Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
Author Message
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 10,214
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 453
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #121
RE: USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
(08-07-2022 02:17 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:27 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 05:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 02:59 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  Your posting “how things really are,” is up for debate, and you’re losing big time. And while I appreciate your unsolicited opinion of Maryland (who I didn’t bring up) is irrelevant to the discussion, except as more evidence of your distorted view of the ACC.

Losing what? Money like Maryland’s athletic department to the point they switched conferences to get pounded by Penn St and Ohio St on a yearly basis?

This is getting fun!

Yeesh. I’m not sure if your obtuseness comes natural or is deliberate. And the fact that you get off on this, is disturbing.

Again, I never brought up Maryland, and could not possibly care what you think of them. If it helps your obsession, Maryland sucks and is naughty, okay?

I was referring to your hypocritical worshipping and bootlicking of the ACC.

NJTerp

You obviously haven’t been paying attention the last 30 years. UNC has always been a roadblock for ACC expansion. That’s what I was referring to regarding the topic and it actually is “how things are”. Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

The fact you think there is some winner/loser in discussing accurate historical accounts is idiotic. Because you are failing to recognize these basic truths it’s difficult to take you seriously.

I was referring to how the ACC expanded, not why or who supported/opposed it.

I understand the basic truths, but I and those without ACC biases saw their actions for what they are, and see the gross hypocrisy of excusing ACC’s gutting of the BIg East, while condemning the Big Ten’s recent actions.

Anyway, I will leave it at that. I can agree to disagree and accept that the feeling is mutual regarding the personal opinions of each other.

I never excused it. I know business is business, even if I personally didn’t want it to happen the way it did. My point is I have never seen it to the level of ruthlessness with USC/UCLA and the Big Ten considering their long-standing partnership.

The ACC had a brief challenge with the Big East in the late 80’s into the early 90’s and the Big East ended it because of scheduling conflicts or something lame, when it was actually their coaches complaining about it.
08-07-2022 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 10,214
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 453
I Root For: Statefan
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #122
RE: USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
(08-07-2022 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 08:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 05:59 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 02:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  Nobody destroyed a conference like the ACC did except maybe the MWC going after the WAC. VT and Miami made sense, but the rest did not.

You are trying to justify it which is just absurdly hypocritical. We're just calling the ACC fans out on their nonsense.

The Big East is still around, silly bullet. Is the SWC?

The ACC was responsible for getting the Big East back to its roots. This much is true. But to ignore the fact that Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC had wondering eyes for the ACC since the early 90’s is just plain deceptive. Or ignorant. Virginia Tech even longer.

I wish we grabbed VT and Miami and stopped. But the other conferences wouldn’t give us our CCG.

Big East football is gone. AAC doesn't include any Big East 1.0 schools and only USF from Big East 2.0.

Just so we’re on the same page, the 20 year run of the Big East football conference, which at its inception only included half of its membership as full members and the other half as second tier mercenaries, had more historical significance than the 80 year run of the SWC?

If the ACC wanted to kill the Big East they would have invited Georgetown and Villanova. The Big East still exists in its original organization and guess what, it’s better off!


The reason the ACC is the expansion bully is due to the fact message boards became popular right around the time its expansion occurred. If message boards blew up five, or ten years earlier, the internet would be more level headed in their opinions.

The SWC was fatally wounded by the Cowboys and Oilers. That lead to the demise of SMU, TCU and Rice, which dramatically weakened the SWC. OU/UGA's lawsuit just hastened the end. It wasn't a Big 8 raid. It was driven by UT and OU who knew both conferences were doomed as they then existed. The Big 8 had no population and the SWC had half the schools with no fans.

…and the Big East football league was a hodgepodge of schools that were considered second class by the basketball core. There were obvious cracks in the foundation from the beginning. It was built to hold onto Syracuse and Pitt, knowing they both would have been happy as football members in the ACC, which was actually seriously discussed in 1990. The leaders knew if that happened eventually they would want to move over for all sports. It was bound to happen, and my school was against it the whole time.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2022 04:27 PM by esayem.)
08-07-2022 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 45,153
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1767
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #123
RE: USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
(08-07-2022 04:22 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 02:17 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 08:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 10:27 PM)Pat125 Wrote:  
(08-06-2022 05:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Losing what? Money like Maryland’s athletic department to the point they switched conferences to get pounded by Penn St and Ohio St on a yearly basis?

This is getting fun!

Yeesh. I’m not sure if your obtuseness comes natural or is deliberate. And the fact that you get off on this, is disturbing.

Again, I never brought up Maryland, and could not possibly care what you think of them. If it helps your obsession, Maryland sucks and is naughty, okay?

I was referring to your hypocritical worshipping and bootlicking of the ACC.

NJTerp

You obviously haven’t been paying attention the last 30 years. UNC has always been a roadblock for ACC expansion. That’s what I was referring to regarding the topic and it actually is “how things are”. Maryland was a member of the ACC during the discussed time period and a loud voice regarding decision making. They are the only school to leave the conference and the main reason for the GOR.

The fact you think there is some winner/loser in discussing accurate historical accounts is idiotic. Because you are failing to recognize these basic truths it’s difficult to take you seriously.

I was referring to how the ACC expanded, not why or who supported/opposed it.

I understand the basic truths, but I and those without ACC biases saw their actions for what they are, and see the gross hypocrisy of excusing ACC’s gutting of the BIg East, while condemning the Big Ten’s recent actions.

Anyway, I will leave it at that. I can agree to disagree and accept that the feeling is mutual regarding the personal opinions of each other.

