Why will the ACC fall apart? The UConn principle.

[Carl Spackler]

I don't disagree with this part but one of the weaknesses of being a State institution is that when you justify $125 million in expenses on the basis of future returns, you have to do something when those future returns are threatened and no one in government has the foresight to recognize that sometimes sitting back and waiting can be a good response.

As for smoothing things over, the best guy we've ever had at (Lew Perkins) that got up and left for Kansas in late June 2003. I think that had we coaxed another year out of him, your plan may have been implemented. In the void of leadership at the time, the State government took the reins and all of the other plaintiffs sat back and watched (notably, each of them is off to a greener pasture).

The return on the investment lied with the further existence of the Big East as a BCS conference. That's where the money return on teh investement was going to come from, adn that's where it did come from, and the people in that room in 2003, knew it, and were working toward it. That was already happening. THe entire lawsuit was a publicity stunt / ego trip for the people involved, and our basketball oriented, football novice leadership were set up as punching bags.

 

[upstater]

The anger from Syracuse toward Boston College back then, was because Syracuse was the actual target that Miami wanted to bring to the ACC with them, not VTech or Boston College, and as Crouthamel promised he would leave his job if the Big EAst moved forward as it did, and made good on his word, Defillippo made the same promise, and didn't make good on it. Leahy, played every possible hand he could, while Shaw remained solid with the Big EAst, and worked to rebuild it in teh best interests of Syracuse he could come up with, and then handed off the job to Cantor, who inherited a mess where Leahy managed to wiggle into the spot that the ACC had reserved for Syracuse after the Virginia state government got involved. (They managed to handle things better than our governor and AD did). Syracuse leadership, and their tradition in football, had a lot more of a gripe with Boston College, in 2004-2005 than we did.

Upstater, you suggested that Miami was interested in leaving the Big East. You hooked me, becuase that would certainly be a major, major, turn of events and I was interested in pursuing it, as to why you'd write that, because Shalala was a major, major player in what led to the eventual destruction of the big east conference, and she has issues she's leaving the U with, and I doubt she's happy about it, but leaving the ACC - I highly doubt that's a road she's interested in.

I'm not writing any more on this. Peace out.

My reference to vitriol from Cuse toward Leahy personally was when a Cuse BOT member posted that while standing behind Leahy at an academic get-together of Presidents and such, Leahy was called out as a liar for heading BE reorganization while playing footsy with the ACC.

My only point about the minutes was that the document shows it is evident that the schools elected to break from the bball onlies, but not once in that doc did anyone consider that ND would side with the bballs over the others. In that light, BC's so-called indignation at the decisions made subsequently to form a 16 team league was a distraction. Not based in reality.

I didn't suggest Miami was doing anything. In fact, I said I don't give it much weight, but that it made sense that Miami--of all the schools--was the most likely to search for a new perch.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Alright,, I'm not done, becuase this stuff actually matters to me.

It should come as no surpise, (and it didn't to some of us) that when we actually made the BCS bowl system as a participant by 2010, that the same leadership that was involved in that lawsuit (Hathaway) had his athletic department caught with their pants around their ankles when it came to any sort of understanding of what the BCS was all about. The publicity sucked. The media was allowed to portray an image of program that didn't know what the hell it was doing and had no fan support (they were right about the first part) If not for myself, and a few others, begging boneyarders to buy tickets through the school, I shudder to think what the ticket sales media story would have been.

Complete failure for 7 years, by our athletic director and our leadership to grasp the magnitude of what we had been granted as a new BCS member, and failure of grasping the very concept of what a division 1-A/BCS athletic department business is, and no one in charge, to call anyone out on it. It's no wonder that Randy Edsall wanted out, and was actively looking for years, adn took the first offer he could get.

THe BCS is now gone in a year, replaced by a pseudo-playoff system, which as of now, we have taken a step backwards in our revenue stream profile.

Sometimes, things like an internet message board, can have some power.

The leadership at UConn has changed, though, and we have people in charge that get it now, it's just a matter now, of how bad the damage control is and will take to repair, on the bridges burned, and rebuilding as best we can in the meantime to continue to be winners on the field, on the courts and in the classrooms.

