(01-21-2019 09:29 AM)cuseroc Wrote: Incorrect. Syracuse has never been part of any lawsuit against the BE. Not in 2003 and not when SU left in 2012. SU refrained from being part of the lawsuit in 2003 because they were looking to go to the ACC, and when they didnt go it would look hypocritical to turn around and sue the the ACC. Im no attorney but to me it seems that that situation would have made a weak BE lawsuit against the ACC even weaker.
1) Yes, Syracuse was never part of the Big East lawsuit. The plaintiffs were UConn, WV, Pitt, Rutgers, and initially VT as well. They sued Miami, BC, and the ACC.
2) The lawsuit itself was weak but apparently not entirely without merit. In 2005 the ACC did settle it with a payout of $1m each to UConn, WV, Pitt, and Rutgers, plus a 9-game scheduling arrangement from 2008-2012.
3) While UConn was never the only school that sued the ACC, UConn was undeniably the "public face" of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed in Connecticut state court by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and Blumenthal was by media accounts the driving force behind it. So IMO it would not be surprising if the ACC holds the biggest grudge against UConn about that whole mess.
Also, Blumenthal was an ambitious politician, and his public statements about the lawsuit, which may have irked the ACC, could have boosted his standing with CONN voters.
Ironically, 2012 was a great year for Blumenthal even as it was a terrible year for UConn football. As the old Big East was collapsing and UConn was losing its AQ status, Blumenthal was being sworn in as a US Senator, a position he holds to this day. So i think it's fair to say that Blumenthal's fortunes have been considerably better than UConn football's fortunes over the past 15 years.