(06-19-2014 04:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As for Delaney and the B1G's actions, they simply had no choice. They could not destroy the ACC by getting UVA, UNC, GATech, et al. so they took what they could, UMD. They didn't want UConn so they chose Rutgers to pair with UMD. The threat was real in that if PSU left, the B1G TV deal would not be worth as much (the deal soon to be renewed/increased). The B1G either had to expand to the east to protect PSU or run the risk of losing PSU. Again, they already lost opportunity with four key schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou and ND), were rejected by several key schools (UVA, UNC, DUKE, GATech) and were left with what they could get.

R
One quick correction, Syracuse and Pitt were not off the table at this point. If the Big Ten had called as the situation was at the time, they likely would have accepted just as TCU never entered the Big East. That's no longer the case (with the ACC grant of rights), but at the time it almost certainly would have been.

As for claims of interference by the ACC, it's not only a claim to show both sides were trying to interrupt and thus ACC seeking massive damages are uncalled for. I don't think it's a big point.

Like with almost all of these settlements (outside of West Virgina which left with less than a years notice), I expect the final settlement to be about half the official exit penalties here.

Actually, most teams that left one conference to go to another conference paid their respective exit fees.Syracuse and Pitt both paid more than the minimum exit fee to leave. Louisville paid their exit fee. So did Miami and VT and BC.WV paid much more because of the timing and the way they left. So really most schools paid the required exit fees to leave. I think Nebraska and Colorado both negotiated to leave the Big twelve.

Maryland get your checkbook and write that check for Big Bucks! When you play with the Big Boys it is going to cost you!

It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

(06-19-2014 04:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As for Delaney and the B1G's actions, they simply had no choice. They could not destroy the ACC by getting UVA, UNC, GATech, et al. so they took what they could, UMD. They didn't want UConn so they chose Rutgers to pair with UMD. The threat was real in that if PSU left, the B1G TV deal would not be worth as much (the deal soon to be renewed/increased). The B1G either had to expand to the east to protect PSU or run the risk of losing PSU. Again, they already lost opportunity with four key schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou and ND), were rejected by several key schools (UVA, UNC, DUKE, GATech) and were left with what they could get.

One quick correction, Syracuse and Pitt were not off the table at this point. If the Big Ten had called as the situation was at the time, they likely would have accepted just as TCU never entered the Big East. That's no longer the case (with the ACC grant of rights), but at the time it almost certainly would have been.

As for claims of interference by the ACC, it's not only a claim to show both sides were trying to interrupt and thus ACC seeking massive damages are uncalled for. I don't think it's a big point.

Like with almost all of these settlements (outside of West Virgina which left with less than a years notice), I expect the final settlement to be about half the official exit penalties here.

They were absolutely off the table. Neither were going to go to the B10 over the ACC at that point unless they thought the conference was crumbling ala FSU going to the SEC or something, which wasn't happening, and the message board realignment chatter from the kooks had no basis in reality.

Well, TBH, I can really only speak for Pitt, but I assume as much for Syracuse. The Big10-centric view of the world is certainly interesting.

(06-19-2014 08:23 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

I'm having trouble with this line of thinking.

(06-19-2014 08:23 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

ACC outsider, but, wut?

(06-19-2014 08:57 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:23 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

I'm having trouble with this line of thinking.

It led to the departure of the popular football coach, Bobby Ross, who went on to Georgia Tech, where he won the national championship in 1990.

Basketball HC Lefty Driesell was fired and AD Dick Dull resigned. Both were very popular among alumni and fans.

After Bias' death, the Washington Post investigated the graduation rate among athletes at the University. This led to the imposition of strict admission requirements - a major source of complaint by both Ralph Friedgen and Gary Williams.

The athletic department lost two ADs, Lew Perkins (87-90) and Andy Geiger (90-94), in a short period of time. Perkins left after the NCAA investigated Lefty Driesell's replacement, Bob Wade. Geiger left a financially unstable athletic department carrying a $51 million debt.

Ultimately Debbie Yow was hired. During her tenure, the Maryland women won 17 of 20 national championships. The strict admissions requirements crippled the men's sports.

(06-19-2014 08:23 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

NJ2MD makes great points - I would add the following:

Bias's death was a shock, I saw him go all-world in the Dean Dome and reveled in the slack jawed UNC fans who were seeing the ACC's best played since David Thompson put it to them.

