(04-09-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  you are so full of ****

mlb Wrote:FSU was vocal on wanting to add football strength, hence Louisville, in the last shakeup (and got the academia people to ignore the rankings of UL's academics). They lobbied because they needed help in football because the last 2 (Syracuse and Pitt) were not added for football but for ESPN/TV

john01992 Wrote:but then again you also said syracuse had no power whereas pretty much everyone else in the acc has power in the ACC.

but then you did a 180 and said you weren't classifying them as 2nd class conference members.

should i ad compulsive liar to the list of things that describe you?

Dude... you are arguing that Syracuse has MORE power than the rest of the ACC. That they could have brought UConn in themselves if they had wanted. If anyone is arguing about having 2nd class conference members it is you!

Syracuse does not have the power to due anything on their own. It is that simple.

I'd say that it is common sense here but I recognize that you have zero common sense. You are a homer who overvalues your school's power.

(04-09-2014 11:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:27 AM)john01992 Wrote:  translation: I am a stubborn homer who can't give credit when credit is due.

You are a moronic homer who overvalues your school.

Quote:if your other posts haven't already proven your stupidity this one surely will. you legitimately think basketball coaches have influence in conference realignment. maybe you should have a nice little conversation with boeheim on that one.

Sigh... usually it is the coaches who have the connections into other schools in order to start the conversation. Coach K and Pitino but made references to their "talk" when UL was invited into the ACC. The ice has to be broken somewhere, and from their "talks" it almost certainly was a key component of getting UL into the ACC.

Quote:if adding syracuse was conditional on also adding uconn.......

there is a very good chance the acc would of done just that.

2 things about that.

1. That isn't what you asserted earlier in this thread. You just said Syracuse could have gotten them in when UL came instead.

2. We've never argued the point that if Syracuse wanted UConn instead of Pitt that it would have happened. I think that would have been an interesting dynamic and I can see a possibility of that being true. Of course, ESPN had the biggest say in all of it and it is apparent now that after the Big East turned down ESPN's offer that ESPN had a backup deal to get Syracuse AND Pitt to the ACC, not any other schools.

1. your presumption is based on the concept of the network theory. while interesting it is still just a theory and should never be taken as something factual to base judgement on.

2. had cuse had SOME INTEREST in keeping uconn around they would not have been such a big proponent of ville. hence the reason I stand corrected on my original point that cuse did in fact abandon uconn and left them to fend for themselves. although it seems that cuse was actively trying to block uconn.

3. the concept that BB coaches have enough say to affect the outcome of realignment is hilarious as best. the ville AD fully explained from point A to Z exactly how the move came about and nowhere did he say K or ricky had anything to do with it. in fact the "ice had to be broken somewhere" was something he explained himself ==> and here's a lil clue for you.....it had nothing to do with pitino.

4. i may be a homer, but it doesn't alter my stances and I am at least man enough to give credit when credit is due.

(04-09-2014 09:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 12:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  while uconn didn't leave, everyone else left uconn and none of them had the common courtesy to bring them along with them. the c7 + cuse could of found a room for them in the acc or be if they wanted to but none of them wanted to.

they got booted from the group of schools know as the BE, but they didn't get booted from the conference.

Completely inaccurate.

For 1, we all know that the AAC is actually the Big East conference, it is the original corporation.

2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

3. As far as the ACC goes, Syracuse had zero power a year ago and, to be perfectly honest, still has little now. The power is still in the hands of the old guard from tobacco road. While Syracuse, Pitt, and BC may have a nice voting block, they certainly don't hold the power in that conference. The old Big East schools are most certainly more interested in the old guard voting than the Syracuse/Northeast voting. Miami and VT fit in to the old guard MUCH more so than the northeast. Louisville has always considered itself more like North Carolina than Syracuse.

