Courant Columnist Colin McEnroe view on CR and UConn

[willie99]

McEnroe is a moron.

didn't read the article, but I still know this is the truth

 

[HuskyDogArt]

FWIW, he never said anything remotely approaching that quote. What he did about JC was "The New York Times ran a piece earlier this month quoting unnamed sources who said Calhoun's recruiting violations, lousy graduation rate and loud criticisms of other departing programs poisoned the waters." I thought Muntz was better than that.

Oh it came from a NY Slimes article. Will the NYSlimes say the same thing about Mike Rice??

 

[ddminct]

Oh it came from a NY Slimes article. Will the NYSlimes say the same thing about Mike Rice??

Huh?

 

[Samoo]

Huh?

Probably thinks the NY Times isn't "fair and balanced enough".

 

[businesslawyer]

Just responding to the idea our lawsuit couldn't have been a factor in later decisions: The examples you cite are of schools that have already been invited to another conference and suing over the terms of their exit. They are not schools who have sued former conference mates as well as members of another conference, because they have been harmed by others leaving. Huge difference.

.

I can tell you from experience that those who are sued, and take being sued personally, never care less because they think the other side's suit is more or less valid. But interesting theory.

 

[upstater]

Just responding to the idea our lawsuit couldn't have been a factor in later decisions: The examples you cite are of schools that have already been invited to another conference and suing over the terms of their exit. They are not schools who have sued former conference mates as well as members of another conference, because they have been harmed by others leaving. Huge difference.

I would suggest that Colin ask Hatheway, Warde and Herbst on the record what conversations were had with what schools and conferences in the past 5 years to illuminate how realignment took place to leave us on the outside looking in.

What about Pitt? Seriously, the things Syracuse said about BC's principals were eye-popping. It wasn't held against them.

 

[Carl Spackler]

".......as UConn learned in 2011, you can lose $1.6 million by making it to a bowl game."

THis is the only phrase in the entire piece of garbage that the guy wrote, that means anything, because it's true. Instead of knowing what would happen, it appeared very clear (true or not - it was the perception) that every single aspect of the BCS seemed to come as a surprise to UCONN, and the local media didn't help that perception, adn that was a big problem, seeing how we'd been in a BCS conference for several years, collecting BCS conference money revenue, adn the BCS had been around for well over a decade - operating exactly the same way all along.

The aspects of earning a Fiesta Bowl appearance, appeared to be very much a surprise, and very poorly handled from every single facet of the athletic department from ticket sales, SID, marketing, etc, all the way down the line. I'd say that a significant portion of the few thousand tickets that were sold through the school were motivated by us Boneyard posters, that actually understood the system.

WHich is most likely exactly the reason why the entire leadership structure at UCONN through the athletic department is what it is now 26 months later, and probably the single most important reason why the former leadership now works at schools with NO football program, and that the entire college football world, basically ignored UCONN in the most recent major shift in intercollegiate athletics league alignments.

While every fan that made the trek to that stadium, knows the truth, and the Oklahoma Universtiy system people (who ironically, are at the root for everything that involved conference shifiting over the past 25 years around 1-A football) also know first hand, what kind of travel support the program had, the media and the rest of the world outside that stadium, got the impression of "small time", "don't belong.", "no idea what big time football is about."

I really, really, really hope we get the last Big East BCS bid this year. I've got plenty confidence that this time, we would do it right. In the media world, perception is everything.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I can tell you from experience that those who are sued, and take being sued personally, never care less because they think the other side's suit is more or less valid. But interesting theory.

I'm interested in what your experience tells you about the thought processes of individuals who are working in teh interests of large corporations, of business structures.....say universities......being personally named in lawsuits, rather than the institutions they represent.

My lay hypothesis, is that such people named in such suits involving large business structures, would take the matter quite personally, while had the same legal matters been handled by naming the institutional entity in the suit said people represent instead of the individuals....a certain detachment from the "personal" would exist.

 

[businesslawyer]

It all depends on the situation. My wife sat on a board of ed for 12 years. Plaintiffs needed to name the members to sue the district. She never took it personally. Directors of public companies know the risk of being named in suits and, in my experience, rarely take shareholder strike suits that the company is defending anyway personally.

I was once sued, personally, along with a client for something the client was alleged to have done. I took it personally because the plaintiff knew the claims against me were a crock, but he was playing to his crowd. The other time I was sued, I was in a pissing match with someone where I was daring him to sue me and i did not take it personally.

