Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[psilotic]

It’s also the reason we aren’t in the ACC.

15 years later and this dude is STILL right https://www.theuconnblog.com/2011/9/19/2436281/acc-uconn-conference-realignment-lawsuit

 

[psilotic]

Hence, why we should have taken that 10 year deal for football games.....

This was an even worse own goal than the PP hire

 

[psilotic]

One of the ironies of this whole ACC discussion is that while UConn doesn't have the TV $$$$$ it is far more nationally relevant that virtually all of the old Big East defectees. Can't help smirking when I see yet another picture of a half empty Carrier Dome or reading abt a Rutgers athletic deficit approaching $500M since joining the big ten

 

[JVN]

 

[Exit 4]

If Vegas offered odds on something like this three years ago it would have paid 50k to 1.

 

[CL82]

Didn't we sue Donna Shalala personally? Yup

By "we" I think you mean all the plaintiffs of the lawsuit. They included UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, VaTech, and Rutgers. Given that two of the plaintiffs, Pitt and VaTech, were subsequently admitted to the ACC, it's pretty clear that being a plaintiff in the lawsuit wasn't disqualifying.

Those are facts. When facts don't align with a theory, it's not the facts that are wrong.

 

[ZooCougar]

By "we" I think you mean all the plaintiffs of the lawsuit. They included UConn, Pitt, West Virginia, VaTech, and Rutgers. Given that two of the plaintiffs, Pitt and VaTech, were subsequently admitted to the ACC, it's pretty clear that being a plaintiff in the lawsuit wasn't disqualifying.

Those are facts. When facts don't align with a theory, it's not the facts that are wrong.

The problem here is that you think they are allocating blame fairly.

I can assure you they most definitely did not.

In ACC land they cited the lawsuit almost always in these discussions.

And the FACT is that Shalala disliked us so much that she wouldn’t even take our calls. I see you didn’t offer a rebuttal to that one, because you don’t have one.

 

[ZooCougar]

This.

Blumenthal's attempt to gain political capital from it made him clearly the most visible (and throughout the most vocal) party, which made him the face of the lawsuit, which made UConn the face of the lawsuit.

Additionally, I don't recall if he ever followed through on it, but he did threaten to have the state of Connecticut sue all involved individually as well.

I really don't know what was benefitted from his actions, but there was a severe cost in terms of relationship building.

Virginia Tech lucked out because their politicians actually helped them by putting pressure on UVA.

Pitt just played the game better than we did.

Connecticut was the most visible party and conducted itself like a psycho ditched ex-girlfriend.

It’s not how you win friends and influence people.

 

[CL82]

Pitt just played the game better than we did

Again, you're crafting a narrative to fit your conclusion. Pitt didn't play the game better than we did, they were just the beneficiary of the fact that Boston College opposed Connecticut joining the ACC because BC "wanted to be the New England team." Again, that is a fact. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, it's not the facts that are wrong.

And the FACT is that Shalala disliked us so much that she wouldn’t even take our calls. I see you didn’t offer a rebuttal to that one, because you don’t have one.

Actually it was because I don't know it to be accurate. Do you have anything that actually supports that I mean other than typing in CAPS.

In ACC land they cited the lawsuit almost always in these discussions.

This would not surprise me. But the fact that the lawsuit is mentioned, doesn't make it the determinative factor, as seen by the admission of both Pitt and VaTech. Again, facts, not supposition.

 

[ZooCougar]

Again, you're crafting a narrative to fit your conclusion. Pitt didn't play the game better than we did, they were just the beneficiary of the fact that Boston College opposed Connecticut joining the ACC because BC "wanted to be the New England team." Again, that is a fact. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, it's not the facts that are wrong.


Actually it was because I don't know it to be accurate. Do you have anything that actually supports that I mean other than typing in CAPS.

This would not surprise me. But the fact that the lawsuit is mentioned, doesn't make it the determinative factor, as seen by the admission of both Pitt and VaTech. Again, facts, not supposition.

Obviously they did play it better because they got in and we didn’t. Duh.

I accept your concession.

 

[ZooCougar]

Again, you're crafting a narrative to fit your conclusion. Pitt didn't play the game better than we did, they were just the beneficiary of the fact that Boston College opposed Connecticut joining the ACC because BC "wanted to be the New England team." Again, that is a fact. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, it's not the facts that are wrong.


Actually it was because I don't know it to be accurate. Do you have anything that actually supports that I mean other than typing in CAPS.

This would not surprise me. But the fact that the lawsuit is mentioned, doesn't make it the determinative factor, as seen by the admission of both Pitt and VaTech. Again, facts, not supposition.

