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

[ZooCougar]

That lawsuit was the only smart move UConn has made. If we hadn't sued the ACC, we would have won 4 fewer National Championships in men's basketball and 7 fewer in women's basketball, and we would be UMass.

In case you haven't noticed, virtually every antitrust lawsuit is a winner. UConn should have sued a lot more.

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

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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

You have been wrong on this issue for 23 years. BCU didn't want us in the ACC. We could have bought every ACC President coke and hookers every day for the last 23 years, and we would not be in the ACC. We needed to break BCU, not kiss their butt. We tried asking nicely for the last 13 years after our co-plaintiffs were all invited to other leagues. It failed.

 

[CL82]

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

Not sure that is necessarily true, given that Pittsburgh was a part of the lawsuit and are now a part of the ACC.

 

[TerryD1957]

Notre Dame advocates for Notre Dame.

It also strongly advocates for Stanford, as noted above. If ND ever joins the Big Ten, Stanford will be its +1.

Stanford has a great relationship with ND. So does Navy.

ND has no such close relationship with UConn. Never has. Would UConn advocate for ND if the roles were reversed?

 

[ZooCougar]

Not sure that is necessarily true, given that Pittsburgh was a part of the lawsuit and are now a part of the ACC.

Yeah they clearly pinned it all on us.

 

[CL82]

Yeah they clearly pinned it all on us.

Blumenthal preening during the case contributed to that. I'm not sure it is the determining factor. Possibly a contributing one though.

 

[JVN]

It also strongly advocates for Stanford, as noted above. If ND ever joins the Big Ten, Stanford will be its +1.

Stanford has a great relationship with ND. So does Navy.

ND has no such close relationship with UConn. Never has. Would UConn advocate for ND if the roles were reversed?

The quote you replied to is not mine, not sure why my name is on it, but I'll reply anyway.

I know UConn doesn't have enough votes in the ACC and B12 to have gotten an invite to either conference. I've always been curious as to which schools are "yes" votes and which schools are "no" votes, hence my question. Guess I'm none the wiser.

 

[Hoophound]

It also strongly advocates for Stanford, as noted above. If ND ever joins the Big Ten, Stanford will be its +1.

Stanford has a great relationship with ND. So does Navy.

ND has no such close relationship with UConn. Never has. Would UConn advocate for ND if the roles were reversed?

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

 

[Exit 4]

The quote you replied to is not mine, not sure why my name is on it, but I'll reply anyway.

I know UConn doesn't have enough votes in the ACC and B12 to have gotten an invite to either conference. I've always been curious as to which schools are "yes" votes and which schools are "no" votes, hence my question. Guess I'm none the wiser.

The rumor is that UConn has most or all of the original ACC schools except for FSU and Clemson. Elsewhere there is also resistance from SMU, Cal and Stanford. To get the missing votes, UConn has to basically take its economic value looking perhaps 6 years out and give it to the ACC (and by that - mostly to FSU and Clemson). That was the lay of the land this past summer, doubt it has changed much.

UConn making a final four in mens, the women winning another natty and football securing a 7 or 8 win season might be needed to restart the consideration this time next year.

 

[Fairfield_1st]

That lawsuit was the only smart move UConn has made. If we hadn't sued the ACC, we would have won 4 fewer National Championships in men's basketball and 7 fewer in women's basketball, and we would be UMass.

In case you haven't noticed, virtually every antitrust lawsuit is a winner. UConn should have sued a lot more.

Could you expound on that a little? On the surface it sounds nutty without your rationale.

 

[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

 

[ZooCougar]

You have been wrong on this issue for 23 years. BCU didn't want us in the ACC. We could have bought every ACC President coke and hookers every day for the last 23 years, and we would not be in the ACC. We needed to break BCU, not kiss their butt. We tried asking nicely for the last 13 years after our co-plaintiffs were all invited to other leagues. It failed.

Blumenthal preening during the case contributed to that. I'm not sure it is the determining factor. Possibly a contributing one though.

Didn't we sue Donna Shalala personally? Yup.

During the Louisville thing she wouldn't even take our phone calls. They had to call in a favor with Bill Clinton to get her a message as an intermediary. Think about that, we ticked them off so bad that a former President was a messenger. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

My god you guys are lawst.

 

[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.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Blumenthal preening during the case contributed to that. I'm not sure it is the determining factor. Possibly a contributing one though.

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.

 

[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.