Discouraging, But you Never Can Tell...

[billybud]

I get it BeeBee ...you have a well tended neurosis that involves BIG 12 hate, WVU hate and a critical need to spread lies about the ACC in order to make yourself feel better.

This is a realignment board and I'm here to discuss real things that are happening, unlike you who is here to play childish name calling games, smear anyone who doesnt' agree with your ACC propoganda based on nothing, and disparage other schools and conferences. Grow up.

Actually Bucko, I have been a WVU fan for over three decades...and have been on the BGN WVU Football board for 12 years.

No...I am not a Big 12 fan.

But I am not into kookiness...Do you see any posts from me on this board that references the Big 12 in any negative way? That is the big difference between you and me.

I may talk positively about the ACC...just as you about the Big 12...the big difference in the neurosis is that you must (like the Dude and M..HVER) also talk about the ACC in negative terms whenever you can.

 

[HawkHusky]

Aaah yes, more uncivil ACC fan behavior above.

In the new season, a top five preseason ranking doesn't mean anything. The playoff committee will be ranking all top 25 schools and won't begin until sometime in October.

The ACC has less BCS bowl wins than any other P5 conference by far despite being gifted two BCS teams two years in a row for the first time in the conferences history.

In basketball the ACC stands as the number 5 conference nationally. Teams are ranked not because they defeated good teams or good OOC opponents, but because they have lots of wins against lighter competition.

The #1 basktball conference in the country is the BIG 12 conference in case anyone was wondering.

I'll wait until after the NCAA tournament before I determine the #1 basketball conference. Last season many thought the Mountain West was one of the top conferences...then March happened.

 

[BC1978]

UMD was very open about the entire process and their reasons for moving and the entire account has been published in national news reports.

Here is a teaching moment for you Buck. You make a claim of fact regarding UMD's openess in the realignment process, inferring that "nationl news reports" support your claim. However, attached is an article from no less than the Washington Post calling into question the "openess" of UMD's process.

I have no issue with your opinions. I may not agree with them but that is what these boards are for - discussion and debate. I do have an issue when you state as fact things that are anything but, as you have clearly, IMO, done in this instance. This has been my premise in my replies to you in this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f6fe8a-3345-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

 

[UConn9604]

Is there any way to ensure at everyone who posts here has at least one UConn Club point?

I'm not saying we should exclude our guests. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

I'd just like to have the Division of Athletics make money off the fact that this forum is apparently the nation's leading sounding board for all legal and cultural matters in conference realignment.

 

[Fairfield 1st]

Is there any way to ensure at everyone who posts here has at least one UConn Club point?

I'm not saying we should exclude our guests. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

I'd just like to have the Division of Athletics make money off the fact that this forum is apparently the nation's leading sounding board for all legal and cultural matters in conference realignment.

Totally Agree...you look at the message board and it seems like every thread's most recent poster could care less about UCONN..its ACC troll upon ACC troll sharing their thoughts about how great or weak their conference is, how ESPN is or is not to blame, blah blah blah.

We should simply create a new board for Non UCONN posters .. so freaking discouraging to have it rubbed in your face everytime you check the BY (which I sadly do way too much)

 

[Dooley]

Is there any way to ensure at everyone who posts here has at least one UConn Club point?

I'm not saying we should exclude our guests. In fact, I'm saying the opposite.

I'd just like to have the Division of Athletics make money off the fact that this forum is apparently the nation's leading sounding board for all legal and cultural matters in conference realignment.

Love it. Yup, to register for the Boneyard, new members should have to pay a $10 fee to join "UCONN Country". For no other reason than knowing BC, Fruit, and Rutgers fans are active and involved members of UCONN Country, it would be worth it.

 

[UConn9604]

Love it. Yup, to register for the Boneyard, new members should have to pay a $10 fee to join "UCONN Country". For no other reason than knowing BC, Fruit, and Rutgers fans are active and involved members of UCONN Country, it would be worth it.

