(10-04-2017 11:40 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:33 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:32 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 06:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://pilotonline.com/sports/columnist...60934.html

Counterpoint from Raleigh News & Observer: UNC should get the boot first

Quote:Without minimizing in any way the dumpster fire of scandals that festered at Louisville until things reached meltdown last week, not one thing that has happened at U of L has damaged the credibility of the ACC as much as North Carolina’s actions have in what is commonly known as the “UNC academic fraud scandal.”

Yet all of Louisville’s accumulated tawdriness does not undermine the foundations of the school’s academic integrity in the way that almost 1,500 North Carolina athletes being allowed/encouraged to take academically fraudulent classes for 18 years (1993-2011) does.

What happened in Chapel Hill is even more galling because UNC for decades boasted about its integrity and how “The Carolina Way” was the model for what college sports should be.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/...46751.html

UNC is the ACC. They're not going anywhere. If they did manage to get kicked out, the Big Ten will welcome them.

Starting to what bothered MD fans...the ACC refs are horribly biased and incompetent.

Duke and UNC were public enemy #1 and #2.

(10-04-2017 11:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:51 AM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:30 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

The ACC knew and invited Pitt anyway. So we circle back to my original point, the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day the ACC invited Pitt. Nothing you can come up with will change that fact.

I disagree...UConn made it personal. And Blumenthal was scoring political points to push it to ridiculous levels.

So Pitt only kind of sued and UConn hardcore sued on the same law suit?

Yes...hey, didn't VTech sue also back in '03?

It was Blumenthal you need to blame...he made it personal.

So...once again, I'm right that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died when Pitt was invited, and you and quo are wrong. These are the facts of the case, your honor. The defense rests.

(10-04-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Fairly or unfairly, UConn was always regarded as the ring-leader of the lawsuit. They were the most up front and adamant about it, UConn seemed to take the lead publicly in complaining about what the ACC did and about how it would harm them because they had invested in a new stadium. Yes, Pitt and others were part of the suit, but they were quieter about it. And public perceptions matter. If you run a big organization, legal disputes are inevitable so you don't necessarily hold a grudge when someone files against you. But it's one thing if the filer stays relatively quiet about it and it is worked out behind the scenes, another when the opponent goes public and disparages you in front of the cameras. That is what raises hackles.

And IIRC, it hurts to have a specific enemy, and BC in particular has long held a grudge because of disparaging comments directed at it by UConn officials at the time. It's hard to get admitted to a conference when there's one member who is an adamant "No", and UConn seems to have that in BC.

Bottom line is that IMO, the ACC remembers.

And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

Spot on!

Especially with the Connecticut AG leading the charge. That really linked UConn with the lawsuit moreso than the other plaintiffs.

Yeah, sorry, but the 2003 lawsuit excuse is dead and buried. Thanks Pitt (and Va. Tech).

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm convinced that if the ACC had added UConn instead, Clemson and FSU would be gone by now (and possibly NC State and Va Tech as well).

Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

(10-04-2017 11:08 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:02 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:42 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I'm unfamiliar, but is there "beef" between ACC brass and West Virginia? WVU during the last cycle was a pretty strong candidate for a power conference. Football saw the program rise to top-10 levels under Rich Rodriguez, and top-25 levels under Bill Stewart. In Dana Holgerson's last season in the Big East, he went 10-3 and won the Orange Bowl. Basketball, since Bob Huggins took the reigns, was one of the top basketball programs in the Big East. Add in the power and influence of former AD, Oliver Luck, and it just seems odd that there wasn't a fit between the ACC/WVU.

The ACC has had a longstanding concern with WVU as a candidate for expansion due to academics. It is ranked #187 in National Universities by USNWR. I believe every member but Louisville (at #165) is in the top 100. Having said that, if the B12 had invited UL over WVU, there would have been a strong push to add WVU after Maryland left for football reasons.

The "beef" goes back to the SoCon days. I'm not sure what it was all about. ACC members also had a "beef" with Virginia Tech during that period. They got over VT, they need to get over WVU.

The "beef" with VT was the same as the "beef" with WVU, it wasn't a specific thing, as I explained, it was cultural - VT was historically regarded by the Carolina schools and their fellow UVA as a backwoods, mountain school, thus not a good cultural fit with the high-minded progressive image that ACC schools had of themselves.

