(07-10-2013 07:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 11:32 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:36 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  With respect to Syracuse and the ACC, Syracuse never pursued the ACC. The ACC approached Syracuse in 1990 or so (Syracuse said not interested), 2002 (Syracuse said yes, but was blocked by Virginia. Syracuse never lobbied for the 12th spot ultimately offered to BC)...

Syracuse was blocked by NC State, not Virginia. The chancellor at State voted against Syracuse because she felt a 12th team would eliminate a potential offer to Notre Dame--at the time, Virginia Tech had not been approved as team #12. In the interim, Virginia's governor got UVa. to end their long time efforts to keep VPI out.

Thats not how I heard it.

As I recall, UVA originally supported Swofford's plan to add SU, BC and the U. Under in state political pressure, though, UVA joined Duke and UNC's bloc opposing expansion or opposing expansion beyond 10 (I don't recall which), but peeled off to propose and support VPI.

I think you may be right that NCSU then joined the Duke-UNC bloc to prevent the addition of a 12th school at that time, which likely would have been Syracuse, because NCSU sought to explore ND's interest. Afterwards, BC lobbied pretty hard for the 12th spot, while Syracuse did not actively pursue it.

You recall it pretty much as I do. The then NC State pres, who is, I believe, a ND alum advanced the idea of recruiting ND. But I don't know that it was the NC state vote that held up the expansion to 12. I think that the ACC genuinely didn't know which way to move when their original plan was upset by the VA Tech wild card being thrown into the mix. They knew they wanted Miami and when VA Tech was added, they just stopped at 11, needing more time to decide what to do after that.

Syracuse played it cool publicly and indicated diminished interest in a move to the ACC. But what that meant, none of us knows. For sure, they would have jumped if they had gotten the invite. Perhaps, they had received indications that it wasn't going to happen for them and they did the smart thing and said publicly that they didn't really want it.

The way I saw it, the ACC gave every indication of wanting the Boston market. What seemed to hold them up was whether they wanted the Boston market without a regional partner. I always thought that Syracuse was the last one in the door and therefore would be the first one out.

(07-10-2013 07:59 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-09-2013 11:32 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 08:36 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(07-07-2013 08:13 PM)orangefan Wrote:  With respect to Syracuse and the ACC, Syracuse never pursued the ACC. The ACC approached Syracuse in 1990 or so (Syracuse said not interested), 2002 (Syracuse said yes, but was blocked by Virginia. Syracuse never lobbied for the 12th spot ultimately offered to BC)...

Syracuse was blocked by NC State, not Virginia. The chancellor at State voted against Syracuse because she felt a 12th team would eliminate a potential offer to Notre Dame--at the time, Virginia Tech had not been approved as team #12. In the interim, Virginia's governor got UVa. to end their long time efforts to keep VPI out.

Thats not how I heard it.

As I recall, UVA originally supported Swofford's plan to add SU, BC and the U. Under in state political pressure, though, UVA joined Duke and UNC's bloc opposing expansion or opposing expansion beyond 10 (I don't recall which), but peeled off to propose and support VPI.

I think you may be right that NCSU then joined the Duke-UNC bloc to prevent the addition of a 12th school at that time, which likely would have been Syracuse, because NCSU sought to explore ND's interest. Afterwards, BC lobbied pretty hard for the 12th spot, while Syracuse did not actively pursue it.

UVA initially proposed VT as part of the expansion. That wasn't the plan Miami wanted though. When it became apparent UVA would be the swing vote they again used it to get VT in. The Governor coming out in support of VT was to calm the public. UVA's president and several of their board members were already advocating for VT before that though. The deal that UVA agreed to was that VT had to be part of the first vote of any expansion so Miami and VT were voted in at the same time. Then NCSU's president thought they could lure Notre Dame so number 12 was delayed. The petition for a championship w/ 11 teams was voted down and that brought the necessity of adding a 12th.

Is it worth splitting off the 2003 ACC-Big East raid discussion?

(07-10-2013 05:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Is it worth splitting off the 2003 ACC-Big East raid discussion?

There really isn't anything else going on here. If we split it off this thread will just become inactive and that one will go on for a little bit. this has become a sort of general purpose thread. Maybe we can close this one and actually start up a thread with that title.

The fact that expansion talk has kinda died down has led to some great discussion.

*exit sarcasm font

Since you are talking about the earlier round of ACC expansion, what is the final verdict on the ACC as a 12 member conference? After Duke and NC, which program was the 3rd best at Bball during that time. I would guess Maryland. No other school jumps out at me.

(07-10-2013 09:13 PM)Burrito Wrote:  Since you are talking about the earlier round of ACC expansion, what is the final verdict on the ACC as a 12 member conference? After Duke and NC, which program was the 3rd best at Bball during that time. I would guess Maryland. No other school jumps out at me.

Yeah, they won the NCAA in what 2000?

(07-10-2013 10:45 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 09:13 PM)Burrito Wrote:  Since you are talking about the earlier round of ACC expansion, what is the final verdict on the ACC as a 12 member conference? After Duke and NC, which program was the 3rd best at Bball during that time. I would guess Maryland. No other school jumps out at me.

Yeah, they won the NCAA in what 2000?

2002. They also went to the Final Four in 2001. Georgia Tech went to the Final Four in 2004, which was the last year of the ACC as a 9 team conference.

After they expanded (2004-05), Duke and North Carolina were the only ones to make it as far as an Elite 8. Florida State (2012), and Miami (2013) are the only ones to win ACC championships after expansion besides Duke and UNC. Virginia (2007), Maryland (2010), and Miami (2013) are the only ones to have won or tied for regular season titles post expansion except for UNC and Duke.

