cost intensive. He's right. Sometimes, research in Physics or say Biomed can be incredibly costly, but relatively unimportant in relation to research going on elsewhere. The AAU, they complain, is valorizing expenditures over value and quality. My reaction: No (e) sherlock! It's a lobbying firm trying to shakedown lots of money for costly research. Of course the parameters it's using are going to emphasize that.

Too many people mistake the AAU for some sort of club of academic excellence. It is not.

And the reason I'm saying this is because the AAU is very particular about how it assesses its members. It wants to emphasize award money coming out of the national institutes and foundations. Why? Because it can't control the other stuff. It can't lobby corporations to give schools money. It can't tell congressman to fork over pork to a pet project.

Beyond current federal research expenditures, the other metrics help ensure that the credentials are in place to help land the actual research grants, especially when they lobby for a block of money. Research funding has migrated to emphasize biotechnology, etc., which is why the AAU has "rewritten" the criteria somewhat to devalue agricultural and other research. UCONN is working all metrics.

 

[upstater]

Beyond current federal research expenditures, the other metrics help ensure that the credentials are in place to help land the actual research grants, especially when they lobby for a block of money. Research funding has migrated to emphasize biotechnology, etc., which is why the AAU has "rewritten" the criteria somewhat to devalue agricultural and other research. UCONN is working all metrics.

It's heavily weighted toward the money. The study I saw showed EVERY single current member except one or two at the bottom as being ABOVE every other single school in America. When you compare that fact to the huge divergence in faculty quality among membership (and between outside schools, like Dartmouth, for instance) you realize how little faculty quality has to do with it.

Agriculture was deemphasized because it came out of the department of AG and was all pork-barrel spending for the farm belt with absolutely no peer review. That's why it was devalued. People couldn't understand why Tom Harkin and chuck Grassley banging the table for more funding should figure into the rankings.

I'll say it again: this is a lobbying institution pushing for more funding for the national foundations. It is powerless to influence national farm policy.

 

[itgoeslike]

It's heavily weighted toward the money. The study I saw showed EVERY single current member except one or two at the bottom as being ABOVE every other single school in America. When you compare that fact to the huge divergence in faculty quality among membership (and between outside schools, like Dartmouth, for instance) you realize how little faculty quality has to do with it.

Agriculture was deemphasized because it came out of the department of AG and was all pork-barrel spending for the farm belt with absolutely no peer review. That's why it was devalued. People couldn't understand why Tom Harkin and chuck Grassley banging the table for more funding should figure into the rankings.

I'll say it again: this is a lobbying institution pushing for more funding for the national foundations. It is powerless to influence national farm policy.

First, no one said it wasn't weighted towards the money. It's all about the money. Second, most people are aware the AAU lobbies the government for federal funding. Having said that, the fact that they normalize data for smaller schools implies that it isn't just about sheer volume. You can be a smaller school that does a disproportionate amount of research in specialized areas and still be considered (which is why schools like Brandies are in the AAU). Lastly, I'll try to make my point about aligning schools/expertise/resources with the biggest research dollars (and it doesn't have anything to do with farm policy). If the federal government started allocating 90% of its funding around bubble gum, the AAU would want their schools to be have expertise, resources, and experience to support bubble gum research. That would enable them to capture the biggest chunk of bubble gum research dollars.

 

[upstater]

First, no one said it wasn't weighted towards the money. It's all about the money. Second, most people are aware the AAU lobbies the government for federal funding. Having said that, the fact that they normalize data for smaller schools implies that it isn't just about sheer volume. You can be a smaller school that does a disproportionate amount of research in specialized areas and still be considered (which is why schools like Brandies are in the AAU). Lastly, I'll try to make my point about aligning schools/expertise/resources with the biggest research dollars (and it doesn't have anything to do with farm policy). If the federal government started allocating 90% of its funding around bubble gum, the AAU would want their schools to be have expertise, resources, and experience to support bubble gum research. That would enable them to capture the biggest chunk of bubble gum research dollars.

You're missing the key element though. They want competitive peer reviewed grants, not pork doled out by congressmen. That's the difference between Nebraska and other schools. Indeed, ag research grants that go through peer review count.

 

[itgoeslike]

You're missing the key element though. They want competitive peer reviewed grants, not pork doled out by congressmen. That's the difference between Nebraska and other schools. Indeed, ag research grants that go through peer review count.