But the Bias death was not the start of the problems. I would characterize it this way - in 1953 when MD pulled Duke, Clemson, and SC out of the Southern Conference and the group pulled UNC, NC State and WF it was done to preserve big-time football among the major Southern Conference schools. MD had a huge investment in Jim Tatum.

A decade after engineering the pull-out, Duke essentially double-crossed the football powers by pushing through the 800 SAT rule in 1962 which had the net effect of eliminating many prospects from playing ball in the ACC and with that loss of physical talent came the loss of the ACC's tie to the Orange Bowl.

Duke deemphasized football in 1963 and the league declined to a mid-major state hurting the football ambitions of MD. On top of that, basketball began to be the main sport in the ACC for most schools and had taken over by the late 1960's when MD turned to Davidson coach Lefty Dreisel.

Lefty had three top five teams in the early 70's. The problem was that NC State had the top 1-2 team overlapping that period and when it was time to play for the ACC title, and the chance to go to the NCAA, you had to go through North Carolina, be in Greensboro, Charlotte, or Raleigh. He also faced a top 5 South Carolina Gamecock squad and a top 10 UNC team during this period - the pressure was huge and NC teams had an advantage in NC.

UNC has not always run the league. As Carolina's political power in the league began to rise in the 1960's that rise was at the cost of MD's influence. By the time of Bias's death in 85/86, UNC, Duke, and UVa politically ran the league.

MD, the once leader of the league, was marginalized as the shared power between UNC and Duke grew even larger, when NC State was taken out of the picture in 1991 and UVa's basketball program declined after Sampson and Wilson.

By the time the expansion moves began in the 90's, MD, who had always been against expansion, felt marginalized by FSU, but the power play that put VT back into the league is what really irked them because VT was not treated as an expansion team, but as the long wayward brother. Football needs caused the league to elevate VT in a way that MD was not prepared to see since they had formed the ACC in part to get away from VT back in 1953.

MD was becoming increasingly unhappy in the ACC for the past three decades. It was not unknown, but they were treated as if they had no place to go. Their gross campus administrative mismanagement in the late 90's and early 2000's (not just athletic spending), combined with the arrival of the Washington Nationals and the collapse of MD Football and Basketball created a huge hole in their athletic budget that the university could not fill since they already had raised tuition and housing prices to astronomical levels but also refused to cut sports.

For me the last straws were:

1. Debbie Yow going to NC State, depriving MD from being able to blame their broader administrative problems solely on the athletic department. In the late 1970's MD did not mind when Bill Cobey became UNC's AD, despite his dad's role at MD, because everyone was friendlier.

2. The prospect of no longer being the big ACC dog in the Northeast worried MD. MD did not want Notre Dame and Penn State in the ACC with MD relegated to a northern division cut off from Duke, UNC, NC State, and Clemson. A legitimate fear.

3. System president Kirwan had become enamored with the Big 10 during his time at Ohio State. From the time he returned from Ohio State to the MD System he would wax sentimental about the B10.

4. So when the B10 offered bail out money of $30 million, Kirwan could kill several birds with one stone - he could remove MD from the perceived thumb of UNC and Duke, and NC State to a lesser degree, he could realize his B10 ideation, he could get upfront cash for UM-College Park and he had the power to ram it quickly through a pliable board while using Loh as the front man, before their rank and file supporters could organize a block to the move.

5. They could also provide a final screwing to the ACC by tanking a deal to move PSU into the ACC.

6. I think the reason core ACC fans (State, Wake, Duke, UNC, Clemson, and UVa) are insulted is because the people who pulled the trigger at UM were in fact B10 folks - outside the family so to speak, and MD defended it's actions with a number of patently false statements related to the CIC, and to "bazillions" when the real reasons where rooted in MD's growing animosity with North Carolina, and their own horrible administrative decision for the better part of two decades.

Now, I draw my information on this from two ACC schools in a position to know what MD did or did not say (not NC State mind you because though I am an NC State fan and grad, that's not where I have had my best info contracts plus it might be a conflict).

I also have read all the emails between Kirwan and Loh that have appeared in the Washington Post, and I've been around long enough to remember when things between the ACC and MD first began to deteriorate in the early 70's.

