(09-04-2014 06:42 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 11:53 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(09-04-2014 11:25 AM)Wedge Wrote:  The only current P5 school that has been "reunited" after being "screwed" is TCU, who needed over $100 million from boosters, several 10-win football seasons, and two BCS bowl appearances just to get where Texas Tech and Baylor got 15 years earlier by having politicians on their side

What about Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse during the BE/ACC 2-step? Despite being "dissed", they enthusiastically joined schools that had left them behind in less desirable situations.

I don't recall any of that. Louisville was not in the big east with vt, bc, or Miami and certainly bared no ill will to Syracuse or Pitt considering the position the BE was in. I don't recall Syracuse or Pitt being outspoken about the first teams who left: only uconn: and really that was an attorney general more than anything.

"We had a double agent among us."
-- Syracuse chancellor Kenneth Shaw on Boston College's involvement in the Big East's restructuring discussions (The Daily Orange, SU student newspaper, Oct. 17, 2003)

"When the BC players came out on the field, Syracuse fans were throwing dollar bills at them, yelling that they were greedy, that they should take the money and run. There were coins thrown, batteries. It was a little dangerous. And they were yelling at Gene [DeFilippo, Boston College athletic director]. Gene had a police escort that entire day."
-- Boston Globe sports writer Mark Blaudschun, who covered the Oct. 18, 2003, game

"This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

(09-05-2014 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/s...ski-110921

For your enjoyment.

(09-05-2014 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

There is no question that everyone's tune changed later. However, as always, context is important here. When the ACC expanded in 2003, the clandestine way they went about it was unusual for that time. Prior to that process, when teams were thinking about joining and/or switching leagues, it was mostly done out in the open. Really, the only exception I can think of to that rule was when Penn State joined the Big Ten and 1989. In almost every other instance, when teams were thinking about leaving/joining a league, it was a fairly transparent process. That was not so when the ACC took Miami, Virginia Tech and especially Boston College.

It had nothing to do with sour grapes. It was more about fear of survival and what had clearly become a very cutthroat world. In fact, I will always believe that the BE's lawsuit prolonged its BCS eligibility for several years. As such, I would never agree that it was a mistake. In fact, I think it was a brilliant legal and PR maneuver. I also think it helped shine a light on the corruption of the BCS process.

However, over the next decade the atmosphere became considerably more cutthroat as schools and leagues became increasingly more aggressive. It was very clear by 2010 that the former collegiality that had existed – or at least the appearance thereof – was gone and now was all about naked cash grabs and corporate raidership.

I think it is very clear that the attitude of the leadership at PITT, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. became, "It really sucks that intercollegiate athletics has become so nakedly cutthroat but now that we are here, we had better learn how to play this game very quickly or we are going to be left behind."

I think it is very clear that they indeed learned their lessons and we are very fortunate that they did.

(09-05-2014 07:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

There is no question that everyone's tune changed later. However, as always, context is important here. When the ACC expanded in 2003, the way they went about it was unusual for that time. However, over the next decade the atmosphere became considerably more cutthroat as schools and leagues became increasingly more aggressive.

I think it is very clear that the attitude of the leadership at PITT, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. became, "It really sucks that intercollegiate athletics has become so nakedly cutthroat but now that we are here, we had better learn how to play this game very quickly or we are going to be left behind."

I think it is very clear that they indeed learned their lessons and we are very fortunate that they did.

Syracuse got left at the alter the first time by Virginia politics.

That is true too. Good point. That is probably why Syracuse was not party to the lawsuit. They knew that they would be eviscerated in the media and in legal circles.

However, in the Orange's defense, they were the one school that did attempt to do this out in the open.

(09-05-2014 07:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

There is no question that everyone's tune changed later. However, as always, context is important here. When the ACC expanded in 2003, the clandestine way they went about it was unusual for that time. Prior to that process, when teams were thinking about joining and/or switching leagues, it was mostly done out in the open. Really, the only exception I can think of to that rule was when Penn State joined the Big Ten and 1989. In almost every other instance, when teams were thinking about leaving/joining a league, it was a fairly transparent process. That was not so when the ACC took Miami, Virginia Tech and especially Boston College.

