OT: BC football to renew historic rivarly...with Holy Cross

[Yawkey Way]

VT was invited only after the governor of Virginia insisted that they be taken to the ACC or the U of Virginia would have voted against the inclusion of BC and Miami. BC and Miami worked in an underhanded manner to effect this event. No tears will be shed for BC. They are pure evil.

The notion that BC materially effected the events in Virginia as to who got into the ACC is simply preposterous. It just is. It assigns BC power and influence with the ACC that you believe it to have, but simple logic and basic reasoning should tell you that BC does not have such unilateral power and influence to shape events in the ACC.... especially down in the state of Virginia. BOTH Virginia schools got in after Miami was in and BEFORE BC was even invited. BC was not invited until many months later after the 2 Virginia schools got in. Nobody in Virginia, not in the ACC offices, were taking instructions from BC on who gets in the ACC, and when. It would be silly to believe so. And if the ACC decided to invite Uconn to the ACC tomorrow, BC by its lonesome could not stop the ACC Commish from doing what he and the other schools want to do regarding inviting Uconn. You give BC way more power and influence to shape events in the ACC than they could possibly dream of singularly having for themselves. They have no such unilateral power and influence on who gets in, or who is to stay out of the ACC ( but.... ND does have this national stature and with that comes power, influence, and leverage it can utilize re. the ACC decision making processes ...although thats for another discussion topic beyond the scope of this one re. BC. )

 

[Yawkey Way]

What's crystal clear, is that UCONN does NOT need anything from Boston College University. .

I would agree with this assessment as well. Uconn doesn't need an occasional football game or two every 5 or 10 years with BC to make their future. Its all in UCONN'S own hands . Win the AAC football Conference and it won't matter a wit what happens up in Boston with BC. UCONN'S football future is not predicated on anything at all that BC does. Uconn football never did need BC for anything, just as you correctly stated.

 

[SubbaBub]

Once Miami decided to leave the BE Football, the dominos fell, and BC jumped on board when they got the call after Miami, Virginia, Virginia Tech were out and into the ACC. The BE was a mishmash of schools with dissimilar missions even before Miami set things in motion. The BE was a league comprised of basketball centric schools ( that played no football ) and football schools whose basketball was barely on the radar screen with them ( example.. Miami ). The dissatisfaction by the BE football schools with the BE was present well before UCONN decided it wanted to upgrade its football program, facilities, national aspirations. And the BE Basketball centric schools were livid when the BE football centric schools got together and tossed Temple out of its BE in football. So the BE was never on the same page, and it was run by people ( Dave Gavitt, later Michael Tranghese ) with BE Basketball interests. So the league was essentially bound to split apart, almost from its very beginnings, in my opinion. It was all just a matter of when, not if. This is my assessment anyway, and we here should be able to agree with it seems to me. Now, having said all this, was BC about to hang around the BE and help Uconn, or want to help them in any way, shape, or manner, to elevate themselves to a level of a BC Football program ?( that had never lost to Uconn ). Of course not. Miami did not start the dominos to fall based upon anything that was happening in Connecticut. But BC certainly thought the timing was good for them insofar as what Uconn was attempting to do in Storrs. Any BC fan that still harbors thoughts contrary to this are mistaken in my opinion.

That's just it. The dominos didn't need to.fall. Miami, FB king at the time, could have gone and the BE would have thrived.

At the critical moment when the remaining programs were discussing hanging together and making plans and commitments to do that, BC was the first to break ranks after Syracuse pledged to stay. There was a level of betrayal there that has yet to be equaled in this CR saga.

Everyone else had some measure of justification for moving. BC as it has played out, didn't. They are worse off by almost any measure save TV money, which a full strength BE would have received anyway. Pitt is about as close as any other school gets, for sabotaging the ESPN deal then jumping ship.

 

[ZooCougar]

BC was disingenuous to say the least.

 

[Yawkey Way]

That's just it. The dominos didn't need to.fall. Miami, FB king at the time, could have gone and the BE would have thrived.

At the critical moment when the remaining programs were discussing hanging together and making plans and commitments to do that, BC was the first to break ranks after Syracuse pledged to stay. There was a level of betrayal there that has yet to be equaled in this CR saga.

Everyone else had some measure of justification for moving. BC as it has played out, didn't. They are worse off by almost any measure save TV money, which a full strength BE would have received anyway. Pitt is about as close as any other school gets, for sabotaging the ESPN deal then jumping ship.

