(03-06-2014 03:26 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 03:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 03:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I could care less what Wikipedia, or any other source you care to name says on the matter. American football is NOT Big East football. After this season, the only original Big East football member will be Temple, who got kicked out. UConn doesn't qualify, since they were 1-AA when the Big East began playing football. You could drag up a thousand sources to disagree with me, and you won't change my mind. I know the REAL truth. You and all these sources are wrong.

It's like how the Cleveland Browns aren't the REAL Cleveland Browns, even though they have the name and all the records. The Baltimore Ravens are the REAL Cleveland Browns. But the Ravens don't count any longer, since they moved, changed their name, and gave up their history. The only team left that was built by Paul Brown is the Bengals.

all i am saying is from a legal perspective the AAC/big east are the same

bit's got a point, even if he's being a grump about it. It's kind of like saying that the restaurant down the street with new management and a new menu is the same as what it used to be. Sure, it's the same building and name, but it's totally different.

yeah i know but we are arguing over a "since 1979" vs a "since 2013" sign on the front.

bit does have a point but in every sense the AAC is the legal successor to the BE

And once again John manages to take an aside about why the AAC was not named in the lawsuit and turn a perfectly interesting thread about player's pursuing a change in the way scholarships are handled into a totally irrelevant 2 pages of crap about the AAC.

This is called derailing a thread. Don't do it again!

I know it's your thread and you started a good one, just keep it on track. JR

(03-06-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And once again John manages to take an aside about why the AAC was not named in the lawsuit and turn a perfectly interesting thread about player's pursuing a change in the way scholarships are handled into a totally irrelevant 2 pages of crap about the AAC.

This is called derailing a thread. Don't do it again!

I know it's your thread and you started a good one, just keep it on track. JR

sorry dude but i think it is a valid point to touch base on. the big east legally is the AAC. if he should be suing a conference it should be the conference HE PLAYED IN. which in every legal sense is the AAC.

(03-06-2014 04:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-06-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And once again John manages to take an aside about why the AAC was not named in the lawsuit and turn a perfectly interesting thread about player's pursuing a change in the way scholarships are handled into a totally irrelevant 2 pages of crap about the AAC.

This is called derailing a thread. Don't do it again!

I know it's your thread and you started a good one, just keep it on track. JR

sorry dude but i think it is a valid point to touch base on. the big east legally is the AAC. if he should be suing a conference it should be the conference HE PLAYED IN. which in every legal sense is the AAC.

And past actions are the best predictor of future performance. We all get the point. But once it is stated it doesn't need to be needlessly debated for 2 pages. Chasing those rabbits derails threads. There is a lot more to be interestingly pursued if we keep talking about the lawsuit itself and whether or not it has potential to create broader ramifications for the NCAA or the whole stipend issue. That makes for interesting reading. Not two pages of arguing over whether or not the AAC should be named in a suit by a player from a former Big East school......yawn. It is the fact that you tend to chase rabbits instead of staying on point that keeps your contributions here from reaching a fuller and better realized potential. You have some great ideas, but they are lost on me when I have to pick through pages of pointless argument to find them, or follow them. This can be a very good long running thread, but not if it is constantly bogged down in esoteric arguments about ancillary issues to the topic.