+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." (/thread-828994.html)
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - msm96wolf - 10-04-2017 07:40 PM
(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:01 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: 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.
Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
I think the term you are stuck on is "Valid". ACC does not need it to be valid or not valid. You are not going to believe anything other than what you want. I stated hindsight UCONN probably was the better choice but unless you invent a time machine, UCONN and the ACC is extremely unlikely. If there is going to be another outpost, it will likely be in Texas. Sorry, you don't like the situation but UCONN and lawsuit will live together is part of ACC lore.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - XLance - 10-04-2017 07:48 PM
(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:01 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: 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.
Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
UConn isn't "in" now and won't be "in".
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - Bogg - 10-04-2017 07:58 PM
(10-04-2017 07:48 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote: Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
UConn isn't "in" now and won't be "in".
Eh, the ACC came out and admitted that they just added who ESPN told them to add to get the most favorable football contract, and UConn was apparently the school of choice for tobacco road before FSU/Clemson forced Louisville. The lawsuit will get parroted on message boards because it makes a good story, but if ESPN had said to add UConn they'd be in without a fight and if there had been a GOR in place in 2012 to handcuff the football schools UConn likely would have been the choice (granted, technically if there was a GOR Maryland doesn't leave and the whole thing's moot). College sports is a profit-driven business, not a social club.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - TexanMark - 10-04-2017 08:22 PM
(10-04-2017 03:54 PM)Huskies12 Wrote:(10-04-2017 03:17 PM)TexanMark Wrote:(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
What are you talking about? ACC regional games are broadcast in CT. Syracuse, BC and Notre Dame radio stations reach into CT.
Doesn't NESN and YES go into CT? Local OTA TV stations from Boston, Albany, Springfield, Hartford and NYC blanket CT.
You can thank Cuse, BC and Notre Dame for this.
Yeah you're probably right. I'm not a huge baseball guy.
Funny aside...those Baseball Networks (YES and NESN) carry ACC Football on Saturdays.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - TerryD - 10-04-2017 08:32 PM
(10-04-2017 02:51 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:44 PM)XLance Wrote: So just who is the guy in the picture?Stan Wilcox, FSU AD.
Former ND basketball player. I think Stan would be a good choice.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - Artifice - 10-04-2017 08:54 PM
(10-04-2017 01:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(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
And what was it that we did again?
We held classes that were scheduled by the University
that had a syllabus
they met regularly
required a term paper
and were taught by the Dean of the department
and lest we forget 29.4% of the students in the classes were athletes
of the 3100 students involved over a 20 year period, those students were overwhelmingly African-American.
Did I leave anything out?
Literally every statement above, except for the last one, is a lie, and mostly is the opposite of the well documented and now settled truth. Debbie Crowder, an unlicensed administrator assigned grades for no show classes based on what the players needed to stay eligible.
Your comments are so absurd that all you can be attempting to do is a really poor quality troll job.
Five Level One Violations. LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL. Greg Sankey and the COI are meeting in the spring to hand out sanctions. Guilt is already determined. Even Bubba Cunningham doesn't deny it anymore. Your bloviating denials are going to be shattered like your fragile ego which is foolishly tied to the lie of "Dean's Myth".
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - Huskies12 - 10-04-2017 09:20 PM
(10-04-2017 07:48 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote: Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
UConn isn't "in" now and won't be "in".
Fine but it's not because of the law suit as the ACC has two members who sued the conference once upon a time. It's all about the money and right now UConn doesn't bring $30 million.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - Kaplony - 10-04-2017 10:23 PM
(10-04-2017 04:59 PM)Bogg Wrote:(10-04-2017 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote: 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.
Eh, it's a little more straightforward than that - UConn had broader support among the ACC schools, but without a GOR in place the Clemson/FSU duo had a figurative gun to the conference's head and used that leverage to insist on a football-focused school of their choice if they were going to sign a GOR and stabilize the conference. With the GOR now in place they no longer have that same leverage and are just a voice in the crowd, but they accomplished their goal and they've both won recent football NCs, so it worked out well. If there's another round of realignment the ACC will have to find a broad consensus rather than just grabbing the best football program, but that's likely to be a Big 12 school.
For what it's worth, Louisville isn't going anywhere - FSU and Clemson won't vote to kick them out for the same reasons they insisted on adding then, Miami won't vote to boot them because they don't want to set a precedent while ensnared in an investigation themselves, and the all you need is one more no vote to come from anywhere to sink it (probably UNC, with their whole academic fraud thing going on). Cards will be fine long-term.
LOL No they didn't.
And there were more schools than Clemson and FSU opposed to UConn.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - GoldenWarrior11 - 10-04-2017 11:10 PM
If UConn is locked out of the ACC, then what is their end-goal? The B1G (without AAU membership)? A new revamped Big 12? I sincerely doubt it is the American in present form. What about Cincinnati? What is their end-goal?