I guess its just a matter of opinion if the BE would have stayed together after Miami football left. My guess, the BE's ultimate fate was sealed long before Miami decided to leave, as there was always the discconnect between the BE basketball schools ( with BE Basketball people at the helm running things since its inception ) and the football centric schools. Syracuse was conflicted when the dominos fell as they had a Coach in Boeheim that was concerned with the impact on his basketball program, but the football people wanted to go . As for this " pledge to stay " , all schools were doing this for public consumption, but behind the scenes were negotiating behind the scenes to get into the ACC..... Uconn's President later was likewise publically telling of their " pledge to the BE", while that morning ( and later that evening ) the Pres. was working the phones with the ACC Office to see if they had a spot for them. And look, I hold no animosity for UCONN... or any school for that matter... to do what they believe is in their school's self interest. Its not " evil " nor " a betrayal " to decide to leave a job, a league, a company, etc. Its required to do what is perceived to be in one's best interests in these things. Uconn did not " betray " the Atlantic 10 when it left that league for a hoped for better situation in the BE, nor did it consdider the impact of their leaving on that league, its other teams, nor the impact on northeast, and N.E. Football. Uconn did not attempt to set out to " to destroy the Atlantic 10 " with its actions. That'd be silly to draw such a conclusion from their exit from that league. Nor should they have been expected to remain loyal to a league once others left, or they decided to leave on their own.. This is how I assess all this anyway.

 

[ZooCougar]

When UConn left the A 10, they did it in a way that was transparent. You guys pledged to stick around and at the same time you were actively working to accomplish the opposite.

If you guys had maintained that you would leave at the next opportunity this wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[Yawkey Way]

When UConn left the A 10, they did it in a way that was transparent. You guys pledged to stick around and at the same time you were actively working to accomplish the opposite.

If you guys had maintained that you would leave at the next opportunity this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I do not disagree that BC was publically pledging loyalty to the BE, while simultaneously behind the scenes making an attempt to position itself well once it became readily apparent that the dominos were about to fall with Miami telling BC it was leaving the BE. Uconn also was pledging loyalty to the BE publically, while also seeking opportunities for itself in other leagues behind the scenes. I do not begrudge Uconn for saying one thing publically, while reports surfaced that their actions behind the scenes were contrary to their public statements. The only difference I see between BC's actions re. public expressions of loyalty to the BE, and Uconn's expressions of pledge to the BE was which school did it first. Other than that, its a difference without much of a difference it seems to me.

 

[ZooCougar]

I do not disagree that BC was publically pledging loyalty to the BE, while simultaneously behind the scenes making an attempt to position itself well once it became readily apparent that the dominos were about to fall with Miami telling BC it was leaving the BE. Uconn also was pledging loyalty to the BE publically, while also seeking opportunities for itself in other leagues. I do not begrudge Uconn for saying one thing publically, while reports surfaced that their actions behind the scenes were contrary to their public statements. The only difference I see between BC's actions re. public expressions of loyalty to the BE, and Uconn's expressions of pledge to the BE was which school did it first. Other than that, its a difference without much of a difference it seems to me.

There is no proof of what your are saying about UConn, and if there was then the lawsuit would have been thrown out.

What you are saying is that it's ok in this climate to not be transparent and and be duplicitous. Clearly your values are different than ours. To each his own.

 

[Yawkey Way]

There is no proof of what your are saying about UConn, and if there was then the lawsuit would have been thrown out.

What you are saying is that it's ok in this climate to not be transparent and and be duplicitous. Clearly your values are different than ours. To each his own.

Uconn pledged its commitment to the BE publically, but behind the scenes was working to see if it could secure a spot in the ACC. Its true. If you do not believe this, then thats your choice to not believe it, but the facts remain. And again, I do not begrudge Uconn for saying one thing in public, but doing something in its planning behind the scenes in attempts to better itself as it perceives it to be.. If I'm looking for a new job, and my boss asks me how pledged I am to the current Co, I'm telling him that" I'm pledged" ... until the other job is locked up and I can publically announce I've found a new job. How many Coaches ( or recruits ) over the years tell us they are" pledged" to a school but behind the scenes are looking for a better opportunity ? Hundreds would you say ? perhaps thousands ? If you believe that BC is singularly different on how they conduct themselves then perhaps its your limited expereience with the real world, I don't know.