Basically there are six key venues of information:

1. MD's point of view as told by the Washington Post and other public comments.
2. The ACC office and UNC/Duke's POV as evidenced by years of decisions made or not made.
3. VT's and WF's POV (due to their Presidents roles in the expansions and especially their relationships with ND)
4. What NC State AD Yow knows about MD
5. What Pitt's folks have and have not said on and off the record with PSU
6. What BC and FSU know but have otherwise kept their mouths shut. (Barron and DeFillipo know something that they have not yet spilled but it's ironic that Barron has now gone to PSU, isn't it? )

Anyway this is my take - it had been a rocky marriage for a long time.

The old ACC (not Syracuse) will not deal with the current MD administration. Normalizing relations will probably take 20-30 years. SC left in 1971 and the animosity is still there in places but it's tolerable after 4 decades. UNC and NC State have been in the same conference with MD since 1907 - for NC State, MD is probably the ideal Big 10 oppoennet given the nature and importance of so many of our football games over the years. UNC might be able to mend fences in 20 years or less. For State, Debbie probably has to die and be dead a decade - even then I would expect to need as many size D batteries as possible to an NC State/MD football game in College Park.

Quote:Actually, most teams that left one conference to go to another conference paid their respective exit fees.Syracuse and Pitt both paid more than the minimum exit fee to leave. Louisville paid their exit fee. So did Miami and VT and BC.WV paid much more because of the timing and the way they left. So really most schools paid the required exit fees to leave. I think Nebraska and Colorado both negotiated to leave the Big twelve.

Guess I paid more attention to the Big 12 departures (both of which were way under the prescribed prices than the Big East teams who left. One key difference though was the Big East had a much longer waiting period and pretty much every member who left broke it. That said, not as consistent as I was thinking.

(06-19-2014 08:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  They were absolutely off the table. Neither were going to go to the B10 over the ACC at that point unless they thought the conference was crumbling ala FSU going to the SEC or something, which wasn't happening, and the message board realignment chatter from the kooks had no basis in reality.

Well, TBH, I can really only speak for Pitt, but I assume as much for Syracuse. The Big10-centric view of the world is certainly interesting.

We'll have to agree to disagree there as I think it would have taken about 2 seconds to say yes given the landscape at the time. This is shortly after the the time Florida State has big alumni actively talking about leaving, when message boards were going crazy over the idea the Big 12 could raid the ACC (never realistic, but it was out there), and when the Big Ten did grab founding member Maryland. Neither Pitt nor Syracuse was even in the ACC yet, neither had anywhere near the ties to the ACC Maryland did, both had a stronger connection to Penn State than Maryland, and the difference in money made over the decade would have been similar.

Note: I don't think the Big Ten could grab the rest of the Mid-Atlantic schools it wanted, particularly Virginia and North Carolina. That was because of a strong institutional identity as both southern and academic elite (which meant they fit in neither the Big Ten nor the SEC). Those issues were not there with Syracuse or Pitt though. The reason they went with Rutgers instead (while the ACC fan found more value in Syracuse and Pitt) was a) the Big Ten more desperately needs recruiting grounds and New Jersey provides them (too few good recruiting areas in the conference footprint), b) New York is a pipe dream for anyone, but Rutgers (while a risk) can probably provide the New Jersey market for decent rates on the BTN, c) Rutgers is a big state flagship, similar in profile to the rest of the Big Ten more so than privates Syracuse and Pitt, d) Pitt was already in a state with a strong Big Ten presence and was thus already out.

Notre Dame avoiding Big Ten looking better by the day

Keith Arnold

http://irish.nbcsports.com/2014/06/19/no...y-the-day/

(06-20-2014 12:14 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

Quote:Actually, most teams that left one conference to go to another conference paid their respective exit fees.Syracuse and Pitt both paid more than the minimum exit fee to leave. Louisville paid their exit fee. So did Miami and VT and BC.WV paid much more because of the timing and the way they left. So really most schools paid the required exit fees to leave. I think Nebraska and Colorado both negotiated to leave the Big twelve.

Guess I paid more attention to the Big 12 departures (both of which were way under the prescribed prices than the Big East teams who left. One key difference though was the Big East had a much longer waiting period and pretty much every member who left broke it. That said, not as consistent as I was thinking.