As each day goes by, that our future schedules remain wide open in football, it's becoming crystal clear, that the damage done, was pretty severe.

 

[Carl Spackler]

My reference to vitriol from Cuse toward Leahy personally was when a Cuse BOT member posted that while standing behind Leahy at an academic get-together of Presidents and such, Leahy was called out as a liar for heading BE reorganization while playing footsy with the ACC.

My only point about the minutes was that the document shows it is evident that the schools elected to break from the bball onlies, but not once in that doc did anyone consider that ND would side with the bballs over the others. In that light, BC's so-called indignation at the decisions made subsequently to form a 16 team league was a distraction. Not based in reality.

I didn't suggest Miami was doing anything. In fact, I said I don't give it much weight, but that it made sense that Miami--of all the schools--was the most likely to search for a new perch.

What makes you think that BOT members have any idea what's going on? have you learned nothing in the past 10 years?

 

[upstater]

What makes you think that BOT members have any idea what's going on? have you learned nothing in the past 10 years?

I diodn't say the BOT member knew what was going on. I saw the BOT member castigated Leahy vitriolically in public in front of academics, so anyone who thinks that BC blackballs UConn because of vitriol in 2003 is being mislead. What is even being contested about the facts I stated here?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I diodn't say the BOT member knew what was going on. I saw the BOT member castigated Leahy vitriolically in public in front of academics, so anyone who thinks that BC blackballs UConn because of vitriol in 2003 is being mislead. What is even being contested about the facts I stated here?

I don't know what's being contested. I don't care what BOT member overheard somebody saying to somebody else at a cocktail party.

I think it's crystal clear, what I've stated. Here, I'll do it again. In summer 2003, shortly after Miami made the move to the ACC official, there was a meeting of Big East presidents, chancellors and athletic directors and Big East conference office leadership. At that meeting, all present were made aware, that dissolution of the league, was an option moving forward, and not only an option, subcommittees were formed at that meeting, and it was understood, that in the following weeks, there would be meetings among at least 6 different member schools, to discuss DISSOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE. It was common knowledge at this time, that ACC leadership had been in discussions with several members of the conference.

Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult.

The investments, were only in danger, if the BCS affiliation were to go away, and that had been solved well before the lawsuits were engaged, and the BCS existence of the conference was not threatened by the move of Boston College and Virginia Tech, with the way things had been handled with the NCAA and with the BCS leadership and the expansion plans in the meantime. The entire college football world knew that the lawsuit was garbage. It made sense to the majority of UCOnn huskies people in the CT, because very few, had any understanding of the BCS.

If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

The only threat to the investment that UCOnn made in the late 1990s, involved the conference affiliation with the BCS revenue streams and the scheduling therefore involved.

The difference now is that the threat is real, and actively happening, while in 2003, it was non-existent, as the actual football members at the time, had secured the BCS arrangment.

 

[upstater]

POINT A: I don't care what BOT member overheard somebody saying to somebody else at a tail party.

POINT B: I think it's crystal clear, what I've stated. Here, I'll do it again. In summer 2003, shortly after Miami made the move to the ACC official, there was a meeting of Big East presidents, chancellors and athletic directors and Big East conference office leadership. At that meeting, all present were made aware, that dissolution of the league, was an option moving forward, and not only an option, subcommittees were formed at that meeting, and it was understood, that in the following weeks, there would be meetings among at least 6 different member schools, to discuss DISSOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE. It was common knowledge at this time, that ACC leadership had been in discussions with several members of the conference.
Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult.


POINT C: If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

POINT D: We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

POINT E: Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

POINT A: No one overheard anyone saying anything to anyone. I said a Cuse BOT member castigated Leahy and called him a liar openly and in front of his peers, so this idea that Leahy's feelings were hurt because of vitriol from UConn is laughable.

POINT B: The dissolution of the league was impossible because ND voted with the bball onlies. You don't seem to get it through your head. In the document you linked to, the football schools simply assume ND will side with them. Patently ridiculous.

