(06-22-2014 03:48 PM)westwolf Wrote:  UConn lacks the necessities for B1G membership. What necessities you ask? Academic status, fan base enthusiasm and on-campus seating.

Academic status - Good school by most standards. But the B1G has certain criteria that UConn might not meet. So probably correct.

Fan base enthusiasm - For basketball, yes. Nothing wrong with prioritizing certain sports over others. Just understand the drawbacks of that.

On-Campus Seating - Not that relevant. Hartford might be the better location for fans to get to games. I don't live in that state, so I'm not sure.

To me, it's simply because there's not a sure-fire #15 school that is out there right now and the B1G is preferring to not expand again after taking three schools in as many years.

(06-21-2014 11:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think you are half right half wrong.

i do believe that these universities/conferences are always talking to each other, always having contingencies in place to know what expansion option would be the best. it wouldn't surprise me if 75% of the P5 has been in some form of discussion about maybe joining a different conference in the past few decades"

the proper analogy here is suicide. something that has a huge amount of buildup, thought about quite often, but when it comes time to actually pull the trigger (no pun intended) it is a quick spur of the moment decision.

I think there's a lot more to it than that. Colorado had a PAC-10 invitation back in the 90's (as did Texas). When it was back on the table, I'm sure it wasn't hard to pick up where that left off. Utah was a potential candidate during the PAC-8 years, and then the Big XII in the 90's (as was BYU). TCU was gunning for the Big XII since it was snubbed. Nebraska had a relationship with the Big Ten for about a century, in the scope of membership back during the formative years, as a potential replacement for Chicago back in the late 40's/early 50's, and then during the unrest of the Big XII's formation in the 90's (which UNL that time turned down). Even Rutgers and Maryland have some history with these pursuits, even if UMD's isn't nearly as seasoned as UNL's was.

I think the conversations are being had all of the time. And I think that they should be happening, especially from the institutions, since it's in their own best interest and in due diligence if not fully satisfied with their current positioning. When it's all finally said and done, if it seems or appears "rushed," I think it's because so much of it is done outside of the lens of transparency and the press. I think we'll hear just how long and how deep the conversations went on between UMD and the Big Ten once the ACC-UMD suits are settled. Someone was crunching numbers pretty furiously to make that happen, given what it took to secure the Terps given their financial issues.

(06-23-2014 07:48 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-21-2014 11:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i think you are half right half wrong.

i do believe that these universities/conferences are always talking to each other, always having contingencies in place to know what expansion option would be the best. it wouldn't surprise me if 75% of the P5 has been in some form of discussion about maybe joining a different conference in the past few decades"

the proper analogy here is suicide. something that has a huge amount of buildup, thought about quite often, but when it comes time to actually pull the trigger (no pun intended) it is a quick spur of the moment decision.

I think there's a lot more to it than that. Colorado had a PAC-10 invitation back in the 90's (as did Texas). When it was back on the table, I'm sure it wasn't hard to pick up where that left off. Utah was a potential candidate during the PAC-8 years, and then the Big XII in the 90's (as was BYU). TCU was gunning for the Big XII since it was snubbed. Nebraska had a relationship with the Big Ten for about a century, in the scope of membership back during the formative years, as a potential replacement for Chicago back in the late 40's/early 50's, and then during the unrest of the Big XII's formation in the 90's (which UNL that time turned down). Even Rutgers and Maryland have some history with these pursuits, even if UMD's isn't nearly as seasoned as UNL's was.

I think the conversations are being had all of the time. And I think that they should be happening, especially from the institutions, since it's in their own best interest and in due diligence if not fully satisfied with their current positioning. When it's all finally said and done, if it seems or appears "rushed," I think it's because so much of it is done outside of the lens of transparency and the press. I think we'll hear just how long and how deep the conversations went on between UMD and the Big Ten once the ACC-UMD suits are settled. Someone was crunching numbers pretty furiously to make that happen, given what it took to secure the Terps given their financial issues.

i agree with the first paragraph but not the second.

the first paragraph:
yes open invites are a key part of what I was talking about earlier with conferences/schools having internal discussions with each other all the time.

the second part:
conference realignment is absolutely rushed. it is a game of chess and the situation is always changing based on moves that other conferences have made. one day the b10 might have wanted to raid as many b12 schools as possible only to realize the acc was starting to add more schools in the northeast and so they opted to expand in that area instead.

schools are also run by administrations/boosters. this means that their attitudes can be changed at times based on who is calling the shots. especially when during realignment more people learn about potential moves (people with power) that were not aware of such moves when they were being kept under extreme discussions. and i also must stress the suicide analogy again==> it is one thing to talk about a move, but carrying that move out is a whole different ball game.