The thing to remember with the original Big 12 defections is that both UNL and Colorado left while there were actually two conflicting methods of liquidated damages. Both schools had legitimate complaints and were able to force the issue. The Big 12 shored up that between their defections and the TAMU/Mizzou defections.

(06-19-2014 08:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 04:32 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 03:40 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  As for Delaney and the B1G's actions, they simply had no choice. They could not destroy the ACC by getting UVA, UNC, GATech, et al. so they took what they could, UMD. They didn't want UConn so they chose Rutgers to pair with UMD. The threat was real in that if PSU left, the B1G TV deal would not be worth as much (the deal soon to be renewed/increased). The B1G either had to expand to the east to protect PSU or run the risk of losing PSU. Again, they already lost opportunity with four key schools (Syracuse, Pitt, Mizzou and ND), were rejected by several key schools (UVA, UNC, DUKE, GATech) and were left with what they could get.

One quick correction, Syracuse and Pitt were not off the table at this point. If the Big Ten had called as the situation was at the time, they likely would have accepted just as TCU never entered the Big East. That's no longer the case (with the ACC grant of rights), but at the time it almost certainly would have been.

As for claims of interference by the ACC, it's not only a claim to show both sides were trying to interrupt and thus ACC seeking massive damages are uncalled for. I don't think it's a big point.

Like with almost all of these settlements (outside of West Virgina which left with less than a years notice), I expect the final settlement to be about half the official exit penalties here.

They were absolutely off the table. Neither were going to go to the B10 over the ACC at that point unless they thought the conference was crumbling ala FSU going to the SEC or something, which wasn't happening, and the message board realignment chatter from the kooks had no basis in reality.

Well, TBH, I can really only speak for Pitt, but I assume as much for Syracuse. The Big10-centric view of the world is certainly interesting.

Agreed, Syracuse wanted the ACC over the B1G because of a better instututional fit and had been in discussions on and off for 30 years (when FSU joined). The B1G had their shot at both Pitt and Syracuse and blew it because the B1G believed that the ACC would not take action first. That B1G centric world view bit them hard in the posterior region.

Had Delaney been leading the B1G, he would have expanded the B1G to 14 or 16 when he had the best choices. They got greedy and tried to wrap up the mid atlantic/south east while destroying the ACC. To think the ACC would not protect itself or at least attempt to do so was just not a thought to Delaney and Co. Instead, they miss out on proven schools for a washed up, debt ridden school and an unproven school.

(06-20-2014 06:55 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Notre Dame avoiding Big Ten looking better by the day

Keith Arnold

http://irish.nbcsports.com/2014/06/19/no...y-the-day/

The article summed up what appeared were ND's real objectives. ND could not join the B1G as they would have become a mid-western team and lost their national appeal. The ACC offered what they needed and ND took it.

(06-20-2014 12:14 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

Quote:Actually, most teams that left one conference to go to another conference paid their respective exit fees.Syracuse and Pitt both paid more than the minimum exit fee to leave. Louisville paid their exit fee. So did Miami and VT and BC.WV paid much more because of the timing and the way they left. So really most schools paid the required exit fees to leave. I think Nebraska and Colorado both negotiated to leave the Big twelve.

Guess I paid more attention to the Big 12 departures (both of which were way under the prescribed prices than the Big East teams who left. One key difference though was the Big East had a much longer waiting period and pretty much every member who left broke it. That said, not as consistent as I was thinking.

(06-19-2014 08:26 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  They were absolutely off the table. Neither were going to go to the B10 over the ACC at that point unless they thought the conference was crumbling ala FSU going to the SEC or something, which wasn't happening, and the message board realignment chatter from the kooks had no basis in reality.

Well, TBH, I can really only speak for Pitt, but I assume as much for Syracuse. The Big10-centric view of the world is certainly interesting.

We'll have to agree to disagree there as I think it would have taken about 2 seconds to say yes given the landscape at the time. This is shortly after the the time Florida State has big alumni actively talking about leaving, when message boards were going crazy over the idea the Big 12 could raid the ACC (never realistic, but it was out there), and when the Big Ten did grab founding member Maryland. Neither Pitt nor Syracuse was even in the ACC yet, neither had anywhere near the ties to the ACC Maryland did, both had a stronger connection to Penn State than Maryland, and the difference in money made over the decade would have been similar.