I never said peer-reviewed grants don't count. . . The problem for Nebraska is that peer-reviewed ag research grants represent a diminishing slice of the peer-reviewed funding pie. If they were able to roll in the Omaha Medical School, which conducts research in areas that are growing in terms of funding, they may still be in the AAU.

 

[upstater]

I never said peer-reviewed grants don't count. . . The problem for Nebraska is that peer-reviewed ag research grants represent a diminishing slice of the peer-reviewed funding pie. If they were able to roll in the Omaha Medical School, which conducts research in areas that are growing in terms of funding, they may still be in the AAU.

They ONLY count peer-reviewed grants. That's the problem with Ag dollars. They are mostly pork. And it's not a diminishing slice. If anything, there's more R&D in ag. than ever before. Think of Monsanto! They practically own a wing of Cal-Berkeley. The problem with ag research is that most of it isn't peer reviewed.

As for the U. of Nebraska Medical Center, they landed $21.9m in grants in 2013. That's not going to help them. Boston U. is in the $350m range. Nebraska is in the $100m range. They need a heckuva lot more than $21.9m to come within spitting distance of the bottom of the AAU.

 

[pj]

As for the U. of Nebraska Medical Center, they landed $21.9m in grants in 2013. That's not going to help them. Boston U. is in the $350m range. Nebraska is in the $100m range. They need a heckuva lot more than $21.9m to come within spitting distance of the bottom of the AAU.

How does BU get to $350 mn if you only consider peer-reviewed federal research funds?

 

[upstater]

How does BU get to $350 mn if you only consider peer-reviewed federal research funds?

Not sure what you're asking. Those are the competitive grants they landed. I didn't say they were ONLY federal. I said they were peer reviewed.

 

[frankthetank]

I agree that Connecticut proper is a tough market because it's situated between NYC and Boston, but take a step back and look at the whole. The Milwaukee/Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland corridor is actually slightly shorter than the Boston/NYC/Philly/Baltimore/DC corridor. Milwaukee has 3 pro teams (the Packers are more of a Milwaukee team than 99% of the teams that are actually situated in their cities), Chicago has 5, Detroit has 4 and Cleveland has 3 in the city proper with a de facto 4th with the Blue Jackets in Columbus. That corridor might not have the same sheer number of teams as the East Coast corridor because of the 9 NYC market franchises, but that Midwest corridor has the highest number of pro teams on a per capita basis of any area in the country, support their pro teams in incredibly loyal numbers and STILL watch both college football and college basketball in a huge way. That's not even counting the Midwest markets outside of that corridor (Minneapolis with a full complement of 4 pro teams, Indianapolis and Cincinnati both having 2 teams each, Downstate Illinois that's really a St. Louis market particularly with respect to the Cardinals that are essentially the Packers fan base equivalent to baseball). The point is that that the Big Ten schools fully coexist with pro sports teams (most of whom have many generations of fans, so the loyalties run deep).

This is in contrast to the SEC core, where outside of Florida and newly added Texas A&M and Missouri, that whole swath of 11 SEC fan bases share a grand total of 7 pro sports teams among them, 3 of which weren't even in their respective markets until the 1990s. That's a big-time difference between what the Big Ten has had in pro sports competition versus the SEC, yet it has still succeeded in being right alongside those pro teams in terms of drawing power. So, that's why I'm always wary of "it's a pro market" reason/excuse. It has been done in plenty of huge markets with marquee pro franchises (i.e. Chicago, Dallas, LA, San Francisco), so being in a pro market in and of itself shouldn't be a singular reason why college sports aren't gaining traction in a particular area.

 

[buggsy]

Frank, you're correct, but none of the places you mentioned have the sheer number of teams, much less in a condensed location, that the NYC-Boston (and down to Philadelphia and DC to a slightly lesser extent) has. The Wisconsin market pales in comparison. The only one that's reasonably close is Chicago, but look at Northwestern, their fan support is anything but rabid. It's not just that there's pro teams with rabid fan bases, it's that there's so many, no other part of the country has anywhere near the amount. Within 100 miles of East Hartford, as the crow flies, you have 3 MLB teams, 4 NHL teams, 3 NFL teams, and 3 NBA teams. So, for the Connecticut sports fan, you have more options available to you within a reasonable distance than anywhere else in the country, bar none, so the money and time you have to follow them all gets spread very thin. And in these parts, the diehard Sox fans are not going to give up an October game to see UConn-anyone in football, the same for Yankee fans, Giants and Pats fans will spend their money on a VERY expensive NFL ticket instead of a UConn football game, etc. Fortunately for Jets fans, the tickets are cheap and easy to come by. The inventory of pro games available to the sports fan around here far outweighs that of anyone living in any of the towns you listed, including Chicago. There only so many Packer tickets that can be sold, Bears tickets, etc. Think of it this way, on a given October weekend, there could be a Giants home game, Pats home game, Sox playoff game, Yankee playoff game, Bruins game, and Rangers game, all in a two-day period. That's 273,000 tickets available for that weekend. And that's leaving OUT the NBA teams, the Devils, and the Islanders.