If you want to come here and talk sh!t, at least make it believable ****. No wonder everyone makes fun of you in the Spin Room. You make outlandish comments that are completely full of crap.

comments like these annoy the crap out of me. and the worst part about it is that it is nearly identical to the crap you spew in the spin room. your "counting your personal opinion as factual" mentality as a poster does get old.

you think "oh because its the ACC only tobacco road has a say, the northern schools get ignored"

the reality is ==> everything we have seen shows that that is not the case at all.

the louisville AD has gone on the record numerous times stating that it was SYRACUSE that was his most vocal opponent in the acc. he acknowledged that without fsu/cu support it wouldn't have happened, but time & time again he has referred to SU AD gross as his "voice within the conference" when the cards were seeking membership.
Ever since SU joined the ACC we have seen the ACC push their presence in NYC with the pinstripe bowl, moving the ACC tourny there, and a wide scale NYC marketing campaigning modeled after SUs "NY college team" campaign.

pitt/cuse were two of only 3 schools total who received an equal TV payout in year #1. on top of that cuse received extremely favorable scheduling in both FB/BB.

we keep hearing about autonomy when it comes to determining a CCG from the ACC. are you aware of where that concept came from? the first known mention of it came from Syracuse AD gross proposing a no divisions scheduling arrangement in an internal ACC email.

so while your personal stigma may say cuse has no say in what the ACC does. the reality of the situation is that SU not only has a political presence within the conference, they are a very powerful voice. and while you refuse to accept this because of your personal stigma, the truth is political power within conferences comes down to each schools AD. WSU in the pac10 had arguably the most influence on the conference during realignment because their AD had so much experience and so much respect from the fellow p12 ADs. the SU AD is one of the most respected ADs in the ACC hence the reason the other ACC ADs listen to him when he talks.

you also have a failed view on conf. realignment. what we have seen with the sec, pac12, & acc is embracing their new members rather than treating them as 2nd class inferior schools. Doing that helps stabilize the conference whereas treating them as 2nd class schools is toxic to the health of the conference. you can bet your *** that these conferences looked at what happened with the WAC/b12 as an example of what happens when new conference affiliations are built on resentment.

as for the NBE. that "feelers" concept for uconn/cincy was never reported on the large scale for starters. secondly it directly contradicts the cultural fit & conference stability model the c7 were looking for when they left. third it directly goes against how the c7 expanded when they went after private schools. and lastly these same feelings that i have about the feelers concept are echoed by fellow posters in this thread.

sorry that my reality conflicts with your fantasy world. but that's just the way it is.

(04-09-2014 11:07 AM)john01992 Wrote:  It was syracuse that pushed hard for louisville, it was syracuse that pushed hard for an NYC tourny, it was syracuse that pushed for a new way to schedule conference games.

and it just so happens that cuse was publicly the most vocal proponents on all 3 of these events.

The ACC ended up doing all of these things. but yeah ==> cuse clearly has very little political power in the ACC (sarcasm)

So Syracuse was Louisville's most vocal opponent and pushed hard for Louisville?[/b]

Syracuse is scared of UConn's ability to get to and win the big one:

(04-09-2014 11:38 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  you are so full of ****

mlb Wrote:FSU was vocal on wanting to add football strength, hence Louisville, in the last shakeup (and got the academia people to ignore the rankings of UL's academics). They lobbied because they needed help in football because the last 2 (Syracuse and Pitt) were not added for football but for ESPN/TV

john01992 Wrote:but then again you also said syracuse had no power whereas pretty much everyone else in the acc has power in the ACC.

but then you did a 180 and said you weren't classifying them as 2nd class conference members.

should i ad compulsive liar to the list of things that describe you?

Dude... you are arguing that Syracuse has MORE power than the rest of the ACC. That they could have brought UConn in themselves if they had wanted. If anyone is arguing about having 2nd class conference members it is you!

Syracuse does not have the power to due anything on their own. It is that simple.

I'd say that it is common sense here but I recognize that you have zero common sense. You are a homer who overvalues your school's power.

id say you were smart but then again you completely ignored a point I already touched base on you again.

just like any other profession the guys who have the most respect/experience are the ones who can convince others to see things their way. we saw WSU the weakest p10 school dominate the decision making process for the p10 during realignment. we saw providence dominate the big east politically. ==> are you seeing a trend here?

and my reasoning for cuse having a large voice in what the ACC does is because for the 3rd time a major ACC decision went in favor of what cuse wanted and was highly supportive of. sorry but it doesn't get any more clear as day than that. TBH i can't think of a single example of cuse not getting something they wanted. they even got an equal split of the TV revenue in year #1. only dumb*** you attributes that to espn and not the well known fact that it is the conferences who decide how to split tv revenue.

and FYI i am not saying SU has more political power than other ACC schools. I am just proving wrong a certain stupidhead who says cuse has none or very little political power within the conference.