Just saying -- that basketball practice facility isn't building itself...

 

[billybud]

Got it guys...

See you again near football season...sayonara, auf weidersehn, arrivederci, bye y'all.

 

[buckaineer]

Ouch, coming from a nice guy like you thats got to hurt though I'm starting to accept you're advise on stimpy as a pretty good guy despite our differences and billy's insight was always interesting and folksy w/o being condescending for the most part. My guess on Bucky though is he's probably in his mid/late 30s but takes his CFB with youthful emotion like a lot of us older guys?

Again with the ACC spin. In conferences bylaws there are provisions for when departing members funds may be withheld. In the ACC its after an official announcement that funds are withheld. That is not what is in question. What is in question is when did the official announcement come, and what revenues are being withheld. Some of the revenues being withheld from UMD are from the NCAA, not the ACC ( all disbursed through the league). The ACC also began taking millions from Maryland prior to UMD announcing their departure as per the ACCs bylaws.

 

[buckaineer]

Actually Bucko, I have been a WVU fan for over three decades...and have been on the BGN WVU Football board for 12 years.

No...I am not a Big 12 fan.

But I am not into kookiness...Do you see any posts from me on this board that references the Big 12 in any negative way? That is the big difference between you and me.

I may talk positively about the ACC...just as you about the Big 12...the big difference in the neurosis is that you must (like the Dude and M..HVER) also talk about the ACC in negative terms whenever you can.

Bee bee ive been on the WVU boards for decades and you became active there when realignment began and talk of ACC schools changing-especially to the BIG 12. Since then you have worked the internet daily to spread misinformation about the BIG 12 and sometimes WVU.

As soon as I posted on this board you displayed your kookiness- rushing to attempt to disparage me personally and to disparage comments i had made as something other than the truth. Since that post you've made several attempts to talk down the BIG 12 and talk up the ACC as you always do.

Then as usual its " what me? I didn't do anything!" -the epitome of this "kookiness" you seem so fond of. None of your personal dislike of me is of interest to these UConn fans or me for that matter. I havent made any bones about who I follow and everyone on the Mountaineer boards knows you are a Duke and ACC fan.

I am here to discuss realignment, not hear ACC spin or play games with you--and for some reason you and the other ACC fans try to get in my way of talking with these posters from UConn. Its ok, they can make up their own minds-you dont need to keep trying to tell them what to think.

 

[buckaineer]

Here is a teaching moment for you Buck. You make a claim of fact regarding UMD's openess in the realignment process, inferring that "nationl news reports" support your claim. However, attached is an article from no less than the Washington Post calling into question the "openess" of UMD's process.

I have no issue with your opinions. I may not agree with them but that is what these boards are for - discussion and debate. I do have an issue when you state as fact things that are anything but, as you have clearly, IMO, done in this instance. This has been my premise in my replies to you in this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f6fe8a-3345-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

Sports illustrated, the Washington Post and others had interviews, financial information-full discussion of UMDs moves with quotes from their people. As I said, its all out there. Why they moved, how discussions were done, how the move was handled. UMD has been extremely transparent about what transpired and the reasons behind their moves.

On the other hand you dont see much info on how the ACC decided to deal a death blow to the Big East other than BCs AD telling us how the network partner told them what to do. How can the ACC justify trying to block schools from leaving after completely destroying another league? What was the process and rationale for raising the conferences buyout twice in less than a year, the second time to three times the operating budget? Or pushing it through in violation of the ACCs bylaws and then claiming it was in force immediately? Something many conference members questioned openly?

What were the leagues motives in going after two Big Ten schools after UMD announced they were leaving the ACC? Who advised them to do so and for what purpose?

