Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
"West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
Author Message
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,739
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 151
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #41
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
Was Rutgers ever mentioned as a possible expansion candidate for the ACC? They were always mentioned as a B1G target.
10-04-2017 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,984
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 195
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #42
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(10-04-2017 09:59 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 08:22 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  So many things wrong with this article. UL isn't going anywhere.

How did adding Pitt and Syracuse prevent the SEC from raiding the ACC? Not sure about this.

Was the SEC going to raid the ACC for "Clemson, Virginia Tech and FSU"? No.

The SEC has never been interested in "raiding" the ACC but there have been mutual discussions between the SEC and several ACC schools for decades.

Adding 2 schools in 2011 got ACC schools an extra $2 million/year. This was prior to the SECN so it bridged the money gap slightly. They also increased the exit fees about that time.

VT has been the most vocal, at least publicly, about saying they don't want to go to the SEC. Clemson and FSU have been very PC with their statements. They say things like, "We like the ACC but are keeping an eye on realignment."

The SEC was in a similar posture to the ACC in that it had to add schools to reopen its undermarket TV deal. Texas A&M was interested early on, and was a complete home run. IIRC, A&M had expressed reluctance about a move to the Pac 10 in 2010 specifically because of it's interest in the SEC. With A&M basically assured a slot, rather than directly solicit individual schools, the SEC basically hung out an "open for business" sign and invited schools to approach them.

IIRC, there was quite a bit of noise about the SEC not wanting to add a candidate in states in which they already had schools. Thus, Louisville, who was still in the Big East, Clemson and FSU were discouraged from applying. I believe the SEC really wanted a presence in North Carolina or Virginia, with Virginia Tech, UNC and UVA being the candidates in which they had the most interest, and with VT being the most plausible.

Ultimately, the only two candidates who stepped forward and met all of the criteria they were looking for were WVU and Missouri. Despite the awkward geographic fit, Missouri was clearly the better candidate because of the larger state population and TV markets that it brought.
10-04-2017 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #43
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(10-04-2017 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As a third-party observer whose school would have zero chance of being an ACC invitee should Louisville get the boot, I have to side with UConn here.

UConn doesn't duplicate markets, Syracuse is an upstate NY market, while UConn would draw from the northern part of NYC, solidifying that part of their footprint currently contested by the B1G. Quality of basketball and football don't matter, and UConn is a state flagship institution.

UConn would be a better choice, objectively, for the ACC, though I don't think they ever will get an invitation, not as long as memories of the 2003 lawsuit linger, and they will linger for a long time.

The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the moment the ACC added Pitt. Try again.

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. 07-coffee3

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.

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.
10-04-2017 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,284
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #44
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(10-04-2017 07:13 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Could've... Should've... Would've...

Didn't.

Deal with it. It is what it is.

Yeah, this.

The ACC looked at the money, and cared little about the source. Yes, Louisville has a great basketball program AND competitive football program. Yes, the fanbase is great. But, any more issues, and you'd have a full subscription.

And even the ACC can't be fully on the hook for this. This is on the member institutions who didn't do their homework or have the necessary "come to the maker" talks with those really unhappy institutions begging for football power. The ACC just did what the member presidents wanted.
10-04-2017 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #45
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(10-04-2017 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As a third-party observer whose school would have zero chance of being an ACC invitee should Louisville get the boot, I have to side with UConn here.

UConn doesn't duplicate markets, Syracuse is an upstate NY market, while UConn would draw from the northern part of NYC, solidifying that part of their footprint currently contested by the B1G. Quality of basketball and football don't matter, and UConn is a state flagship institution.

UConn would be a better choice, objectively, for the ACC, though I don't think they ever will get an invitation, not as long as memories of the 2003 lawsuit linger, and they will linger for a long time.

The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the moment the ACC added Pitt. Try again.

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. 07-coffee3

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.
10-04-2017 10:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #46
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(10-04-2017 08:42 AM)ArQ Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 07:22 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I will also say this... If UL somehow does lose its ACC membership, the obvious add is NOT UConn, but Cincinnati. Keeps the Midwest bridge and footprint open, does not duplicate markets (in the NE) and has a solid BB tradition and a better current BB program.

As a third-party observer whose school would have zero chance of being an ACC invitee should Louisville get the boot, I have to side with UConn here.

UConn doesn't duplicate markets, Syracuse is an upstate NY market, while UConn would draw from the northern part of NYC, solidifying that part of their footprint currently contested by the B1G. Quality of basketball and football don't matter, and UConn is a state flagship institution.

UConn would be a better choice, objectively, for the ACC, though I don't think they ever will get an invitation, not as long as memories of the 2003 lawsuit linger, and they will linger for a long time.

Navy in football and Georgetown in basketball might be a better choice. Especially Georgetown is not happy in Big East now. Football people and basketball people both get what they want.