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - ColKurtz - 10-05-2017 12:39 AM
Absent a very unlikely six B12 teams to the PAC deal, 4 teams at the most leave the B12. OU/UT/KU + 1. UConn has to hold out hope it will be part of the B12 leftovers + AAC merger. Otherwise it's exiled from the power conferences forever.
Basketball doesn't move the needle much. The ACC doesn't need any more hoops schools to prop up its bball reputation, and sure as he'll doesn't need another moribund football program with a tiny stadium in New England where no one gives 2 ***** about college football.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - panite - 10-05-2017 07:12 AM
(10-04-2017 11:10 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: If UConn is locked out of the ACC, then what is their end-goal? The B1G (without AAU membership)? A new revamped Big 12? I sincerely doubt it is the American in present form. What about Cincinnati? What is their end-goal?
I would say the end game for both schools is the ACC and / or the B-10. If the B-12 stays together and expands UCONN and CINN should be putting on a full court press to get into the B-12 with WV adding Midwestern and NE TV viewers to the next TV contract. So what if UCONN becomes the island school. They play 2 teams in Florida and 3 teams in the Texas / Oklahoma area now for a lot less money. B-12 North - UCONN, CINN, WV, Iowa ST., Kansas, K-State. B-12 South - Texas, Oklahoma, OK State, TT, Baylor, TCU. Brand name football programs in the South with Texas and Oklahoma and brand name basketball programs in the North with Kansas and UCONN.
If the B-12 blows up with Texas and Oklahoma leaving with or without a couple of more schools, then the remaining schools from the B-12 schools and the AAC merge under the B-12 Brand name. But first you would have to see how many B-12 schools would leave to see how many AAC schools would merge into the B-12.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - Hank Schrader - 10-05-2017 07:18 AM
Looking forward to another 10 pages of the same 10-15 posters arguing over the same stupid thing they have argued 100 times before on this board.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - panite - 10-05-2017 07:22 AM
(10-05-2017 07:18 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote: Looking forward to another 10 pages of the same 10-15 posters arguing over the same stupid thing they have argued 100 times before on this board.
Fills in the time between work and doing work at home for free. Its also something to do during the week waiting for College Football Saturdays with tailgate parties if you go to a game rather than watch the games at home.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - DefCONNOne - 10-05-2017 08:18 AM
(10-04-2017 07:48 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote: Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
UConn isn't "in" now and won't be "in".
That's not proof, that's an opinion. I asked for proof that the lawsuit excuse is still valid. As I suspected, I'm right and the lawsuit excuse died the day the ACC invited Pitt. Enjoy the rest of your day.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - quo vadis - 10-05-2017 08:22 AM
(10-04-2017 07:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote:(10-04-2017 10:55 AM)TexanMark Wrote: 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.
I'm not the one that "needs help". Spin it however you like, I've got the facts on my side and you don't.
The lawsuit excuse is dead and buried. Deal with it.
You have no facts. All you have is the fervent opinion of someone who desperately hopes that the lawsuit is now a dead issue between UConn and the ACC. You keep demanding "proof" from others that the lawsuit issue is still alive, but offer no proof of your own that it is dead. You just assert your hope as fact.
But as has been explained to you, Pitt being invited to the ACC doesn't in any way shape or form mean that UConn is necessarily off the hook in that regard.
This has even been explained to you by supporters of North Carolina, who would know much better than you what the feeling about the lawsuit is in Carolina, and thus the ACC, and you still don't accept it. That's called Denial.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - DefCONNOne - 10-05-2017 08:24 AM
(10-04-2017 07:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote: Deal with what, exactly?
People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
I think the term you are stuck on is "Valid". ACC does not need it to be valid or not valid. You are not going to believe anything other than what you want. I stated hindsight UCONN probably was the better choice but unless you invent a time machine, UCONN and the ACC is extremely unlikely. If there is going to be another outpost, it will likely be in Texas. Sorry, you don't like the situation but UCONN and lawsuit will live together is part of ACC lore.
It only lives on as part of ACC lore because of that 2011 Blaudshun article, with quotes from the BC AD, that I've been assured, from "insiders" like yourself, was a steaming pile of monkey crap. So if that article is pure bunk then so is the narrative that the lawsuit is keeping UCONN out of the ACC.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - DefCONNOne - 10-05-2017 08:30 AM
(10-05-2017 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:04 AM)megadrone Wrote: 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.
I'm not the one that "needs help". Spin it however you like, I've got the facts on my side and you don't.
The lawsuit excuse is dead and buried. Deal with it.
You have no facts. All you have is the fervent opinion of someone who desperately hopes that the lawsuit is now a dead issue between UConn and the ACC.