An honest person will admit there are many damaging things that can come out of discovery and testimony by ACC officials. UMD on the other hand, nor the Big Ten has such concerns. Schools cant be held hostage by a conference and cant be made to pay punitive levels of damages. The ACC has little chance legally of collectingthe exorbitant sums they are attempting to extract. They aren't stopping Maryland from leaving. All members have significant financial risk as there is major countersuit against them. And now schools like Pitt are having to give up league secrets on their questionable dealings with networks, other conferences, and attempts to block schools in their league from departing. Quite a bit of risk and exposure there that if you take the blinders off you will see.

 

[NickyNewark]

Bee bee ive been on the WVU boards for decades and you became active there when realignment began and talk of ACC schools changing-especially to the BIG 12. Since then you have worked the internet daily to spread misinformation about the BIG 12 and sometimes WVU.

As soon as I posted on this board you displayed your kookiness- rushing to attempt to disparage me personally and to disparage comments i had made as something other than the truth. Since that post you've made several attempts to talk down the BIG 12 and talk up the ACC as you always do.

Then as usual its " what me? I didn't do anything!" -the epitome of this "kookiness" you seem so fond of. None of your personal dislike of me is of interest to these UConn fans or me for that matter. I havent made any bones about who I follow and everyone on the Mountaineer boards knows you are a Duke and ACC fan.

I am here to discuss realignment, not hear ACC spin or play games with you--and for some reason you and the other ACC fans try to get in my way of talking with these posters from UConn. Its ok, they can make up their own minds-you dont need to keep trying to tell them what to think.

Interesting.........? I leave my eyes and mind wide open by nature and experience.

 

[B1GEast]

Sports illustrated, the Washington Post and others had interviews, financial information-full discussion of UMDs moves with quotes from their people. As I said, its all out there. Why they moved, how discussions were done, how the move was handled. UMD has been extremely transparent about what transpired and the reasons behind their moves.

On the other hand you dont see much info on how the ACC decided to deal a death blow to the Big East other than BCs AD telling us how the network partner told them what to do. How can the ACC justify trying to block schools from leaving after completely destroying another league? What was the process and rationale for raising the conferences buyout twice in less than a year, the second time to three times the operating budget? Or pushing it through in violation of the ACCs bylaws and then claiming it was in force immediately? Something many conference members questioned openly?

What were the leagues motives in going after two Big Ten schools after UMD announced they were leaving the ACC? Who advised them to do so and for what purpose?

An honest person will admit there are many damaging things that can come out of discovery and testimony by ACC officials. UMD on the other hand, nor the Big Ten has such concerns. Schools cant be held hostage by a conference and cant be made to pay punitive levels of damages. The ACC has little chance legally of collectingthe exorbitant sums they are attempting to extract. They aren't stopping Maryland from leaving. All members have significant financial risk as there is major countersuit against them. And now schools like Pitt are having to give up league secrets on their questionable dealings with networks, other conferences, and attempts to block schools in their league from departing. Quite a bit of risk and exposure there that if you take the blinders off you will see.

well said buck

 

[BC1978]

Sports illustrated, the Washington Post and others had interviews, financial information-full discussion of UMDs moves with quotes from their people. As I said, its all out there. Why they moved, how discussions were done, how the move was handled. UMD has been extremely transparent about what transpired and the reasons behind their moves.

On the other hand you dont see much info on how the ACC decided to deal a death blow to the Big East other than BCs AD telling us how the network partner told them what to do. How can the ACC justify trying to block schools from leaving after completely destroying another league? What was the process and rationale for raising the conferences buyout twice in less than a year, the second time to three times the operating budget? Or pushing it through in violation of the ACCs bylaws and then claiming it was in force immediately? Something many conference members questioned openly?

What were the leagues motives in going after two Big Ten schools after UMD announced they were leaving the ACC? Who advised them to do so and for what purpose?

An honest person will admit there are many damaging things that can come out of discovery and testimony by ACC officials. UMD on the other hand, nor the Big Ten has such concerns. Schools cant be held hostage by a conference and cant be made to pay punitive levels of damages. The ACC has little chance legally of collectingthe exorbitant sums they are attempting to extract. They aren't stopping Maryland from leaving. All members have significant financial risk as there is major countersuit against them. And now schools like Pitt are having to give up league secrets on their questionable dealings with networks, other conferences, and attempts to block schools in their league from departing. Quite a bit of risk and exposure there that if you take the blinders off you will see.