Unfortunately for WVU, they don't have another West Virginia school already a member of the ACC so that their state government can strong-arm the ACC in to taking them. It was only because Virginia Governor Warner ordered UVA to not vote for any expansion candidate but VT that VT got in.

Most of the big state schools left the SoCon in '52 and took two small private schools with them but left two big state schools behind with the other small private schools. Seems odd by today's standards.

There certainly was elitism involved, but I'm not sure that was the driving factor.. Are W&M, Richmond, GW, Furman, or Davidson any more or less "elite" than Clemson or NC State? Wake and Duke were too close to UNC and NC State to get left behind and they only were taking 8. While UVA certainly looked down at VT (or VPI more correctly), I don't know the others did. WVU, however, was a relatively new member of the SoCon and had little history with the programs leaving. It doesnt suprise me they got left behind.

No, those schools you mention aren't any less elite than the ACC schools, but they are mostly small liberal-arts colleges that have never had aspirations for being big-time athletic programs either. That is also part of the equation.

(10-04-2017 10:58 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Was Rutgers ever mentioned as a possible expansion candidate for the ACC? They were always mentioned as a B1G target.

Some talk of Cuse and Rutgers in 2009-10 time period as a pair but Rutgers frankly was not seriously considered. The ACC wasn't built off cable boxes.

The 2011 invite was always Syracuse (pay back for 2003 fiasco) and one other school.

Anyone who has ever paid attention to realignment knows that RU was always a target for the B1G and is where RU wanted to be. In fact, if not for Nebraska making itself available, RU would have been in instead.

Rutgers was never seriously considered by the ACC because they knew one of two things would happen, and both would embarrass the ACC:

1. If they invited Rutgers, RU would accept and then bolt as soon as the B1G invite came.
2. If they invited them, RU could have said no (not likely, but if the B1G came along at the same time.....or later, see #1)

RU has been on the path to B1G membership since the mid 90's, anyone who denies it is just being intellectually dishonest.

(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

Spot on!

Especially with the Connecticut AG leading the charge. That really linked UConn with the lawsuit moreso than the other plaintiffs.

Yeah, sorry, but the 2003 lawsuit excuse is dead and buried. Thanks Pitt (and Va. Tech).

Several posters - both affiliated with ACC schools and not - have tried to help you with this, but you seem to be deaf to incoming: The bottom line is that for the reasons given, namely UConn's lead public role in the lawsuit, the fact that Pitt was invited to the ACC even though they too were a party to the suit by no means indicates that the lawsuit issue is dead when it comes to UConn.

As TexanMark put it, UConn "made it personal" in a way that Pitt and others didn't. Sorry about that.

(10-04-2017 11:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm convinced that if the ACC had added UConn instead, Clemson and FSU would be gone by now (and possibly NC State and Va Tech as well).

Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sport...tions.html

"Most of the A.C.C.’s presidents wanted UConn, which has a much higher U.S. News ranking than Louisville. But two of the A.C.C.’s most important football programs, Florida State and Clemson, insisted on Louisville, whose football team was ranked 13th that year. Fearing that the two universities might leave the A.C.C., and thus diminish the value of its television contracts, the conference reluctantly opted for Louisville."

(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:58 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Was Rutgers ever mentioned as a possible expansion candidate for the ACC? They were always mentioned as a B1G target.

Some talk of Cuse and Rutgers in 2009-10 time period as a pair but Rutgers frankly was not seriously considered. The ACC wasn't built off cable boxes.

The 2011 invite was always Syracuse (pay back for 2003 fiasco) and one other school.

Anyone who has ever paid attention to realignment knows that RU was always a target for the B1G and is where RU wanted to be. In fact, if not for Nebraska making itself available, RU would have been in instead.

Rutgers was never seriously considered by the ACC because they knew one of two things would happen, and both would embarrass the ACC:

1. If they invited Rutgers, RU would accept and then bolt as soon as the B1G invite came.
2. If they invited them, RU could have said no (not likely, but if the B1G came along at the same time.....or later, see #1)

RU has been on the path to B1G membership since the mid 90's, anyone who denies it is just being intellectually dishonest.

And bless your heart for blasting open the door upon NJ HS recruiting to the B1G power teams. Especially nice you allow their fans to visit your stadium to watch their teams defeat Rutgers 75-0.

(10-04-2017 12:13 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:58 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Was Rutgers ever mentioned as a possible expansion candidate for the ACC? They were always mentioned as a B1G target.