But this is a false debate. It's fine if the defendants want to take being sued personally, but they weren't sued by the State of Connecticut. They were sued by the University of Connecticut and four other institutions. What I can tell you with certainty is in the business context people get mad at the people who sue them -- not at the lawyer or firm showing off for the TV camersas.

 

[Carl Spackler]

That's a very lawyerly response. Love it!

Well, it is a false debate, I agree, because to come to meaningful conclusions, would take either direct quotation, or the ability to mind read, the individuals involved.

But, if I am to believe what you can state with certainty, it is no stretch at all, to suggest that individuals such as Donna Shalala, Gene Defillippo, et. al., that were personally named in lawsuits, would harbor resentment and anger for people that they interacted with regularly at the University of Connecticut.

What I can say with certainty, is that in the context of human interaction, people who are in positions of great deal of power over others, tend to harbor their feelings of distrust very deeply when they feel they have been misled, or treated dishonestly, which can often extend beyond individuals, and on to the greater institution they represent (i.e. CIA, FBI for example) if they've been treated dishonestly, and require a great deal of communication and positive reinforcement activity over a long period of time, to remove those feelings, if they ever can be removed at all.

It would seem clear, that people at Pittsburgh and Syracuse, were able to mend any ill feelings, while people at UCONN did not.

 

[tzznandrew]

It would seem clear, that people at Pittsburgh and Syracuse, were able to mend any ill feelings, while people at UCONN did not.

The problem is that you are reading your conclusions into what happened.

You believe the lawsuit played a role in us being rejected. When presented with Syracuse and Pitt as counter-evidence, you simply say "They were able to mend ill feelings."

The only way that is true is if your initial assumption is right. There doesn't seem to be any way you could be proven wrong. Were UConn invited tomorrow, rather than saying "the lawsuit did not matter," you could say: "the people at UConn were able to mend any ill feelings."

 

[Carl Spackler]

Well, I do believe that the lawsuit played a role in the way the membership of the ACC voted regarding expansion over the past two years. Yes, I do. And it is a false debate. There's nothing in reality to debate. That's what I believe, because I believe it's human nature to hold grudges when you've been treated in a way you believe to be dishonest, badly, etc., and human nature is to focus that grudge onto something or someone, regardless if it's warranted or not. You can agree with that, or disagree, it will never be proven right or wrong.

The facts are:

The existing membership of the ACC voted to include Syracuse, PIttsburgh, Louisville, and Notre Dame.
The existing membership of the Big10 voted to include New Jersey and Maryland.
The existing membership of the Big 12 voted to include West Virginia and Texas Christian.
The existing membership of the SEC voted to include TExas A&M and Missouri.

The existing membership of the Big East conference voted to fold up the football conference model and move on and Big East football will be gone next year.

The existing membership of the Big East football conference, will become an all sports conference called the American Athletic Conference next year.

Make no mistake. People, like you and me, human beings that are subject to human nature, voted for all those things to happen.

 

[Alum86]

I blame ACORN. They had Panthers blocking my right to vote

 

[FAIRTIDES]

It all depends on the situation. My wife sat on a board of ed for 12 years. Plaintiffs needed to name the members to sue the district. She never took it personally. Directors of public companies know the risk of being named in suits and, in my experience, rarely take shareholder strike suits that the company is defending anyway personally.

I was once sued, personally, along with a client for something the client was alleged to have done. I took it personally because the plaintiff knew the claims against me were a crock, but he was playing to his crowd. The other time I was sued, I was in a pissing match with someone where I was daring him to sue me and i did not take it personally.

But this is a false debate. It's fine if the defendants want to take being sued personally, but they weren't sued by the State of Connecticut. They were sued by the University of Connecticut and four other institutions. What I can tell you with certainty is in the business context people get mad at the people who sue them -- not at the lawyer or firm showing off for the TV camersas.

Corporations purchase(I think it's still the case) "Officer's and Director's" insurance. During the first two technology booms (microprocessors in the eighties, WWW in the nineties), angry shareholders and investors would sue a company and it's management, by name. Many of the "named" individuals took it very personally. Most were baseless, but I was delighted to have the coverage.

