Gotta Love Louisville

[SattyBull]

My brother in law (who holds a PhD from USF) grew up in Frankfort, KY and is a die hard Cards fan. Very happy for him and the school. I texted him simply saying "The Ville!" once they had it in hand, and received back "never thought I would see the day". Has to feel great! It's the year of the Cardinal.

[slick1ru2]

Louisville had already announced it was jumping ship before the team went to the Sugar Bowl and before the NCAA basketball tournaments. They didn't "play their way in" anymore than Rutgers did. That their teams have had a successful year in terms of results is merely a coincidence. The only thing USF could have done to get where Louisville is is have been founded about 50 years earlier and started playing football immediately.

 

 

I don't see USF on this list of most wins in the NCAA tournament history but Louisville is there.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/03/26/kentucky-kansas-louisville-ohio-state-and-teams-with-the-most-wins-in-ncaa-tournament-history/

 

[gobulls83]

Louisville had already announced it was jumping ship before the team went to the Sugar Bowl and before the NCAA basketball tournaments. They didn't "play their way in" anymore than Rutgers did. That their teams have had a successful year in terms of results is merely a coincidence. The only thing USF could have done to get where Louisville is is have been founded about 50 years earlier and started playing football immediately.

 

 

I don't see USF on this list of most wins in the NCAA tournament history but Louisville is there.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/03/26/kentucky-kansas-louisville-ohio-state-and-teams-with-the-most-wins-in-ncaa-tournament-history/

 

 

So? I don't understand your point.

 

Every single person who claims winning is what gets teams into bigger conferences can be refuted with a single word: Rutgers. Until you explain how Rutgers fits into your theory that schools "play their way in," your argument is total nonsense.

 

Like I said, Louisville's success is only a convenient coincidence. Just because they've won stuff doesn't mean their winning stuff is what got them out of the Big East.

[gobulls83]

And then of course there are Cincinnati and UConn, who are both on that list you've provided, both have recent BCS bowl game appearances, and yet have not been invited to a bigger conference, while perennial also-ran Rutgers is about to join the most desirable conference in college sports (in my opinion). So you have to explain that for your theory to be at all valid.

[Triple B]

 

Jurich certainly deserves all the credit he is getting with the fantastic all around year UL is having, but let's not forgot, it wasn't all that long ago that a lot of people were all over him because of the Kragthorpe disaster.

My only point is that any AD job is a "what have you done lately" kind of job.

 

It's also a job whose success is dependent on resources and Louisville's revenue is twice as much as USF's ....  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

And of course the AD has a big hand in that.

 

Of course .... but the saying "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip" comes to mind here.

[Triple B]

 

Louisville had already announced it was jumping ship before the team went to the Sugar Bowl and before the NCAA basketball tournaments. They didn't "play their way in" anymore than Rutgers did. That their teams have had a successful year in terms of results is merely a coincidence. The only thing USF could have done to get where Louisville is is have been founded about 50 years earlier and started playing football immediately.

 

 

I don't see USF on this list of most wins in the NCAA tournament history but Louisville is there.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/03/26/kentucky-kansas-louisville-ohio-state-and-teams-with-the-most-wins-in-ncaa-tournament-history/

 

 

So? I don't understand your point.

 

Every single person who claims winning is what gets teams into bigger conferences can be refuted with a single word: Rutgers. Until you explain how Rutgers fits into your theory that schools "play their way in," your argument is total nonsense.

 

Like I said, Louisville's success is only a convenient coincidence. Just because they've won stuff doesn't mean their winning stuff is what got them out of the Big East.

 

I agree with this to the point that no one played their way into a P5 conference with recent success on the field/court. I do think a winning history/tradition, which produces notoriety/fanbase, was a factor in some cases and Louisville is one of those. Do you think Louisville gets in with USF's history?

[gobulls83]

 

 

Louisville had already announced it was jumping ship before the team went to the Sugar Bowl and before the NCAA basketball tournaments. They didn't "play their way in" anymore than Rutgers did. That their teams have had a successful year in terms of results is merely a coincidence. The only thing USF could have done to get where Louisville is is have been founded about 50 years earlier and started playing football immediately.

 

 

I don't see USF on this list of most wins in the NCAA tournament history but Louisville is there.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/03/26/kentucky-kansas-louisville-ohio-state-and-teams-with-the-most-wins-in-ncaa-tournament-history/

 

 

So? I don't understand your point.

 

Every single person who claims winning is what gets teams into bigger conferences can be refuted with a single word: Rutgers. Until you explain how Rutgers fits into your theory that schools "play their way in," your argument is total nonsense.

 

Like I said, Louisville's success is only a convenient coincidence. Just because they've won stuff doesn't mean their winning stuff is what got them out of the Big East.

