BCU and Rutroh - a study of ineptitude

[Kgun7]

Apples and Oranges. WVU closest conference game is 1500 miles away. And the closest major airport to Morgantown is almost 100 miles away. WVU is in a world of hurt in terms of travel. Think about it, adding Uconn cuts their travel distance for at least 1 game by 2/3.

You are assuming distance to cost ratio is 1:1 ... and would the addition of 1 regional school save WVU's AD budget?

 

[dwalks93]

Thats actually untrue. In the summer of 2003, officials at Miami and BC met together ind Miami school officials informed BC ( 1st school in the then BE to be informed ) of Miami's intentions of leaving the BE for the ACC in 2004. BC tried, unsuccessfully to persuade Miami to stay. But Miami, long upset with the basketball centric leadership of Mike Tranghese out of Providence, by 2003 had had enough and told BC this. BC came backfrom that meeting and told Syracuse that if Miami bolted for the ACC, BC would consider the loss of Miami as a blow to the BE that would soon start to dominos to fall that would quickly lead to the collapse of the BE football league. BC decided then and there to seek out the ACC on behalf of themselves as well.In late 2003, BC, Miami, Syracuse officials met with Swofford, and told Swofford the 3 were prepared as a group to leave for the ACC. However, in Dec. 2003, Boeheim at Syracuse got wind of this, and told the School that he did not support the school leaving the BE for the ACC. Syracuse then became conflicted between the football faction at Syracuse that wanted to leave the BE, and the Basketball faction there that wanted to see Syracuse stay in the BE. In the vacumn of indecisiveness from Syracuse, Virginia Tech then stepped into the fray to supplant Syracuse as a school to go with Miami, and BC. Then the Virginia state legislature stepped in and squelched VT ( temporarily ) on behalf of their state flagship school, Univ. Vurginia. Note, that in all this timeline, Pitt was a bystander, and not really involved in serious negotiations at all. If they were, Pitt would more than likely got into the ACC before BC got the invite. Pitt was actually a Plaintiff in the BE orchestrated lawsuit against the ACC's Swofford, Miami, BC. Perhaps you were not aware that Pitt was an initial Plaintiff in the ACC lawsuit. ( factually verifiable, by the way ). So no, BC did not replace Pitt in the intended move of BE schools to the ACC. This is simply untrue. As for the consideration of Uconn to the ACC back in the 2003, 2004 time frame, Uconn's AD Perkins made contact privately with Swofford of the ACC and was informed that Uconn was not on the ACC potential invite list. This overture by Perkins came out in the depositions, and Blumenthal was furious, as he was not infirmed that Uconn has been maki g contact with Swofford to get uconn to the ACC, at the very time Blumenthal was suing the ACC on behalf of Uconn. Perkins later bolted Uconn to take a job 2,000 miles away. There is no love lost between Blumenthal and Perkins to this very day. I know this because Blumenthal told me this directly at a wedding reception in Connecticut in 2010.

You have a completely revisionist history for BC. That passive aggressive "what did BC do?" tone is not fooling anyone

BC is the Rasputin of conference realignment and its primary victim has been UConn.

At every turn BC has lobbied against UConn and has effectively leveraged the ACC football/basketball fault line to exclude UConn.

No question UConn was not a candidate for the ACC in 2003 when BC left. UConn had just started a D1 football program. But, at the time Syracuse and Pittsburg were added, UConn was a prime candidate. At the time Louisville was added UConn was a prime candidate. In both these situations BC manipulated the football schools toward Pittsburgh and Louisville and away from UConn for one reason. They did not want to compete with UConn. For BC it had nothing to do with upping the football pedigree. It was instead about keeping UConn out and BC identified a winning argument to manipulate the football schools.

BC is not the victim in conference realignment. BC was truly "patient zero" and was the initial catalyst for conference realignment. Miami and VT to the ACC made sense. Their biggest rivals were in the ACC (UVA and FSU). BC had no tie to the ACC and BC betrayed its regional rivals and fan base. The great irony is in trying to eliminate rivals in the NE, BC insured its own demise.