And this is not even getting anywhere near the other entertainment options available to spend your money, Broadway shows, casinos, generally going to NYC or Boston for the day, etc.

Connecticut isn't alone in this regard. Rutgers fans have the EXACT same problem...but instead of NY and Boston (UCONN) , it's NY and Philly (RU). Exact same number of pro sports teams competing for the sports dollar as UCONN faces.

I think UCONN and RU though are the only 2 that face this problem.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Connecticut isn't alone in this regard. Rutgers fans have the EXACT same problem...but instead of NY and Boston (UCONN) , it's NY and Philly (RU). Exact same number of pro sports teams competing for the sports dollar as UCONN faces.

I think UCONN and RU though are the only 2 that face this problem.

Yes, you're right, and that's why I included the clause at the top of my post saying this extended down through Philly and to a lesser extent into DC. RU and UConn are the only two I can think of with the split-alliance issue of having two major cities with ample pro teams that have enormous fanbases within very short distances of campus. UMD isn't really close enough to Philly to count, and Baltimore is a marginal pro market with only one heavily-followed team. Southern California might be one, with LA, Anaheim, and San Diego in close proximity, for USC and UCLA. But the blaring omission there is there are no NFL teams, save the Chargers (who cares about the Chargers?) so USC/UCLA football aren't competing against any pro team in their respective sports. There's really nowhere else in the country where there are this many pro teams jammed into a small geographic area, much less heavily-followed pro teams, and UConn and RU are smack dab in between all of them.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I agree that Connecticut proper is a tough market because it's situated between NYC and Boston, but take a step back and look at the whole. The Milwaukee/Chicago/Detroit/Cleveland corridor is actually slightly shorter than the Boston/NYC/Philly/Baltimore/DC corridor. Milwaukee has 3 pro teams (the Packers are more of a Milwaukee team than 99% of the teams that are actually situated in their cities), Chicago has 5, Detroit has 4 and Cleveland has 3 in the city proper with a de facto 4th with the Blue Jackets in Columbus. That corridor might not have the same sheer number of teams as the East Coast corridor because of the 9 NYC market franchises, but that Midwest corridor has the highest number of pro teams on a per capita basis of any area in the country, support their pro teams in incredibly loyal numbers and STILL watch both college football and college basketball in a huge way. That's not even counting the Midwest markets outside of that corridor (Minneapolis with a full complement of 4 pro teams, Indianapolis and Cincinnati both having 2 teams each, Downstate Illinois that's really a St. Louis market particularly with respect to the Cardinals that are essentially the Packers fan base equivalent to baseball). The point is that that the Big Ten schools fully coexist with pro sports teams (most of whom have many generations of fans, so the loyalties run deep).

This is in contrast to the SEC core, where outside of Florida and newly added Texas A&M and Missouri, that whole swath of 11 SEC fan bases share a grand total of 7 pro sports teams among them, 3 of which weren't even in their respective markets until the 1990s. That's a big-time difference between what the Big Ten has had in pro sports competition versus the SEC, yet it has still succeeded in being right alongside those pro teams in terms of drawing power. So, that's why I'm always wary of "it's a pro market" reason/excuse. It has been done in plenty of huge markets with marquee pro franchises (i.e. Chicago, Dallas, LA, San Francisco), so being in a pro market in and of itself shouldn't be a singular reason why college sports aren't gaining traction in a particular area.

Look man, I get that you're a midwest guy, but the original point is correct, there is no comparison, in the U.S.A. that is on par with the northeast corridor from Washington D.C. to Boston, and it's interest and support of sports, professional. It's not even close. It takes an entire conference to generate interest in this area, in college sports, outside of any school's immediate demographic.

