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

(10-04-2017 06:36 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  https://pilotonline.com/sports/columnist/harry-minium/ncaa-should-hand-louisville-the-death-penalty-and-acc-should/article_589eab5e-0759-5d86-a061-88448bb60934.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/article176646751.html

(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.

(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.

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

(10-04-2017 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In life there are 3 kinds of people you will meet. Two of them are at the extremes. You will meet people who immediately despise you, or maybe even hate you. You will meet people who are immediately enamored of you, or maybe even believe they love you. And you will meet a lot of people who acknowledge you and take their time figuring out who you are before they form an opinion about you one way or the other.

Thank God that the majority is the latter, because both of the aforementioned groups that immediately form an opinion about you to the extreme will be the most likely to one day demand your execution. Those that hate you right away probably always will, and those who love you right away will hate you with intense venom the moment you don't meet their expectations, and nobody is ever able to meet their expectations in perpetuity.

So you have to love threads like this one. Louisville was immediately loved by the ACC for being the ultimate replacement for Maryland. But on the fringe of the move were the wait and see folks. Those that hated the idea were more afraid of further defections and needed to plug the hole immediately. Those that loved them saw a football and basketball rising star. And now that they have proven to be fallible everyone but those who had a wait and see attitude is angered and wants to lynch them.

The old adage is hindsight is 20/20. In this case it's more like heiny sight. Now that Louisville has some egg on its face their detractors (haters/ex lovers) will make the situation even worse by acting like the complete rumps they've always been.

The long and short of it was the ACC looked at UConn, West Virginia, and Louisville and whittled down the potential membership long before Maryland defected. What they found was that Virginia Tech and Pitt gave them most of the West Virginia peripheral markets, Boston College and Syracuse gave them a goodly portion of the UConn peripheral markets, and that Louisville gave them a new demographic and one that was complimentary to Notre Dame.

That's the long and short of it. So pontificating backwards into time serves no purpose because the reasoning would have been the same. Those with academic credentials that would also add value to the ACC were simply not there for the taking. So who would add value and fit within the ACC bipolar sports culture was the criteria. Enter data and you get Louisville.

You took them for that reason and the fact that you needed an outward sign of stability which Notre Dame certainly helped to provide too.

That's the end of this story. Louisville will suffer for their sins, but that does not change the fundamental reasons you took them.

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

(10-04-2017 02:06 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

Half right. Blumenthal took a gamble (for his political gain). The State of Connecticut sued the ACC and BC on behalf of a school in their state for whom they just spent $100 million on a stadium. The school was UConn. UConn didn't sue the ACC or BC. If the ACC is going to take the State of Connecticut's legal action to protect its flagship university personally and penalize UConn for it forever, then they are a pretty sensitive bunch. UConn's lawsuit was business. The ACC's pettiness is personal.

(10-04-2017 01:56 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In life there are 3 kinds of people you will meet. Two of them are at the extremes. You will meet people who immediately despise you, or maybe even hate you. You will meet people who are immediately enamored of you, or maybe even believe they love you. And you will meet a lot of people who acknowledge you and take their time figuring out who you are before they form an opinion about you one way or the other.

Thank God that the majority is the latter, because both of the aforementioned groups that immediately form an opinion about you to the extreme will be the most likely to one day demand your execution. Those that hate you right away probably always will, and those who love you right away will hate you with intense venom the moment you don't meet their expectations, and nobody is ever able to meet their expectations in perpetuity.

So you have to love threads like this one. Louisville was immediately loved by the ACC for being the ultimate replacement for Maryland. But on the fringe of the move were the wait and see folks. Those that hated the idea were more afraid of further defections and needed to plug the hole immediately. Those that loved them saw a football and basketball rising star. And now that they have proven to be fallible everyone but those who had a wait and see attitude is angered and wants to lynch them.

The old adage is hindsight is 20/20. In this case it's more like heiny sight. Now that Louisville has some egg on its face their detractors (haters/ex lovers) will make the situation even worse by acting like the complete rumps they've always been.

The long and short of it was the ACC looked at UConn, West Virginia, and Louisville and whittled down the potential membership long before Maryland defected. What they found was that Virginia Tech and Pitt gave them most of the West Virginia peripheral markets, Boston College and Syracuse gave them a goodly portion of the UConn peripheral markets, and that Louisville gave them a new demographic and one that was complimentary to Notre Dame.