I assume academia provides similar coverage.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I don't know the extent of the Lawsuit on our situation.
I'm not a fan of the ACC and this only pertains to that conference.
But I am pretty sure the media in general is so anti-JC that the NCAA issues are blown way out of proportion.
I think two bigger factors are JC retirement and football.
1.The perception although it ignores reality is a post JC retirement would cause the program to decend into mediocrity.
2. The other issue is the status of UConn as a viable fooball school and the states support of that program.
To be honest UConn football has failed to garner the loyality of the Conn. fan the way BB has.
The 2012-2013 Huskies with KO have temperarily muted number 1. Success in 2013-2014 will blow it out of the water.
The main burden is now on the football program to silence the critics.
PS I was at the Fiesta Bowl in 2011 there were about 10,000 UConn fans. But I live an hour and half from Glendale.

 

[TRest]

I can tell you from experience that those who are sued, and take being sued personally, never care less because they think the other side's suit is more or less valid. But interesting theory.

What I was trying to clarify to the OP was that the WVU and Maryland lawsuits involved schools that had already given notice of leaving and were/are trying to broker the most favorable deal possible regarding the exit fees. UConn's (and the others) suit was an entirely different scenario. I doubt the ACC is taking it personally that Maryland hopes to pay less than $50 million.

 

[upstater]

The problem is that you are reading your conclusions into what happened.

You believe the lawsuit played a role in us being rejected. When presented with Syracuse and Pitt as counter-evidence, you simply say "They were able to mend ill feelings."

The only way that is true is if your initial assumption is right. There doesn't seem to be any way you could be proven wrong. Were UConn invited tomorrow, rather than saying "the lawsuit did not matter," you could say: "the people at UConn were able to mend any ill feelings."

Great post. Clearly, those two schools (BC and Cuse) don't want to compete against UConn. That's what explains their behavior. The heart and soul of the conference (tobacco road and the Virginia old guard) were all in UConn's corner.

 

[upstater]

Well, I do believe that the lawsuit played a role in the way the membership of the ACC voted regarding expansion over the past two years. Yes, I do. And it is a false debate. There's nothing in reality to debate. That's what I believe, because I believe it's human nature to hold grudges when you've been treated in a way you believe to be dishonest, badly, etc., and human nature is to focus that grudge onto something or someone, regardless if it's warranted or not. You can agree with that, or disagree, it will never be proven right or wrong.

The facts are:

The existing membership of the ACC voted to include Syracuse, PIttsburgh, Louisville, and Notre Dame.
The existing membership of the Big10 voted to include New Jersey and Maryland.
The existing membership of the Big 12 voted to include West Virginia and Texas Christian.
The existing membership of the SEC voted to include TExas A&M and Missouri.

The existing membership of the Big East conference voted to fold up the football conference model and move on and Big East football will be gone next year.

The existing membership of the Big East football conference, will become an all sports conference called the American Athletic Conference next year.

Make no mistake. People, like you and me, human beings that are subject to human nature, voted for all those things to happen.

Do you disregard then the reports that BC blackballed UConn when UConn and Cuse were the initial choices? Or how about FSU demanding Louisville for football reasons when UConn had been "penciled" in?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Do you disregard then the reports that BC blackballed UConn when UConn and Cuse were the initial choices? Or how about FSU demanding Louisville for football reasons when UConn had been "penciled" in?

Of course not. You think that the leadership of some schools are/were afraid of competition with UCONN. The leadership of those schools, operating under that guise or something. It's a plausible, and supportable position. My position is that it was personal, nothing more, nothing less, and that "fear of competition" is/was the excuse to cover up that it's nothing more than hubris. Who in their right mind would think that Duke in such proximity to UNC would be a problem?

People in positions of power at places didn't like each other for reasons that they were treated dishonestly, and attacked personally, and therefore the entire institutions operated a certain way. My position is also plausible and supportable.

Look - change of topic here for a second. I was probably the only person in CT last night that was watching the re-run of the Pony Excess 30 for 30 last night. I personally can't wait to match up with SMU again, my trip to Dallas is already planned. One quote in there, from Brent Musberger, hit me pretty good. He said that SMU's problems began in earnest, when the local media and sports information people (SID) department started to get crossed up, and battle. Every major football progrm in the country was doing thesame things that SMU was doing with recruiting in the early 80s. He said that when the local media doesn't support you, it's all over. No matter what the circumstance.

One of the more important issues facing UCONN moving forward, is our public image, and it starts with the local media getting back on the side of the University, and really getting some PR savvy people in place to do the best they can, so that our public image, across the nation is one of respect, and not distain.