(04-09-2014 11:45 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 09:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 12:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  while uconn didn't leave, everyone else left uconn and none of them had the common courtesy to bring them along with them. the c7 + cuse could of found a room for them in the acc or be if they wanted to but none of them wanted to.

they got booted from the group of schools know as the BE, but they didn't get booted from the conference.

Completely inaccurate.

For 1, we all know that the AAC is actually the Big East conference, it is the original corporation.

2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

3. As far as the ACC goes, Syracuse had zero power a year ago and, to be perfectly honest, still has little now. The power is still in the hands of the old guard from tobacco road. While Syracuse, Pitt, and BC may have a nice voting block, they certainly don't hold the power in that conference. The old Big East schools are most certainly more interested in the old guard voting than the Syracuse/Northeast voting. Miami and VT fit in to the old guard MUCH more so than the northeast. Louisville has always considered itself more like North Carolina than Syracuse.

If you want to come here and talk sh!t, at least make it believable ****. No wonder everyone makes fun of you in the Spin Room. You make outlandish comments that are completely full of crap.

comments like these annoy the crap out of me. and the worst part about it is that it is nearly identical to the crap you spew in the spin room. your "counting your personal opinion as factual" mentality as a poster does get old.

you think "oh because its the ACC only tobacco road has a say, the northern schools get ignored"

the reality is ==> everything we have seen shows that that is not the case at all.

the louisville AD has gone on the record numerous times stating that it was SYRACUSE that was his most vocal opponent in the acc. he acknowledged that without fsu/cu support it wouldn't have happened, but time & time again he has referred to SU AD gross as his "voice within the conference" when the cards were seeking membership.
Ever since SU joined the ACC we have seen the ACC push their presence in NYC with the pinstripe bowl, moving the ACC tourny there, and a wide scale NYC marketing campaigning modeled after SUs "NY college team" campaign.

pitt/cuse were two of only 3 schools total who received an equal TV payout in year #1. on top of that cuse received extremely favorable scheduling in both FB/BB.

we keep hearing about autonomy when it comes to determining a CCG from the ACC. are you aware of where that concept came from? the first known mention of it came from Syracuse AD gross proposing a no divisions scheduling arrangement in an internal ACC email.

so while your personal stigma may say cuse has no say in what the ACC does. the reality of the situation is that SU not only has a political presence within the conference, they are a very powerful voice. and while you refuse to accept this because of your personal stigma, the truth is political power within conferences comes down to each schools AD. WSU in the pac10 had arguably the most influence on the conference during realignment because their AD had so much experience and so much respect from the fellow p12 ADs. the SU AD is one of the most respected ADs in the ACC hence the reason the other ACC ADs listen to him when he talks.

you also have a failed view on conf. realignment. what we have seen with the sec, pac12, & acc is embracing their new members rather than treating them as 2nd class inferior schools. Doing that helps stabilize the conference whereas treating them as 2nd class schools is toxic to the health of the conference. you can bet your *** that these conferences looked at what happened with the WAC/b12 as an example of what happens when new conference affiliations are built on resentment.

as for the NBE. that "feelers" concept for uconn/cincy was never reported on the large scale for starters. secondly it directly contradicts the cultural fit & conference stability model the c7 were looking for when they left. third it directly goes against how the c7 expanded when they went after private schools. and lastly these same feelings that i have about the feelers concept are echoed by fellow posters in this thread.

sorry that my reality conflicts with your fantasy world. but that's just the way it is.

(04-09-2014 11:07 AM)john01992 Wrote:  It was syracuse that pushed hard for louisville, it was syracuse that pushed hard for an NYC tourny, it was syracuse that pushed for a new way to schedule conference games.

and it just so happens that cuse was publicly the most vocal proponents on all 3 of these events.

