(02-06-2014 09:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 02:22 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 12:51 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 11:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-05-2014 10:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  Otherwise Louisville would still be with their frequent conference partners, Cincinnati, Memphis and Houston (all in MVC, CUSA and AAC) and UConn would be in the ACC. But UConn burned bridges in 2005.

So did Pittsburgh and Va. Tech. Remind me again which conference those two reside in?

Big difference between being a ringleader of the lawsuits versus just going along for the ride. UConn was the ringleader. The lawsuits were filed in Connecticut. ACC officers including Swofford were named as defendants and sued individually. Connecticut's attorney general said this when filing the lawsuit:

Quote:"This lawsuit reveals a backroom conspiracy, born in secret, founded on greed, and carried out through calculated deceit. The story is a sad chapter in the history of college sports - a shameful example for students and athletes as well as academic institutions across the country," said Attorney General Blumenthal.

So now you're saying, "But... but... some guys from Pitt and VT were standing next to me when I burned those bridges down!"

Wrong, wrong, one thousand times wrong!!!!!!! "Tricky" Dicky may have been the face of the lawsuit, but the PITT President was the ringleader. He was also the clown who convinced the BE to turn down the TV deal that caused ESPiN to order the ACC to raid the BE. Gee, I wonder who benefitted from that glorious decision. It certainly wasn't UCONN.

So now you're saying, "But.....but.....Blumenthal was the one holding pressers, and the lawsuit was filed in CT!"

UConn was the face of the lawsuit. You elected the AG as governor (or Senator). It was Connecticut where all the noise was coming from. Maybe Pitt was smart enough to egg UConn on while saying nothing themselves. BC's president didn't say UConn wasn't getting in just because he was "afraid" of them. You don't sue someone and expect to join their club.

So using your logic, PITT and Va. Tech shouldn't be in the ACC. Especially since they (PITT was the ringleader, btw) were a part of the lawsuit as well. Also, DeFilippo waited 10sec. (maybe) before running to the press and proudly proclaiming that the great Boston College (and ESPiN) kept those a$$hats from Storrs out of the ACC. Nothing ESPiN says from this point forward holds ANY credibility.

For the record, (I really hate that phrase)"Tricky" Dicky was elected Senator, and most definitely never met a camera he didn't like. As was stated very clearly before, UCONN was the face of the lawsuit; NOT the ringleader.

(02-06-2014 05:34 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Frankly they should have taken the opportunity to grab MU and KU right then and there too instead of this eastern strategy they seem to be pursuing with RU and UMD (unless of course the rumors that going east was to appease PSU who was starting to look at the ACC are true)

And after the Football legal fiasco, no way the ACC wants to touch PSU - they're lucky the B1G didn't kick them out.

But yes, they should have grabbed KU/MU (instant rivalry game to add) and gone after MD (who would have been in the ACC waiting) and Rutgers (who wasn't going ANYWHERE anytime soon). They probably would have broken up either the B12 or the ACC right then and there (the SEC raids NC State or another ACC school, the B12 can't replace KU AND MU).

(02-06-2014 11:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They should have taken Louisville over TCU. Then, to get to 12 teams, take TCU and Cincinnati and you have a very nice, multi-regional 12 team league, as was originally intended.

I always say -- I would have taken BYU instead of WVU - it really would have removed the B12 from the action, so to speak, which is a good thing if their desire is to stay at 10.

If not BYU - it seemed a no-brainer to grab Louisville- 1) geography, 2) as a block on the ACC, and 3) basketball. Had that happend, UConn would be in the ACC, WVU in the AAC, and the B12 would be adding a Top 20 team in football and Top 10 in basketball instead of the joke that is WVU athletics.

I have it from one of the highest sources (not allowed to reveal who they are) a key player in the negotiations from one of the schools who was trying to get that invite from the B12, that a key booster who supports both Texas and TCU advised Deloss he needed to include TCU into the Big 12 and he said Deloss, "was never going to invite UH because of some ticket fiasco last time the schools played".

(02-09-2014 08:41 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I have it from one of the highest sources (not allowed to reveal who they are) a key player in the negotiations from one of the schools who was trying to get that invite from the B12, that a key booster who supports both Texas and TCU advised Deloss he needed to include TCU into the Big 12 and he said Deloss, "was never going to invite UH because of some ticket fiasco last time the schools played".

I'm pretty sure the last part is true. UH gave the shaft to a bunch of Texas fans after possibly putting their lives at risk with rickety temporary seating that got condemned days before the game. However, it wasn't uncommon for games at UH to be ticket fiascos.

As for the first part, I don't think a single booster would have that type of influence on the whole conference. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have tried.