It had nothing to do with sour grapes. It was more about fear of survival and what had clearly become a very cutthroat world. In fact, I will always believe that the BE's lawsuit prolonged its BCS eligibility for several years. As such, I would never agree that it was a mistake. In fact, I think it was a brilliant legal and PR maneuver. I also think it helped shine a light on the corruption of the BCS process.

However, over the next decade the atmosphere became considerably more cutthroat as schools and leagues became increasingly more aggressive. It was very clear by 2010 that the former collegiality that had existed – or at least the appearance thereof – was gone and now was all about naked cash grabs and corporate raidership.

I think it is very clear that the attitude of the leadership at PITT, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. became, "It really sucks that intercollegiate athletics has become so nakedly cutthroat but now that we are here, we had better learn how to play this game very quickly or we are going to be left behind."

I think it is very clear that they indeed learned their lessons and we are very fortunate that they did.

IMO, there are a couple of problems with this account. First, of course the lawsuit had to do with sour grapes. It was totally baseless, a bitter lashing out. IIRC, UConn even tried to claim damages by saying that they had invested millions on football facilities on the belief that they would be in a conference that, thanks to Miami, would make big TV money to pay for all of it. Never mind that this would effectively make Miami UConn's slave (I guess UConn expected that Miami would be compelled to remain in a conference with UConn until UConn paid off their football debt?), and never mind that the Big East did indeed have mechanisms by which anyone including Miami could exit the conference. The lawsuit was ridiculous.

Also, there is no evidence that Pitt, Cuse, Rutgers, etc. learned how to play any game. They didn't learn how to politick or preen or otherwise market themselves to other conferences any more than the left-behinds like USF or UConn did. They were simply chosen for reasons internal to the ACC/B1G.

Thus, the passage of time and the emergence of new realignment (really, as of September 2011, there hadn't been much, just UNL to the B1G and Colorado to the PAC), i.e., the "context" you specify, didn't do anything to justify a change in tune on the part of Pitt or Syracuse (or later Rutgers).

Heck, even if those schools did get those ACC/B1G bids because of effective behind-the-scenes politicking, that still wouldn't justify changing their tune about the validity of switching leagues. A claim of "well, I'm against stealing, but stealing is going on around me so I am going to do it too" doesn't have much moral heft. And importantly, Pitt and Cuse didn't even do that. They didn't say anything about lamenting the necessity of leaving the Big East for the ACC given the new cutthroat environment*. No, the talk was basically joyous, about the fabulous opportunity of joining the high-class ACC. In other words, they didn't even bother to voice a more morally-appropriate tune to lament what you think they regarded as distasteful but necessary behavior.

They just flat-out changed their tune. And for the obvious, 800-LB elephant reason: They simply were pursuing their own interests, both in 2003 and 2011, and they never cared about principles. The only principle followed was "what's good for me?"**.



* An exception is Jim Boeheim, who has at certain times voiced some words of regret about losing the Big East basketball ties. But nobody running the university has.

** Not that there's anything wrong with pursuing your own interests. But it is nice if schools would be honest about it. Unless of course being honest hurts your interests. Sheesh!

(09-04-2014 08:30 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  This has never been about grudges, it is all about business.

Yep, especially as time goes on. In addition to the "money talks" bottom line, there is a ton of turnover within the principal decision maker ranks.

Fans have much longer memories than the school and conference brass. They tend to read their biases into major decisions, when in reality almost all of them are based on consultant's data analysis and number crunchers.

(09-05-2014 08:23 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is true too. Good point. That is probably why Syracuse was not party to the lawsuit. They knew that they would be eviscerated in the media and in legal circles.

However, in the Orange's defense, they were the one school that did attempt to do this out in the open.

WVU's AD was crucified for being so public about trying to pitch his employer.

(09-05-2014 08:23 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, in the Orange's defense, they were the one school that did attempt to do this out in the open.

And being open got them nowhere. Syracuse didn't get into the ACC that round and had their rejection out in public for everyone to laugh at, and the ACC had to put up with the lawsuits and the bad media from every sportswriter shilling for the Big East.

Even though the Big Ten's cloak-and-dagger secrecy seems kind of silly (e.g., flying the Nebraska president and AD to an undisclosed location to meet with Delany, and having a driver take them to a meeting location without telling them where they were going) -- you can see why they'd do it that way. Maybe it's better that the people who are unhappy about one of these moves don't find out about it until 30 minutes before the press conference.

