In big-money marriage of TV and college football, who has most say?

[upstater]

Well if ESPN dictated the additions then they did. ESPN has legal reasons to keep that from being acknowledged - so a lack of a second source on the record from a school that was unhappy with the teams selected makes me skeptical.

Everyone on the record on this piece says it isn't the case. We've had plenty of threads about the liars at BC - so I'm not sure why in this case his word is taken as gospel.

End result is the same. Either get over or not, but it doesn't change where UConn is.

There have been a lot of articles corroborating this from completely different perspectives. I wish I could find them, but there was one quoting the Presidents of UNC and Duke as being incredulous.

I don't think ESPN dictated anything other than what the article says (i.e. guiding conferences with the knowledge that they would pay more for certain combinations). Given the multiple articles on the subject of UConn and Cuse being the first pair, I tend to believe it. BC's objection shows that the ACC operates as most institutional committees operate. They don't go against a single insistent vote with vested interests. You do this to protect your own vested interests when the time comes. To me, it makes perfect sense that BC got its way, no matter how incredulous UNC and Duke were.

The rest of what I believe comes from rumors. Weeks before that expansion even happened or before the Flipper article came out, a Nova insider was on the Rutgers board telling them they were mistaken about being prime targets of the ACC. He said that UConn was the first target and that Cuse was the second, and that it would happen soon. I thought nothing of it. A week or two later, Cuse and Pitt were added. He showed up back on the Rutgers board and said Pitt was swapped for UConn because someone voiced objections. This was clearly just a rumor--not anything I believed, until the Flipper article came out. Then another article came out much much later after everything settled down, and it quoted the reactions of the Duke and UNC Presidents.

If you want to go to BC interruption to check out some of the threads posted by Insiders the day after the Blaudschun article came out, they are pretty funny. Flipper was raked over the coals by the ACC and individual teams. ESPN was none too happy. We really don't know why but this could be it:

Read all of these: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/blogs/dog-house/ACC-Wants-UConn-Sources-130345208.html
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2011/september/20/more-acc-expansion-notre-dame-and-uconn
http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2011/09/sources_acc_is_interested_in_u.html

At the time, Gene Corrigan who had ND, Virginia, ACC office ties, and some of the Virginia people with UConn ties, were all talking about this being in the works AFTER the Pitt/Cuse vote. They were looking at a bigger expansion. Look at the dates of these talks, Late Sept., then look at the date of the Blaudschun article, Oct. 9th.

Flipper may seem like a buffoon, but usually people being paid that much leak (and he put his name to it!!) for a purpose. while everyone was focusing on his obstruction of UConn, only the ACC and ESPN noticed the poison pill he put in there. He killed that expansion.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

It actually isn't possible for both to be true.

Either ESPN dictated the additions or they didn't. If they did BC had no input. If they didn't then BC may have had influence.

It is possible and it did happen. In negotiations, nobody "dictates" what happens. ESPN can say "we want UConn and Syracuse" and then in a nomination committee, B.C. can say, "we don't want UConn, why can't we take Pitt?" See, it's a back and forth exchange, unlike all the arguments you engage in here.

You gonna try to tell me that's not how it works?

 

[whaler11]

There have been a lot of articles corroborating this from completely different perspectives. I wish I could find them, but there was one quoting the Presidents of UNC and Duke as being incredulous.

I don't think ESPN dictated anything other than what the article says (i.e. guiding conferences with the knowledge that they would pay more for certain combinations). Given the multiple articles on the subject of UConn and Cuse being the first pair, I tend to believe it. BC's objection shows that the ACC operates as most institutional committees operate. They don't go against a single insistent vote with vested interests. You do this to protect your own vested interests when the time comes. To me, it makes perfect sense that BC got its way, no matter how incredulous UNC and Duke were.

The rest of what I believe comes from rumors. Weeks before that expansion even happened or before the Flipper article came out, a Nova insider was on the Rutgers board telling them they were mistaken about being prime targets of the ACC. He said that UConn was the first target and that Cuse was the second, and that it would happen soon. I thought nothing of it. A week or two later, Cuse and Pitt were added. He showed up back on the Rutgers board and said Pitt was swapped for UConn because someone voiced objections. This was clearly just a rumor--not anything I believed, until the Flipper article came out. Then another article came out much much later after everything settled down, and it quoted the reactions of the Duke and UNC Presidents.