Note: I don't think the Big Ten could grab the rest of the Mid-Atlantic schools it wanted, particularly Virginia and North Carolina. That was because of a strong institutional identity as both southern and academic elite (which meant they fit in neither the Big Ten nor the SEC). Those issues were not there with Syracuse or Pitt though. The reason they went with Rutgers instead (while the ACC fan found more value in Syracuse and Pitt) was a) the Big Ten more desperately needs recruiting grounds and New Jersey provides them (too few good recruiting areas in the conference footprint), b) New York is a pipe dream for anyone, but Rutgers (while a risk) can probably provide the New Jersey market for decent rates on the BTN, c) Rutgers is a big state flagship, similar in profile to the rest of the Big Ten more so than privates Syracuse and Pitt, d) Pitt was already in a state with a strong Big Ten presence and was thus already out.

I'm not agreeing to disagree. I'm flat out telling you that you are 100% wrong.

Pitt would have absolutely said yes if they B10 had offered first. In fact, over a year prior to the ACC invite, they had sent a private letter to the Big East leadership and presidents council that they were going to look around and would explore all opportunities. Pitt was having contact with the B10 around this time, and some in the althetic department thought an invite was coming, but it is probable that Pitt was played by the B10 in an attempt to jostle ND loose. What is unknown is how serious the B10 was compared to what was conveyed, how much ND factored, and much interference was coming from PSU's staunch opposition to Pitt.

In the hypothetical where Pitt had offers on the table from both conferences at the same time (and it did have an offer for the B12), it would have been an interesting decision and I can't be sure which direction they would have gone, but the ACC presents a better option on multiple fronts: is eastern facing as Pitt has always been, has a strong presence in Florida for football, is better for Pitt's basketball program for a myriad of reasons (and was Dixon's strong preference between the two), travel is better, the ACC has many more former institutional partners with positive relationships (unlike PSU which is antagonistic), Pitt had more likelihood of maintaining a relationship with Notre Dame, it is comfortable with private institutions being a hybrid itself, the ACC's footprint encompassing territory where the bulk of the alumni base is located, and is a much better institutional fit as far as university size, location, athletic budget and scope. The Big Ten offered universities with similar graduate research profiles (not that UNC, Duke, and UVA aren't similar as well), but you don't make athletic decisions based on intangible things that would have zero impact on the research side anyway. Pitt is already #5 or 6 in total R&D in this country and that isn't going to be impacted one bit by any consortium membership. A bit more money (and even with that money, Pitt sill would have been among the bottom of the Big10 in athletic budget) and PSU regularly on the schedule is what the B10 offered. I don't think that trumps all the above positives of the ACC for Pitt, nor concerns about being competitively overwhelmed by the large athletic departments with the massive resources of the B10s large, state-supported flagship land-grants.

The point is moot, because Pitt didn't have a Big Ten offer, but the best move was made, in my and others opinions, regardless for many of the reasons noted above. Even with Rutgers and Maryland in the B10, the ACC still looks better, although admittedly the Big Ten is more attractive with those two, but Pitt has zero history with UMD (more with Navy) and really not a whole lot with Rutgers. Replace Rutgers or Maryland's slot with Pitt so that it is still at 14 without one of those two eastern schools: nope, it drops in attractiveness a whole lot for Pitt.

Regardless, once signed up to the ACC, Pitt was committed to the ACC, and also signed on to the exit fee it, and there is zero chance they would have turned around and joined the Big Ten whether it was going for 14 or 16 unless they thought the ACC was disappearing and it had no choice. But Pitt, and anyone else with real information, knew that was not happening. I'm not stating that as an opinion.

(06-19-2014 11:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-19-2014 08:23 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  It's worth noting that today is the 28th anniversary of Len Bias' death. My feeling is that that searing event destabilized Maryland athletics and led indirectly to Maryland leaving the ACC. It may be an important reason why ACC fans feel so insulted by Maryland leaving the conference. To put it mildly, all ACC fans shared Bias' loss with Maryland fans and still do. That's a common history that the Terps have turned their back on.

NJ2MD makes great points - I would add the following:

Bias's death was a shock, I saw him go all-world in the Dean Dome and reveled in the slack jawed UNC fans who were seeing the ACC's best played since David Thompson put it to them.