I don't know how else to say this, without getting any further into it, the simple fact is the people named in that lawsuit, and were forced to come to Rockville, CT to defend themselves....to them, the letters UCONN basically become the equivalent of the letters CIA to people that opposed the second Iraqi invasion.

It's avoiding that kind of long lasting public relations disaster, that UCONN needs to be aware of as we navigate into the future. I believe that business, is always about personal relationships, and we need good personal relationships. I think the current University leadership is working hard to build those bridges and maintain them.

 

[upstater]

Of course not. You think that the leadership of some schools are/were afraid of competition with UCONN. The leadership of those schools, operating under that guise or something. It's a plausible, and supportable position. My position is that it was personal, nothing more, nothing less, and that "fear of competition" is/was the excuse to cover up that it's nothing more than hubris. Who in their right mind would think that Duke in such proximity to UNC would be a problem?

People in positions of power at places didn't like each other for reasons that they were treated dishonestly, and attacked personally, and therefore the entire institutions operated a certain way. My position is also plausible and supportable.

It's the reverse. Fear of competition has ALWAYS been the underlying problem. And that was announced well before the lawsuit in 2002 with Bob Ryan's infamous column in the Globe in which he quoted people high up in BC's AD as being worried UConn was going to take over New England.

I mean, why the heck would Boeheim and Gross go against UConn? UConn didn't sue them. It's fear of competition--otherwise what does Cuse have against UConn?

And, my God, many of us were on here 8 or 9 years ago when a board member with direct access to the so-called butthurt reported the nature of private "conversations" in collegial meetings. That was between Syracuse and BC people. It was incredibly nasty.

Lastly, the ACC is Tobacco Road. Tobacco Road was sued. Tobacco Road is and has been behind UConn's candidacy. No hurt feelings there. BC is the main problem, other than the perception of UConn football.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The suit, filed yesterday in Vernon Superior Court, alleges that
the ACC and Boston College conspired to weaken the Big East. Boston
College announced Sunday that it would follow the University of
Miami and Virginia Tech, which are leaving the Big East to join the
ACC.

"We just got off a conference call," Blumenthal said early
Monday evening. "All the presidents have authorized this
lawsuit."

The suit names Boston College athletic director Gene DeFilippo,
ACC Commissioner John Swofford, ACC President Carolyn Callahan, ACC
Vice President Donn Ward and ACC Treasurer Cecil Huey, Blumenthal
said.

Connecticut, Rutgers, Pittsburgh and West Virginia already are
suing Miami. A judge last week threw out a case against the ACC on
jurisdictional grounds.

"I suspect the same will happen to those of us who, by virtue of
our rotation, happen to be officers," Ward said. "And I suspect the
people of Connecticut want their attorney general to chase far more
important issues."

The case against the ACC was thrown out because attorneys could
not prove the conference did enough business in Connecticut to
warrant a state suit. By suing the conference directors as
individuals, Big East schools hope they can get around the
jurisdiction issue.

"We are not required to show they are transacting business,"
Blumenthal said. "If they have violated the law and have damaged
Connecticut or its citizens, they can be sued."

Messages seeking comment were left at the homes and offices of
the other school and conference officials. Hugh Keefe, an attorney
who represented the ACC, did not return a page.

Miami and Virginia Tech will join the ACC next year. Boston
College might not change conferences until 2006.

The suit makes several tort claims, including unfair trade
practices, civil conspiracy and breach of contract, Blumenthal
said. As in the suit against Miami, the Big East schools seek
unspecified damages.

The suit singles out DeFilippo for allegedly using his role as a
conference director with Big East to manipulate discussions between
BC, Miami and the ACC, Blumenthal said.

"One of the key reasons that BC and DeFilippo were able to
engage in this secret scheme with Miami and the ACC is that they
had access to sensitive and confidential information from the Big
East and its member schools," Blumenthal said.

He said Boston College's defection strengthened the case.

"The more we learn, the more appalled and astonished we are by
the depth and breadth of the illegality," Blumenthal said.



Look, we'll go round and round. This was a complete PR disaster for the University of Connecticut, and Dick Blumenthal, is a first class , and an embarrassment to people in this state that actually have scruples and morals.