(09-05-2014 07:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-05-2014 07:35 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  "This is a case that involves broken commitments, secret dealings, breaches of fiduciary responsibility, the misappropriations of conference opportunities and predatory attempts to eliminate competition."
-- Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg on a joint lawsuit filed by Pitt, UConn, West Virginia, Virginia Tech and Rutgers and brought against the ACC and its two newest members, Boston College and Miami, formerly of the Big East (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 1, 2003)

That lawsuit was the worst sort of sour grapes. But it is hilarious how tunes changed when some of those same teams were later invited to the ACC and other P5 conferences.

There is no question that everyone's tune changed later. However, as always, context is important here. When the ACC expanded in 2003, the way they went about it was unusual for that time. However, over the next decade the atmosphere became considerably more cutthroat as schools and leagues became increasingly more aggressive.

I think it is very clear that the attitude of the leadership at PITT, Syracuse, Rutgers, etc. became, "It really sucks that intercollegiate athletics has become so nakedly cutthroat but now that we are here, we had better learn how to play this game very quickly or we are going to be left behind."

I think it is very clear that they indeed learned their lessons and we are very fortunate that they did.

Syracuse got left at the alter the first time by Virginia politics.

An interesting use of the word "alter" since indeed things were altered on Syracuse before they ever were joined at the "altar" with the ACC.

The B12 blew its chance at starting a real network when the Big East was sinking fast and it only rescued WV. I’ve posted this before; it should have taken the remaining schools (which include Rutgers and adding UCF) and formed the largest footprint of any power conference that included a GOR. Starting a network with that footprint would have been successful in my opinion. However, the B12 will fall further behind the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 while waiting for its GOR to expire. By then, the B10 and SEC should be raking in tons of $$$. If the ACC gets the same attention and assistance the SEC has gotten, it won’t take long for ACC Network (which is now similar to the old SECN) to surpass the struggling PAC 12 Network. The PAC 12 obviously needs assistance and that’s when ESPN or FOX will offer to help with the addition of some B12 properties. My point: we will likely never see a B12 network because some of its schools will be part of another conference’s network….

(09-05-2014 03:37 PM)Underdog Wrote:  The B12 blew its chance at starting a real network when the Big East was sinking fast and it only rescued WV. I’ve posted this before; it should have taken the remaining schools (which include Rutgers and adding UCF) and formed the largest footprint of any power conference that included a GOR. Starting a network with that footprint would have been successful in my opinion. However, the B12 will fall further behind the B10, SEC, and PAC 12 while waiting for its GOR to expire. By then, the B10 and SEC should be raking in tons of $$$. If the ACC gets the same attention and assistance the SEC has gotten, it won’t take long for ACC Network (which is now similar to the old SECN) to surpass the struggling PAC 12 Network. The PAC 12 obviously needs assistance and that’s when ESPN or FOX will offer to help with the addition of some B12 properties. My point: we will likely never see a B12 network because some of its schools will be part of another conference’s network….

It seems like history in any conference Texas has been a part of repeats itself.

The SWC stagnated while other power conferences passed them by with TV deals leaving Texas out to lunch. Now we are seeing the same with B12 as Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU and Missouri have all gone but Texas of all schools is still sitting there!

The question is what if anything will Texas do about it? The SEC is completely off limits because they don't want to admit they made a mistake by snubbing that conference. The ACC has some long term issues with the B1G/SEC possibly considering their members. That will be OK for Notre Dame who wants to be in a conference with Louisville, Syracuse, BC and Pittsburgh like they were in the Big East but I think from a Texas perspective being associated with an ACC less UNC, FSU ect is not where they want to be.

That leaves the B1G and PAC where there are some major geographic hurdles to clear. The best option for Texas then might be to strike a partial schedule deal WITH the B12. How would B12 presidents would react if Texas said it wanted to be independent in football but remain for other sports? If the choice was accept those conditions with Texas or face a situation where Texas pulls its Olympic Sports to the ACC maybe they would concede Texas Independence. There may be some support out of Iowa State and Kansas State for it because it makes the football slate easier.

Texas would still be there for the B12 in football for bowl agreements and a partial football schedule. The B12 adds Houston as a replacement which would make things even easier for Texas on the travel side for Oly Sports. Texas-Oklahoma game would be protected with the partial football schedule.