(10-04-2017 10:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the moment the ACC added Pitt. Try again.[/b]

Fairly or unfairly, UConn was always regarded as the ring-leader of the lawsuit. They were the most up front and adamant about it, UConn seemed to take the lead publicly in complaining about what the ACC did and about how it would harm them because they had invested in a new stadium. Yes, Pitt and others were part of the suit, but they were quieter about it. And public perceptions matter. If you run a big organization, legal disputes are inevitable so you don't necessarily hold a grudge when someone files against you. But it's one thing if the filer stays relatively quiet about it and it is worked out behind the scenes, another when the opponent goes public and disparages you in front of the cameras. That is what raises hackles.

And IIRC, it hurts to have a specific enemy, and BC in particular has long held a grudge because of disparaging comments directed at it by UConn officials at the time. It's hard to get admitted to a conference when there's one member who is an adamant "No", and UConn seems to have that in BC.

Bottom line is that IMO, the ACC remembers.

And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

Spot on!

Actually it's not "spot on". At all. In fact, nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.