You’re LAWST. It’s also discussed, as nauseum on a long running thread here.

https://archive.ph/uM9cR

“

After playing the public game last year — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy even got into the act — UConn didn’t want to be portrayed as groveling again. Different UConn sources insisted Herbst and Manuel “worked their humps off,” and any suggestion otherwise is “absolute bull.” They called presidents, ADs, industry powers, politicians. How much so? When Miami President Donna Shalala didn’t return calls, there supposedly was even last-minute talk of getting her former boss Bill Clinton (a Jim Calhoun admirer) to facilitate a call.”

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Again, you're crafting a narrative to fit your conclusion. Pitt didn't play the game better than we did, they were just the beneficiary of the fact that Boston College opposed Connecticut joining the ACC because BC "wanted to be the New England team." Again, that is a fact. If your theory doesn't fit the facts, it's not the facts that are wrong.


Actually it was because I don't know it to be accurate. Do you have anything that actually supports that I mean other than typing in CAPS.

This would not surprise me. But the fact that the lawsuit is mentioned, doesn't make it the determinative factor, as seen by the admission of both Pitt and VaTech. Again, facts, not supposition.

Not to mention Pitt was a top 25 football program for oh I don't know 50 years.

 

[CL82]

Not to mention Pitt was a top 25 football program for oh I don't know 50 years.

You are moving the goalposts my friend. You originally said that the sole reason why Connecticut wasn't admitted to the ACC was because they sued the conference collectively, the programs, individually, and individual school officials individually. I pointed out that there were five programs in total who were part of that suit two of which ended up in the ACC. If your premise was correct, neither Pittsburgh nor Virginia Tech would be in the ACC.

In any event, regarding the latest evolution of your position, if Pitt was so desirable, they would've been the original choice, not the replacement for Connecticut after Boston College indicated it wanted to be "the New England" school.

Again, those are just facts. I'm not sure why it's got your panties in a bunch.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

You are moving the goalposts my friend. You originally said that the sole reason why Connecticut wasn't admitted to the ACC was because they sued the conference collectively, the programs, individually, and individual school officials individually. I pointed out that there were five programs in total who were part of that suit two of which ended up in the ACC. If your premise was correct, neither Pittsburgh nor Virginia Tech would be in the ACC.

In any event, regarding the latest evolution of your position, if Pitt was so desirable, they would've been the original choice, not the replacement for Connecticut after Boston College indicated it wanted to be "the New England" school.

Again, those are just facts. I'm not sure why it's got your panties in a bunch.

You're confusing me with someone else as that was my first post on this.

 

[CL82]

You're confusing me with someone else as that was my first post on this.

Ah you are right. Sorry about that.

 

[CL82]

You’re LAWST. It’s also discussed, as nauseum on a long running thread here.

https://archive.ph/uM9cR

“

After playing the public game last year — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy even got into the act — UConn didn’t want to be portrayed as groveling again. Different UConn sources insisted Herbst and Manuel “worked their humps off,” and any suggestion otherwise is “absolute bull.” They called presidents, ADs, industry powers, politicians. How much so? When Miami President Donna Shalala didn’t return calls, there supposedly was even last-minute talk of getting her former boss Bill Clinton (a Jim Calhoun admirer) to facilitate a call.”

Thanks for going to get this. I think this might be revisionism, however, given that they were "working their butts off" from the Virgin Islands watching a woman's basketball tournament when Louisville got the spot to the ACC.

That said, we still come back to the fact that two of the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit are in the ACC. So, definitionally, being a plaintiff in the suit did not prevent anyone from going to the ACC. You understand that, right? You seem to be working pretty hard to dance around that undeniable fact.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Ah you are right. Sorry about that.

I like my goalposts stationary, lol.

 

[ZooCougar]

Not to mention Pitt was a top 25 football program for oh I don't know 50 years.

That Unc doesn’t remember it so it never happened. Stop crafting narratives.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You’re LAWST. It’s also discussed, as nauseum on a long running thread here.

https://archive.ph/uM9cR

“

After playing the public game last year — Gov. Dannel P. Malloy even got into the act — UConn didn’t want to be portrayed as groveling again. Different UConn sources insisted Herbst and Manuel “worked their humps off,” and any suggestion otherwise is “absolute bull.” They called presidents, ADs, industry powers, politicians. How much so? When Miami President Donna Shalala didn’t return calls, there supposedly was even last-minute talk of getting her former boss Bill Clinton (a Jim Calhoun admirer) to facilitate a call.”

From your link:

And old grudges over Richard Blumenthal’s lawsuit against the ACC in 2004? Only fragments, I’m told.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Thanks for going to get this. I think this might be revisionism, however, given that they were "working their butts off" from the Virgin Islands watching a woman's basketball tournament when Louisville got the spot to the ACC.

