Espin is mainly a bunch of hacks and shills who blabber scripted replys.Mike and Mike..mental midgets Stew Scott a carolina shill..cant even pronounce players names..Goodman ..Olberman..cmon..a couple of dookies and dickhead Vee

Looks like UConn got the last laugh. I'll bet the Big East is hating themselves for kicking out UConn now.

espn must be beside themselves. which conference do they hate more and wish to fail? the AAC or the BE?

(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.

the big east2 picking creighton and butler over vcu or george mason (4 similar schools basketball wise, so why not go with the religious schools when all your choices have similar prestige) doesn't mean they wouldn't have jumped at uconn and cincy.

(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 09:02 AM)john01992 Wrote:  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.

Hilarious.

Quote: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.

So what is it? Opponent or proponent? What you said is directly contradictory to yourself.

There is no doubt that FSU and Clemson is what got Louisville into the conference. They are 2 of the southern schools, by the way. Syracuse has little pull in that conference as they are the new boys on the block.

Quote: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.

Of course they did. That is the only reason Syracuse is in the conference... the ACC is counting on Syracuse delivering NYC.

Quote: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.

You can thank ESPN. You would have gotten neither of those without ESPN going to bat for you.

Quote: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.

FSU is a huge proponent in that because they do NOT want to play the bottom feeders, which hurts their chances of making the playoff. Syracuse is one of those that they have zero interest in playing, by the way.

Quote: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.

Of course Syracuse has a voice. They are in the conference, after all. That point of the matter is that they could not have gotten UConn into the conference under any circumstances. The powers that be did not want another basketball school, they needed a school that has good prospects in football. Simple as that. Syracuse and Pitt were 2 schools that were brought in for their TV and basketball prowess, which obviously pissed off Clemson and FSU. Any expansion was going to be predicated on football.

Quote: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.

I never said anything about 2nd class citizens. What I said is that Syracuse had little say in expansion this time around. It was based on what the existing members wanted... Syracuse wasn't even out of the Big East yet.

Quote: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.

Based on what you said, going after Butler was completely against the cultural fit of the conference. They are the only non-Catholic institution. Dayton, St. Louis, VCU, and Richmond all made significantly more sense than Butler. As I stated before, Fox put in the request because they were worried about the TV pull for the conference, including Xavier and Butler. UC has a much bigger TV following than both schools and Fox asked them to put out feelers (or made the call themselves) to see if there was interest from UConn and UC because they needed some big name schools with talent from day 1. Like I said, both schools said no thanks and that was the end of it. No long discussions, no negotiations.

It is great that you are so interested in the AAC, however. Apparently the ACC is not what you want it to be if you want to hang out on this board all day long and rip on UConn and UC. Once again the ACC is shown up by a "small time" conference. Some day the ACC will step out of the AAC/Big East shadow, but I'm not sure when that will be. Maybe after the next expansion.

you know MLB you coulda saved us both some time by saying "my opinion overrules your facts" so I wouldn't have to read your BS.

(04-09-2014 10:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  you know MLB you coulda saved us both some time by saying "my opinion overrules your facts" so I wouldn't have to read your BS.

You have zero facts. You just come here and spew your venom towards UConn and the AAC.

You have zero respect from anyone on this site due to your ridiculous statements.

You contradict yourself in your posts. You make things up as "fact." You overestimate the importance of Syracuse.

Syracuse is not Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, or Alabama. Get over yourself.

(04-09-2014 10:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 10:10 AM)john01992 Wrote:  you know MLB you coulda saved us both some time by saying "my opinion overrules your facts" so I wouldn't have to read your BS.

You have zero facts. You just come here and spew your venom towards UConn and the AAC.

You have zero respect from anyone on this site due to your ridiculous statements.

You contradict yourself in your posts. You make things up as "fact." You overestimate the importance of Syracuse.

Syracuse is not Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, or Alabama. Get over yourself.

dude ==> the syracuse AD proposes a major scheduling change and the ACC follows him on that. you dismiss that using the unproven opinion that "fsu wants it for easier scheduling purposes" something that has no factual backing and is pure speculation.

you then proceed to spin pitt/cuse as BB only moves despite the fact that historically & currently both have tremendous FB programs that clearly as good if not better than most ACC programs.

and you wonder why I don't take you seriously and consider you a troll?????? you honestly think the ACC would of moved the tourny in NYC without syracuse? all your talking points are troll talking points. you are incapable of giving credit when credit is due.

Dude, we are specifically talking about your assertion that Syracuse could have gotten UConn into the ACC. Syracuse doesn't have the pull for that type of move. It was shown when Louisville was invited to the ACC that Florida State and Clemson has more power than Syracuse when it comes to membership moves in that conference.

As far as Syracuse and Pitt football goes, everyone knows that neither school has done anything of note on the field in years. Stop trying to pretend that your football program had something to do with it. It had to do with ESPN wanting markets.