 

I agree with this to the point that no one played their way into a P5 conference with recent success on the field/court. I do think a winning history/tradition, which produces notoriety/fanbase, was a factor in some cases and Louisville is one of those. Do you think Louisville gets in with USF's history?

 

Yeah absolutely, but even that still isn't universal. Rutgers refutes the argument that a winning history is necessary too. The Schiano era was Rutgers' glory years after a century and a half of playing college football, and they still didn't win ****.

 

Louisville got into the ACC - which is still a big step below where hapless Rutgers is heading, despite all of Louisville's success - because of some combination of geography/potential value added to a TV contract/university politicking. Which of those factors were most important we'll never know for sure, but their recent Sugar Bowl win and basketball success certainly had zero to do with it, which is what the quote I took issue with was saying.

 

I also think this conversation is overstating Louisville's past success. When they were invited to the ACC, they had won two basketball national titles, the more recent of them more than 25 years prior, and had seen long stretches of total irrelevance in football. Their history is clearly much better than that of USF, Rutgers, and a few other of the Big East schools, but that's not much of a standard. Much of the ACC would not be impressed by Louisville's on-field and on-court resume.

Edited April 9, 2013 by gobulls83

[Triple B]

 

 

 

Louisville had already announced it was jumping ship before the team went to the Sugar Bowl and before the NCAA basketball tournaments. They didn't "play their way in" anymore than Rutgers did. That their teams have had a successful year in terms of results is merely a coincidence. The only thing USF could have done to get where Louisville is is have been founded about 50 years earlier and started playing football immediately.

 

 

I don't see USF on this list of most wins in the NCAA tournament history but Louisville is there.

http://sportslistoftheday.com/2012/03/26/kentucky-kansas-louisville-ohio-state-and-teams-with-the-most-wins-in-ncaa-tournament-history/

 

 

So? I don't understand your point.

 

Every single person who claims winning is what gets teams into bigger conferences can be refuted with a single word: Rutgers. Until you explain how Rutgers fits into your theory that schools "play their way in," your argument is total nonsense.

 

Like I said, Louisville's success is only a convenient coincidence. Just because they've won stuff doesn't mean their winning stuff is what got them out of the Big East.

 

I agree with this to the point that no one played their way into a P5 conference with recent success on the field/court. I do think a winning history/tradition, which produces notoriety/fanbase, was a factor in some cases and Louisville is one of those. Do you think Louisville gets in with USF's history?

 

Yeah absolutely, but even that still isn't universal. Rutgers refutes the argument that a winning history is necessary too. The Schiano era was Rutgers' glory years after a century and a half of playing college football, and they still didn't win ****.

 

Louisville got into the ACC - which is still a big step below where hapless Rutgers is heading, despite all of Louisville's success - because of some combination of geography/potential value added to a TV contract/university politicking. Which of those factors were most important we'll never know for sure, but their recent Sugar Bowl win and basketball success certainly had zero to do with it, which is what the quote I took issue with was saying.

 

I also think this conversation is overstating Louisville's past success. When they were invited to the ACC, they had won two basketball national titles, the more recent of them more than 25 years prior, and had seen long stretches of total irrelevance in football. Their history is clearly much better than that of USF, Rutgers, and a few other of the Big East schools, but that's not much of a standard. Much of the ACC would not be impressed by Louisville's on-field and on-court resume.

 

Maybe they were impressed by the $$$. Per that list linked above, Louisville was, from 2006-11, #15 based on revenue. The closest ACC team is FSU at #24 ....

 

Bottom line is that there were various factors that spurred the invitations to the P5 and they were all pretty much out of USF' hands. 

[hm101]

UL brought in Steve Kragthorpe in 2007-2009, who drove the program to the basement and he finished with a 15-21 record. 

We brought in Skip Holtz from 2010-2012, who drove the program to the basement and finished with a 16-21 record. 

 

After Kragthorpe, Louisville hired Charlie Strong, a young, energetic, smart, tough, up-and-coming coach. The next 2 years, they finished with 7 wins and went bowling. The third year, they beat Florida in a BCS bowl game.

After Holtz, USF hired Willie Taggart, a young, energetic, smart, tough, up-and-coming coach. The next year..... 

[slick1ru2]

And then of course there are Cincinnati and UConn, who are both on that list you've provided, both have recent BCS bowl game appearances, and yet have not been invited to a bigger conference, while perennial also-ran Rutgers is about to join the most desirable conference in college sports (in my opinion). So you have to explain that for your theory to be at all valid.

They are also the two that are on the top of the list to leave next.

 

As for Rutgers, they are a program on the way up in football as well as other sports and have the distinction of the first football game being played at their school and are also an AAU institution.

 

The Big 10 wants academically outstanding members. They want to expand. Belows is the AAU list, who else do you see not in a BCS conference that should go to the Big 10 over Rutgers?  They have been bugging the Big 10 for years and now they have had some success, including part of the Big East title in the recent past and other sports. 

 

http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476