The activities that UCONN took the point on legally, in 2003, are far different than any legal proceedings around intercollegiate athletics that occurred both before and after (and UCONN officials were involved in the most important of which that happened in the mid 1980s) and those MULTIPLE courses of legal action, created many, many enemies up and down the eastern seaboard of the United States. THe other presidents were more than happy to let Connecticut take the point on this, and Austin was a fool.

You want to bury your head in the sand about that, it's fine with me. I hope that our current University leadership does not.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's the reverse. Fear of competition has ALWAYS been the underlying problem. And that was announced well before the lawsuit in 2002 with Bob Ryan's infamous column in the Globe in which he quoted people high up in BC's AD as being worried UConn was going to take over New England.

I mean, why the heck would Boeheim and Gross go against UConn? UConn didn't sue them. It's fear of competition--otherwise what does Cuse have against UConn?

And, my God, many of us were on here 8 or 9 years ago when a board member with direct access to the so-called butthurt reported the nature of private "conversations" in collegial meetings. That was between Syracuse and BC people. It was incredibly nasty.

Lastly, the ACC is Tobacco Road. Tobacco Road was sued. Tobacco Road is and has been behind UConn's candidacy. No hurt feelings there. BC is the main problem, other than the perception of UConn football.

By the way, I do think Syracuse is afraid of UCONN. They were not part of any of this stuff I"m talking about. But I think you have no idea just how many people, important people, in positions of power, that UCONN pissed off with Dick Blumenthal's legal antics, seeking unspecified damages, from people personally who conspired against the people of the state of connecticut. Unbelievable. Attorneys representing the state of florida, and florida state, on and on. Then, the people of Connecticut go an elect this to the U.S. Senate, after it was proven, that he LIED multiple times to promote his own legal career, LIED about his military service in Vietnam.

These are things that do not go unnoticed among people of great influence over others.

 

[upstater]

By the way, I do think Syracuse is afraid of UCONN. They were not part of any of this stuff I"m talking about. But I think you have no idea just how many people, important people, in positions of power, that UCONN pissed off with Blumenthal's legal antics, seeking unspecified damages, from people personally who conspired against the people of the state of connecticut. Unbelievable. Attorneys representing the state of florida, and florida state, on and on. Then, the people of Connecticut go an elect this to the U.S. Senate, after it was proven, that he LIED multiple times to promote his own legal career, LIED about his military service in Vietnam.

These are things that do not go unnoticed among people of great influence over others.

You casually dismiss the discussion about Pitt being on the lawsuit? About Cuse being way more insulting than UConn when it came to BC? About the fact that Tobacco Road, the heart of the lawsuit, backing UConn? I'm not buying any Florida State stuff. Their whole thing is football. The long and the short of it. Otherwise, it's a non-issue.

 

[upstater]

You want to bury your head in the sand about that, it's fine with me. I hope that our current University leadership does not.

Swofford and Tobacco Road are FOR UConn in the ACC.

It's clear what's happening here: you have a political ax to grind.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This black and white back and forth is not leading up to any answers guys. The lawsuit was a PR stunt by Blumenthal that backfired on the universitity. He made out well, UConn didn't. Syracuse, certainly, simply doesn't want UConn playing in their sandbox. It's a crumbling institution in one of the worst places in America to live or go to school (cold, lacks sunshine, too much snow). It's waning as a destination for students from New Engalnd as it is. I have no doubt that UConn, on the academic side, has taken many kids who might have gone to Syracuse. It has massive institutional disadvantages compared to UConn. BC has none of those disadvantages, and has a great location, nice campus, strong academics and an on-campus stadium. They've merely been inept in execution of late. I think BC's resistance is more personal, and the lawsuit didn't help.

Does our PR suck? Yes...we need a face for the University, preferably a pretty one (Dana Perino?). Someone to charm the press and make the school look good. Ollie is a vast improvement over Calhoun from a media relations perspective. PP is simply too boring to even generate any press, postive or negative. First thing Ollie should do is schedule BC for a home and home (after this season's tournament game) and try to get the same for football. Mend those fences, however painful for some UConn fans. They didn't block us from Hockey East...now is the time.

I think the Calhoun retirement played into Louisville's hands by the way. It's an easy picture to paint. Their hoops were not far behind ours as it is, but they can sell the notion that they have Pitino and we have? A rookie coach who's never coached a game. Given their edge in football, it's not hard to say they had an edge in basketball too. Their women's BB is good, if not close to UConn, and soccer is about even. All we had was location and academics, and given that they had BC and Cuse, I'm not sure we had much in the way of location.