The ACC ended up doing all of these things. but yeah ==> cuse clearly has very little political power in the ACC (sarcasm)

So Syracuse was Louisville's most vocal opponent and pushed hard for Louisville?[/b]

it the first bold there's a typo. opponent should of been proponent.

from a public standpoint yes. we don't know what clemson/fsu said in internal acc meetings. and common logic says they were in favor of it. but we do know what cuse was doing and they were clearly one of the biggest proponents of ville.
http://loumag.epubxp.com/i/111400/68

Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

It must really suck to be owned by one of your closest geographic rivals. I feel for Syracuse fans.

Can't win in football... can't win in basketball. UConn getting tons of great press and the only thing johnny can do is come here and try to tear them down. His school may be getting paid, but they aren't performing at the level of UConn on the field and court, that is for sure.

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

Crazy. Then again, anybody who understands college sports understands that UCONN surpassed Syracuse many years ago in terms of athletic prowess. The fact that the main guy in this thread who's arguing against this is barely intellectually capable of stringing three consecutive words together really speaks volumes to this.

Maybe syracuse was just added as "camp fodder " for the acc. Another lackey to bend over for Tobacco Road.After that choke job this season isnt it evident ?

(04-09-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

It must really suck to be owned by one of your closest geographic rivals. I feel for Syracuse fans.

Can't win in football... can't win in basketball. UConn getting tons of great press and the only thing johnny can do is come here and try to tear them down. His school may be getting paid, but they aren't performing at the level of UConn on the field and court, that is for sure.

(04-09-2014 12:57 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

Crazy. Then again, anybody who understands college sports understands that UCONN surpassed Syracuse many years ago in terms of athletic prowess. The fact that the main guy in this thread who's arguing against this is barely intellectually capable of stringing three consecutive words together really speaks volumes to this.

(04-09-2014 07:36 PM)chiller99 Wrote:  Maybe syracuse was just added as "camp fodder " for the acc. Another lackey to bend over for Tobacco Road.After that choke job this season isnt it evident ?

when you have to resort to sh!t talking cuse in a thread about uconn.....you have lost the arguement

(04-09-2014 10:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

It must really suck to be owned by one of your closest geographic rivals. I feel for Syracuse fans.

Can't win in football... can't win in basketball. UConn getting tons of great press and the only thing johnny can do is come here and try to tear them down. His school may be getting paid, but they aren't performing at the level of UConn on the field and court, that is for sure.

(04-09-2014 12:57 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

Crazy. Then again, anybody who understands college sports understands that UCONN surpassed Syracuse many years ago in terms of athletic prowess. The fact that the main guy in this thread who's arguing against this is barely intellectually capable of stringing three consecutive words together really speaks volumes to this.

(04-09-2014 07:36 PM)chiller99 Wrote:  Maybe syracuse was just added as "camp fodder " for the acc. Another lackey to bend over for Tobacco Road.After that choke job this season isnt it evident ?

when you have to resort to sh!t talking cuse in a thread about uconn.....you have lost the arguement

1-6

(04-09-2014 10:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  when you have to resort to sh!t talking cuse in a thread about uconn.....you have lost the arguement

When you resort to coming to an AAC board and trying to talk about how Syracuse supposedly had the power to bring UConn in but won't you have shown you have little man's syndrome and your upset that your school doesn't compete at the level of UConn.

Now go away, jack@ss.

(04-08-2014 11:10 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

I don't know how much is fact and how much of it is fiction. It was "reported" but I don't think it was ever confirmed. Not only that, there is a functional problem in the narrative in that UConn and Cincinnati, as larger public institutions, were regarded as "a poor fit" among the generally smaller, Roman Catholic, "prestige name" schools. So, when the decision was made to add two schools to the "C-7," Creighton (Roman Catholic) and Butler (Presbyterian?)...both religious schools...were added. As opposed to VCU, or George Mason, etc...

So I'm not really sure that the NEW Big East really had interest in UConn and UC at all... If they did, certainly UConn was the preferred candidate.

mlb is correct. I remember reading numerous reports about this.

According to sources at Connecticut, some UConn officials were considering a plan that would keep the Huskies with the Catholic 7–Marquette, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Villanova and Providence, as well as Cincinnati.