That's the long and short of it. So pontificating backwards into time serves no purpose because the reasoning would have been the same. Those with academic credentials that would also add value to the ACC were simply not there for the taking. So who would add value and fit within the ACC bipolar sports culture was the criteria. Enter data and you get Louisville.

You took them for that reason and the fact that you needed an outward sign of stability which Notre Dame certainly helped to provide too.

That's the end of this story. Louisville will suffer for their sins, but that does not change the fundamental reasons you took them.

Honestly the ACC picked Louisville that is great for them, I don't hate them or anything.

But I don't get what you mean by peripheral markets. If I wanted to watch a BC or Syracuse game in Hartford, I probably couldn't, maybe a Clemson or FSU game would be national

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

(10-04-2017 02:09 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:06 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yes...hey, didn't VTech sue also back in '03?

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

Half right. Blumenthal took a gamble (for his political gain). The State of Connecticut sued the ACC and BC on behalf of a school in their state for whom they just spent $100 million on a stadium. The school was UConn. UConn didn't sue the ACC or BC. If the ACC is going to take the State of Connecticut's legal action to protect its flagship university personally and penalize UConn for it forever, then they are a pretty sensitive bunch. UConn's lawsuit was business. The ACC's pettiness is personal.

But there were co-defendants as in equal partners of the law suit.

(10-04-2017 01:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(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:  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.

What gives you the impression that I'm forgetting and/or ignoring the bolded? My point continues to be and will continue to be going forward, is that the 2003 lawsuit is excuse is dead, buried, pushing up daisies, 6 feet under, etc.and it died the day Pitt accepted the invitation to join the ACC.

(10-04-2017 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  In life there are 3 kinds of people you will meet. Two of them are at the extremes. You will meet people who immediately despise you, or maybe even hate you. You will meet people who are immediately enamored of you, or maybe even believe they love you. And you will meet a lot of people who acknowledge you and take their time figuring out who you are before they form an opinion about you one way or the other.

Thank God that the majority is the latter, because both of the aforementioned groups that immediately form an opinion about you to the extreme will be the most likely to one day demand your execution. Those that hate you right away probably always will, and those who love you right away will hate you with intense venom the moment you don't meet their expectations, and nobody is ever able to meet their expectations in perpetuity.

So you have to love threads like this one. Louisville was immediately loved by the ACC for being the ultimate replacement for Maryland. But on the fringe of the move were the wait and see folks. Those that hated the idea were more afraid of further defections and needed to plug the hole immediately. Those that loved them saw a football and basketball rising star. And now that they have proven to be fallible everyone but those who had a wait and see attitude is angered and wants to lynch them.

The old adage is hindsight is 20/20. In this case it's more like heiny sight. Now that Louisville has some egg on its face their detractors (haters/ex lovers) will make the situation even worse by acting like the complete rumps they've always been.

The long and short of it was the ACC looked at UConn, West Virginia, and Louisville and whittled down the potential membership long before Maryland defected. What they found was that Virginia Tech and Pitt gave them most of the West Virginia peripheral markets, Boston College and Syracuse gave them a goodly portion of the UConn peripheral markets, and that Louisville gave them a new demographic and one that was complimentary to Notre Dame.

That's the long and short of it. So pontificating backwards into time serves no purpose because the reasoning would have been the same. Those with academic credentials that would also add value to the ACC were simply not there for the taking. So who would add value and fit within the ACC bipolar sports culture was the criteria. Enter data and you get Louisville.

You took them for that reason and the fact that you needed an outward sign of stability which Notre Dame certainly helped to provide too.

That's the end of this story. Louisville will suffer for their sins, but that does not change the fundamental reasons you took them.

(10-04-2017 02:01 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

I will continue to say this and it doesn't matter what you or JRsec (who's very wrong about the reach of 'Cuse and BC re: UCONN) think and/or say.......The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day the ACC invited Pitt.

No amount of spin will change that fact. Deal with it.