Well....so much for teachable moments. I probably should have known better!

My limited point in the post above was to illustrate how one of your so-called "facts" - re: the transparency of the UMD move to the BiG - was being questioned by others. The article appeared in what is arguably one of UMD's "home-town" newspapers. In the article, questions were raised regarding the vote and whether the Maryland Open Meetings Act was followed.

I am not taking a position here. I am merely providing you with actual data that calls into question your assertion of fact. You mentioned other media reports. What SPECIFIC media reports? (Dealing with the transparency issue.) I provided you with an article from a reputable, well regarded news source. I look forward to seeing your links to other well regarded news sources which disagree with the WAPO on the issue of transparency.

Just so you know, I have read the SI article on the move. It was an extensive piece that dealt with the funding/financial aspects of the move. It did not touch on the issue of transparency which is what we are discussing here.

Again, so there is no confusion - I do not take a position on the issue of transparency regarding the UMD move. I am only stating that, IMO, you are being less than honest by continuing to state as an absolute fact that the UMD process was completely transparent, when I have shown you credible reporting that, IMO, casts some doubt on that claim.

No need to continue rehashing the exit fees suit and countersuit. We are not going to agree so let's just agree to disagee. If you are going to respond to my above post, please stick to the issue I raised.

 

[NickyNewark]

Well....so much for teachable moments. I probably should have known better!

My limited point in the post above was to illustrate how one of your so-called "facts" - re: the transparency of the UMD move to the BiG - was being questioned by others. The article appeared in what is arguably one of UMD's "home-town" newspapers. In the article, questions were raised regarding the vote and whether the Maryland Open Meetings Act was followed.

I am not taking a position here. I am merely providing you with actual data that calls into question your assertion of fact. You mentioned other media reports that would dispute this Washington Post article on the issue of transparancy. What SPECIFIC articles? (Dealing with the transparency issue.) I provided you with an article from a reputable, well regarded news source. I look forward to seeing your links to other well regarded news sources which counter the article in the WAPO on the issue of transparency.

Just so you know, I have read the SI article on the move. It was an extensive piece that dealt with the funding/financial aspects of the move. It did not touch on the issue of transparency which is what we are discussing here.

No need to continue rehashing the exit fees suit and countersuit. We are not going to agree so let's just agree to disagee. If you are going to respond to my above post, please stick to the issue I raised.

Lets face it...most of us unless we're insider's know only what they want us to know on both sides of the issue but 1 thing I know for sure is it su* x for most of those who love the regional and fair aspects of college sports.

 

[BC1978]

Lets face it...most of us unless we're insider's know only what they want us to know on both sides of the issue but 1 thing I know for sure is it su* x for most of those who love the regional and fair aspects of college sports.

Agreed Nicky. Lacking that "inside knowledge", we all have our opinions and it is fun to hash them out in these threads. My only issue is when posters confuse opinion for fact, then double down on the assertion of fact despite data that would infer otherwise.

 

[btstimpy]

Here is a teaching moment for you Buck. You make a claim of fact regarding UMD's openess in the realignment process, inferring that "nationl news reports" support your claim. However, attached is an article from no less than the Washington Post calling into question the "openess" of UMD's process.

I have no issue with your opinions. I may not agree with them but that is what these boards are for - discussion and debate. I do have an issue when you state as fact things that are anything but, as you have clearly, IMO, done in this instance. This has been my premise in my replies to you in this thread.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...f6fe8a-3345-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

BC1978,
Your article suggests that Maryland may have violated Maryland Law and did not conform to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. You can be more definitive. The Maryland Board that oversees this has conclusively determined that Maryland did violate the Open Meetings Act. It has ruled on the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6f2380-81c3-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

It is in fact a fact. But the poster you are working with is so far in fantasy land teaching moments are beyond value. You're dealing with way too much density. But I thought I'd let you know that what you are suggesting is actually fact.