I'll preface by saying I want to keep Louisville in the ACC...but since this is a sports forum...

in regards to ArQ:

That has always been one of my possible suggestions. The ACC gets DC/MD area back (essentially they'll share with MD). The ACC gets stellar academics and nice road trips. Syracuse gets a hated BB rival back. Other ACC schools also have a history with the Hoyas. Unlikely Navy will ever embarrass the ACC.

An option below is a tad more involved but could also work.

Invite either Nova or Georgetown for all sports but FB. Then only go halfway with Navy and Army and give them each a scheduling agreement for each to play 3-4 games a year with ACC teams. Army/Navy Olympic sports go back to the Patriot where they belong. Nova and Georgetown remain FCS in FB. The ACC schedules them to numerous future guaranteed games. They should each be able to support one or two away games each season. Obviously, pricing will be done upfront and slightly below market.

The ACC just need to buy extra knee braces for the players (maybe GTech can tell us what braces seem to work best on the DL they play against). The fans get nice road trips and most ACC teams will get a win. The ACC brings in Army/Navy into their bowl scenarios. The ACC should be able to add primary or secondary agreements to some some bowls. Also, good for the ACC to play academy schools.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 10:44 AM by TexanMark.)
10-04-2017 10:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #47
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(10-04-2017 10:30 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. 07-coffee3

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.

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.
10-04-2017 10:46 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,550
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 560
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #48
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
Given the fact that Maryland left a hole, Rutgers was gone, and WVU was locked into a GoR, the ACC made the best move possible when it invited Louisville to join. 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). There's a slight chance that Cincinnati might have worked out OK, but UConn would never have satisfied the football-first schools (Clemson, FSU and VT) which are so critical for TV money and for the launch of the ACC Network.

JMO.
10-04-2017 10:50 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Huskies12 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 281
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 10
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #49
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(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. 07-coffee3

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.

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?
10-04-2017 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,130
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 100
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #50
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
In the last realignment the B12 should have taken L'Ville, WV, Cinn / BYU along with TCU to get back to 12. The ACC should have added UCONN to replace Maryland when they skipped town to join Rutgers in the B-10. Just my opinion my schools are in the SEC and the B-10. 04-cheers
10-04-2017 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #51
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(10-04-2017 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  As a third-party observer whose school would have zero chance of being an ACC invitee should Louisville get the boot, I have to side with UConn here.

UConn doesn't duplicate markets, Syracuse is an upstate NY market, while UConn would draw from the northern part of NYC, solidifying that part of their footprint currently contested by the B1G. Quality of basketball and football don't matter, and UConn is a state flagship institution.

UConn would be a better choice, objectively, for the ACC, though I don't think they ever will get an invitation, not as long as memories of the 2003 lawsuit linger, and they will linger for a long time.

The 2003 lawsuit excuse died the moment the ACC added Pitt. Try again.

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. 07-coffee3

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!
10-04-2017 10:55 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #52
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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.
10-04-2017 10:58 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #53
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(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.

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 11:02 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
megadrone Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 975
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NJ
Post: #54
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(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. 07-coffee3

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.
10-04-2017 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppfanInCAAland Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 734
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 29
I Root For: App State
Location: Richmond, VA
Post: #55
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 11:10 AM by AppfanInCAAland.)
10-04-2017 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,284
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 80
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #56
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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?
10-04-2017 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,336
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #57
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(10-04-2017 08:42 AM)ArQ Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(10-04-2017 07:22 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  I will also say this... If UL somehow does lose its ACC membership, the obvious add is NOT UConn, but Cincinnati. Keeps the Midwest bridge and footprint open, does not duplicate markets (in the NE) and has a solid BB tradition and a better current BB program.

As a third-party observer whose school would have zero chance of being an ACC invitee should Louisville get the boot, I have to side with UConn here.

UConn doesn't duplicate markets, Syracuse is an upstate NY market, while UConn would draw from the northern part of NYC, solidifying that part of their footprint currently contested by the B1G. Quality of basketball and football don't matter, and UConn is a state flagship institution.

UConn would be a better choice, objectively, for the ACC, though I don't think they ever will get an invitation, not as long as memories of the 2003 lawsuit linger, and they will linger for a long time.

Navy in football and Georgetown in basketball might be a better choice. Especially Georgetown is not happy in Big East now. Football people and basketball people both get what they want.

Uh what?
10-04-2017 11:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 968
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #58
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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.
10-04-2017 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,711
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 642
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #59
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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 see what bothered MD fans...the ACC refs are horribly biased and incompetent.
(This post was last modified: 10-04-2017 12:05 PM by TexanMark.)
10-04-2017 11:40 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DefCONNOne Offline
That damn MLS!!

Posts: 11,012
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: UCONN
Location: MLS HQ
Post: #60
RE: "West Virginia or UConn would have been a better choice."
(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:  
(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. 07-coffee3

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!

Actually it's not "spot on". At all. In fact, 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.
10-04-2017 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.