Some talk of Cuse and Rutgers in 2009-10 time period as a pair but Rutgers frankly was not seriously considered. The ACC wasn't built off cable boxes.

The 2011 invite was always Syracuse (pay back for 2003 fiasco) and one other school.

Anyone who has ever paid attention to realignment knows that RU was always a target for the B1G and is where RU wanted to be. In fact, if not for Nebraska making itself available, RU would have been in instead.

Rutgers was never seriously considered by the ACC because they knew one of two things would happen, and both would embarrass the ACC:

1. If they invited Rutgers, RU would accept and then bolt as soon as the B1G invite came.
2. If they invited them, RU could have said no (not likely, but if the B1G came along at the same time.....or later, see #1)

RU has been on the path to B1G membership since the mid 90's, anyone who denies it is just being intellectually dishonest.

And bless your heart for blasting open the door upon NJ HS recruiting to the B1G power teams. Especially nice you allow their fans to visit your stadium to watch their teams defeat Rutgers 75-0.

(10-04-2017 10:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:08 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the moment the ACC added Pitt. Try again.[/b]

Fairly or unfairly, UConn was always regarded as the ring-leader of the lawsuit. They were the most up front and adamant about it, UConn seemed to take the lead publicly in complaining about what the ACC did and about how it would harm them because they had invested in a new stadium. Yes, Pitt and others were part of the suit, but they were quieter about it. And public perceptions matter. If you run a big organization, legal disputes are inevitable so you don't necessarily hold a grudge when someone files against you. But it's one thing if the filer stays relatively quiet about it and it is worked out behind the scenes, another when the opponent goes public and disparages you in front of the cameras. That is what raises hackles.

And IIRC, it hurts to have a specific enemy, and BC in particular has long held a grudge because of disparaging comments directed at it by UConn officials at the time. It's hard to get admitted to a conference when there's one member who is an adamant "No", and UConn seems to have that in BC.

Bottom line is that IMO, the ACC remembers.

And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

I hate to break it to you but nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.

This is coming from an SEC/Pac12 perspective: I vaguely remember the lawsuit that was filed and it was filed in a Connecticut court. Know who else vaguely remembers too probably? Try the president of Boston College. Even though he can't block UConn by himself, I'm sure he has a made a lot of friends over the years, and these friends are pretty powerful friends too. One such friend has to be Clemson University's president, because it has seemed like that Clemson has really reached out to BC over the years. That, in and of itself is huge because Clemson knew how to get around the anti-expansion, pro-basketball expansion Virginia-Carolina core. If Clemson is a "no" vote for UConn, I can guarantee you that Florida State and Georgia Tech would be "no" votes also, so you have got four "no" votes right there, and you can make that five, if Miami's president decides to vote with FSU, and they probably would.

(10-04-2017 11:57 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm convinced that if the ACC had added UConn instead, Clemson and FSU would be gone by now (and possibly NC State and Va Tech as well).

Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sport...tions.html

"Most of the A.C.C.’s presidents wanted UConn, which has a much higher U.S. News ranking than Louisville. But two of the A.C.C.’s most important football programs, Florida State and Clemson, insisted on Louisville, whose football team was ranked 13th that year. Fearing that the two universities might leave the A.C.C., and thus diminish the value of its television contracts, the conference reluctantly opted for Louisville."

So I'm supposed to believe this story about the FSU's, etc. being super-serial about leaving for "greener pastures", but I'm supposed to be super skeptical about the article saying UCONN and Syracuse were considered for the ACC in 2011?

Sorry, that's not how this works. Either this article is lying or the 2011 article, with the BC AD being quoted, is lying. Which is it?

(10-04-2017 12:13 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:58 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:20 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Was Rutgers ever mentioned as a possible expansion candidate for the ACC? They were always mentioned as a B1G target.

Some talk of Cuse and Rutgers in 2009-10 time period as a pair but Rutgers frankly was not seriously considered. The ACC wasn't built off cable boxes.

The 2011 invite was always Syracuse (pay back for 2003 fiasco) and one other school.

Anyone who has ever paid attention to realignment knows that RU was always a target for the B1G and is where RU wanted to be. In fact, if not for Nebraska making itself available, RU would have been in instead.