Leave it to Maryland, however, to pass a toothless law. It's par for the course in Maryland. There is no penalty for violating the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

 

[Pat125]

Well....so much for teachable moments. I probably should have known better!

My limited point in the post above was to illustrate how one of your so-called "facts" - re: the transparency of the UMD move to the BiG - was being questioned by others. The article appeared in what is arguably one of UMD's "home-town" newspapers. In the article, questions were raised regarding the vote and whether the Maryland Open Meetings Act was followed.

I am not taking a position here. I am merely providing you with actual data that calls into question your assertion of fact. You mentioned other media reports. What SPECIFIC media reports? (Dealing with the transparency issue.) I provided you with an article from a reputable, well regarded news source. I look forward to seeing your links to other well regarded news sources which disagree with the WAPO on the issue of transparency.

Just so you know, I have read the SI article on the move. It was an extensive piece that dealt with the funding/financial aspects of the move. It did not touch on the issue of transparency which is what we are discussing here.

Again, so there is no confusion - I do not take a position on the issue of transparency regarding the UMD move. I am only stating that, IMO, you are being less than honest by continuing to state as an absolute fact that the UMD process was completely transparent, when I have shown you credible reporting that, IMO, casts some doubt on that claim.

No need to continue rehashing the exit fees suit and countersuit. We are not going to agree so let's just agree to disagee. If you are going to respond to my above post, please stick to the issue I raised.

BC1978, as my avatar indicates, I'm a Maryland fan (and grad alum). But I'm not particularly partisan to any conference. Frankly, I can find good and bad about all the P5 conferences, including the ACC. They have excellent schools and have stayed, for the most part, geographically the east coast, to keep good rivalries, and has a variety of excellent athletics. On the downside, Mr. Swofford gets my vote as the biggest, hypocritical megalomaniac of the P5 commissioners. And I find the Notre Dame partial membership rather distasteful.

Further, we can debate which state and it's universities are somehow more upstanding and who can smugly fingerproint. With respect to Maryland, they may very well have violated rules or laws when they accepted the invitation to the Big Ten. Pres. Loh and others may still ultimately pay for what happened. However, it's completely irrelevant to the lawsuit. It's like my former employer claiming I didn't follow rules established between my spouse and me when I accepted employment elsewhere. In fact, I don't think that Swofford has made it an issue. I understand that you aren't taking issue with this, but wanted to put this in perspective.

 

[BC1978]

BC1978,
Your article suggests that Maryland may have violated Maryland Law and did not conform to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act. You can be more definitive. The Maryland Board that oversees this has conclusively determined that Maryland did violate the Open Meetings Act. It has ruled on the case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...6f2380-81c3-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html

It is in fact a fact. But the poster you are working with is so far in fantasy land teaching moments are beyond value. You're dealing with way too much density. But I thought I'd let you know that what you are suggesting is actually fact.

Leave it to Maryland, however, to pass a toothless law. It's par for the course in Maryland. There is no penalty for violating the Maryland Open Meetings Act.

Thanks btstimpy. This is very helpful. Pretty much answers the question. I agree with you re: this poster. Teaching moments are probably of little value with this poster.

 

[BC1978]

BC1978, as my avatar indicates, I'm a Maryland fan (and grad alum). But I'm not particularly partisan to any conference. Frankly, I can find good and bad about all the P5 conferences, including the ACC. They have excellent schools and have stayed, for the most part, geographically the east coast, to keep good rivalries, and has a variety of excellent athletics. On the downside, Mr. Swofford gets my vote as the biggest, hypocritical megalomaniac of the P5 commissioners. And I find the Notre Dame partial membership rather distasteful.

