Non-Key Tweets

[dwalks93]

End of segment.

In this scenario, would they be wrong as well to sue you for leaving the AAC, stating your leaving caused the AAC to be diminished in value as a result of your leaving ? And that the principal reason they claimed you left the AAC was not to better yourself, but principally to destroy the AAC ? I would say in such a scenario that they were probably just wrong. They were simply jealous, perhaps bitter, and that would perhaps properly explain their sour grapes, lawsuit, and the like. And yes, they would be wrong on your motives. But if you got to the B12, would you even care what they thought regarding this alleged silly and mistaken nonsense of their claim of your setting out to " destroy the AAC " with your choice to depart the league for another that you simply perceived was a better one, and one that simply offered you more long term stability and the promise of more financial gain ?[/QUOTE]




Seriously, let go....its over. BC left and later the BE died...the CT lawsuit was stupid and it failed...BC subsequently blackballed UConn and both programs suffered...we need to move on...sometimes I think it would be easier to solve the Palastine/Israeli issue than BC/UConn

We both know BC is in a worse place as a result of expansion. In fact no one from the old BE is in a better place as a result of conference realignment except Rutgers. Finally Rutgers has "won" something...hopefully UConn will join them some day.

 

[Yawkey Way]

We both know BC is in a worse place as a result of expansion. In fact no one from the old BE is in a better place as a result of conference realignment except Rutgers. .[/QUOTE]

I respectfully disagree. ALL the former BE teams that found a place in one of the P5 Conferences are " in a better place " than where they were before. Its one of the reasons that Uconn is trying so hard now to get there as well.

 

[Yawkey Way]

.the CT lawsuit was stupid and it failed..

Agreed. There was a heavy price that Uconn has paid for that stupidity too, imo.

 

[dwalks93]

Ok I'm trying to be conciliatory but clearly you want to troll....

I will leave it at this...UConn is very close to becoming P5. BC is no longer a P5 level program. If the ACC fails BC will absolutely be left without a P5 option. That is not name calling, that is absolute fact.

BC could have build its program off regional rivalries but went it alone. Now they are literally the worst P5 level program in America...even Rutgers has a better prognosis

If UConn "paid a heavy price" what has BC paid?

BTW this year the ACC made your "rivalry game" BC/WF...they should have named it the "ACC teams we'd like to get rid of"
bowl.

 

[billybud]

You can't really have it both ways...

Proclaim that BC is worse off in a P5 than if it had stayed....

And yet yearn so for the same opportunity.

I do understand rivalry hatreds though, God bless "em.

Friends come and go but enemies are forever...and are thus a treasure.

 

[dwalks93]

You can't really have it both ways...

Proclaim that BC is worse off in a P5 than if it had stayed....

And yet yearn so for the same opportunity.

I do understand rivalry hatreds though, God bless "em.

Friends come and go but enemies are forever...and are thus a treasure.

Ummm, BC was previously in a P5 level conference. It was the Big East. UConn was also a P5 level program in the Big East. How quickly one forgets UConn was a P5 program in the BE who carried the water for the BE for over a decade in basketball.

BC's relevance and influence in the BE was significantly more than it is now in the ACC. The BE may have been a dying planet but the NE schools should have moved together. If the ACC ever splits it will along the Tobacco Road/Southern Football school lines with the teams moving together. Teams are only as great as their rivalries.

Saying the ACC is a better option than the AAC does not mean teams are better off in the ACC than they were in the BE.

 

[Yawkey Way]

If the ACC fails BC will absolutely be left without a P5 option.

.[/QUOTE]

Of course. I never implied otherwise. However, if you are asking me if I believe the ACC is in danger of collapsing anytme soon ( as being alleged on here ) I would have to say " no ". The ACC seems pretty stable to me right now, with far less infighting, internal strife, threats of defections, etc among its member schools than most other leagues. That said, if you believe as apparently a few others do on here that the ACC is on the verge of collapse, I will accept that opinion of yours without rancor, nor consider that opinion to be one in the realm of " trolling " with it. You are entitled to your opinions and to your assessment of things and I accept that as such.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Saying the ACC is a better option than the AAC does not mean teams are better off in the ACC than they were in the BE.