That said, we still come back to the fact that two of the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit are in the ACC. So, definitionally, being a plaintiff in the suit did not prevent anyone from going to the ACC. You understand that, right? You seem to be working pretty hard to dance around that undeniable fact.

Louisville had screwed over Virginia Tech immensely worse at the end of the Metro Conference than anything UConn did to any of the Big East schools.

Conference Wars, Part 3: 1994-2000

In the aftermath of their 1994 rejection by the Big East, the Hokies put on a brave face, but truth be told, no one was sure what Virginia Tech's ultimate conference fate would be.

virginiatech.sportswar.com

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Notre Dame advocates for Notre Dame.

AZ ‘s first law of conference advocacy in 2026
A teams advocacy is directly proportional to the necessity of that conference’s success for its own survival.
The days of collegiality are long gone.

 

[John]

Really there's nothing to explain is there. If being being a plaintiff in that lawsuit disqualified people from being in the ACC then Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech, definitionally, would not be members of the ACC. Thus, being a member of that lawsuit was not disqualifying. That isn't a particularly hard concept and no amount of bluff or bluster from you will change the reality of it.

Did the Pennsylvania and/or Virginia Attorney Generals bring the lawsuit? Who spearheaded the lawsuit?

 

[Ha Who]

Did the Pennsylvania and/or Virginia Attorney Generals bring the lawsuit? Who spearheaded the lawsuit?

Where was the lawsuit filed?

 

[John]

John, maybe read the thread before hopping in with comments? If you had you would notice that I already talked about the plaintiffs in the suit.

I think this has been discussed to death, but let me ask the question again and give you a shot at answering it. The premise was that Connecticut being a plaintiff in the big east lawsuit against the ACC effectively disqualified it from ACC membership. Yet, two other schools who were also plaintiffs in the lawsuit are now in the ACC. Given that, was being a plaintive in that lawsuit actually disqualifying from ACC membership?

(Let me help you out. The answer is, definitionally, no.)

you realize that Virginia would not have voted for the addition of the Big East schools if Va Tech had not been included in the initial raid?

 

[CL82]

you realize that Virginia would not have voted for the addition of the Big East schools if Va Tech had not been included in the initial raid?

Probably not given their state legislatures position on the issue, but Virginia is one vote right? So, again, can we agree that being a plaintiff in the lawsuit was not disqualifying for membership in the ACC. How about a yes or no on that John, since you decided to hop in on the discussion?

 

[John]

Probably not given their state legislatures position on the issue, but Virginia is one vote right? So, again, can we agree that being a plaintiff in the lawsuit was not disqualifying for membership in the ACC. How about a yes or no on that John, since you decided to hop in on the discussion?

it's not a yes or no situation, it's shades of grey. Since we've been passed over thus far, it'd be a no right now. Finally, it's a discussion board where people, you know, discuss...so you can hop off the ol' high horse.

 

[CL82]

it's not a yes or no situation, it's shades of grey. Since we've been passed over thus far, it'd be a no right now. Finally, it's a discussion board where people, you know, discuss...so you can hop off the ol' high horse.

No, it's definitionally a "yes or no situation." And the answer is no it's not disqualifying.

(Yes it is a discussion board, if you don't want your post commented on don't post.)

 

[John]

No, it's definitionally a "yes or no situation." And the answer is no it's not disqualifying.

(Yes it is a discussion board, if you don't want your post commented on don't post.)

comment all you want, and you're still wrong.

 

[Fishy]

California has 40 million people so this is pocket change for a state run school. They set a goal of getting to FBS and got there. It's not the PAC 12 but it's FBS

"FOS first reported the formation of the “Sac-12,” a group of local politicians and businesspeople pooling financial resources to win the program an invitation to the Pac-12; they committed to offer $50 million in NIL (name, image, and likeness) opportunities to Sacramento State athletes if the program secured a Pac-12 invitation. Though the group was independent of the university and athletics department, it reflected the same aggressive desire to make it to the next level."

Sacramento State Will Pay $20M+ to Join MAC in FBS

The Hornets have been pushing hard for an FBS invitation, and will join the MAC as a football-only member beginning this coming season.

frontofficesports.com

"It's pocket change"

It's not. They're broke. That $50M was a complete fiction.

 

[CL82]

comment all you want, and you're still wrong.

Am I, though? I noticed you avoided answering how being a plaintiff in the Big East lawsuit against the ACC could be disqualifying for ACC membership when two plaintiffs in that lawsuit are in fact ACC members.

Facts are facts.