From that national mall to tremont street boston common is 441 miles. Philadelphia is the essentially the western outpost of the "northeast corridor" when it comes to actually how far west the city if from the Atlantic ocean, and Philly is actually EAST of Washington. Everything in the 'northeast corridor" is packed into an area about 450 miles long, by signficantly less than 100 miles wide.

Washington D.C. 6.8 million. Balitmore 680,000. Philadelphia 1.5 million. New York City 8.2 million (manhattan island alone has more people living there than the entire cities of philadelphia and baltmore combined), New haven/Hartford/Waterbury CT alone 350,000, Boston 625,000 people.

That's approximately 30 million people, just living in the urban centers within that 450x75 mile area along the interstate highways that pass through each urban center for the approx 8 hour drive it would take from the Lincoln Monument to Boston Common. If you've ever driving from D.C. to Boston, well, it's not like driving from Chicago to Milwaukee.

17% of population of the entire USA lives in that approx 450x75 mile corridor. 17% of 314 is about 53.4. 53.4 million people live in that 450x100 mile corridor.

Now you start to factor in the sheer number of universities that compete in intercollegiate athletics in that 450-100 mill area, and it become clear that the entire culture of the region is just entirely separate and distinct from anywhere else in the country.

I've been over this so many times before, to assume that the attendance and size of a football stadium, is any measure of the intensity and dedication of fan following of a college football program in the northeast corridor, as compared to any college football program anywhere else, is an exercise in ignorance and stupidity.

450x100 is about 45,000 square miles, of essentially coast line and is larger than the entire state of Ohio. Ohio's entire population is 11 million. Nowhere is the population density less than 1-2 hour drive from the Atlantic Ocean, and most the population is walking distance.

It's just an entirely different culture and region than anywhere else in the country, and pretty much, there aren't many places with similar population density, demographics and geography like this in the world.

Bottom line, comparing the cultures around university athletics in the northeast corridor, to the cultures around college athletics outside the region, is comparing apples to oranges. You just can't do it. It's entirely different.

What has been lacking, and unfortunately continues to be laacking, for going on 60 years now, beacuse of the decision of the IVY's to get out of the post season, and the formation of the Big EAst confrence, and then the ACC and Notre Dame becoming Big East 2.0, is that there is no major 1-A football CONFERENCE in the northeast corridor.

The Big 10 can do it, with an eastern division, but UCONN needs to be there.

 

[The Funster]

NYC is more populous than the next two cities (Chicago, LA) combined.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

This is probabably the first time I've agreed with Frank.
UConn problem has little to do with competition from pro sports as it does a Connecticut Population that has not bought into UConn football.
Their most exciting team was Danny O junior year.The fiesta bowl
team was defense and special teams and ugly vicious press.
When they hammered Navy 30 to 0 . I was at the San Juan airport with a bunch of people waiting for the Hartford flight.
When that score was announced a huge roar went up.
I thought for sure UConn football had finally arrived.
Local kid leading the way.
No non state pro team can ever duplicate the pride that comes with the success of your state team. My best Bud out here is a Nebraska grad. Even UConn basketball is only a small % of the love Husker fans have for their team. But Nebraska should be our model.
The pro teams start with New York or Boston.
We may like the team but most Ct residents don't associate themselves with either Boston or New York.
However even us trsnsplants. can associate with our state.
The breakup of the conference before their entry killed their chances. The Big East had one legimate football name WV.
Louisville had some success before the Big East but with Petrino''s exit they tanked. Pitt and especially Cuse had some Ct interest.
Both these schools we trending downward.
Some of you BC haters might not like this but they were the Only New England team with a name. NFL superagent Tommy Condon from Derby had played there.
I come from one of the few football hotbeds in the state.
(At least 6 NFL players in my memory from a population of 60,000.)
beating BC would have meant the addition of fans.
I would not fly back to Ct with my famiily to see any of the old Big East teams or the Current ACC teams. The only teams this lifelong college football fan wiould spend a couple of thousand on. would be in the B1G. The thought of Ct in a league a old school southern as the ACC makes me sick.
Frank no state has more football history than Connecticut.
A Connecticut native took Rugby and made it into s distinctly American game.
A Connecticut school was its first powerhouse helping the sport become a national game.
Connecticut never abandoned big time football.
It abandoned us.
The appetite for big time football is there waiting to be awakened.
If UConn can provide a legimste entertaining brand of football it will dwarf the basketball following.





Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2