(06-22-2014 06:31 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.

Eagle78, I don't specifically disagree with anything in that post, and I don't believe it contradicts anything I posted earlier. My main point is essentially that Jim Delany has a world-class knack for -- in your phrase -- "being cute with words". I don't have any evidence that he has committed perjury. But that doesn't make him an honest, forthright fellow, either.

(06-23-2014 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  the second part:
conference realignment is absolutely rushed. it is a game of chess and the situation is always changing based on moves that other conferences have made. one day the b10 might have wanted to raid as many b12 schools as possible only to realize the acc was starting to add more schools in the northeast and so they opted to expand in that area instead.

schools are also run by administrations/boosters. this means that their attitudes can be changed at times based on who is calling the shots. especially when during realignment more people learn about potential moves (people with power) that were not aware of such moves when they were being kept under extreme discussions. and i also must stress the suicide analogy again==> it is one thing to talk about a move, but carrying that move out is a whole different ball game.

I think that's how a negotiation is supposed to go, isn't it? The whole "act now, and/or..." thing is all a part of that. And I think that's intentional, especially from the conferences' sides. They're the ones with leverage.

The process is made to look disheveled. That, too, is intentional. Why did Penn State's Graham Spanier seem to know as much about Nebraska's candidacy as Delany himself knew? Were Syracuse and Pitt really kept in the dark about each other during their respective ACC courtships, considering both had made it known to the Big East they were openly shopping for a different home, and Syracuse being ohsoclose to membership less than a decade before? And someone at Michigan State said UMD was a high-end target for the Big Ten for years (possibly decades). I think there's talk and chatter, but when the right stuff aligns, it's a no-brainer.

The suicide analogy, though creative, might explain how the schools handle it, but it's not the overall process. All of these conferences have their own white whale(s): schools who the conferences constantly consider for association. Very rarely do they catch it. And if/when they do, it appears fast because the interests are mutual and absolute: TAMU to SEC, UNL to B1G, Colorado to PAC, and even affiliate stuff like ND to the ACC and JHU to the Big Ten (to an extent). And even for those who end up in greener pastures but may not have necessarily have done so had other things happened (Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, WVU/TCU, etc.): if schools were more open and honest about their ambitions, conferences do reserve the right to exact punishment (like expulsion, ala the Big XII and their bylaws) for "problematic programs." So, "fly casual" kind of has to be the way it's played on both ends anyway.

(06-23-2014 12:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:31 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.

Eagle78, I don't specifically disagree with anything in that post, and I don't believe it contradicts anything I posted earlier. My main point is essentially that Jim Delany has a world-class knack for -- in your phrase -- "being cute with words". I don't have any evidence that he has committed perjury. But that doesn't make him an honest, forthright fellow, either.

Nor, in his position, should he be honest and forthright. The job often requires that he obfuscate, dodge and sometimes even misdirect. That's not a character flaw in a conference commissioner.

(06-23-2014 01:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  the second part:
conference realignment is absolutely rushed. it is a game of chess and the situation is always changing based on moves that other conferences have made. one day the b10 might have wanted to raid as many b12 schools as possible only to realize the acc was starting to add more schools in the northeast and so they opted to expand in that area instead.

schools are also run by administrations/boosters. this means that their attitudes can be changed at times based on who is calling the shots. especially when during realignment more people learn about potential moves (people with power) that were not aware of such moves when they were being kept under extreme discussions. and i also must stress the suicide analogy again==> it is one thing to talk about a move, but carrying that move out is a whole different ball game.

I think that's how a negotiation is supposed to go, isn't it? The whole "act now, and/or..." thing is all a part of that. And I think that's intentional, especially from the conferences' sides. They're the ones with leverage.

The process is made to look disheveled. That, too, is intentional. Why did Penn State's Graham Spanier seem to know as much about Nebraska's candidacy as Delany himself knew? Were Syracuse and Pitt really kept in the dark about each other during their respective ACC courtships, considering both had made it known to the Big East they were openly shopping for a different home, and Syracuse being ohsoclose to membership less than a decade before? And someone at Michigan State said UMD was a high-end target for the Big Ten for years (possibly decades). I think there's talk and chatter, but when the right stuff aligns, it's a no-brainer.