POINT C: ...and you would have been wrong. It was the argument countless BC posters were making on this board back then, and a slew of times UConn posters showed that many were on board for dissolution in July (Calhoun had come out publicly) but the vote with ND siding with bball made it impossible.

POINT D: UNC and Duke and many others simply do not hold a grudge. BC doesn't want UConn because it's territorial. Go back and read those articles from Shaw and Nordenburg castigating the ACC, and what they said was 1ox worse than anything that came from UConn. In fact, the previous link I gave showed that UConn was considered ahead of Pitt for the position.

POINT E: See Point B.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Point A: Back to what I said before, what makes you think that BOT members have any idea that they know what they're talking about? has anything in the past 10 years in the intercollegiate world made you think that BOT's are integrally involved in anythign that's happening in day to day operations, or in fast time negotiations in major business deals? I share some info with you, that wasn't the first time that a high ranking official from a different university accused Leahy of being a liar.

Point B: We will continue to disagree here ad infinitum. The only reason the league remained together, was because the football institutions, led by Shaw's work, found that the only way to secure the BCS bid for the near future for the remaining members, through the next contract cycle was to retain and rebuild the Big East conference as a viable 1-A football conference recognized by the NCAA. Notre Dame's voting on the matter was meaningless. Most votes in a business structure organized the way the Big East was, are meaningless. By the time anythign gets to vote, the course of action has already been decided. The vote to exclude Penn State as a member in 1982, saw to all future business being handled that way. No more surprise votes with things of that magnitude.

Point C: There was a loophole writtent into the Big East bylaws / constitution, that made it so that the basketball schools had primary control over whether or not the league could be dissolved. That's why things went down the way they did. That loophole, and several other administrative issues with the business were corrected after 2003, and correcting that, is actually the reason now, why the Big East still exists, and the catholic schools haven't taken the league name with them. The football schools, it was found, could not initiate a dissolution, even with majority vote in 2003. If they had left, under any circumstances other than the basketball schools voting for the dissolution of the football league, they would be subject to exit penalties. Completely screwy business structure.

Point D: UConn is the last remaining founding member of the Big East. UNC, Duke, BC, Syracuse and Pittsburgh are all members of the ACC.

Point E: Notre Dame - was a basketball school. They already had access to the BCS as in independant in football. There was no reason to expect Notre Dame to do anythign but want the big east to remain the best basketball / non-revenue sport league it could be.

How far are we going to go with this?

 

[upstater]

Point A: Back to what I said before, what makes you think that BOT members have any idea that they know what they're talking about? has anything in the past 10 years in the intercollegiate world made you think that BOT's are integrally involved in anythign that's happening in day to day operations, or in fast time negotiations in major business deals? I share some info with you, that wasn't the first time that a high ranking official from a different university accused Leahy of being a liar.

Point B: We will continue to disagree here ad infinitum. The only reason the league remained together, was because the football institutions, led by Shaw's work, found that the only way to secure the BCS bid for the near future for the remaining members, through the next contract cycle was to retain and rebuild the Big East conference as a viable 1-A football conference recognized by the NCAA. Notre Dame's voting on the matter was meaningless. Most votes in a business structure organized the way the Big East was, are meaningless. By the time anythign gets to vote, the course of action has already been decided. The vote to exclude Penn State as a member in 1982, saw to all future business being handled that way. No more surprise votes with things of that magnitude.

Point C: There was a loophole writtent into the Big East bylaws / constitution, that made it so that the basketball schools had primary control over whether or not the league could be dissolved. That's why things went down the way they did. That loophole, and several other administrative issues with the business were corrected after 2003, and correcting that, is actually the reason now, why the Big East still exists, and the catholic schools haven't taken the league name with them. The football schools, it was found, could not initiate a dissolution, even with majority vote in 2003. If they had left, under any circumstances other than the basketball schools voting for the dissolution of the football league, they would be subject to exit penalties. Completely screwy business structure.

Point D: UConn is the last remaining founding member of the Big East. UNC, Duke, BC, Syracuse and Pittsburgh are all members of the ACC.

Point E: Notre Dame - was a basketball school. They already had access to the BCS as in independant in football. There was no reason to expect Notre Dame to do anythign but want the big east to remain the best basketball / non-revenue sport league it could be.