Further, we can debate which state and it's universities are somehow more upstanding and who can smugly fingerproint. With respect to Maryland, they may very well have violated rules or laws when they accepted the invitation to the Big Ten. Pres. Loh and others may still ultimately pay for what happened. However, it's completely irrelevant to the lawsuit. It's like my former employer claiming I didn't follow rules established between my spouse and me when I accepted employment elsewhere. In fact, I don't think that Swofford has made it an issue. I understand that you aren't taking issue with this, but wanted to put this in perspective.

Pat:
Just want to make sure you understand my reason for discussing this. I am not offering an opinion on UMD's action. In fact, I take no position on it. My only reason for discussing it here was that the poster on several occasions stated as fact that UMD's departure was completely transparent. I think we can all agree, based on what has been published as well as the findings of the MD oversight board, this poster's claim of transparency appears to be absurd.

IMO, this poster has a core problem in confusing fact and opinion. His UMD transparency comments offered "low-hanging fruit" in demonstrating this point to him. Unfortunately, I agree with btstimpy. IMO, I don't think the poster has the capability to understand this point.

 

[buckaineer]

Once again the ACC posters fail to comprehend. You are linking articles that further detail UMD's situation.

It isn't a secret that they were found to have violated MD secrecy laws--it's already been dealt with. It has no bearing on the ACC and isn't something Swofford is contending in his lawsuit or anything he can do anything about.

Conversely, the ACC hasn't been forthcoming about anything. Why did they need to rush through an extremely exorbitant increase in their buyout for the second time in a year? What determined this excessive amount? Why was it necessary to disregard their own bylaws in doing so? Why did they send a death blow to the Big East conference and who worked with them in deciding this and accomplishing this? If they ripped another conference apart, how can they turn around and have a problem with schools leaving their conference and try to block them from doing so? Why did they start withholding monies from UMD when they did-against their own bylaws? Why have they withheld NCAA money owed to Maryland? Why did they go after Big Ten schools after Maryland announced they were going to move to that conference and who advised them on that move? What meetings and measures have taken place in the ACC in order to block schools from leaving, take teams from other conferences, etc.etc.

There are many unanswered questions from the ACC that discovery will provide evidence for in a court of law. Maryland has no such hidden agendas or secrets. They have been open about what they've done, even regarded skirting around Maryland in making the move in the first place.

None of that info is damaging to the Big Ten or Maryland. Everything not yet revealed about what the ACC and its partners have done can be extremely damaging. They may also be forced by courts to pay Maryland $157 million.

You are living in a fantasyland if you believe none of this matters.

 

[BC1978]

Once again the ACC posters fail to comprehend. You are linking articles that further detail UMD's situation.

It isn't a secret that they were found to have violated MD secrecy laws--it's already been dealt with. It has no bearing on the ACC and isn't something Swofford is contending in his lawsuit or anything he can do anything about.

Conversely, the ACC hasn't been forthcoming about anything. Why did they need to rush through an extremely exorbitant increase in their buyout for the second time in a year? What determined this excessive amount? Why was it necessary to disregard their own bylaws in doing so? Why did they send a death blow to the Big East conference and who worked with them in deciding this and accomplishing this? If they ripped another conference apart, how can they turn around and have a problem with schools leaving their conference and try to block them from doing so? Why did they start withholding monies from UMD when they did-against their own bylaws? Why have they withheld NCAA money owed to Maryland? Why did they go after Big Ten schools after Maryland announced they were going to move to that conference and who advised them on that move? What meetings and measures have taken place in the ACC in order to block schools from leaving, take teams from other conferences, etc.etc.

There are many unanswered questions from the ACC that discovery will provide evidence for in a court of law. Maryland has no such hidden agendas or secrets. They have been open about what they've done, even regarded skirting around Maryland in making the move in the first place.

None of that info is damaging to the Big Ten or Maryland. Everything not yet revealed about what the ACC and its partners have done can be extremely damaging. They may also be forced by courts to pay Maryland $157 million.