But as has been explained to you, Pitt being invited to the ACC doesn't in any way shape or form mean that UConn is necessarily off the hook in that regard.
This has even been explained to you by supporters of North Carolina, who would know much better than you what the feeling about the lawsuit is in Carolina, and thus the ACC, and you still don't accept it. That's called Denial.
I'm done with you. It's obvious you want to parrot the ACC fanboy narrative pointing to the lawsuit as the reason UCONN isn't in the ACC. It's patently false and what's more you know it's patently false. But for some reason you seem to think you, and only you, have the power to get USF to the front of the line in the "Who's next to get an invite from the ACC" queue. I hope all this brown-nosing you're doing pays off.
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - quo vadis - 10-05-2017 08:31 AM
(10-05-2017 08:24 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:10 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: People not accepting the fact that the 2003 lawsuit excuse died the day Pitt was invited to the ACC.
I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
I think the term you are stuck on is "Valid". ACC does not need it to be valid or not valid. You are not going to believe anything other than what you want. I stated hindsight UCONN probably was the better choice but unless you invent a time machine, UCONN and the ACC is extremely unlikely. If there is going to be another outpost, it will likely be in Texas. Sorry, you don't like the situation but UCONN and lawsuit will live together is part of ACC lore.
It only lives on as part of ACC lore because of that 2011 Blaudshun article, with quotes from the BC AD, that I've been assured, from "insiders" like yourself, was a steaming pile of monkey crap. So if that article is pure bunk then so is the narrative that the lawsuit is keeping UCONN out of the ACC.
None of us knows for sure if the lawsuit issue is still alive or dead. But, in this thread we've had supporters of Syracuse, Clemson, and UNC all chime in. Those schools represent the three basic constituencies in the ACC - the Carolina Core, the football-first wing, and the newbies - and guess what?
They all say the lawsuit issue isn't dead.
So who am i supposed to believe about what the ACC thinks, ACC insiders, or a UConn fan?
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - DefCONNOne - 10-05-2017 08:31 AM
(10-05-2017 08:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-05-2017 08:24 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:40 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:20 PM)XLance Wrote: I can assure you, it did not.
UConn screwed the pooch with the lawsuit and will have to live with the consequences.
How exactly can you assure me that the lawsuit excuse is still a valid excuse? I wait for your proof with baited breath.
I think the term you are stuck on is "Valid". ACC does not need it to be valid or not valid. You are not going to believe anything other than what you want. I stated hindsight UCONN probably was the better choice but unless you invent a time machine, UCONN and the ACC is extremely unlikely. If there is going to be another outpost, it will likely be in Texas. Sorry, you don't like the situation but UCONN and lawsuit will live together is part of ACC lore.
It only lives on as part of ACC lore because of that 2011 Blaudshun article, with quotes from the BC AD, that I've been assured, from "insiders" like yourself, was a steaming pile of monkey crap. So if that article is pure bunk then so is the narrative that the lawsuit is keeping UCONN out of the ACC.
None of us knows for sure if the lawsuit issue is still alive or dead. But, in this thread we've had supporters of Syracuse, Clemson, and UNC all chime in. Those schools represent the three basic constituencies in the ACC - the Carolina Core, the football-first wing, and the newbies - and guess what?
They all say the lawsuit issue isn't dead.
So who am i supposed to believe about what the ACC things, ACC insiders, or a UConn fan?
Enjoy the rest of your day, parrot. Chirp! Chirp!
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice." - quo vadis - 10-05-2017 08:34 AM
(10-05-2017 08:30 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-05-2017 08:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-04-2017 07:05 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:(10-04-2017 11:51 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote: 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.
I'm not the one that "needs help". Spin it however you like, I've got the facts on my side and you don't.
The lawsuit excuse is dead and buried. Deal with it.
You have no facts. All you have is the fervent opinion of someone who desperately hopes that the lawsuit is now a dead issue between UConn and the ACC.
But as has been explained to you, Pitt being invited to the ACC doesn't in any way shape or form mean that UConn is necessarily off the hook in that regard.
This has even been explained to you by supporters of North Carolina, who would know much better than you what the feeling about the lawsuit is in Carolina, and thus the ACC, and you still don't accept it. That's called Denial.
I'm done with you. It's obvious you want to parrot the ACC fanboy narrative pointing to the lawsuit as the reason UCONN isn't in the ACC. It's patently false and what's more you know it's patently false. But for some reason you seem to think you, and only you, have the power to get USF to the front of the line in the "Who's next to get an invite from the ACC" queue. I hope all this brown-nosing you're doing pays off.
Dude, you are blind. I've said all along that I am a neutral observer. I fully recognize that regardless of whether UConn ever gets in to the ACC or not, that USF is not currently and never will be a school the ACC has any interest in.