How far are we going to go with this?

POINT A: No matter how many times I answer, you don't get it. There are no facts or inside information being discussed here. There is literally nothing to contest. The only point is that there was vitriol toward Leahy from many corners, and you yourself now claim the same thing! In other words, UConn was not the only school sending vitriol his way--if it ever even did. Therefore, the idea that he held a grudge because of vitrol is questionable. Much more likely he and his stooge were quite worried about UConn as competition. Therefore, we can forget about the impact of vitriol.

POINT B: The document you linked to showed a 6-0 vote among the football schools to dissolve the league. The document showed overconfidence that they had Notre Dame's vote. The only mention of ND was for either joining the fball schools or for its place in the new conference. The reason the schools did not dissolve the league and break off is BECAUSE ND voted with the bball schools. They could not break off at that point without losing the BCS autobid and NCAA credits, not to mention a great deal of other assets. You say ND's vote didn't count. Then how do you account for the total reversal a month later from that position on which they voted 6-0?! All the news sources at the time pointed out the significance of ND's vote.

POINT C: You misread your own document. The loophole was to the football school's advantage, not the bball schools.

POINT D: How does that contradict what I wrote? It doesn't. BC blackballs UConn because it is afraid of competition.

POINT E: Uh, yeah. That's my point. ND voted with the bball schools. That's why the conference didn't dissolve.

 

[06029]

POINT B: The document you linked to showed a 6-0 vote among the football schools to dissolve the league. The document showed overconfidence that they had Notre Dame's vote. The only mention of ND was for either joining the fball schools or for its place in the new conference. The reason the schools did not dissolve the league and break off is BECAUSE ND voted with the bball schools. They could not break off at that point without losing the BCS autobid and NCAA credits, not to mention a great deal of other assets. You say ND's vote didn't count. Then how do you account for the total reversal a month later from that position on which they voted 6-0?! All the news sources at the time pointed out the significance of ND's vote.

The conference did not split in 2003 largely because of Cuse and, yes, Uconn. Both had significant BB credits to lose and let the BB side of their schools run the decision. That is a pretty clear in all of this. The hybrid was being seen by the AD's/presidents as destined to fail. To some at the time, the all sports conference was the model to follow. Note that the minutes show Zero support for a 16 team model. It also clearly states that everyone knew ND was going to be independent. The 8/9 team conference was the only option embraced. Uconn was granted early entrance and Louisville and Cinci had support for inclusion in all sports. It is in writing, in the minutes. The league could have formed overnight. The BCS autobid ran only with FB schools so that was an issue that could have been overcome. It had nothing to do with the conference name. I find it hard that anyone can dispute any of these as fact.

The independent conference was there and there was to be negotiations with the BB's about a split. Stuff happened between that meeting and November. Yeah, there was no negotiated split. Yeah, ND played a game. But one of the keys was the flip on the vote from the original six by Uconn and Cuse just as much as it was anything else. That Cuse and Uconn made this same somewhat short sighted decision (personal opinion) at the time showed very little faith in their ability to continue to have BB success in a new conference. They gave up a chance at something great to save some credit dollars. They would have been in the BB tourney everyone of the years it would have taken to get the auto bid in place. The FB program would have had the same success level. And they would have been one of the kings of the conference. It is funny that after 10 years, the BE is finally going to be an all sports conference only with schools that no one could have imagined at that time. And I guess Uconn is now the king of this too.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. As they should have been. They never should have been allowed to leave. The Big East was their conference, it offer an automatic BCS slot, it offered a chance at the National Championship. . . end of discussions. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult. UConn had just finished it's investment into major college/BCS football and now it was gonna be taken away? The courts should have mandated a stay put. . . . "Best interest of the game".

The investments, were only in danger, if the BCS affiliation were to go away, and that had been solved well before the lawsuits were engaged, and the BCS existence of the conference was not threatened by the move of Boston College and Virginia Tech, with the way things had been handled with the NCAA and with the BCS leadership and the expansion plans in the meantime. Yeah and how's that automatic berth looking today. The entire college football world knew that the lawsuit was garbage. The lawsuit wasn't garbarge, the conference realignment crap was the garbage. Fuel by greed and television meddling. It made sense to the majority of UCOnn huskies people in the CT, because very few, had any understanding of the BCS.