Others, including UConn Athletic director Warde Manuel, who was at the Big East meeting in Dallas, emphatically said that the Huskies' intention was to keep all sports together in one league.

CBS link

Appreciate the backup, ivet. I didn't have a link in front of me. I heard it through more than the media as well. It most certainly was put on the table, but it was quickly shot down due to the issue getting football into a good situation.

(04-09-2014 10:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:17 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

It must really suck to be owned by one of your closest geographic rivals. I feel for Syracuse fans.

Can't win in football... can't win in basketball. UConn getting tons of great press and the only thing johnny can do is come here and try to tear them down. His school may be getting paid, but they aren't performing at the level of UConn on the field and court, that is for sure.

(04-09-2014 12:57 PM)CD11 Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 12:07 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  Syracuse is 1-6 against UConn in football in the last 7 games, many of them blowouts, and that 1 win only occurred because the stench of Syracuse football infected UConn with a Pasqualoni.

Just thought I'd add that to the conversation.

Crazy. Then again, anybody who understands college sports understands that UCONN surpassed Syracuse many years ago in terms of athletic prowess. The fact that the main guy in this thread who's arguing against this is barely intellectually capable of stringing three consecutive words together really speaks volumes to this.

(04-09-2014 07:36 PM)chiller99 Wrote:  Maybe syracuse was just added as "camp fodder " for the acc. Another lackey to bend over for Tobacco Road.After that choke job this season isnt it evident ?

when you have to resort to sh!t talking cuse in a thread about uconn.....you have lost the arguement

Under that rationale you lost in your first post...

(04-10-2014 10:29 AM)ivet Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 11:10 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

I don't know how much is fact and how much of it is fiction. It was "reported" but I don't think it was ever confirmed. Not only that, there is a functional problem in the narrative in that UConn and Cincinnati, as larger public institutions, were regarded as "a poor fit" among the generally smaller, Roman Catholic, "prestige name" schools. So, when the decision was made to add two schools to the "C-7," Creighton (Roman Catholic) and Butler (Presbyterian?)...both religious schools...were added. As opposed to VCU, or George Mason, etc...

So I'm not really sure that the NEW Big East really had interest in UConn and UC at all... If they did, certainly UConn was the preferred candidate.

mlb is correct. I remember reading numerous reports about this.

According to sources at Connecticut, some UConn officials were considering a plan that would keep the Huskies with the Catholic 7–Marquette, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Villanova and Providence, as well as Cincinnati.

Others, including UConn Athletic director Warde Manuel, who was at the Big East meeting in Dallas, emphatically said that the Huskies' intention was to keep all sports together in one league.

CBS link

Look... I do not deny that it was speculated on. I don't even deny that maybe it was "floated." But I still question how much of the story was in fact, fact, and how much was, in fact, fiction.

Just because a "source" or even "sources" report something does not indicate just how serious or likely something is. And when the report comes from NJ Blogger Mark Blaudschun...

Was it a possibility? Sure. Was "a call" made? OK, I'll take y'all's word for it. Was it "serious"? I doubt it. The notion of UConn and Cincinnati being "invited" to remain with the "C-7" faction simply makes no sense. (UConnn makes more sense than UC, FWIW.) To the point where, IF UConn and UC...particularly UC...had said "SURE, we'll do that!" I can't see it actually coming to pass.

The (N)BE was already moving to add Xavier. There is no way that UC would have been welcomed into the fold with Xavier already slated in. Xavier wouldn't have allowed it, it would have meant a duplication in the market...

Hell, all sorts of things get reported and discussed on these boards. In just the past couple of days, there is a reporter from NY arguing that UConn should still ditch FB and seek to rejoin the BE. Does that mean it's going to come to pass?

In those turbulent days many options were discussed. I remember the possibility of UC going to the MW was discussed. Do I believe "a call" was made? Probably. Many options were floated. But the ratio between fact and fiction is tricky.

(04-10-2014 02:08 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Was it a possibility? Sure. Was "a call" made? OK, I'll take y'all's word for it. Was it "serious"? I doubt it.

Was the call serious? Yes. Did it ever get to the point of actually having a chance? No. Like I said, no football was a no go.