BC's fate is truly poetic justice. Unlike other posters I do not think BC's problems are cyclical. The P5 money has changed the world. The greatest predicator of success now is the amount of money spent on the athletic programs. BC has not invested in its programs and even if they started now they are financially behind nearly every large public land grant university. The better question for BC is whether the ACC will ever kick them out. Another season like last year and it is not that far fetched. Till then it will be death by a thousand cuts (or a thousand losses) for BC

 

[Yawkey Way]

BC has lobbied against UConn and has effectively leveraged the ACC football/basketball fault line to exclude UConn.

This does appear to be the Uconn majority sentiment on here, ie that BC has enormous political clout among all the other ACC school Presidents, including Commissioner Swofford, and as a result has been able to prevail upon the commissioner and the ACC School presidents to exclude Uconn from an invite to the ACC. I believe however that you give way too much credit to BC to exert such control over the ACC. I just don't see BC with such political muscle within the ACC. It seems to me that if the Commissioner, and all the ACC School Presidents wanted Uconn in the ACC, they would invite Uconn, no matter what the wishes are of BC. But then again, you could be right that the ACC defers to BC on expansion matters on who gets in,... who knows.

 

[buddy]

Thats actually untrue. In the summer of 2003, officials at Miami and BC met together ind Miami school officials informed BC ( 1st school in the then BE to be informed ) of Miami's intentions of leaving the BE for the ACC in 2004. BC tried, unsuccessfully to persuade Miami to stay. But Miami, long upset with the basketball centric leadership of Mike Tranghese out of Providence, by 2003 had had enough and told BC this. BC came backfrom that meeting and told Syracuse that if Miami bolted for the ACC, BC would consider the loss of Miami as a blow to the BE that would soon start to dominos to fall that would quickly lead to the collapse of the BE football league. BC decided then and there to seek out the ACC on behalf of themselves as well.In late 2003, BC, Miami, Syracuse officials met with Swofford, and told Swofford the 3 were prepared as a group to leave for the ACC. However, in Dec. 2003, Boeheim at Syracuse got wind of this, and told the School that he did not support the school leaving the BE for the ACC. Syracuse then became conflicted between the football faction at Syracuse that wanted to leave the BE, and the Basketball faction there that wanted to see Syracuse stay in the BE. In the vacumn of indecisiveness from Syracuse, Virginia Tech then stepped into the fray to supplant Syracuse as a school to go with Miami, and BC. Then the Virginia state legislature stepped in and squelched VT ( temporarily ) on behalf of their state flagship school, Univ. Vurginia. Note, that in all this timeline, Pitt was a bystander, and not really involved in serious negotiations at all. If they were, Pitt would more than likely got into the ACC before BC got the invite. Pitt was actually a Plaintiff in the BE orchestrated lawsuit against the ACC's Swofford, Miami, BC. Perhaps you were not aware that Pitt was an initial Plaintiff in the ACC lawsuit. ( factually verifiable, by the way ). So no, BC did not replace Pitt in the intended move of BE schools to the ACC. This is simply untrue. As for the consideration of Uconn to the ACC back in the 2003, 2004 time frame, Uconn's AD Perkins made contact privately with Swofford of the ACC and was informed that Uconn was not on the ACC potential invite list. This overture by Perkins came out in the depositions, and Blumenthal was furious, as he was not infirmed that Uconn has been maki g contact with Swofford to get uconn to the ACC, at the very time Blumenthal was suing the ACC on behalf of Uconn. Perkins later bolted Uconn to take a job 2,000 miles away. There is no love lost between Blumenthal and Perkins to this very day. I know this because Blumenthal told me this directly at a wedding reception in Connecticut in 2010.

I am not talking about 2003-4. I am talking when Cuse was added in maybe 2011 and their partner was to be UConn. BC balked and Pitt was added. This is a fact.