But the Bias death was not the start of the problems. I would characterize it this way - in 1953 when MD pulled Duke, Clemson, and SC out of the Southern Conference and the group pulled UNC, NC State and WF it was done to preserve big-time football among the major Southern Conference schools. MD had a huge investment in Jim Tatum.

A decade after engineering the pull-out, Duke essentially double-crossed the football powers by pushing through the 800 SAT rule in 1962 which had the net effect of eliminating many prospects from playing ball in the ACC and with that loss of physical talent came the loss of the ACC's tie to the Orange Bowl.

Duke deemphasized football in 1963 and the league declined to a mid-major state hurting the football ambitions of MD. On top of that, basketball began to be the main sport in the ACC for most schools and had taken over by the late 1960's when MD turned to Davidson coach Lefty Dreisel.

Lefty had three top five teams in the early 70's. The problem was that NC State had the top 1-2 team overlapping that period and when it was time to play for the ACC title, and the chance to go to the NCAA, you had to go through North Carolina, be in Greensboro, Charlotte, or Raleigh. He also faced a top 5 South Carolina Gamecock squad and a top 10 UNC team during this period - the pressure was huge and NC teams had an advantage in NC.

UNC has not always run the league. As Carolina's political power in the league began to rise in the 1960's that rise was at the cost of MD's influence. By the time of Bias's death in 85/86, UNC, Duke, and UVa politically ran the league.

MD, the once leader of the league, was marginalized as the shared power between UNC and Duke grew even larger, when NC State was taken out of the picture in 1991 and UVa's basketball program declined after Sampson and Wilson.

By the time the expansion moves began in the 90's, MD, who had always been against expansion, felt marginalized by FSU, but the power play that put VT back into the league is what really irked them because VT was not treated as an expansion team, but as the long wayward brother. Football needs caused the league to elevate VT in a way that MD was not prepared to see since they had formed the ACC in part to get away from VT back in 1953.

MD was becoming increasingly unhappy in the ACC for the past three decades. It was not unknown, but they were treated as if they had no place to go. Their gross campus administrative mismanagement in the late 90's and early 2000's (not just athletic spending), combined with the arrival of the Washington Nationals and the collapse of MD Football and Basketball created a huge hole in their athletic budget that the university could not fill since they already had raised tuition and housing prices to astronomical levels but also refused to cut sports.

For me the last straws were:

1. Debbie Yow going to NC State, depriving MD from being able to blame their broader administrative problems solely on the athletic department. In the late 1970's MD did not mind when Bill Cobey became UNC's AD, despite his dad's role at MD, because everyone was friendlier.

2. The prospect of no longer being the big ACC dog in the Northeast worried MD. MD did not want Notre Dame and Penn State in the ACC with MD relegated to a northern division cut off from Duke, UNC, NC State, and Clemson. A legitimate fear.

3. System president Kirwan had become enamored with the Big 10 during his time at Ohio State. From the time he returned from Ohio State to the MD System he would wax sentimental about the B10.

4. So when the B10 offered bail out money of $30 million, Kirwan could kill several birds with one stone - he could remove MD from the perceived thumb of UNC and Duke, and NC State to a lesser degree, he could realize his B10 ideation, he could get upfront cash for UM-College Park and he had the power to ram it quickly through a pliable board while using Loh as the front man, before their rank and file supporters could organize a block to the move.

5. They could also provide a final screwing to the ACC by tanking a deal to move PSU into the ACC.

6. I think the reason core ACC fans (State, Wake, Duke, UNC, Clemson, and UVa) are insulted is because the people who pulled the trigger at UM were in fact B10 folks - outside the family so to speak, and MD defended it's actions with a number of patently false statements related to the CIC, and to "bazillions" when the real reasons where rooted in MD's growing animosity with North Carolina, and their own horrible administrative decision for the better part of two decades.

Now, I draw my information on this from two ACC schools in a position to know what MD did or did not say (not NC State mind you because though I am an NC State fan and grad, that's not where I have had my best info contracts plus it might be a conflict).

I also have read all the emails between Kirwan and Loh that have appeared in the Washington Post, and I've been around long enough to remember when things between the ACC and MD first began to deteriorate in the early 70's.