The two are not related, of course. But the teams that forsaw the instability on the horizon after Miami left the BE, and subsequently left the BE after Miami did, were proven right to have left the BE when they did. Had they stayed, they would have been far worse off, as the BE football league later collapsed. ALL the BE teams that had football programs that left the BE and found a spot in what would become a P5 conference are better off now. I don't think there could be much disagreement with this. Even the administrators ( and most Uconn football fans ) accept this, as it is one of the reasons they are all attempting so hard to find a spot themselves now in a P5 conference. Syracuse and Pitt were early left behind programs, but even they jumped at a ACC invite, once it came to them, as they also knew they would be better off in a P5 Conference that not. So its universally accepted ( away from this board ) that all these schools consider their afiliation in the ACC to be better for them than not to be in the ACC, and where they were before they agreed to accept the league's invite. Uconn, for its part, would accept ANY P5 Conference invite right now, as it is far better to be a member of a P5 Conference, than any other league not a P5 Conference.

 

[pj]

You can't really have it both ways...

Proclaim that BC is worse off in a P5 than if it had stayed....

And yet yearn so for the same opportunity.

I do understand rivalry hatreds though, God bless "em.

Friends come and go but enemies are forever...and are thus a treasure.

You missed the point. He didn't say BC is worse off in the ACC than if it had remained in the AAC. He said BC's reputation is worse than it was, because BC has not invested in athletics and has demonstrated its lack of ability to produce revenue for a conference, or even willingness to try to become a positive contributor. Ten years ago, there was some perception that BC could be a revenue generator; that perception is now gone, and BC would not be invited to a P5 conference if you were having a do-over. He is correct about that.

 

[billybud]

Ummm, BC was previously in a P5 level conference. It was the Big East. UConn was also a P5 level program in the Big East. How quickly one forgets UConn was a P5 program in the BE who carried the water for the BE for over a decade in basketball.

BC's relevance and influence in the BE was significantly more than it is now in the ACC. The BE may have been a dying planet but the NE schools should have moved together. If the ACC ever splits it will along the Tobacco Road/Southern Football school lines with the teams moving together. Teams are only as great as their rivalries.

Saying the ACC is a better option than the AAC does not mean teams are better off in the ACC than they were in the BE.

I do think that the rivalry aspect is very important...and much has been lost. Oklahoma-Nebraska, Texas-Aggies, WVU-VT, the Backyard Brawl, and on.

Some rivalries never catch on...the rivalry has to be relevant to catch on. You can make up a trophy but that doesn't make it a rivalry game.

As an example, nobody knows or cares that the winner of the FSU-Virginia game holds the Epps trophy. In contrast, the FSU-Florida rivalry has no trophy but reverberates through Florida all year.

Great rivalries need proximity, something on the line, teams that aren't from different ends of the football power spectrum, and teams that are relevant. Alabama-Auburn, and Ohio State-Michigan are great rivalries.....Indiana-Purdue? Vanderbilt-Tennessee? not so much...they lack the elements.

 

[dwalks93]

LIs

If the ACC fails BC will absolutely be left without a P5 option.

.

Of course. I never implied otherwise. However, if you are asking me if I believe the ACC is in danger of collapsing anytme soon ( as being alleged on here ) I would have to say " no ". The ACC seems pretty stable to me right now, with far less infighting, internal strife, threats of defections, etc among its member schools than most other leagues. That said, if you believe as apparently a few others do on here that the ACC is on the verge of collapse, I will accept that opinion of yours without rancor, nor consider that opinion to be one in the realm of " trolling " with it. You are entitled to your opinions and to your assessment of things and I accept that as such.[/QUOTE]

Listen I know BC is new to the dynamics of conference realignment but UConn fans understand this painfully well...allow me to explain.

Conference realignment is about money. If your conference is not making as much money as the others it is vulnerable to being raided. When it comes to recruiting new programs the value of a program to a conference is less about winning and more where they can sell cable boxes. If big football programs can make more money somewhere else they are likely to move.

The ACC does not a have a network. It does not have the footprint for a network. It is making approximately $15 million per team less than the BIG/SEC and this amount will likely increase. It has football powers who want a larger share and a power struggle between the football/basketball contingents. Finally the ACC has several attractive teams to both the SEC/BIG which can offer them more money and stability. Finally the Big12 is trying to build a B12 network which would likely move the B12 ahead of the ACC in terms of money and attractiveness.

The best way to determine if a conference is vulnerable is whether there is GORs in place. The ACC needs them, the BIG and SEC don't...

Who knows what happens to the ACC but I would not describe them as "stable." That is why the ACC would not be my first choice for UConn

 

[billybud]

Heck..BC should never have been invited to the ACC...nor Cuse. You can blame Miami for the ACC wanting to go north.

Miami has always been a program aligned with the northeast and Shalala, a Cuse grad, made bringing in certain teams the Canes bride price.