 

[Stray_Dog]

There appears to be some genuine confliction on this. For example, when BC was contemplating leaving the Big East for the ACC, I distinctly remember reading on the Uconn football boards that if BC goes to the ACC.. " BC will never have any influence in the ACC as Tobacco Road runs that league, and will make its decisions on all things and turn a deaf ear to any of BC's concerns ". However, once BC took the invite to the ACC, the prevailing thought on the Uconn boards seemed to be that BC had such enormous political leverage within the ACC that it could single handedly keep Uconn out of the ACC by prevailing upon the other ACC schools to act upon BC's bidding. Did BC have the enormous political leverage among the other long standing ACC schools to keep Uconn out of the ACC ? No. I don't think so. They had one vote, no more, no less. Besides, it is my assessment that if the Schools in the ACC... and its Commissioner... wanted Uconn in the ACC, Uconn would be in the ACC, and BC could not stop the other schools. That said, if some on here want to stay with the narrative we have heard on here before, that BC has such enormous political leverage that they can single handedly keep Uconn out of he ACC, they are entitled to that narrative. But I would just respectfully disagree that BC has such political muscle in the ACC among Tobacco Road, and the other ACC Schools.

...Serious question for you following my comment. BC only has one vote in the ACC...don't think anyone here would argue the obvious. However, does BC have influence over other ACC members. Well, They have developed relationships with other schools within their new conference home. Is that influence as great as the Tobacco road schools...probably not and certainly not back in 2011. However, many here now feel that with the invite of UoL their (the tobacco road schools) influence may not be what it once was. BC may not have single-handily blackballed UConn but it is my belief and likely the belief of others that they were the loudest voice and pulling with other football centrist schools in the ACC used any real or perceived leverage they could to keep UConn out.

Now here is my question for you: Considering BC's proximity to UConn, do you think that had BC endorsed UConn, that UConn may have had a loud voice cheering for our inclusion and that we may have gotten the nod?

Now just imagine a universe where if BC had supported us and we still didn't get in...I think the hate and vitriol would have been greatly reduced... Not that BC cares what we think of them or that we care what they think of us. But when UConn plays BC

Now because your feeling that at best this is just another game on the schedule perhaps a game that BC values just above an FCS opponent leaves me to wonder what the coaches may tell their players. According to you...Adazzio will say, hey this is the Uconn Huskies in an inferior conference with talent-less players. We only need to show up and cash our checks that we get from the ACC - and for that reason we are winners regardless of what is on the score-board. Coach Diaco, says BC has tried to destroy our program, they want to be New-England's team, are we going to let them? They are our natural rivalry. No matter what it takes, you must score and score again. Show them the mercy they have shown Our University, our fans and our previous athletes and give them a tablespoon of that medicine and remember no matter what the score board says they are cashing a bigger check for their athletic department than we are because of their current conference home as undeserving as it is!

 

[Yawkey Way]

BC had no tie to the ACC and BC betrayed its regional rivals and fan base.

With all due respect, no institution, BC or Uconn included, has any fiduciary responsibility to another school. School Presidents have a fiduciary responsibility under their school contracts to do what they perceive to be in their own institutional self interests. Uconn has no real ties to any leagues either, and operates out of its own self interests as well, with loyalties to leagues, about as loyal as you are in your professional career with your current employer. As for other school's " fanbases ", the notion that BC ( or Uconn ) has a loyalty to other school " fan base " is simply silly. Uconn has no responsibility to be loyal to BC , or its " fan base ", no more than BC has a responsibility to be loyal to Uconn and its "fan base". Uconn never consulted with other league schools before joining the BE, and it won't be consulting any of the current AAC schools if it gets an invite to a P5 Conference either. Uconn operates out of its own self interests in its Athletics plannings for the future. BC does too. All schools do.

 

[Yawkey Way]

I am not talking about 2003-4. I am talking when Cuse was added in maybe 2011 and their partner was to be UConn. BC balked and Pitt was added. This is a fact.

Yes, it is a fact that BC does want Uconn in the ACC. Noone that I am aware of from Connecticut or Massachusetts disputes this fact either. My point you might be missing here however is that the notion that the ACC defers to BC on ACC expansion matters, and because of BC's wishes, the ACC acquiesces to BC on these matters is highly dubious, imo. If the ACC wants Uconn in the ACC.... then, or now.... Uconn will be invited, and little ol' BC could not stop it. Thats what I believe. But again, those that think that BC exerts lots of control on ACC expansion matters are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I just don't see BC having anywhere near such ACC political influences within the ACC as is being alleged here.