The suicide analogy, though creative, might explain how the schools handle it, but it's not the overall process. All of these conferences have their own white whale(s): schools who the conferences constantly consider for association. Very rarely do they catch it. And if/when they do, it appears fast because the interests are mutual and absolute: TAMU to SEC, UNL to B1G, Colorado to PAC, and even affiliate stuff like ND to the ACC and JHU to the Big Ten (to an extent). And even for those who end up in greener pastures but may not have necessarily have done so had other things happened (Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, WVU/TCU, etc.): if schools were more open and honest about their ambitions, conferences do reserve the right to exact punishment (like expulsion, ala the Big XII and their bylaws) for "problematic programs." So, "fly casual" kind of has to be the way it's played on both ends anyway.

the bold part, i know for a fact that they were not kept in the dark and knew about each other going into the process of joining the ACC. TBH i have no idea where that rumor that they didn't comes from.

the suicide analogy. i think it goes both ways. realignment is a final decision that you are stuck with hence the reason why talking about it vs doing it are two completely different things.

(06-23-2014 12:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:31 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.

Eagle78, I don't specifically disagree with anything in that post, and I don't believe it contradicts anything I posted earlier. My main point is essentially that Jim Delany has a world-class knack for -- in your phrase -- "being cute with words". I don't have any evidence that he has committed perjury. But that doesn't make him an honest, forthright fellow, either.

Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Essentially, however, I don't believe this issue is relevant here. This was a high profile legal proceeding and he was testifying under oath. These are sophisticated people and you can be sure that he just didn't stroll up to the courthouse that day to offer testimony. He was well prepared by his legal team.

One important thing to keep in mind. He was not only testifying personally, he was testifying as the Commissioner of the BiG and therefore, what he said reflects policy of the BiG. In my opinion, had Notre Dame still been in play, he - and the BiG - might have left some wiggle room in his comments such as what I offered above as examples. However, since Notre Dame is out of play for the BiG, he was quite definitive in his comments. He cleanly stated that AAU status was "required upon admission". There was no ambiguity in this testimony. I believe this means that, absent Notre Dame, AAU membership will be required for everyone else to be considered. Now, IMO, if the BiG wanted to retain flexibility regarding AAU membership, he would have simply chosen different words. After all, I don't think this part of his testimony regarding AAU membership would be a major determinant in the outcome of this case. IMO, he would have been more ambiguous in his wording of the AAU requirement IF the BiG was contemplating inviting a school(s) who was not an AAU member. Otherwise why risk blowback, however slight, when it can easily be avoided. In my experience, most people - especially well represented, sophisticated people - don't act against their best interests.

As I said before, regardless of what you think of him, he was stating policy - under oath - of the BiG's requirement for AAU membership. I think one can safely assume that is BiG policy and it is unlikely to change.

Just my 2 cents.

(06-23-2014 01:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:31 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-20-2014 05:47 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  when someone like Delany testifies, he is testifying about the past and the present, not the future.

And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.

Eagle78, I don't specifically disagree with anything in that post, and I don't believe it contradicts anything I posted earlier. My main point is essentially that Jim Delany has a world-class knack for -- in your phrase -- "being cute with words". I don't have any evidence that he has committed perjury. But that doesn't make him an honest, forthright fellow, either.

Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Essentially, however, I don't believe this issue is relevant here. This was a high profile legal proceeding and he was testifying under oath. These are sophisticated people and you can be sure that he just didn't stroll up to the courthouse that day to offer testimony. He was well prepared by his legal team.

One important thing to keep in mind. He was not only testifying personally, he was testifying as the Commissioner of the BiG and therefore, what he said reflects policy of the BiG. In my opinion, had Notre Dame still been in play, he - and the BiG - might have left some wiggle room in his comments such as what I offered above as examples. However, since Notre Dame is out of play for the BiG, he was quite definitive in his comments. He cleanly stated that AAU status was "required upon admission". There was no ambiguity in this testimony. I believe this means that, absent Notre Dame, AAU membership will be required for everyone else to be considered. Now, IMO, if the BiG wanted to retain flexibility regarding AAU membership, he would have simply chosen different words. After all, I don't think this part of his testimony regarding AAU membership would be a major determinant in the outcome of this case. IMO, he would have been more ambiguous in his wording of the AAU requirement IF the BiG was contemplating inviting a school(s) who was not an AAU member. Otherwise why risk blowback, however slight, when it can easily be avoided. In my experience, most people - especially well represented, sophisticated people - don't act against their best interests.