The courts should have put an end to this whole conference realigment cannibalism. All teams mandate to stay put in their respective conferences. Each conference was free to add new teams but not if those teams were already in a BCS conference. Big East would now be comprised of Miami, West Virginia, BCU, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, South Florida and any new additions. Not a bad conference.

If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

The only threat to the investment that UCOnn made in the late 1990s, involved the conference affiliation with the BCS revenue streams and the scheduling therefore involved.

The difference now is that the threat is real, and actively happening, while in 2003, it was non-existent, as the actual football members at the time, had secured the BCS arrangment.

 

[John Greene]

Much as it pains me to say it (it could set off a 3000 word response) Carl is largely correct about the impact of the lawsuit. A couple of years ago I first mentioned a conversation with an SEC official to that point. He was of the opinion that it would hurt UConn's move into another conference. Not prevent it, but make it more difficult. Schools and conferences have sued each other over many things but the thing that made it different, in his opinion, was the naming of Leahy, Swoford, etc as individuals. With the pols making the most they could out of it. This gave some people working in senior conference positions pause.

On the Syracuse vitriol, towards BC. Doesn't anyone find it odd that within 3 years Cuse and BC were talking about a long term OOC series that they in fact renewed. Either Leahy really believes in turning the other cheek or like so much else that passes as fact on the internet the whole thing is questionable.

 

[Danzz]

The ACC will get raided but a raid of 2 teams is still a problem. They could sit tight. Or if it involves Miami and Clemson choose to add USF and Cincy with UCF a back pocket play if FSU gets raided.

The ACC simply may not want to give up a seat in Florida given population projections and recruiting. The Florida University System can virtually guarantee the ACC cross-conference matchups with Florida State and the University of Florida .Miami would add (more like keep) the new ACC Florida Team(s) in the rotation.

Cincy is surrounded by 3 Ohio RayCom Affiliates. Ohio's a fertile recruiting locale and plenty of local games are there to be produced including Toledo, Ohio State, Xavier, Bolwing Green, Kent State, etc) All in Raycom markets and just waiting for ACC bookings with Duke or SU or Pitt etc.

The Florida State University system won't guarantee anything. Example: Florida would block FSU from joining the SEC. As one who went to college in Florida, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between FSU and Florida; at least in Florida's eyes. Comparing the 2 would be similar to comparing Uconn and CCSU. UGA is closer to Gainsville than FSU.
USF has been the dumpng ground for years for problem professors. A few years ago a USF a Arab professor was deported for terroist affiliations and USF has always been like that. The bar I hung at in college in Tampa was owned by 2 USF professors who were openly dealing drugs before the cops (alledgidly) burned it down.
Don't look for the FS University system to do anything to help FSU. It will never happen.

 

[upstater]

The conference did not split in 2003 largely because of Cuse and, yes, Uconn. Both had significant BB credits to lose and let the BB side of their schools run the decision. That is a pretty clear in all of this. The hybrid was being seen by the AD's/presidents as destined to fail. To some at the time, the all sports conference was the model to follow. Note that the minutes show Zero support for a 16 team model. It also clearly states that everyone knew ND was going to be independent. The 8/9 team conference was the only option embraced. Uconn was granted early entrance and Louisville and Cinci had support for inclusion in all sports. It is in writing, in the minutes. The league could have formed overnight. The BCS autobid ran only with FB schools so that was an issue that could have been overcome. It had nothing to do with the conference name. I find it hard that anyone can dispute any of these as fact.

The independent conference was there and there was to be negotiations with the BB's about a split. Stuff happened between that meeting and November. Yeah, there was no negotiated split. Yeah, ND played a game. But one of the keys was the flip on the vote from the original six by Uconn and Cuse just as much as it was anything else. That Cuse and Uconn made this same somewhat short sighted decision (personal opinion) at the time showed very little faith in their ability to continue to have BB success in a new conference. They gave up a chance at something great to save some credit dollars. They would have been in the BB tourney everyone of the years it would have taken to get the auto bid in place. The FB program would have had the same success level. And they would have been one of the kings of the conference. It is funny that after 10 years, the BE is finally going to be an all sports conference only with schools that no one could have imagined at that time. And I guess Uconn is now the king of this too.