 

[MattMang23]

Yes, it is a fact that BC does want Uconn in the ACC. Noone that I am aware of from Connecticut or Massachusetts disputes this fact either. My point you might be missing here however is that the notion that the ACC defers to BC on ACC expansion matters, and because of BC's wishes, the ACC acquiesces to BC on these matters is highly dubious, imo. If the ACC wants Uconn in the ACC.... then, or now.... Uconn will be invited, and little ol' BC could not stop it. Thats what I believe. But again, those that think that BC exerts lots of control on ACC expansion matters are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I just don't see BC having anywhere near such ACC political influences within the ACC as is being alleged here.

Someone needs to familiarize themself with rational choice theory and its application to social interaction.

 

[Yawkey Way]

...Serious question when UConn plays BC

Now because your feeling that at best this is just another game on the schedule perhaps a game that BC values just above an FCS opponent leaves me to wonder what the coaches may tell their players. According to you...Adazzio will say, hey this is the Uconn Huskies in an inferior conference with talent-less players. We only need to show up and cash our checks that we get from the ACC - and for that reason we are winners regardless of what is on the score-board. !

I don't have these feelings you just expressed at all regarding this November's BC- Uconn game. I have no idea what Addazio will use for words to his players. But if you are asking me, do I believe that these will be the words he will use for his players in preparation for the game ? No. These words seem out of the question to me. I think there is virtually no chance he will use words even remotely close to this. Having Coached at the H.S. level ( baseball ) in my younger days, no matter the opponent's abilities, I never, ever, gave my players any possible inclination that we should disrespect the opponent.... not only because it would be the epitome of unsportsmenlike behavior, but for the very real possibility that such disrespect of the opponent's abilities can result in poor performance in the game by the players. As a result, most Coaches ( and x Coaches ) will tell you that one of the biggest fears they have is playing a team in which your team is expected to win. Coaches go out of their way thus to do everything they can to convince their players that they need to be 100% focused and to play well, or the opponent is fully capable of beating them. The message doesn't always sink in with young players, but all the experienced Coaches must, and do, emphasize it anyway. So no, these words of yours, will not be the words of any Coach.. of any sport... to his players.... BC or otherwise.

 

[buddy]

Yes, it is a fact that BC does want Uconn in the ACC. Noone that I am aware of from Connecticut or Massachusetts disputes this fact either. My point you might be missing here however is that the notion that the ACC defers to BC on ACC expansion matters, and because of BC's wishes, the ACC acquiesces to BC on these matters is highly dubious, imo. If the ACC wants Uconn in the ACC.... then, or now.... Uconn will be invited, and little ol' BC could not stop it. Thats what I believe. But again, those that think that BC exerts lots of control on ACC expansion matters are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I just don't see BC having anywhere near such ACC political influences within the ACC as is being alleged here.

You are incorrect in your first sentence. BC does not want UConn in the ACC, never did and likely never will. When a member of a committee screams loud enough, stamps their feet, and there are other options available, the committee generally will take the path of least resistance. That's what the ACC did when they took Pitt over UConn as a partner with Cuse at the insistence of BC. I do not understand why you continue to push this anymore.

 

[Yawkey Way]

nm...............".

 

[Yawkey Way]

nm......

 

[Yawkey Way]

You are incorrect in your first sentence. BC does not want UConn in the ACC, .

It was a typo. I meant to type " not ", but did not. To clarify, you and I acknowledge that BC does NOT want Uconn in the ACC ". Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Yawkey Way]

You are incorrect in your first sentence. BC does not want UConn in the ACC, .

It was a typo. I meant to type " not ", but did not. To clarify, you and I acknowledge that BC does NOT want Uconn in the ACC ". Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Fishy]

If you stop talking to him, maybe he'll go away....

 

[Yawkey Way]

You are incorrect in your first sentence. BC does not want UConn in the ACC, never did and likely never will. When a member of a committee screams loud enough, stamps their feet, and there are other options available, the committee generally will take the path of least resistance. .

My experience with committees is that when the new committee member screams and stamps their feet on something, the rest of the established committee is generally LESS likely to give in to the requests of the new committee member. BC was new to Tobacco Road. If the established schools in the ACC wanted Uconn... or wants Uconn in the ACC even today ( BC has a new AD ), BC could not stop Swofford, and the ACC from getting the neccessary votes to invite Uconn. If we disagree with this, no problem, we just respectfully see it differently, thats all.

