Screw you and FSUGee Buddy, I'd like to help you out, but...
My "Adult English to Sixth Grade Playground Translation Program" is on my other computer.
Screw you and FSUGee Buddy, I'd like to help you out, but...
My "Adult English to Sixth Grade Playground Translation Program" is on my other computer.
Why does @buddy hate FSU so much?
You really don't know? How about they, along with several other "so called football schools" wanted a football school so the ACC took Pitt instead.
I don't like FSU because of that and some of the players run in with the law.
Yeah I get that, but it's not only FSU that kept us out. Thank our neighbors to the north for that too
Eventually all the crap that they have been able to get away with will eventually catch up to them, then they will be like Miami. The inmates can only run the asylum for so long.I hate them too, along with Miami,Clem.,etc. a pox on them all. Have to laugh at FSU having the ACC to petition to have conferences pick their own champ. Can't earn it on their own.
You and FSU would have lynched him if you had the chance.On this day, Buddy, I will think of the burden you carry and offer condolence.
I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
FSU led the charge on the last go around. It would have been UConn and not Louisville. It would have been UConn instead of Pitt due to BCU. Either way UConn got screwed by both of them. Although I have to admit that Louisville is certainly competitive athletically, if not academically. But academics make absolutely no difference to the ACC it has been proven.Yeah I get that, but it's not only FSU that kept us out. Thank our neighbors to the north for that too
FSU led the charge on the last go around. It would have been UConn and not Louisville. It would have been UConn instead of Pitt due to BCU. Either way UConn got screwed by both of them. Although I have to admit that Louisville is certainly competitive athletically, if not academically. But academics make absolutely no difference to the ACC it has been proven.
So you are saying that ESPN told the ACC we'll pay for Louisville to be added to your conference but not UConn.Pitt was brought in with the Duke, UNC lobby....
Mr. Conehead is exactly right...a football power, already fighting the public perception of how weak the ACC football schedule is, did not particularly want another northeastern basketball first school. The ACC had, at the time, a political split with UNC-Duke pretty much running the show but with some other schools chafing at the UNC-Duke centeredness.
Clemson, Miami, VT and GT joined with FSU and lobbied for a more balanced program regarding football. Louisville was acceptable to the basketball oriented Duke and UNC.
It was nothing personal regarding UConn (as it is with BC), it was a business need to bolster the football side of the board. ESPN (with 80% of contract money generated by football) offered the input that it was better football matches that would allow for more media money. And, at the time, the football programs of the ACC were concerned about losing their seat at the BCS (and talked about P5) table.
ESPN overcame Duke-UNC when they presented to Swofford that increased monies depended on football matches. The ACC brass had projections for each potential addition. And football was the driver.
"For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80 percent of it is generated by football," Phillips told TigerNet.com. "As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that the football has to be very, very relevant."
Pitt was brought in with the Duke, UNC lobby....
Mr. Conehead is exactly right...a football power, already fighting the public perception of how weak the ACC football schedule is, did not particularly want another northeastern basketball first school. The ACC had, at the time, a political split with UNC-Duke pretty much running the show but with some other schools chafing at the UNC-Duke centeredness.
Clemson, Miami, VT and GT joined with FSU and lobbied for a more balanced program regarding football. Louisville was acceptable to the basketball oriented Duke and UNC.
It was nothing personal regarding UConn (as it is with BC), it was a business need to bolster the football side of the board. ESPN (with 80% of contract money generated by football) offered the input that it was better football matches that would allow for more media money. And, at the time, the football programs of the ACC were concerned about losing their seat at the BCS (and talked about P5) table.
ESPN overcame Duke-UNC when they presented to Swofford that increased monies depended on football matches. The ACC brass had projections for each potential addition. And football was the driver.
"For example, in this latest contract with ESPN, 80 percent of it is generated by football," Phillips told TigerNet.com. "As good as basketball has been in the ACC, it is very evident just through this contract that the football has to be very, very relevant."
So, if UConn gets an invite to the B1G, everyone will have gotten what they wanted. The ACC will have gotten "football matches" with Louisville, Pitt, and Cuse and the B1G will have gotten the East Coast markets from DC through New England. UConn will be quite happy in the B1G, and Pitt/Cuse/Ville/BC in the ACC.
The only real bright spots that I can see if that the Big Ten has a renegotiating coming and the ACC hopes to sell a network in our area.
As far as bright spots go, they're both very dim, but any port in a storm.
Nothing brightens a dim light like darkening skies. . .
It was nothing personal regarding UConn (as it is with BC), it was a business need to bolster the football side of the board. ESPN (with 80% of contract money generated by football) offered the input that it was better football matches that would allow for more media money. And, at the time, the football programs of the ACC were concerned about losing their seat at the BCS (and talked about P5) table.
Back when universities were academic enterprises instead of business/money-laundering enterprises, they wouldn't have sacrificed everything to ephemeral money flows. If basketball was king 20 years ago and football is king today, who is to say that things might reverse in another 20 years? If the money-maximizing groupings are ephemeral, shouldn't there be some emphasis on geographical contiguity, cultural fit, and traditional rivalries?