How does what you write contradict what I wrote?

Other than the fact you left out concern for losing the BCS autobid?

 

[upstater]

Much as it pains me to say it (it could set off a 3000 word response) Carl is largely correct about the impact of the lawsuit. A couple of years ago I first mentioned a conversation with an SEC official to that point. He was of the opinion that it would hurt UConn's move into another conference. Not prevent it, but make it more difficult. Schools and conferences have sued each other over many things but the thing that made it different, in his opinion, was the naming of Leahy, Swoford, etc as individuals. With the pols making the most they could out of it. This gave some people working in senior conference positions pause.

On the Syracuse vitriol, towards BC. Doesn't anyone find it odd that within 3 years Cuse and BC were talking about a long term OOC series that they in fact renewed. Either Leahy really believes in turning the other cheek or like so much else that passes as fact on the internet the whole thing is questionable.

The BOT member actually posted on the Boneyard.

If these schools are so averse to lawsuits, then why are they suing each other right now? Maryland is suing, Rutgers is suing, the ACC schools are suing, they are all suing? Pitt sued too!!!

The article I linked to shows that Duke and UNC were totally flummoxed by BC's crazy position. Swofford, by the way, is known as a Tobacco Road guy. If UNC and Duke are in favor of UConn, I bet Swofford is too!

 

[Fishy]

On the Syracuse vitriol, towards BC. Doesn't anyone find it odd that within 3 years Cuse and BC were talking about a long term OOC series that they in fact renewed. Either Leahy really believes in turning the other cheek or like so much else that passes as fact on the internet the whole thing is questionable.

The 'vitriol' was 100% real - Leahy lied or misled to the administration at Syracuse and they held it against him.

But they retired - Buzz Shaw as chancellor in '04 and Jake Crouthamel as athletic director in '05.

 

[noeynox]

The 'vitriol' was 100% real - Leahy lied or misled to the administration at Syracuse and they held it against him.

But they retired - Buzz Shaw as chancellor in '04 and Jake Crouthamel as athletic director in '05.

But , our president and AD have since retired or moved on as well. So was it the lawsuit or the fact that we made them our in basketball and feared the same thing happening in football?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The ACC thinks they don't need us, and clearly our Administration does not have a good rebuttal. Regardless, the gig is up. UConn's only outside prayer of joining the ACC is if ESPN requires it in return for more money to the ACC. Unlikely, but networks have offered conferences more money for weaker properties (see Maryland and Rutgers to Big 10), so who knows?

Until then, UConn's upside is to be combination of Boise in football and Gonzaga in basketball, programs that win despite their conference affiliation, because that could be the next 20 years of UConn athletics.

 

[upstater]

But , our president and AD have since retired or moved on as well. So was it the lawsuit or the fact that we made them our in basketball and feared the same thing happening in football?

Exactly. And I don't think yours and Fishy's posts contradict. They say the same thing. What more do people need? Heck, DeFillippo even admitted it in the linked article!!! What more do people need? It's about competition. Same thing with Syracuse. Why is Gross against UConn? Competition. Why must we self-flagellate ourselves when the people blackballing us are pretty open about wanting UConn sports to die?

 

[ZooCougar]

It's not if you sue. It's when.

The BOT member actually posted on the Boneyard.

If these schools are so averse to lawsuits, then why are they suing each other right now? Maryland is suing, Rutgers is suing, the ACC schools are suing, they are all suing? Pitt sued too!!!

The article I linked to shows that Duke and UNC were totally flummoxed by BC's crazy position. Swofford, by the way, is known as a Tobacco Road guy. If UNC and Duke are in favor of UConn, I bet Swofford is too!

 

[caw]

Speaking of lawsuits: the purported Maryland lawsuit against the ACC.