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)

(04-09-2014 11:04 AM)mlb Wrote:  Dude, we are specifically talking about your assertion that Syracuse could have gotten UConn into the ACC. Syracuse doesn't have the pull for that type of move. It was shown when Louisville was invited to the ACC that Florida State and Clemson has more power than Syracuse when it comes to membership moves in that conference.

As far as Syracuse and Pitt football goes, everyone knows that neither school has done anything of note on the field in years. Stop trying to pretend that your football program had something to do with it. It had to do with ESPN wanting markets.

you would think that someone would give up by now.

but if the ACC did want cuse and SU said "only with uconn" we'd see uconn in the acc.

only 5 ACC teams won their bowl game this year. 2 of them were pitt/cuse. trying to downplay pitt/cuse's football is about as dumb as arguing gravity doesn't exist. trying to say conference realignment is all about BB is even dumber.

(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.

It was obvious the day that Syracuse and Pitt were added that NYC was going to be a future stop for the ACC tournament. It didn't have a permanent home and made total sense. Of course, they didn't get MSG like many ACC fans stated. The Nets' arena is nice, however, and they'll get great coverage there. You are pointing out something that Syracuse didn't do at all, it was part of the reason for bringing Syracuse in.

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. FSU was then adamant on changing the scheduling philosophy because of the risks associated with the playoff and SOS importance.

Syracuse had zero pull to get UConn into the conference, which, once again, is what you stated in this thread. The ACC is still run by the old guard, and if you go back to when UL was invited you'll also remember Pitino saying he had a sit down with Coach K and administrators from Duke in the Bahamas (at that preseason basketball tourney) about what needs to be done to get Louisville into the ACC. It wasn't with Boeheim or anybody from Syracuse, but with the old guard.

(04-09-2014 11:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  only 5 ACC teams won their bowl game this year. 2 of them were pitt/cuse. trying to downplay pitt/cuse's football is about as dumb as arguing gravity doesn't exist. trying to say conference realignment is all about BB is even dumber.

Arguing that Syracuse and Pitt are major in football is ridiculous. It is just like the Houston and Tulane fans that are gloating over UConn's basketball championships on the Big East board.

I said Syracuse and Pitt were added based on market and ESPN. Go reread my post. Neither was added for their football prowess.

(04-09-2014 11:21 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  only 5 ACC teams won their bowl game this year. 2 of them were pitt/cuse. trying to downplay pitt/cuse's football is about as dumb as arguing gravity doesn't exist. trying to say conference realignment is all about BB is even dumber.

Arguing that Syracuse and Pitt are major in football is ridiculous. It is just like the Houston and Tulane fans that are gloating over UConn's basketball championships on the Big East board.

I said Syracuse and Pitt were added based on market and ESPN. Go reread my post. Neither was added for their football prowess.

their football programs have better history than over half the ACC and this year they weren't exactly scrubs in acc play.

at this point the ranting done by you is just a pathetic g5 fan butthurt over the whole "AAC" situation

(04-09-2014 11:19 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(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.

It was obvious the day that Syracuse and Pitt were added that NYC was going to be a future stop for the ACC tournament. It didn't have a permanent home and made total sense. Of course, they didn't get MSG like many ACC fans stated. The Nets' arena is nice, however, and they'll get great coverage there. You are pointing out something that Syracuse didn't do at all, it was part of the reason for bringing Syracuse in.

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. FSU was then adamant on changing the scheduling philosophy because of the risks associated with the playoff and SOS importance.

Syracuse had zero pull to get UConn into the conference, which, once again, is what you stated in this thread. The ACC is still run by the old guard, and if you go back to when UL was invited you'll also remember Pitino saying he had a sit down with Coach K and administrators from Duke in the Bahamas (at that preseason basketball tourney) about what needs to be done to get Louisville into the ACC. It wasn't with Boeheim or anybody from Syracuse, but with the old guard.

translation: I am a stubborn homer who can't give credit when credit is due.

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.

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

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

(04-09-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  at this point the ranting done by you is just a pathetic g5 fan butthurt over the whole "AAC" situation

Butthurt? Seems to me that if anyone is butthurt it is you thanks to the fact that UConn won the title. You came here and tried to rain on their parade and talk up Syracuse. Time for you to go home.

(04-09-2014 11:21 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-09-2014 11:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  only 5 ACC teams won their bowl game this year. 2 of them were pitt/cuse. trying to downplay pitt/cuse's football is about as dumb as arguing gravity doesn't exist. trying to say conference realignment is all about BB is even dumber.

I said Syracuse and Pitt were added based on market and ESPN. Go reread my post. Neither was added for their football prowess.

Simple as that. Syracuse and Pitt were 2 schools that were brought in for their basketball prowess

^^^^
you are so full of ****

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?

Let's let Jimmy Boeheim spell out the reality for us:

(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.