As I said before, regardless of what you think of him, he was stating policy - under oath - of the BiG's requirement for AAU membership. I think one can safely assume that is BiG policy and it is unlikely to change.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't think you can safely assume that any policy is unlikely to [ever] change. All you can assume is that what he testified to was B1G policy as it existed in that moment in time. That's all the wiggle room Delaney and the B1G need.

(06-23-2014 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the bold part, i know for a fact that they were not kept in the dark and knew about each other going into the process of joining the ACC. TBH i have no idea where that rumor that they didn't comes from.

Pederson from Pitt, I think.

(06-23-2014 01:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 01:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:31 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 06:31 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  And maybe not even the present.

Bottom line: he will do whatever he wants to do at that moment in time. The only external criteria is whether he can get away with it.

FWIW, I am not sure that is true. Being cute with words at a press conference is one thing. Doing it while testifying under oath at a high profile legal proceeding is another matter altogether, IMO.

Look, he chose his words carefully. He said AAU membership upon admission was required to cover what happened with Nebraska. He could also have just as easily said that AUU membership upon admission is "highly preferred" or an "important consideration", or something like that. However, he did not do that. Instead, he was very specific. Of course, I agree that he could change the direction in the future. However, IMO, it does not appear that at this point the BiG has any intention of changing this requirement or he would have simply given himself some wiggle room with a differently worded statement.

These are very sophisticated people. IMO, he was clearly sending a message with this statement - and I think it was partially intended for those in the blogosphere who are constantly roiling the CR waters with one scenario after another.

Just my 2 cents.

Eagle78, I don't specifically disagree with anything in that post, and I don't believe it contradicts anything I posted earlier. My main point is essentially that Jim Delany has a world-class knack for -- in your phrase -- "being cute with words". I don't have any evidence that he has committed perjury. But that doesn't make him an honest, forthright fellow, either.

Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Essentially, however, I don't believe this issue is relevant here. This was a high profile legal proceeding and he was testifying under oath. These are sophisticated people and you can be sure that he just didn't stroll up to the courthouse that day to offer testimony. He was well prepared by his legal team.

One important thing to keep in mind. He was not only testifying personally, he was testifying as the Commissioner of the BiG and therefore, what he said reflects policy of the BiG. In my opinion, had Notre Dame still been in play, he - and the BiG - might have left some wiggle room in his comments such as what I offered above as examples. However, since Notre Dame is out of play for the BiG, he was quite definitive in his comments. He cleanly stated that AAU status was "required upon admission". There was no ambiguity in this testimony. I believe this means that, absent Notre Dame, AAU membership will be required for everyone else to be considered. Now, IMO, if the BiG wanted to retain flexibility regarding AAU membership, he would have simply chosen different words. After all, I don't think this part of his testimony regarding AAU membership would be a major determinant in the outcome of this case. IMO, he would have been more ambiguous in his wording of the AAU requirement IF the BiG was contemplating inviting a school(s) who was not an AAU member. Otherwise why risk blowback, however slight, when it can easily be avoided. In my experience, most people - especially well represented, sophisticated people - don't act against their best interests.

As I said before, regardless of what you think of him, he was stating policy - under oath - of the BiG's requirement for AAU membership. I think one can safely assume that is BiG policy and it is unlikely to change.

Just my 2 cents.

I don't think you can safely assume that any policy is unlikely to [ever] change. All you can assume is that what he testified to was B1G policy as it existed in that moment in time. That's all the wiggle room Delaney and the B1G need.

Well, of course, no policy is necessarily set in stone forever and, yes, the AAU requirement could at some point be amended. We all agree on that. My point was that the specificity of his testimony - under oath - would be an indication that the BiG does not intend to alter this policy in the near future. IF that is something they wanted to leave open, they simply would have used different language. There would have been no negative impact to them to use more ambiguous terms and it would have prevented any blowback, however slight one might think that would be, if the policy was changed shorty after testifying differently under oath. Again, people don't act against their best interests.

Sometimes it just is what it is. I understand that some people who want the realignment wheel to endlessly spin have a hard time accepting this fact (not saying you are one of these folks!)

Just my 2 cents.

(06-23-2014 01:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Okay.

I observed that the absence of perjury is not the same thing (to me) as the presence of honesty and candor. I stand by that. And I joined with another person (I think that was you, but not sure) who implied that Delany has a habit of "being cute with words". (I stand by that, too).

The combination of those two points is not, IMHO, the same as saying "I think Delany is dishonest". But, yeah, it is in the same ballpark. What can I say? I've been watching Delany and the rest of the realignment circus for a long, long time, and I think the shoe fits. I just do.