I never excused it. I know business is business, even if I personally didn’t want it to happen the way it did. My point is I have never seen it to the level of ruthlessness with USC/UCLA and the Big Ten considering their long-standing partnership.

The ACC had a brief challenge with the Big East in the late 80’s into the early 90’s and the Big East ended it because of scheduling conflicts or something lame, when it was actually their coaches complaining about it.

That's true - the original "Challenge" type series that we see these days was the ACC - Big East Challenge of 1989 - 1991. It had a good structure - eight games, two games a night back to back over four straight nights, so you could camp in front of your TV and have four good evenings of hoops in a row in December.

Big East coaches didn't like it for some reason. Wasn't failure to compete though, the series ended in a 12-12 tie over the three years, with the ACC going 6-2 in 1991 to knot it all up.

IIRC, Georgetown's John Thompson was one of the BE coaches who didn't like it, forget why. It wasn't for lack of success, we went 2-1 over the three years of the Challenge, beating Duke and UNC, and losing to Virginia in an overtime game.
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2022 05:06 PM by quo vadis.)
08-07-2022 05:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,060
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 175
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #124
RE: USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
(08-07-2022 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 12:21 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 10:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3. 04-jawdrop 01-lauramac2 03-nutkick 03-banghead 03-hissyfit 03-pissed 04-chairshot 05-mafia 02-13-banana 02-13-banana COGS COGS 04-cheers

Did they? My recollection from 2010-2011 was the PAC tried to expand with several B12 teams, including TX and OU, but it just didn't work out. Am I remembering wrong?

From my recollection, it did not work out, in part b/c A&M still wanted to get away from UT and go to the SEC. The move appeared to be imminent, b/c Kansas was set to take the place of one of the six schools, one to whom the PAC had raised objections. Planes were in the air, contracts were to be signed, then suddenly it was all off. Afterward, there was considerable message board talk that Dodds called it off b/c A&M preferred the SEC to the PAC and was going to get away from Texas one way or another; there were also intimations that Dodds had played the PAC all along and got the LHN from ESPN. Colorado went to the PAC on its own, with Utah being invited. Nebraska, seeing the instability, took the invitation to the Big Ten that everyone had assumed would be extended to Missouri, and Missouri, after telling everyone in the conference (including Kansas) that it would remain, accompanied A&M to the SEC. Any way, that's the way I remember it going down.

Or, instead of believing nonsense on message boards, you could just listen to what the Texas president had to say about it. ESPN and Fox told the Big 12 they would get a similar contract, much higher than they were currently earning, so UT could get the same money without the athlete travel, without moving, and, at the same time, through ooc scheduling, get similar schedules to how it would have worked in the Pac 16.

I mean, you could also feel the PAC deserves all of this and it not being due to the PAC-16 falling through. You could look to 1990 and Stanford blocking the Texas invitation, or you can look right after the PAC-16 fell through at the rejection of the Oklahoma combo.

Heck, even more recently, if it's ever disclosed whether the PAC received Big XII school invites after the panic of the UT-OU/SEC announcement.

The PAC handles expansion/realignment poorly. Perhaps the worst of the major conferences.
08-08-2022 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SouthEastAlaska Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,251
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 86
I Root For: UW,PAC12
Location:
Post: #125
RE: USC ‘shut down’ potential Pac-12 expansion plans last year
(08-08-2022 03:17 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 03:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 12:21 PM)EdwordL Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 10:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(08-07-2022 10:16 AM)panite Wrote:  PAC12 deserves the situation it is in right now. The conference could have expanded with Texas and Oklahoma years ago and rejected expansion. A conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon in it along with Arizona BB would rank right up there with the B10 and the SEC for the BIG 3. 04-jawdrop 01-lauramac2 03-nutkick 03-banghead 03-hissyfit 03-pissed 04-chairshot 05-mafia 02-13-banana 02-13-banana COGS COGS 04-cheers

Did they? My recollection from 2010-2011 was the PAC tried to expand with several B12 teams, including TX and OU, but it just didn't work out. Am I remembering wrong?

From my recollection, it did not work out, in part b/c A&M still wanted to get away from UT and go to the SEC. The move appeared to be imminent, b/c Kansas was set to take the place of one of the six schools, one to whom the PAC had raised objections. Planes were in the air, contracts were to be signed, then suddenly it was all off. Afterward, there was considerable message board talk that Dodds called it off b/c A&M preferred the SEC to the PAC and was going to get away from Texas one way or another; there were also intimations that Dodds had played the PAC all along and got the LHN from ESPN. Colorado went to the PAC on its own, with Utah being invited. Nebraska, seeing the instability, took the invitation to the Big Ten that everyone had assumed would be extended to Missouri, and Missouri, after telling everyone in the conference (including Kansas) that it would remain, accompanied A&M to the SEC. Any way, that's the way I remember it going down.

Or, instead of believing nonsense on message boards, you could just listen to what the Texas president had to say about it. ESPN and Fox told the Big 12 they would get a similar contract, much higher than they were currently earning, so UT could get the same money without the athlete travel, without moving, and, at the same time, through ooc scheduling, get similar schedules to how it would have worked in the Pac 16.

I mean, you could also feel the PAC deserves all of this and it not being due to the PAC-16 falling through. You could look to 1990 and Stanford blocking the Texas invitation, or you can look right after the PAC-16 fell through at the rejection of the Oklahoma combo.

Heck, even more recently, if it's ever disclosed whether the PAC received Big XII school invites after the panic of the UT-OU/SEC announcement.

The PAC handles expansion/realignment poorly. Perhaps the worst of the major conferences.

100% true
08-08-2022 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2022 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, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.