Poorly written NYTimes article

NYTimes publishes a poorly researched article on FCS to FBS move ups

Which points do you feel were poorly written?

Meant poorly researched. Such as “North Carolina - Charlotte” and calling the Big East an elite conference even though they’re now just a member of the “Gang of Five”.

I don’t see anything poorly written. I think the article insinuates that for a lot of Universities this is a bad idea. For Umass, given their circumstances, going FBS was a truly horrible idea.

UMass’s issues are related to playing in Gillette Stadium. Its too far from campus and too big for their current fanbase. If they played on campus they’d have been fine attendance-wise.

I couldn’t agree more. I think they should have delayed a move until they could expand their on campus facilities. There is one thing true for every school moving to FBS. If you do it right, it couldn’t be more beneficial. If you do it wrong, you can’t have more of a money pit. I think given our situation, up to this point we have done everything right we could do. If we don’t win games, I don’t feel all of that will matter much though.

There is no way they actually interviewed Judy. Unless they did the unfathomable and left “We don’t know what we don’t know” out of the article. So the author is either a liar, or a poor writer.

Pretty sure they reused quotes from older articles and interviews.

[font=georgia][size=15px]Rose said: “You do have to pay more attention to football because of the numbers involved in terms of players, coaches and finances. [b]But I’m not worried about getting in bed with any of those folks[/b].[/size][/font]

What?

Interesting point about missing out on the Big East in 2005, what exactly happened, I don’t remember this ??

Charlotte was 2nd to Cincy in CUSA basketball during CUSA 1.0. When the BE took teams they picked Marquette and DePaul over us, and DePaul plain sucked (still do).

Charlotte was 2nd to Cincy in CUSA basketball during CUSA 1.0. When the BE took teams they picked Marquette and DePaul over us, and DePaul plain sucked (still do).[/quote]

They were Catholic basketball schools. I’m sure the Big East has regretted DePaul since day 1.

Charlotte was 2nd to Cincy in CUSA basketball during CUSA 1.0. When the BE took teams they picked Marquette and DePaul over us, and DePaul plain sucked (still do).[/quote]

They were Catholic basketball schools. I’m sure the Big East has regretted DePaul since day 1.[/quote]

Lots of internal BE politics on that one. The same politics that have resulted in the split.

Charlotte was 2nd to Cincy in CUSA basketball during CUSA 1.0. When the BE took teams they picked Marquette and DePaul over us, and DePaul plain sucked (still do).[/quote]

They were Catholic basketball schools. I’m sure the Big East has regretted DePaul since day 1.[/quote]

Lots of internal BE politics on that one. The same politics that have resulted in the split.[/quote]

All correct…and bad for us.

Folks, the most important clause in that story is:

“A large urban research institution, U.N.C.-Charlotte…”

When the NY Times refers to US as a research institution, that is important - very, very important. Frankly that means we have arrived on the national scene in a very important way. They don’t describe the other schools in the article that way.

THIS is what the University has been striving for (with all the Ph.D. and other graduate programs) over the past two decades. This matters. Big-time.