 

[IMind]

There is no sillier thing than thinking that the reason UConn isn't in the ACC is because some politician said some mean stuff at a press conference a decade ago. There are only two reasons UConn isn't in the ACC right now: BC and FSU... and neither has anything to do with the lawsuit. They both think their value will diminish by playing UConn regularly... both for very different reasons. It's about money not some percieved slight.

 

[SubbaBub]

Exactly. And I don't think yours and Fishy's posts contradict. They say the same thing. What more do people need? Heck, DeFillippo even admitted it in the linked article!!! What more do people need? It's about competition. Same thing with Syracuse. Why is Gross against UConn? Competition. Why must we self-flagellate ourselves when the people blackballing us are pretty open about wanting UConn sports to die?

This. It's always been this. We're too much competition in everything for the northeast ACC schools and not enough FB competition for the southern FB schools. Everyone else was on board with us joining, but not adamant about it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Nostical]

There is no sillier thing than thinking that the reason UConn isn't in the ACC.......has anything to do with the lawsuit. It's about money not some percieved slight.

You're too quick to dismiss the lingering impact of what is still perceived as a Connecticut led lawsuit against the ACC. While competitive factors and money issues are in play for sure, I'm inclined to believe what a good friend of mine from Syracuse was told by his friend Jim Boeheim when they played golf last summer. I believe I posted this before, but my friend asked (at my request) what JB thought were UConn's chances of getting an invite. Here's essentially what JB said. "I don't see it happening. When I attended my first ACC meetings and the subject came up, I was really surprised at the level of animosity over some lawsuit that was filed by UConn after the early defections"

My friend interpreted it this way. "It's like if your neighbor whose kids played with yours surprisingly sued you for cutting down some overgrown trees along your mutual property line. He caused you to spend lots of money to defend yourself and said some nasty things during the lawsuit. Now a few years later that same neighbor puts in his application to join your yacht club--and you're on the membership committee. The guy's boat is nice but nothing special and although he's considered a pretty good guy by some on the committee, they turn to you for your vote. What are the chances you'd vote to let him in? Maybe the only way you do is if his wife is extra hot, his boat is huge and he's willing to cover the cost of the needed clubhouse roof replacement! Barring that, he'd be toast!"

 

[Carl Spackler]

You're too quick to dismiss the lingering impact of what is still perceived as a Connecticut led lawsuit against the ACC. While competitive factors and money issues are in play for sure, I'm inclined to believe what a good friend of mine from Syracuse was told by his friend Jim Boeheim when they played golf last summer. I believe I posted this before, but my friend asked (at my request) what JB thought were UConn's chances of getting an invite. Here's essentially what JB said. "I don't see it happening. When I attended my first ACC meetings and the subject came up, I was really surprised at the level of animosity over some lawsuit that was filed by UConn after the early defections"

My friend interpreted it this way. "It's like if your neighbor whose kids played with yours surprisingly sued you for cutting down some overgrown trees along your mutual property line. He caused you to spend lots of money to defend yourself and said some nasty things during the lawsuit. Now a few years later that same neighbor puts in his application to join your yacht club--and you're on the membership committee. The guy's boat is nice but nothing special and although he's considered a pretty good guy by some on the committee, they turn to you for your vote. What are the chances you'd vote to let him in? Maybe the only way you do is if his wife is extra hot, his boat is huge and he's willing to cover the cost of the needed clubhouse roof replacement! Barring that, he'd be toast!"

The legal fees, on top of the $4mill out of court settlement, for a suit that was thrown out based on basic jurisdiction issues, and was completely slanderours, is a major contributor to why we stand alone on an island. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I recall that calls were actually placed to Clinton re: UConn - and that undoubtedly (if it happened) had to do with our current leadership reaching out to Shalala, and I guarantee that they were told exactly what was up in that case.

It's kind of funny for me to read around here, what people will think and write. UConn has indeed been blackballed, and the idiots in this state, put the guy in the U.S. Senate.

Here's a radical prediction - watch how fast UConn would get snatched up in the grand scheme, if the state of CT actually voted Blumenthal out of the U.S. Senate.

Politics and ego - are always what drive the money streams, and the rule - when you want to understand something - is to always follow the money.