 

[Stray_Dog]

I don't have these feelings you just expressed at all regarding this November's BC- Uconn game. I have no idea what Addazio will use for words to his players. But if you are asking me, do I believe that these will be the words he will use for his players in preparation for the game ? No. These words seem out of the question to me. I think there is virtually no chance he will use words even remotely close to this. Having Coached at the H.S. level ( baseball ) in my younger days, no matter the opponent's abilities, I never, ever, gave my players any possible inclination that we should disrespect the opponent.... not only because it would be the epitome of unsportsmenlike behavior, but for the very real possibility that such disrespect of the opponent's abilities can result in poor performance in the game by the players. As a result, most Coaches ( and x Coaches ) will tell you that one of the biggest fears they have is playing a team in which your team is expected to win. Coaches go out of their way thus to do everything they can to convince their players that they need to be 100% focused and to play well, or the opponent is fully capable of beating them. The message doesn't always sink in with young players, but all the experienced Coaches must, and do, emphasize it anyway. So no, these words of yours, will not be the words of any Coach.. of any sport... to his players.... BC or otherwise.

I understand your point and I admit I was being a bit facetious. However, to my question, do you think that had BC endorsed UConn, that UConn may have had a loud voice cheering for our inclusion and that we may have gotten the nod?

 

[SAMCRO]

If you stop talking to him, maybe he'll go away....

That's one solution... there are faster/more permanent ones tho... (cough, cough... make it stop, please... cough)

 

[Yawkey Way]

Its a fair question. I can only guess. I leave out the distinct possibility that Uconn might have gotten the invite to the ACC if BC endorsed Uconn . However, FSU, Clemson at the time were shaky members of the ACC, ( before CR and TV contracts ). There is not much doubt that on the football side, these 2 schools had ... and have.... considerable sway on decisions made within the ACC. Both wanted Pitt. Not Uconn. So my guess is that had BC endorsed Uconn, while its possible Uconn would have gotten in before Pitt, it is just as likely or more so, that the ACC would have still taken Pitt before Uconn, upon the wishes, and political leverage of Clemson and FSU in the ACC. Keep in mind, that at the time, there was speculation that the ACC could lose FSU and or Clemson. Keeping them happy more than BC would probably have the other ACC schools acquiesce to their wishes for Pitt to get the invite instead of you guys.. But who really knows for sure.

 

[SAMCRO]

Pretty please.

 

[Huskybite]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ignment-big-ten-recruiting-rutgers-new-jersey

Nothing new here, but the recent recruiting numbers are eye-opening. The hits just keep coming for Rutgers

 

[huskymedic]

Guessing this fits here?

Rutgers suspends men's rugby team after rules violation
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/03/rutgers_mens_rugby_team_suspended.html

 

[mainlinedave]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ignment-big-ten-recruiting-rutgers-new-jersey

Nothing new here, but the recent recruiting numbers are eye-opening. The hits just keep coming for Rutgers

It's a club team not affiliated with the athletic department....but eh, whatever. I guess it's a hit if you want it to be a hit.

 

[Huskybite]

It's a club team not affiliated with the athletic department....but eh, whatever. I guess it's a hit if you want it to be a hit.

Uh, what? Maybe you had one-to-many "hits" when you referenced the wrong post....but eh, whatever

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Guessing this fits here?

Rutgers suspends men's rugby team after rules violation
http://www.nj.com/education/2016/03/rutgers_mens_rugby_team_suspended.html

You just gave UNC's legal department a new idea. Maybe that can find rule violations in the club teams who then can be thrown under the bus to drag out the NCAA investigation on their football and men's basketball programs for another decade or two. Doubt the fact that the NCAA has no jurisdiction over club sports has any relevance. Heck, UNC can create new club teams every year - rugby, water polo, ice hockey, ultimate frisbee, bass fishing, quidditch, etc.

https://uncstudentorgs.collegiatelink.net/organizations

And yes, quidditch is listed as an actual club team at UNC.