I fully agree with you that his testimony was Not seat-of-the-pants, but was well-coached in advance. My guess is that every question put to him had been put to him earlier in some form of private rehearsal, and every answer was vetted to safeguard the interests of B1G and its member institutions.

(06-23-2014 02:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 01:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Okay.

I observed that the absence of perjury is not the same thing (to me) as the presence of honesty and candor. I stand by that. And I joined with another person (I think that was you, but not sure) who implied that Delany has a habit of "being cute with words". (I stand by that, too).

The combination of those two points is not, IMHO, the same as saying "I think Delany is dishonest". But, yeah, it is in the same ballpark. What can I say? I've been watching Delany and the rest of the realignment circus for a long, long time, and I think the shoe fits. I just do.

I fully agree with you that his testimony was Not seat-of-the-pants, but was well-coached in advance. My guess is that every question put to him had been put to him earlier in some form of private rehearsal, and every answer was vetted to safeguard the interests of B1G and its member institutions.

I think it's precisely because his answers were rehearsed, and that his audience would surely have known that they would be, that he could not leave any wiggle room. If he had, it would likely have been viewed as a declaration that the expansion window is once again open for business.

Unless that's what the B1G wanted to put out there, I don't see that Delaney had any choice. Now, I doubt that they care whether the internet would heat up over that possibility, but he probably didn't want to be fielding a bunch of breathless phone calls from P5 wannabes.

(06-23-2014 02:13 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 01:40 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the bold part, i know for a fact that they were not kept in the dark and knew about each other going into the process of joining the ACC. TBH i have no idea where that rumor that they didn't comes from.

Pederson from Pitt, I think.

i know someone from inside the SU administration and his version of it was that they were both invited at the same time in a joint conference call.

Vanderbilt to the Big 10! :O

(06-23-2014 03:23 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 01:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Hi Native Georgian. My perspectives on your post:

I don't offer opinions on whether I think people are honest or not unless: (1) I know them, and (2) I am familiar with all the facts and circumstances around events that people are citing as "examples" one way or another. I leave those opinions to others.

Okay.

I observed that the absence of perjury is not the same thing (to me) as the presence of honesty and candor. I stand by that. And I joined with another person (I think that was you, but not sure) who implied that Delany has a habit of "being cute with words". (I stand by that, too).

The combination of those two points is not, IMHO, the same as saying "I think Delany is dishonest". But, yeah, it is in the same ballpark. What can I say? I've been watching Delany and the rest of the realignment circus for a long, long time, and I think the shoe fits. I just do.

I fully agree with you that his testimony was Not seat-of-the-pants, but was well-coached in advance. My guess is that every question put to him had been put to him earlier in some form of private rehearsal, and every answer was vetted to safeguard the interests of B1G and its member institutions.

I think it's precisely because his answers were rehearsed, and that his audience would surely have known that they would be, that he could not leave any wiggle room. If he had, it would likely have been viewed as a declaration that the expansion window is once again open for business.

Unless that's what the B1G wanted to put out there, I don't see that Delaney had any choice. Now, I doubt that they care whether the internet would heat up over that possibility, but he probably didn't want to be fielding a bunch of breathless phone calls from P5 wannabes.

Ken, I think the BiG wanted it out there that the AAU IS a hard requirement for membership. The BiG has excellent lawyers who, IMO, could have readily crafted ambiguous language which would have emphasized the importance of AAU membership, without making it an absolute, if that's what they wanted.

If given a choice between creating some ambiguity, with resulting nuisance questions from possible hopeful fans via the internet, press, etc. (which, lets be frank, he will get regardless of how he answered the questions) and creating some legal exposure, however slight, they will always choose the former, IMO, IF the Conference really wanted flexibility here. IMO, the absolute nature of the language leads one to reasonably believe that, at least for the foreseeable future, this is an absolute requirement.

(06-20-2014 03:24 PM)BE4evah Wrote:  Andy Staples is covering the NCAA trial. Jim Delany testified at it.

Andy Staples @Andy_Staples
Delany said Big Ten requires AAU (American Association of Universities) membership upon admission. Nebraska was, but isn't anymore.
https://twitter.com/Andy_Staples


All that talk of the Connecticut sports reporter was just that, apparently. Now Uconn can focus for the long term on being a productive member of the AAC. Great hoops, build up football to be competitive, etc.

Suck a d*ck, Big Ten. What a load of horsesh*t you feed yourself.