 

[jostar1]

@BearcatEd_30

@SADUCFKNIGHT1 they just had guy on from Tulsa that Boren wants BYU and UConn after the UC game on sports talk

Also from the Cincy board:

I listened closely to the interview and Hoover premised his order of candidates from a long 30 minute phone call with Boren and said that it is very clear that BYU is the solid #11 from the "Oklahoma" point of view. Where I think the debate comes in is #12, between UC and UCONN. He feels UCONN is a bigger brand and brings TV sets up and down the Northeastern Coast, which is what the Big 12 covets, but, has a poor football program. Our history of playing good football over the past 10 years puts us at #13, in, as he calls it. "one man's opinion".

IMHO, this guy is very close to the situation and probably has as good a read on the situation as any of the Twitter Dudes out there (like it or not). Let's hope that something significant (like a nice run in the Basketball tournament or a couple of key transfers) happens between now and end of May to sway folks from UCONN to UC (or hope the analysis points to a 14 team league).

and this:

My only concern is Gee is Mormon and has BYU ties.

 

[billybud]

Dwalk...

The B1G has a GOR...only the SEC does not...

 

[dwalks93]

Dwalk...

The B1G has a GOR...only the SEC does not...

If the BIG has one they do not need it...no one is leaving the BIG

 

[Yawkey Way]

You missed the point. He didn't say BC is worse off in the ACC than if it had remained in the AAC. He said BC's standing is worse than it was, because BC has not invested in athletics and has demonstrated its lack of ability to produce revenue for a conference. Ten years ago, there was some perception that BC could be a revenue generator; that perception is now gone, and BC would not be invited to a P5 conference if you were having a do-over. He is correct about that.

BC is having a down period at the moment, but since its membership in the ACC, it has been to 2 ACC Championship games in ACC football, and 2 Championship games in ACC Basketball. It's norm is generally 6-8 football wins a year ( its average the last 3 decades ), and bowl eligible most seasons. BC will never win a National Championship in either Football or Basketball in my opinion, but it historically competes well most years in the ACC, and not unimportantly, it generally has its players all graduate with degrees most years. So this narrative that BC is somehow a failure with its sports programs with its amateur student -athletes ( Hockey, anyone ? ) is not borne out by its track record the last 3 decades. While its not a spectacular record, its by no means a bad nor a mediocre one at all on the whole. But again, thats just my own personal assessment of this, ( as a non BC alum ) and others here are of course entitled to see it differently.

 

[billybud]

If the BIG has one they do not need it...no one is leaving the BIG

Just correcting your error...But I assume that an astute player like Delaney has a GOR in place for a reason.

 

[Orkney]

The ACC seems pretty stable to me right now, with far less infighting, internal strife, threats of defections, etc among its member schools than most other leagues.

I’m not sure that is correct. Of the P5 conferences only the B12 is more unstable.

 

[dayooper]

I do think that the rivalry aspect is very important...and much has been lost. Oklahoma-Nebraska, Texas-Aggies, WVU-VT, the Backyard Brawl, and on.

Some rivalries never catch on...the rivalry has to be relevant to catch on. You can make up a trophy but that doesn't make it a rivalry game.

As an example, nobody knows or cares that the winner of the FSU-Virginia game holds the Epps trophy. In contrast, the FSU-Florida rivalry has no trophy but reverberates through Florida all year.

This is absolutely correct

Great rivalries need proximity, something on the line, teams that aren't from different ends of the football power spectrum, and teams that are relevant. Alabama-Auburn, and Ohio State-Michigan are great rivalries.....Indiana-Purdue? Vanderbilt-Tennessee? not so much...they lack the elements.

This is not. To the fans of Indiana and Purdue, it's the most important game on the schedule. Same with Northwestern and Illinois. Wisconsin and Minnesota is huge for both schools. Great rivalries don't have to nationally relevant to great. The Western Michigan/Central Michigan game is about as intense as any. It's very important to both schools. The Northern Michigan/Michigan Tech football and hockey games (2 D2 schools in the UP of Michigan) are epic to those schools. These games can be valuable to networks on a regional scale, especially in a P5 conference.

 

[BlueHen]

We both know BC is in a worse place as a result of expansion. In fact no one from the old BE is in a better place as a result of conference realignment except Rutgers. .

I respectfully disagree. ALL the former BE teams that found a place in one of the P5 Conferences are " in a better place " than where they were before. Its one of the reasons that Uconn is trying so hard now to get there as well.[/QUOTE]

Money wise they are in a better place, but not so on the field.

Miami and VT used to be NC contenders in football, now they just contend to be bowl eligible.
BC was occasionally a top 20 contender in football and basketball, now both programs are irrelevant.

The money is nice, but as a fan it means nothing to me if it doesn't translate into wins on the field.

