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

[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.

 

[ZooCougar]

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.

The only revisionism is between your ears. Go back and review Key Tweets in 2012.

Myself and others have already explained Pitt and Virginia Tech to you. I don’t want to explain Dick Blumenthal to you since I’ll probably get banned.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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

The raid was timed to cause the maximum amount of damage. The Big East had signed a lousy TV contract in the late 90's because Miami was on probation and looked to be on its way to the Death Penalty, and the rest of the league was at its nadir competitively in football, and other than UConn and Syracuse, basketball had declined too. When the Big East was coming back to negotiations with ESPN, Miami and BCU worked with the ACC and ESPN, sharing confidential information, to undermine the Big East's negotiating position.

Tranghese found out and went public. With the raid, the Big East was about to get thrown out of the BCS. The Catholics would have left, we would have had to join CUSA, and Calhoun and Auriemma would likely have hit the road. The lawsuit saved the league, and kept the Big East as a BCS conference. The conference had a great run in the 2000's until 2012. UConn won 2 championships and made another Final Four, in addition to a Fiesta Bowl. That lawsuit was the best thing that happened to us.

Since then? We got raided again at the next TV negotiation in 2011. At one point, it looked like the Big 12 might merge into the Big East. The threat of a lawsuit played a role in getting Rutgers, WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville and the Catholics a soft landing. UConn ended up on the outside, and we should have rattled some cages. Part of the reason we ended up on the outside was that the old line ACC schools told UConn's administration that our invitation to the ACC was imminent. Louisville out-hustled us. It had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Since then, every serious lawsuit against the NCAA or college athletics has won. While @ZooCougar has made multiple posts trying to make this thread political, how about this for politics? Alston, the case which basically annihilated the legal foundation of the NCAA's ability to be a monopoly, was a unanimous decision. The most divided court since before the Civil War ruled 9-0 that the NCAA/BCS/CFP/P4 is a living, breathing, anti-trust violation. Just like Blumenthal said it was in 2003.

Zoo and I have been having the same argument for 23 years, and I can't think of an argument that has been decided so decisively in the history of the internet.

 

[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.

 

[CL82]

The only revisionism is between your ears. Go back and review Key Tweets in 2012.

Myself and others have already explained Pitt and Virginia Tech to you. I don’t want to explain Dick Blumenthal to you since I’ll probably get banned.

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.

 

[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]

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

let me help you @CL82

"Led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the football schools that would be left behind under this initial plan — UConn, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia — filed two lawsuits, one against the ACC, and the other against Miami and BC, accusing them of improper disclosure of confidential information and of conspiring to weaken the Big East. Syracuse was not named as a defendant in part because they made no public comments about the ongoing situation."

2005 NCAA conference realignment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CL82]

let me help you @CL82

"Led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the football schools that would be left behind under this initial plan — UConn, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia — filed two lawsuits, one against the ACC, and the other against Miami and BC, accusing them of improper disclosure of confidential information and of conspiring to weaken the Big East. Syracuse was not named as a defendant in part because they made no public comments about the ongoing situation."

2005 NCAA conference realignment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.)

 

[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.

 

[Chuck]

"It's pocket change"

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

The goal of Cal State schools is to provide accessible, high-quality, affordable public higher education that prepares a diverse student body for the workforce and fosters social mobility. Most of the Cal States (other than SDSU) have a lot of commuters, part-timers and people that can't otherwise afford the more traditional college experience. 89% of Sacramento State students commute to school (but the school is considering implementing an on-campus requirement).

Imagine you're a kid in the Sacramento area attending Sacramento State and you get hit with a few thousand dollars in fees to pay for your crappy football team to play in a crappy FBS league. I'd be livid. If I wanted that experience (and cost) I'd go to community college for a couple years and transfer to a Cal school. This is a total fiduciary breach.

Editing to add that the MAC deserves some credit here. Sac State won't make the league worse, and they just got more money than 2.5 years of their tv contract.

 

[John]

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.

I explained why one of them is a ACC member, so now we're down to Pitt.

 

[CL82]

I explained why one of them is a ACC member, so now we're down to Pitt.

But implicit in that explanation is the fact that being a member of the lawsuit didn't prevent them from joining the ACC, right?