Quote:The notion of UConn and Cincinnati being "invited" to remain with the "C-7" faction simply makes no sense. (UConnn makes more sense than UC, FWIW.) To the point where, IF UConn and UC...particularly UC...had said "SURE, we'll do that!" I can't see it actually coming to pass.

The feelers were put out to see if UC and UConn would go. That was it. It didn't get far, was just floated.

Quote:The (N)BE was already moving to add Xavier. There is no way that UC would have been welcomed into the fold with Xavier already slated in. Xavier wouldn't have allowed it, it would have meant a duplication in the market...

This was WAY before Xavier was invited. This was early on when the C7 started working on their "split."

Quote:In those turbulent days many options were discussed. I remember the possibility of UC going to the MW was discussed. Do I believe "a call" was made? Probably. Many options were floated. But the ratio between fact and fiction is tricky.

Sigh... I think you are reading way more into what I said than was there. This is the quote, and I stand by it.

mlb Wrote:2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

(04-10-2014 02:08 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-10-2014 10:29 AM)ivet Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 11:10 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(04-08-2014 09:15 AM)mlb Wrote:  2. It has been reported over and over that the Big East put out feelers to both UConn and Cincinnati as to whether they had interest of keeping all sports other than football in the new Big East. Neither school had any interest in a non-football conference, however, and politely declined.

I don't know how much is fact and how much of it is fiction. It was "reported" but I don't think it was ever confirmed. Not only that, there is a functional problem in the narrative in that UConn and Cincinnati, as larger public institutions, were regarded as "a poor fit" among the generally smaller, Roman Catholic, "prestige name" schools. So, when the decision was made to add two schools to the "C-7," Creighton (Roman Catholic) and Butler (Presbyterian?)...both religious schools...were added. As opposed to VCU, or George Mason, etc...

So I'm not really sure that the NEW Big East really had interest in UConn and UC at all... If they did, certainly UConn was the preferred candidate.

mlb is correct. I remember reading numerous reports about this.

According to sources at Connecticut, some UConn officials were considering a plan that would keep the Huskies with the Catholic 7–Marquette, DePaul, St. John's, Seton Hall, Georgetown, Villanova and Providence, as well as Cincinnati.

Others, including UConn Athletic director Warde Manuel, who was at the Big East meeting in Dallas, emphatically said that the Huskies' intention was to keep all sports together in one league.

CBS link

Look... I do not deny that it was speculated on. I don't even deny that maybe it was "floated." But I still question how much of the story was in fact, fact, and how much was, in fact, fiction.

Just because a "source" or even "sources" report something does not indicate just how serious or likely something is. And when the report comes from NJ Blogger Mark Blaudschun...

Was it a possibility? Sure. Was "a call" made? OK, I'll take y'all's word for it. Was it "serious"? I doubt it. The notion of UConn and Cincinnati being "invited" to remain with the "C-7" faction simply makes no sense. (UConnn makes more sense than UC, FWIW.) To the point where, IF UConn and UC...particularly UC...had said "SURE, we'll do that!" I can't see it actually coming to pass.

The (N)BE was already moving to add Xavier. There is no way that UC would have been welcomed into the fold with Xavier already slated in. Xavier wouldn't have allowed it, it would have meant a duplication in the market...

Hell, all sorts of things get reported and discussed on these boards. In just the past couple of days, there is a reporter from NY arguing that UConn should still ditch FB and seek to rejoin the BE. Does that mean it's going to come to pass?

In those turbulent days many options were discussed. I remember the possibility of UC going to the MW was discussed. Do I believe "a call" was made? Probably. Many options were floated. But the ratio between fact and fiction is tricky.

As a UCONN affiliate with acquaintances in the Athletic Department, I know for a fact that the Big East had conversations with UCONN in regards to breaking off with them in all sports but football. While UCONN decided to go with what was best for their athletics program as a whole (the AAC), that door still remains open for further discussion if UCONN ever has a change of direction (or if something drastic happens in college athletics). UCONN's relationship with the C7 still remains strong.

LOL... Fine... This is one of those arguments that is really kinda pointless because, as we all know, it never came to pass anyway.

But I have said my peace and I'm good with being wrong.