 

[BlueHen]

Agreed. There was a heavy price that Uconn has paid for that stupidity too, imo.

Something that we agree on.

I also think that BC made a mistake in blackballing UConn. BC and UConn should be a great rivalry, maybe not Duke-North Carolina, but a rivalry that helps both schools.

Instead, UConn is on the outside looking in, and BC on an island in the ACC.

Note that WVU is on an island and is apparently looking for the Big XII to expand so that it can have a neighbor. BC's priority was to vote UConn off the island. Both UConn and BC have made mistakes since the fall of the Big East and both have suffered.

 

[billybud]

This is absolutely correct



This is not. To the fans of Indiana and Purdue, it's the most important game on the schedule. Same with Northwestern and Illinois. Wisconsin and Minnesota is huge for both schools. Great rivalries don't have to nationally relevant to great. The Western Michigan/Central Michigan game is about as intense as any. It's very important to both schools. The Northern Michigan/Michigan Tech football and hockey games (2 D2 schools in the UP of Michigan) are epic to those schools. These games can be valuable to networks on a regional scale, especially in a P5 conference.

I am talking nationally, of course...

FAMU vs Bethune Cookman is a huge rivalry among the Black population of Florida...is it an important rivalry? Only to the fans of a couple of schools.

Alabama-Auburn and Michigan-Ohio State are rivalries that fans of other teams will watch and millions tune in to see...Purdue-Indiana may be important in Indianapolis just as Marshall vs WVU is important in Huntington.

There are rivalries that are nationally relevant and are marqee games...and there are rivalries that are not.

 

[Seaa Blue]

If the BIG has one they do not need it...no one is leaving the BIG

I believe having an equity stake in something like BTN necessitates a formal GoR.

 

[dwalks93]

The two are not related, of course. But the teams that forsaw the instability on the horizon after Miami left the BE, and subsequently left the BE after Miami did, were proven right to have left the BE when they did. Had they stayed, they would have been far worse off, as the BE football league later collapsed. ALL the BE teams that had football programs that left the BE and found a spot in what would become a P5 conference are better off now. I don't think there could be much disagreement with this. Even the administrators ( and most Uconn football fans ) accept this, as it is one of the reasons they are all attempting so hard to find a spot themselves now in a P5 conference. Syracuse and Pitt were early left behind programs, but even they jumped at a ACC invite, once it came to them, as they also knew they would be better off in a P5 Conference that not. So its universally accepted ( away from this board ) that all these schools consider their afiliation in the ACC to be better for them than not to be in the ACC, and where they were before they agreed to accept the league's invite. Uconn, for its part, would accept ANY P5 Conference invite right now, as it is far better to be a member of a P5 Conference, than any other league not a P5 Conference.

You've missed the entire point. The BE was doomed and the football schools needed to separate. But they should have moved together. By allowing the ACC, BIG and Big12 to carve up the NE piecemeal, the BE schools doomed themselves to irrelevance

If FSU leaves the ACC it will want Miami/Clemson with it. If UVA leaves it will want UNC/Duke with it. These programs understand their value is tied to their rivalries. Playing a "more winning program" does not make it a rivalry. It is usually more regionally based. UConn fans were more excited to play Georgetown this year than SMU even thought SMU is higher ranked.

A bigger payday today is meaningless if it eventually kills your program. That is what happened to BC. The best thing that could happen to BC is if UConn was invited to the ACC.

 

[dayooper]

I am talking nationally, of course...

FAMU vs Bethune Cookman is a huge rivalry among the Black population of Florida...is it an important rivalry? Only to the fans of a couple of schools.

Alabama-Auburn and Michigan-Ohio State are rivalries that fans of other teams will watch and millions tune in to see...Purdue-Indiana may be important in Indianapolis just as Marshall vs WVU is important in Huntington.

There are rivalries that are nationally relevant and are marqee games...and there are rivalries that are not.

I understand that. What is important to your region may not be that important to others. The VT/WVU rivalry doesn't resonate here in Michigan, nor the Pitt/WVU. In fact, the MSU/Michigan game is called The Backyard Brawl. Yet to those areas, they mean a whole lot.

National rivalries are a boon for whatever conference they are in, but there are only so many. Michigan/OSU, Michigan/ND (rumors are that it's coming back), Alabama/Auburn, Florida/FSU, USC/UCLA and Oklahoma/Texas are the only national rivalries I can think of. The rest are just regional games. Yet those regional games can bring in ad dollars for those regions. Indiana/Purdue can be a sell because people from those schools and areas will watch it. Those games are meaningful to those regions and have value.