- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,618
- Reaction Score
- 47,823
I consider almost all the arguments made pretty minor (i.e. Herbst and Manuel's failure, UConn's perceived lack of emphasis on athletics, etc.).
The big factors that stand out to me are the FSU's regents anger at Tobacco Road in the press last year, and UNC's unnecessary and embarrassing comment about this being all about athletics.
The bigwigs in this conference used UConn and Louisville as pawns in their internecine warfare. FSU had more leverage. Louisville thus won. I don't believe this really has all that much to do with FSU's faith in Louisville as a program. All these directors and presidents are also pretty wily when it comes to athletic budgets, and they can see right through what Louisville is doing.
Something nasty is going on inside the ACC, and what we saw this week is a logical outcome of that fight.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see FSU bolt after sticking Chapel Hill with Louisville.
How does UNC even make that comment about athletics? Isn't it embarrassed?
The big factors that stand out to me are the FSU's regents anger at Tobacco Road in the press last year, and UNC's unnecessary and embarrassing comment about this being all about athletics.
The bigwigs in this conference used UConn and Louisville as pawns in their internecine warfare. FSU had more leverage. Louisville thus won. I don't believe this really has all that much to do with FSU's faith in Louisville as a program. All these directors and presidents are also pretty wily when it comes to athletic budgets, and they can see right through what Louisville is doing.
Something nasty is going on inside the ACC, and what we saw this week is a logical outcome of that fight.
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see FSU bolt after sticking Chapel Hill with Louisville.
How does UNC even make that comment about athletics? Isn't it embarrassed?