If you want to go to BC interruption to check out some of the threads posted by Insiders the day after the Blaudschun article came out, they are pretty funny. Flipper was raked over the coals by the ACC and individual teams. ESPN was none too happy. We really don't know why but this could be it:

Read all of these: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/blogs/dog-house/ACC-Wants-UConn-Sources-130345208.html
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2011/september/20/more-acc-expansion-notre-dame-and-uconn
http://blog.syracuse.com/sports/2011/09/sources_acc_is_interested_in_u.html

At the time, Gene Corrigan who had ND, Virginia, ACC office ties, and some of the Virginia people with UConn ties, were all talking about this being in the works AFTER the Pitt/Cuse vote. They were looking at a bigger expansion. Look at the dates of these talks, Late Sept., then look at the date of the Blaudschun article, Oct. 9th.

Flipper may seem like a buffoon, but usually people being paid that much leak (and he put his name to it!!) for a purpose. while everyone was focusing on his obstruction of UConn, only the ACC and ESPN noticed the poison pill he put in there. He killed that expansion.

So ESPN didn't dictate expansion and BC did their best to block UConn and had been successful. Ok that's reasonable.

Why would there be any more in the CBS story than there is? It's about the influence of television on expansion and shockingly isn't based on message board insiders. Maybe they should use Yoda and the Dude next time. Anonymous message board posters may get you fired up, writers paid by legitimate media outlets not so much. B

 

[whaler11]

It is possible and it did happen. In negotiations, nobody "dictates" what happens. ESPN can say "we want UConn and Syracuse" and then in a nomination committee, B.C. can say, "we don't want UConn, why can't we take Pitt?" See, it's a back and forth exchange, unlike all the arguments you engage in here.

You gonna try to tell me that's not how it works?

So now you are saying that ESPN didn't dictate - so what exactly would be your problem be with the CBS story?

A couple of posts ago you said both were true. Now you are saying both aren't true. So you've made up your mind?

 

[whaler11]

It's possible for both to be true.

By the way, why is it so important for you to deny this?

Here is where you say both ESPN dictated the teams and BC had sway. Just so you can see where you contradict yourself.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

So now you are saying that ESPN didn't dictate - so what exactly would be your problem with the CBS story?

A couple of posts ago you said both were true. Now you are saying both aren't true. So you've made up your mind?

Well, I tried. I have learned in life that there are some people who just can't keep up. Sadly, you must be one of those.

 

[whaler11]

Well, I tried. I have learned in life that there are some people who just can't keep up. Sadly, you must be one of those.

Yeah you contradict yourself every other post and don't know the definition of 'dictate' but yeah I can't keep up.

 

[whaler11]

Well, I tried. I have learned in life that there are some people who just can't keep up. Sadly, you must be one of those.

For your next futile attempt at a coherent argument:

dic·tate
/ˈdiktāt/
Verb
Lay down authoritatively; prescribe: "attempts to dictate policy"; "the right to dictate to me".
Noun
An order or principle that must be obeyed.
Synonyms
verb. prescribe - enjoin - order - command - direct
noun. dictation - command - order - injunction - behest

 

[formerlurker]

I'm sunburned and 2-3 beers away from either begging my girlfriend for sex later or apologizing in the morning for flying half mast and possibly pssing the bed.

Take that into account but doesn't anyone else think that it's guys like this who sadly have the most say?

 

[upstater]

So ESPN didn't dictate expansion and BC did their best to block UConn and had been successful. Ok that's reasonable.

Why would there be any more in the CBS story than there is? It's about the influence of television on expansion and shockingly isn't based on message board insiders. Maybe they should use Yoda and the Dude next time. Anonymous message board posters may get you fired up, writers paid by legitimate media outlets not so much. B

The real question is, why did Flipper open his big trap? Was he stupid? Or, does the story of the message board posters put his gamble in context? It's the best explanation I heard so far, unless someone comes up with another other than, he's stupid.