(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?