(01-16-2014 11:00 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote: (01-16-2014 10:55 AM)Underdog Wrote: (01-16-2014 10:49 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote: (01-16-2014 10:46 AM)Underdog Wrote: I posted this in another thread; however, it seems relevant to this one as well:
"The decision was made to include Pitt and Syracuse and exclude UConn.... ESPN - is the one who told us [the ACC] what to do.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/scandal-e...ce-2011-10
The part you missed is that ESPN wanted UConn and BC balked and said they would rather have Pitt because BC delusionally thinks they have a chance to claim New England as their own.
This may not be the full story, so you could be right. However, it's clearly stated that ESPN wanted only Pitt and Cuse in the ACC.....
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...ppo-espn/1
The ACC first targeted Syracuse, then UConn. But Boston College had major objections to UConn, stemming from BC's move from the Big East to the ACC in 2005, some nasty comments and a lawsuit.
BC athletics director Gene DeFilippo seemingly confirmed what many had been reporting/presuming over the past month -- that BC blocked UConn from receiving an invite to the ACC.
"We didn't want them in,'' DeFilippo told the Globe. "It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.''
The fact that BC didn't want Uconn in the ACC seems pretty clear. However, Uconn fans like to forget three important points also associated with this issue:
1. Uconn was considered by many to be the lead in the lawsuit against BC, Miami, and the ACC in 2003-2004. BC and ACC leaders were sued PERSONALLY. The suit was based in Connecticut and conducted by the then-CT State Officials. See the attached and note the comments by these aforementioned CT State Officials. Boston College and Miami were exiting the Big East under the Big East's own exit provisions. You can imagine that the charges of "fraud" and "deceit" did not sit well with them.
https://www.wral.com/news/local/story/105570/
2. Boston College is ONE VOTE in the ACC. It is ludicrous to suggest that they alone had the power to derail Uconn getting into the ACC. (What is even more laughable is that these same Uconn fans often mocked BC as having no influence whatsoever in the ACC. Now, when it suits them, they portray BC as this all-powerful presence dictating ACC decisions.)
A number of other schools had to likewise not elect to extend an invitation to Uconn. Of course, since many of the ACC school and Conference officials back in 2003 are still around, could that also be a factor in the ultimate selections? It's just my opinion, of course, but maybe it wasn't such a good idea to take the vocal lead in a lawsuit filed PERSONALLY against ACC school and Conference officials, when you would, a few years later, be asking those same people to include you in their club.
Uconn fans in these threads seem to believe that nothing prior to the 2011 had anything to do with how events played out for them with the ACC. In my opinion, they are the ones who are deluding themsleves.
3. In my opinion, I do believe that the so-called "market block" was also a factor in this. So what? These type of "market blocks" are speculated about in these threads and elsewhere all the time. People often speculate on this being the reason any one of a number of ACC teams were not scooped up at one time or another by the SEC.
The funny thing is that many UMass fans claim that Uconn has exercised the same "market block" on Umass getting into the AAC. It is interesting to note that since Uconn elevated their program to FBS, they have played Umass only ONCE - and no future games are scheduled at this point. This is interesting as both are flagship schools in neighboring states that are the closest FBS programs to one another.
Personally, I think Uconn fans engage in a bit of hypocrisy bringing up this "market block" topic.
/
Possibility of UCF and UConn to ACC? [Speculation thread, no source]