Rutgers was never seriously considered by the ACC because they knew one of two things would happen, and both would embarrass the ACC:

1. If they invited Rutgers, RU would accept and then bolt as soon as the B1G invite came.
2. If they invited them, RU could have said no (not likely, but if the B1G came along at the same time.....or later, see #1)

RU has been on the path to B1G membership since the mid 90's, anyone who denies it is just being intellectually dishonest.

And bless your heart for blasting open the door upon NJ HS recruiting to the B1G power teams. Especially nice you allow their fans to visit your stadium to watch their teams defeat Rutgers 75-0.

I think the B1G power teams were doing just fine with NJ HS recruits before we became members. However, attendance at the games is another matter. It does however show the value of RU - by getting the B1G into the area, lots of alumni can now easily get to a conference game. And to be clear, it was 78-0.

(10-04-2017 11:57 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm convinced that if the ACC had added UConn instead, Clemson and FSU would be gone by now (and possibly NC State and Va Tech as well).

Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sport...tions.html

"Most of the A.C.C.’s presidents wanted UConn, which has a much higher U.S. News ranking than Louisville. But two of the A.C.C.’s most important football programs, Florida State and Clemson, insisted on Louisville, whose football team was ranked 13th that year. Fearing that the two universities might leave the A.C.C., and thus diminish the value of its television contracts, the conference reluctantly opted for Louisville."

The fear was known, but what was actually vetted?

The SEC seems like the most logical spot for schools like NCSU, FSU, Clemson, and VT, but there is a lot there that needs to be flushed out. Specifically, the resistance from faculty and administrators were the school to up and go there.

Maryland had to dig deep into its pockets to try to soothe over angry fans and alumni over the ACC-B1G move. Imagine its one of these other schools and you're going to the SEC? The network money would be astronomical...but so would the blow-back from fans.

This never made sense to me about the hysteria. FSU left money on the table when it turned down the Big XII. This was about more than just cash. And, why not pull a page from the Big Ten's book when it fished for Nebraska..."leak" these ACC fears and give the member institutions a taste of just what they may have on their hands were they to really consider a move.

(10-04-2017 12:26 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:40 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Fairly or unfairly, UConn was always regarded as the ring-leader of the lawsuit. They were the most up front and adamant about it, UConn seemed to take the lead publicly in complaining about what the ACC did and about how it would harm them because they had invested in a new stadium. Yes, Pitt and others were part of the suit, but they were quieter about it. And public perceptions matter. If you run a big organization, legal disputes are inevitable so you don't necessarily hold a grudge when someone files against you. But it's one thing if the filer stays relatively quiet about it and it is worked out behind the scenes, another when the opponent goes public and disparages you in front of the cameras. That is what raises hackles.

And IIRC, it hurts to have a specific enemy, and BC in particular has long held a grudge because of disparaging comments directed at it by UConn officials at the time. It's hard to get admitted to a conference when there's one member who is an adamant "No", and UConn seems to have that in BC.

Bottom line is that IMO, the ACC remembers.

And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

I hate to break it to you but nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.

This is coming from an SEC/Pac12 perspective: I vaguely remember the lawsuit that was filed and it was filed in a Connecticut court. Know who else vaguely remembers too probably? Try the president of Boston College. Even though he can't block UConn by himself, I'm sure he has a made a lot of friends over the years, and these friends are pretty powerful friends too. One such friend has to be Clemson University's president, because it has seemed like that Clemson has really reached out to BC over the years. That, in and of itself is huge because Clemson knew how to get around the anti-expansion, pro-basketball expansion Virginia-Carolina core. If Clemson is a "no" vote for UConn, I can guarantee you that Florida State and Georgia Tech would be "no" votes also, so you have got four "no" votes right there, and you can make that five, if Miami's president decides to vote with FSU, and they probably would.

Yeah but Pitt and Rutgers and everybody else weren't innocent bystanders or was UConn so powerful it couldn't be stopped. You sue somebody or you don't.

(10-04-2017 12:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:57 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:50 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm convinced that if the ACC had added UConn instead, Clemson and FSU would be gone by now (and possibly NC State and Va Tech as well).

Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sport...tions.html

"Most of the A.C.C.’s presidents wanted UConn, which has a much higher U.S. News ranking than Louisville. But two of the A.C.C.’s most important football programs, Florida State and Clemson, insisted on Louisville, whose football team was ranked 13th that year. Fearing that the two universities might leave the A.C.C., and thus diminish the value of its television contracts, the conference reluctantly opted for Louisville."

The fear was known, but what was actually vetted?