Basically there are six key venues of information:

1. MD's point of view as told by the Washington Post and other public comments.
2. The ACC office and UNC/Duke's POV as evidenced by years of decisions made or not made.
3. VT's and WF's POV (due to their Presidents roles in the expansions and especially their relationships with ND)
4. What NC State AD Yow knows about MD
5. What Pitt's folks have and have not said on and off the record with PSU
6. What BC and FSU know but have otherwise kept their mouths shut. (Barron and DeFillipo know something that they have not yet spilled but it's ironic that Barron has now gone to PSU, isn't it? )

Anyway this is my take - it had been a rocky marriage for a long time.

Man, you really need to let go of your obsession with Kirwan and the Big Ten. It absolutely destroys any credibility you might have.

Kirwan served UM continuously for 35 years, including about a decade as its president. After a hiatus of four years at Ohio State, he was so "enamored with the Big Ten" that he returned to Maryland for another 11 years. If 46 years doesn't make him a "Maryland man" I don't know what does.

(06-20-2014 10:25 AM)ken d Wrote:  Man, you really need to let go of your obsession with Kirwan and the Big Ten. It absolutely destroys any credibility you might have.

Kirwan served UM continuously for 35 years, including about a decade as its president. After a hiatus of four years at Ohio State, he was so "enamored with the Big Ten" that he returned to Maryland for another 11 years. If 46 years doesn't make him a "Maryland man" I don't know what does.

It is a delusional proposition. A lot of imaginary dots connected to come up with a narrative that isn't even necessary to understand what happened.

I remember, the following after SU and Pitt were officially going to the Acc, that Darryl Gross mentioned that when the Big 10 was first looking to expand back in 2010, that the Acc approached SU about joining then. And he said he wasn't willing to commit at that point until he knew what the Big 10 was doing. So that tells me that the Big 10 was SU's first choice.
But once SU had accepted the ACC's invitation, there was no going back. No way were they going to pull a TCU on the Acc. That was not going to happen no matter how many carrots the Big 10 threw at SU.

(06-20-2014 11:22 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I remember, the following after SU and Pitt were officially going to the Acc, that Darryl Gross mentioned that when the Big 10 was first looking to expand back in 2010, that the Acc approached SU about joining then. And he said he wasn't willing to commit at that point until he knew what the Big 10 was doing. So that tells me that the Big 10 was SU's first choice.
But once SU had accepted the ACC's invitation, there was no going back. No way were they going to pull a TCU on the Acc. That was not going to happen no matter how many carrots the Big 10 threw at SU.

The Big 10 was talking to a lot of schools. 2010 was around the time it was talking to Pitt. I actually received reports they had sent envoys to Pitt, maybe even Delaney himself, and this was before anything was being reported. I really believe they were trying to shake ND loose, although that is my personal take on motive. My unsubstantiated conclusion is when they couldn't get ND, they went with Nebraska instead of to teams in the East.

But there's no doubt that SU is one of the first choices in the east (regarding Pitt, it has a Penn State problem, as Gordon Gee put it), as anyone familiar with college sports in the northeast would tell you. That's not even a question except in the minds of delusional RU and UConn fans....and some of those Boneyard UConn fans are absolutely batsheet crazy.

(06-20-2014 11:22 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  I remember, the following after SU and Pitt were officially going to the Acc, that Darryl Gross mentioned that when the Big 10 was first looking to expand back in 2010, that the Acc approached SU about joining then. And he said he wasn't willing to commit at that point until he knew what the Big 10 was doing. So that tells me that the Big 10 was SU's first choice.
But once SU had accepted the ACC's invitation, there was no going back. No way were they going to pull a TCU on the Acc. That was not going to happen no matter how many carrots the Big 10 threw at SU.

I still believe the Indy report back in 2010 (about expansion with ND, MD, RU, and SU) was the impetus to "waiting to see what the Big Ten will do". This also leads me to believe that SU was one of those institutions who have a non-disclosure agreement.

PSU, ND, and MD (not to mention that BC-SU would have remained a likely non-conference game at least 6 out of every 10 years) would have made the BiG a no-brainer for SU.

But once SU accepted the ACC offer, we would have stuck with the ACC even if the BiG had come back and offered after that. We wouldn't have pulled "a TCU" unless the circumstances were similar - which would have meant FSU and Clemson accepted offers to join the Big 12 and UNC and UVa accepted offers to join the SEC making the ACC a completely different conference then the one we had accepted an invite into.

Cheers,
Neil