(07-10-2013 05:22 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  You recall it pretty much as I do. The then NC State pres, who is, I believe, a ND alum advanced the idea of recruiting ND. But I don't know that it was the NC state vote that held up the expansion to 12. I think that the ACC genuinely didn't know which way to move when their original plan was upset by the VA Tech wild card being thrown into the mix. They knew they wanted Miami and when VA Tech was added, they just stopped at 11, needing more time to decide what to do after that.

Syracuse played it cool publicly and indicated diminished interest in a move to the ACC. But what that meant, none of us knows. For sure, they would have jumped if they had gotten the invite. Perhaps, they had received indications that it wasn't going to happen for them and they did the smart thing and said publicly that they didn't really want it.

The way I saw it, the ACC gave every indication of wanting the Boston market. What seemed to hold them up was whether they wanted the Boston market without a regional partner. I always thought that Syracuse was the last one in the door and therefore would be the first one out.

My take is that BC was nervous about the growth of UConn in the New England market, and wanted to upgrade its conference affiliation to provide an edge in the local competition. I believe that they feared that if and when round 2 of ACC expansion came, UConn may have moved past them if they were still in the same conference.

BC was also very hawkish on splitting off the Big East football schools from the Big East basketball schools. They were disaffected by the new conference structure. Syracuse did not burn bridges the way BC had. Indeed, I believe that they were not even sued in the high profile lawsuit in Connecticut over the ACC raid.

(07-11-2013 01:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 05:22 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  You recall it pretty much as I do. The then NC State pres, who is, I believe, a ND alum advanced the idea of recruiting ND. But I don't know that it was the NC state vote that held up the expansion to 12. I think that the ACC genuinely didn't know which way to move when their original plan was upset by the VA Tech wild card being thrown into the mix. They knew they wanted Miami and when VA Tech was added, they just stopped at 11, needing more time to decide what to do after that.

Syracuse played it cool publicly and indicated diminished interest in a move to the ACC. But what that meant, none of us knows. For sure, they would have jumped if they had gotten the invite. Perhaps, they had received indications that it wasn't going to happen for them and they did the smart thing and said publicly that they didn't really want it.

The way I saw it, the ACC gave every indication of wanting the Boston market. What seemed to hold them up was whether they wanted the Boston market without a regional partner. I always thought that Syracuse was the last one in the door and therefore would be the first one out.

My take is that BC was nervous about the growth of UConn in the New England market, and wanted to upgrade its conference affiliation to provide an edge in the local competition. I believe that they feared that if and when round 2 of ACC expansion came, UConn may have moved past them if they were still in the same conference.

BC was also very hawkish on splitting off the Big East football schools from the Big East basketball schools. They were disaffected by the new conference structure. Syracuse did not burn bridges the way BC had. Indeed, I believe that they were not even sued in the high profile lawsuit in Connecticut over the ACC raid.

Al of that sounds right.

(07-11-2013 01:30 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-10-2013 05:22 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  You recall it pretty much as I do. The then NC State pres, who is, I believe, a ND alum advanced the idea of recruiting ND. But I don't know that it was the NC state vote that held up the expansion to 12. I think that the ACC genuinely didn't know which way to move when their original plan was upset by the VA Tech wild card being thrown into the mix. They knew they wanted Miami and when VA Tech was added, they just stopped at 11, needing more time to decide what to do after that.

Syracuse played it cool publicly and indicated diminished interest in a move to the ACC. But what that meant, none of us knows. For sure, they would have jumped if they had gotten the invite. Perhaps, they had received indications that it wasn't going to happen for them and they did the smart thing and said publicly that they didn't really want it.

The way I saw it, the ACC gave every indication of wanting the Boston market. What seemed to hold them up was whether they wanted the Boston market without a regional partner. I always thought that Syracuse was the last one in the door and therefore would be the first one out.

My take is that BC was nervous about the growth of UConn in the New England market, and wanted to upgrade its conference affiliation to provide an edge in the local competition. I believe that they feared that if and when round 2 of ACC expansion came, UConn may have moved past them if they were still in the same conference.

BC was also very hawkish on splitting off the Big East football schools from the Big East basketball schools. They were disaffected by the new conference structure. Syracuse did not burn bridges the way BC had. Indeed, I believe that they were not even sued in the high profile lawsuit in Connecticut over the ACC raid.

It wasn't just UConn who sued, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU were also part of that lawsuit. UConn was also in their right to do so. I mean they upgraded their FB program with the promise of being in the same league as Miami, VT and BC. If they knew in 1997 that this was going to happen I seriously doubt they take the offer that the Big East extended to them and Villanova. Right now it looks like Nova made the right choice.

(07-11-2013 06:44 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  It wasn't just UConn who sued, Rutgers, Pitt and WVU were also part of that lawsuit. UConn was also in their right to do so. I mean they upgraded their FB program with the promise of being in the same league as Miami, VT and BC. If they knew in 1997 that this was going to happen I seriously doubt they take the offer that the Big East extended to them and Villanova. Right now it looks like Nova made the right choice.

My comments were not intended to be critical of anyone involved in the lawsuit. Reference to CT is only as the site of the lawsuit. Others were obviously involved, as you note. My point was that BC was at the center of the fight, while SU was not even in the fight, which was directly related to their respective desire to get out of the BE (BC - a lot; SU - not so much).

BTW, what is the latest on Saint Louis and Dayton?

(07-12-2013 07:57 AM)orangefan Wrote:  BTW, what is the latest on Saint Louis and Dayton?

:lmfao: :lmfao::lmfao:

I can't believe this thread is still alive.

I still think the new Big East is more-likely-than-not (say, 75% chance) to expand from 10 to 12 in the next 3 years or so. And I still think SLU and Dayton are the most likely additions, if any expansion does, in fact, occur.

I think it's a dead issue honestly.