You are living in a fantasyland if you believe none of this matters.

buckaineer post:
"UMD has been extremely transparent about what transpired and the reasons behind the moves."
buckaineer follow-up post:
"It isn't a secret that that they were found to have violated MD secrecy laws."

Thank you for proving my point! Do you understand that these statements directly contradict one another??

My only comments were on your UMD transparency claims which, IMO, and you clearly now agree with me based on your second comment, are BS. I wasn't commenting on the rest of your diatribe, although I disagree with all of it. Have that discussion with someone who cares to indulge your conspiratorial fantasies. I don't care to.

 

[buckaineer]

Once again, what part of this can you not comprehend.

Maryland has openly discussed all aspects of their move to the Big Ten. the whys, the wheres , the whens , and the who withs. they have been transparent about it. There isnt anything harmful to them about it. Everyone knows. It doesnt mean they rushed to tell Swofford about it before they did it. It means they've discussed everything and explained everything there is to be explained from their side of things.

The ACC on the other hand has kept secret many things that can be damaging if revealed.

Instead of dealing with this reality some are still trying to play games with meaningless information that did not and does not affect the ACC in any way and the ACC isnt even bringing up. Information as. I said UMD has openly discussed as of this date.

on the other hand the things that can be brought up from the ACC may have affected many schools and conferences including some of their own.

 

[BC1978]

Once again, what part of this can you not comprehend.

Maryland has openly discussed all aspects of their move to the Big Ten. the whys, the wheres , the whens , and the who withs. they have been transparent about it. There isnt anything harmful to them about it. Everyone knows. It doesnt mean they rushed to tell Swofford about it before they did it. It means they've discussed everything and explained everything there is to be explained from their side of things.

The ACC on the other hand has kept secret many things that can be damaging if revealed.

Instead of dealing with this reality some are still trying to play games with meaningless information that did not and does not affect the ACC in any way and the ACC isnt even bringing up. Information as. I said UMD has openly discussed as of this date.

on the other hand the things that can be brought up from the ACC may have affected many schools and conferences including some of their own.

Do we have a reading comprehension issue here?

I don't care about your comments on the ACC. Have that discussion with someone who cares. Why do you keep bringing it up??? I only want to discuss your comments regarding UMD's transparency during the process. Are you even capable of limiting yourself to just this discussion???

It is pretty clear, IMO, that UMD's decisions re: the BiG move were made in secret. That is not the definition of transparency. Sure, after the decisions were made and locked in they discussed what happened; but that isn't what most would consider transparency. Transparency, IMO, would have meant being more open DURING the process - as MD law required - so that all stakeholders would have a chance to provide input. To your point about tipping their hand to the ACC, guess what? the ACC is not the only stakeholder. UMD is a state institution and there are a lot of other stakeholders.

I am not dumping on MD as, IMO, pretty much all of these moves have gone down with little or no transparency. I get that. What I am disputing here is what I believe to be your BS comments that the UMD process was somehow different and transparent vs. the other realignment moves.

 

[Fishy]

The two of you are having a perfectly pointless argument.

Maryland has been very transparent about the process behind their move to the Big Ten. Every school that has changed conferences has been relatively transparent about their moves - it's part of the Jurich-style victory lap they all take. It's part of taking credit.

So, yes, they were transparent.

But no, they were not transparent before the fact - no one announces that they're in talks with the Big Ten. You keep it quiet and then you go. (Although A&M and Missouri seemed to negotiate with the SEC in real-time.)

The ACC, to the best of my knowledge, has not laid out their process behind their persistent raiding of the Big East. I would not expect them to - the victory lap for conference commissioners is the press conference where you introduce the new schools.

You keep the fear/anxiety/greed or whatever prompted the moves well-hidden. Those details are embarrassing and probably wouldn't paint a pretty picture, but I doubt there's any real fear of them becoming public. (If they wanted to bury those details, just settle with Maryland.)