The SEC seems like the most logical spot for schools like NCSU, FSU, Clemson, and VT, but there is a lot there that needs to be flushed out. Specifically, the resistance from faculty and administrators were the school to up and go there.

Maryland had to dig deep into its pockets to try to soothe over angry fans and alumni over the ACC-B1G move. Imagine its one of these other schools and you're going to the SEC? The network money would be astronomical...but so would the blow-back from fans.

This never made sense to me about the hysteria. FSU left money on the table when it turned down the Big XII. This was about more than just cash. And, why not pull a page from the Big Ten's book when it fished for Nebraska..."leak" these ACC fears and give the member institutions a taste of just what they may have on their hands were they to really consider a move.

For football I think you need 11 schools to vote yes for football, ND may have a vote as well. UCONN likley does not have BC, Clemson and FSU right off the bat. I could see any of these schools, VT, Miami NCSU and possibly Ga Tech being likely no votes. I can't speak how the other old BE schools would vote but UCONN could have a majority wanted but not the majority needed. ACC worries about upsetting football not basketball powers anymore. I think at the start of the BCS, the ACC was about 50/50 on what football and basketball brought in. That has shifted to Football is the bread winner. Basketball is like an old aristocrat, it has the name but not the money power it once use too.

(10-04-2017 12:38 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:26 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  And yet they weren't the "ringleader", Pitt was. Do you care to venture a guess which conference Pitt is in? Take your time, I'll wait.

You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

I hate to break it to you but nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.

This is coming from an SEC/Pac12 perspective: I vaguely remember the lawsuit that was filed and it was filed in a Connecticut court. Know who else vaguely remembers too probably? Try the president of Boston College. Even though he can't block UConn by himself, I'm sure he has a made a lot of friends over the years, and these friends are pretty powerful friends too. One such friend has to be Clemson University's president, because it has seemed like that Clemson has really reached out to BC over the years. That, in and of itself is huge because Clemson knew how to get around the anti-expansion, pro-basketball expansion Virginia-Carolina core. If Clemson is a "no" vote for UConn, I can guarantee you that Florida State and Georgia Tech would be "no" votes also, so you have got four "no" votes right there, and you can make that five, if Miami's president decides to vote with FSU, and they probably would.

Yeah but Pitt and Rutgers and everybody else weren't innocent bystanders or was UConn so powerful it couldn't be stopped. You sue somebody or you don't.

It's quite humorous. BC is simultaneously all-powerful and impotent in the ACC. Then and now. Subsequently, UCONN was simultaneously the only plantiff and one of many plantiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.

(10-04-2017 12:49 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:32 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:57 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:52 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Where were they going?

And, what kind of trouble is it going to cause within the faculty, alumni, and donor communities?

They weren't going anywhere. That annoying little fact gets in the way of Hokie's story.

The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sport...tions.html

"Most of the A.C.C.’s presidents wanted UConn, which has a much higher U.S. News ranking than Louisville. But two of the A.C.C.’s most important football programs, Florida State and Clemson, insisted on Louisville, whose football team was ranked 13th that year. Fearing that the two universities might leave the A.C.C., and thus diminish the value of its television contracts, the conference reluctantly opted for Louisville."

The fear was known, but what was actually vetted?

The SEC seems like the most logical spot for schools like NCSU, FSU, Clemson, and VT, but there is a lot there that needs to be flushed out. Specifically, the resistance from faculty and administrators were the school to up and go there.

Maryland had to dig deep into its pockets to try to soothe over angry fans and alumni over the ACC-B1G move. Imagine its one of these other schools and you're going to the SEC? The network money would be astronomical...but so would the blow-back from fans.

This never made sense to me about the hysteria. FSU left money on the table when it turned down the Big XII. This was about more than just cash. And, why not pull a page from the Big Ten's book when it fished for Nebraska..."leak" these ACC fears and give the member institutions a taste of just what they may have on their hands were they to really consider a move.

For football I think you need 11 schools to vote yes for football, ND may have a vote as well. UCONN likley does not have BC, Clemson and FSU right off the bat. I could see any of these schools, VT, Miami NCSU and possibly Ga Tech being likely no votes. I can't speak how the other old BE schools would vote but UCONN could have a majority wanted but not the majority needed. ACC worries about upsetting football not basketball powers anymore. I think at the start of the BCS, the ACC was about 50/50 on what football and basketball brought in. That has shifted to Football is the bread winner. Basketball is like an old aristocrat, it has the name but not the money power it once use too.

