(10-04-2017 11:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:51 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:30 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

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

The ACC knew and invited Pitt anyway. So we circle back to my original point, the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day the ACC invited Pitt. Nothing you can come up with will change that fact.

I disagree...UConn made it personal. And Blumenthal was scoring political points to push it to ridiculous levels.

So Pitt only kind of sued and UConn hardcore sued on the same law suit?

Yes...hey, didn't VTech sue also back in '03?

It was Blumenthal you need to blame...he made it personal.

So...once again, I'm right that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died when Pitt was invited, and you and quo are wrong. These are the facts of the case, your honor. The defense rests.