(10-04-2017 02:12 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:09 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:06 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

Half right. Blumenthal took a gamble (for his political gain). The State of Connecticut sued the ACC and BC on behalf of a school in their state for whom they just spent $100 million on a stadium. The school was UConn. UConn didn't sue the ACC or BC. If the ACC is going to take the State of Connecticut's legal action to protect its flagship university personally and penalize UConn for it forever, then they are a pretty sensitive bunch. UConn's lawsuit was business. The ACC's pettiness is personal.

But there were co-defendants as in equal partners of the law suit.

Well, that was certainly shortsighted by the folks in CT.

I guess that we will have to wait until the ACC gets over it (if they ever do). At least the AAC is starting to become a better home if we are stuck in it forever. Only time will tell.

(10-04-2017 02:06 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

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

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

Half right. Blumenthal took a gamble (for his political gain). The State of Connecticut sued the ACC and BC on behalf of a school in their state for whom they just spent $100 million on a stadium. The school was UConn. UConn didn't sue the ACC or BC. If the ACC is going to take the State of Connecticut's legal action to protect its flagship university personally and penalize UConn for it forever, then they are a pretty sensitive bunch. UConn's lawsuit was business. The ACC's pettiness is personal.

(10-04-2017 12:57 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(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:  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/sports/basketball/football-drags-on-uconns-power-5-ambitions.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 02:18 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 02:06 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:51 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 01:33 PM)UConnHusky Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:02 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Yes...hey, didn't VTech sue also back in '03?

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

Blumenthal didn't make it any more personal with the ACC than Pitt did. Blumenthal made it more personal with BC by suing AD Gene DeFilippo and Father Leahy.

The reason UConn made it more personal with BC is that at a Big East meeting concerning ACC expansion candidates, Gene DeFilippo shook everyone's hand and looked them all in the eye and promised that BC was not leaving for the ACC. A few days later, they were gone.

Back then, we all didn't know that realignment was going to become such a huge thing and that former conference members shouldn't take it personally. BC leaving was at the start of modern conference realignment and UConn, in hindsight, overreacted. UConn was annoyed with BC's deceit after Connecticut just dropped $100 million on a new stadium. When those events are put in context, all of the ACC members should understand where UConn was coming from back then. It is water under the bridge. The only one who may be still mad is BC (and Gene DeFilippo is long gone). What BC doesn't get is that they would get more eyeballs and have more success if UConn was also in the ACC. Nobody will care about ACC sports anywhere in New England (not even in Boston) unless UConn is invited. The BC-UConn rivalry based on pure hatred is a thing of beauty.

UCONN and Blumenthal took a gamble and it bombed. Not blaming them for trying but many in the ACC still remember state of CT was the face of the law suit. Too many are still alive in the ACC office that remember. Swofford does not like to be challenged publically. As long as he is alive, he will influence the ACC after he retires. When he does retire, the next commissioner will likely be pro football.

Personally, my money is on this man to be Swofford's replacement when he retires.

Half right. Blumenthal took a gamble (for his political gain). The State of Connecticut sued the ACC and BC on behalf of a school in their state for whom they just spent $100 million on a stadium. The school was UConn. UConn didn't sue the ACC or BC. If the ACC is going to take the State of Connecticut's legal action to protect its flagship university personally and penalize UConn for it forever, then they are a pretty sensitive bunch. UConn's lawsuit was business. The ACC's pettiness is personal.

Does it matter, practically speaking, whether the ACC's continuing animus against UConn is personal or not?

(10-04-2017 02:23 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 12:57 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:  

(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:  The ACC wasn't so sure:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/sports/basketball/football-drags-on-uconns-power-5-ambitions.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

Yeah, the optics over time don't make much sense for Cuse and Pitt. Neither were really spicing things up in the Big East before and after the raid in football. But, we all knew football was driving the bus with revenue.

Louisville is just good at making money with its athletics. They weren't the best football or only basketball option available to them, but they were the most profitable.

All three are great outposts for the conference, though. And UL really begs the question whether Cincy would ever have a seat at that table, since KY borders more new territory than Cincy would.

Whatever happens in the next decade, speaking specifically to what happens to the Big XII and its members...those guys will ALL find homes in majors perhaps before Cincy gets back into the fold. The ACC wouldn't let ISU or KSU float out there.