So great job on grabbing Syracuse, BC and Pitt

(10-04-2017 12:51 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:38 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:26 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You missed the point entirely: It doesn't matter who technically filed papers or whatever, what matters is public perception, and the public perception at the time and now was that UConn was the school most publicly identified with the lawsuit. That's why people have to be reminded that Pitt and others were actually part of it, because nobody remembers that. But everyone remembers UConn, because UConn was most in front of the cameras complaining about the ACC.

Hey, when the lawsuit happened, i had zero skin in the game, USF wasn't involved in any way shape or form. But as a neutral observer, that's what I remember - the lawsuit was "UConn's lawsuit against the ACC", that's how it was perceived, and that's how it has resonated with the ACC.

I hate to break it to you but nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.

This is coming from an SEC/Pac12 perspective: I vaguely remember the lawsuit that was filed and it was filed in a Connecticut court. Know who else vaguely remembers too probably? Try the president of Boston College. Even though he can't block UConn by himself, I'm sure he has a made a lot of friends over the years, and these friends are pretty powerful friends too. One such friend has to be Clemson University's president, because it has seemed like that Clemson has really reached out to BC over the years. That, in and of itself is huge because Clemson knew how to get around the anti-expansion, pro-basketball expansion Virginia-Carolina core. If Clemson is a "no" vote for UConn, I can guarantee you that Florida State and Georgia Tech would be "no" votes also, so you have got four "no" votes right there, and you can make that five, if Miami's president decides to vote with FSU, and they probably would.

Yeah but Pitt and Rutgers and everybody else weren't innocent bystanders or was UConn so powerful it couldn't be stopped. You sue somebody or you don't.

It's quite humorous. BC is simultaneously all-powerful and impotent in the ACC. Then and now. Subsequently, UCONN was simultaneously the only plantiff and one of many plantiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.

Or somewhere in between. With BC, Clemson and FSU anti-UConn football, it's enough to sway the one or two votes needed to keep UConn out.

What's also quite humorous is that you are forgetting the role of the Connecticut Attorney General here --that, as much as anything else, links the suit to UConn.

It may have been a joint resolution among the 5 schools (Pitt, RU, VT, WVU, UConn) or it could have been Pitt ringleading or UConn. No one wanted to see the football conference devalued but in 2003 UConn had the most to lose.

(10-04-2017 01:03 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:51 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:38 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:26 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 10:34 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I hate to break it to you but nobody remembers that UCONN was the "public face" of the lawsuit. That's why people like you and ACC fanboys, have to constantly remind John Q. Public that UCONN was actually part of the lawsuit. They've forgotten and if they somehow do remember, they don't care.

This is coming from an SEC/Pac12 perspective: I vaguely remember the lawsuit that was filed and it was filed in a Connecticut court. Know who else vaguely remembers too probably? Try the president of Boston College. Even though he can't block UConn by himself, I'm sure he has a made a lot of friends over the years, and these friends are pretty powerful friends too. One such friend has to be Clemson University's president, because it has seemed like that Clemson has really reached out to BC over the years. That, in and of itself is huge because Clemson knew how to get around the anti-expansion, pro-basketball expansion Virginia-Carolina core. If Clemson is a "no" vote for UConn, I can guarantee you that Florida State and Georgia Tech would be "no" votes also, so you have got four "no" votes right there, and you can make that five, if Miami's president decides to vote with FSU, and they probably would.

Yeah but Pitt and Rutgers and everybody else weren't innocent bystanders or was UConn so powerful it couldn't be stopped. You sue somebody or you don't.

It's quite humorous. BC is simultaneously all-powerful and impotent in the ACC. Then and now. Subsequently, UCONN was simultaneously the only plantiff and one of many plantiffs in the 2003 lawsuit.

Or somewhere in between. With BC, Clemson and FSU anti-UConn football, it's enough to sway the one or two votes needed to keep UConn out.

What's also quite humorous is that you are forgetting the role of the Connecticut Attorney General here --that, as much as anything else, links the suit to UConn.

It may have been a joint resolution among the 5 schools (Pitt, RU, VT, WVU, UConn) or it could have been Pitt ringleading or UConn. No one wanted to see the football conference devalued but in 2003 UConn had the most to lose.

Yes the bolded part is correct.