(02-07-2014 11:04 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  

(02-06-2014 11:13 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  They should have taken Louisville over TCU. Then, to get to 12 teams, take TCU and Cincinnati and you have a very nice, multi-regional 12 team league, as was originally intended.

I always say -- I would have taken BYU instead of WVU - it really would have removed the B12 from the action, so to speak, which is a good thing if their desire is to stay at 10.

If not BYU - it seemed a no-brainer to grab Louisville- 1) geography, 2) as a block on the ACC, and 3) basketball. Had that happend, UConn would be in the ACC, WVU in the AAC, and the B12 would be adding a Top 20 team in football and Top 10 in basketball instead of the joke that is WVU athletics.

I'm pretty sure in the scenario that you outlined WVU would be going into the ACC before UConn.

WVU has a lot more tradition in football than UConn. A bigger stadium too.

(02-09-2014 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:41 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I have it from one of the highest sources (not allowed to reveal who they are) a key player in the negotiations from one of the schools who was trying to get that invite from the B12, that a key booster who supports both Texas and TCU advised Deloss he needed to include TCU into the Big 12 and he said Deloss, "was never going to invite UH because of some ticket fiasco last time the schools played".

I'm pretty sure the last part is true. UH gave the shaft to a bunch of Texas fans after possibly putting their lives at risk with rickety temporary seating that got condemned days before the game. However, it wasn't uncommon for games at UH to be ticket fiascos.

As for the first part, I don't think a single booster would have that type of influence on the whole conference. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have tried.

Actually the seats were never condemned and passed inspection. They were the same seats that were used for the Grandpree of Houston a few weeks before. UT was just trying to bully UH into moving the game to Reliant.

(02-10-2014 09:43 AM)jfournet Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 10:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-09-2014 08:41 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  I have it from one of the highest sources (not allowed to reveal who they are) a key player in the negotiations from one of the schools who was trying to get that invite from the B12, that a key booster who supports both Texas and TCU advised Deloss he needed to include TCU into the Big 12 and he said Deloss, "was never going to invite UH because of some ticket fiasco last time the schools played".

I'm pretty sure the last part is true. UH gave the shaft to a bunch of Texas fans after possibly putting their lives at risk with rickety temporary seating that got condemned days before the game. However, it wasn't uncommon for games at UH to be ticket fiascos.

As for the first part, I don't think a single booster would have that type of influence on the whole conference. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have tried.

Actually the seats were never condemned and passed inspection. They were the same seats that were used for the Grandpree of Houston a few weeks before. UT was just trying to bully UH into moving the game to Reliant.

Anyone who saw the pics of those "supports" knows that is merely a technicality. It was bush league work through and through.

Tuesday September 18 7:37 PM ET
Texas Stadium Seats Ruled Unstable

HOUSTON (AP) - More than 4,000 Texas football fans will have to watch Saturday's game against Houston on video screens or TV because temporary stands deemed unstable will be removed.

Houston had added 4,150 temporary seats to Robertson Stadium for the game to meet Texas' request for 10,000 tickets.

But after a safety inspection Monday, University of Houston President Arthur K. Smith said Tuesday that the structure will be dismantled. He said that as he inspected the structure, ``I asked myself if I would feel comfortable sitting there with my wife and daughter and granddaughter. The answer was no.''

Smith said engineers recommended modifications to shore up the stands for Saturday's game. He determined there wasn't enough time to ensure safety.

Ticketholders with seats in the temporary stands will be able to watch the game on large video screens at the Hofheinz Pavilion. The game also will be broadcast nationally on ESPN.

Ticketholders who don't want to watch the game at the pavilion can get refunds, officials said.

``To me the safety and security of those attending the game are the paramount considerations,'' Smith said. ``I deeply regret the inconvenience to those who expected to view the game in person.''

Let me reemphasize this point:

Smith said engineers recommended modifications to shore up the stands for Saturday's game. He determined there wasn't enough time to ensure safety.

The UH president said they couldn't do the recommended modifications in time. That's effectively condemned. Even if the are only "recommended" (that's his choice of words), no business in their right mind would ignore that.

Was Reliant Stadium even completed at that point? It didn't open until August of the following year.

There was a time I was going to the UH/UT game in the Dome in the early 90s. I had some things to do and wanted to avoid the worst of the traffic and so I got there a little after the game started. I parked and got in the ticket line. At halftime, still not anywhere close to the window, I gave up and went home like hundreds of others. UH has long had Mickey Mouse administration. Its really a much better school than its leadership (Khator may finally be a change).

So the Bleachergate fiasco was not a first. It was just the final straw. There was some bad blood between UH President Pickering and the UT President in the 90s as well. Pickering threatened to make sure UT paid for it in the legislature if UT didn't play home and home and claimed he had the support of the head of the senate finance committee. The UT president called his bluff and asked the head of the finance committee who said he had no interest in getting involved.