 

[buddy]

The notion that BC materially effected the events in Virginia as to who got into the ACC is simply preposterous. It just is. It assigns BC power and influence with the ACC that you believe it to have, but simple logic and basic reasoning should tell you that BC does not have such unilateral power and influence to shape events in the ACC.... especially down in the state of Virginia. BOTH Virginia schools got in after Miami was in and BEFORE BC was even invited. BC was not invited until many months later after the 2 Virginia schools got in. Nobody in Virginia, not in the ACC offices, were taking instructions from BC on who gets in the ACC, and when. It would be silly to believe so. And if the ACC decided to invite Uconn to the ACC tomorrow, BC by its lonesome could not stop the ACC Commish from doing what he and the other schools want to do regarding inviting Uconn. You give BC way more power and influence to shape events in the ACC than they could possibly dream of singularly having for themselves. They have no such unilateral power and influence on who gets in, or who is to stay out of the ACC ( but.... ND does have this national stature and with that comes power, influence, and leverage it can utilize re. the ACC decision making processes ...although thats for another discussion topic beyond the scope of this one re. BC. )

If you can go back to news archives from that time period, you will see that the State of Virginia required VTech to be included or VA would have been a no vote for BC and Miami. As far as BC's influence, how can you deny the former AD's statement that he was responsible for UConn's denial of admission when the ACC wanted Cuse and UConn, but took Pitt instead to placate him?

 

[ZooCougar]

Uconn pledged its commitment to the BE publically, but behind the scenes was working to see if it could secure a spot in the ACC. Its true. If you do not believe this, then thats your choice to not believe it.

Are you going to present some proof? This myth has been promulgated by BC fans over the years, it's never been substantiated, and you guys always roll it out during this phase of the discussion.

 

[BC1978]

When UConn left the A 10, they did it in a way that was transparent. You guys pledged to stick around and at the same time you were actively working to accomplish the opposite.

If you guys had maintained that you would leave at the next opportunity this wouldn't even be a discussion.

Well....if you read the BE's own meeting minutes for the fall 2003 meeting, BC did, in fact, express dissatisfaction with the hybrid structure of the BE and indicate they were going to reach back out to the ACC, so they did make their intentions known.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say you are correct and BC did "work behind the scenes" saying one thing and doing another. Just how would that be any different than what was ultimately done by VT, WVU, SU, Pitt, and Rutgers? or Maryland in the ACC? None of these school came out and indicated that they intended to leave the BE "at the next opportunity." They just left. Heck, VT WAS A PLAINTIFF IN THE LAWSUIT, while at the same time working the back channels with the ACC - ultimately leading to VT joining the same Conference they were suing.

BC was not the only FB school frustrated by the hybrid nature of the BE. As it turns out, ALL SEVEN OF THE FB SCHOOLS that had been in the BE prior to 2004 left the BE as soon as a lifeboat was available to them (Temple, as you know, was removed from the BE separately.) These moves were going to happen regardless of whatever BC did. What some posters here seem to feel is that BC was wrong because it should have ignored what was in its best interests and stayed in the BE. Yet, if they did that, it seems pretty clear that all that would have happened is that BC's spot would have been taken by another school. This wasn't going to happen as BC is no different than any other school and will make decisions that are in their best interests. To expect or demand otherwise is silly, IMO.

 

[Waquoit]

I can't read all this nonsense from the BCU trolls, but did any of them mention academics? That was the reason given for their dishonest backstabbing by their president at the time - Lyin' Leahy.

 

[4BostonEagle]

That's just it. The dominos didn't need to.fall. Miami, FB king at the time, could have gone and the BE would have thrived.

At the critical moment when the remaining programs were discussing hanging together and making plans and commitments to do that, BC was the first to break ranks after Syracuse pledged to stay. There was a level of betrayal there that has yet to be equaled in this CR saga.

Everyone else had some measure of justification for moving. BC as it has played out, didn't. They are worse off by almost any measure save TV money, which a full strength BE would have received anyway. Pitt is about as close as any other school gets, for sabotaging the ESPN deal then jumping ship.

So much misinformation on here that it's comical. I will say that UCONN fans stick to their talking points like no one else. Don't get me wrong though this board is hilarious and always good for a laugh as long as you don't mind fiction. I can only imagine what UCONN fans would be saying if they ever beat BC in football or were ranked at the end of the year in football. The SEC would be kicking Tennessee out so UCONN could join.

 

[Yawkey Way]

If you can go back to news archives from that time period, you will see that the State of Virginia required VTech to be included or VA would have been a no vote for BC and Miami. As far as BC's influence, how can you deny the former AD's statement that he was responsible for UConn's denial of admission when the ACC wanted Cuse and UConn, but took Pitt instead to placate him?

You assign more power and influence to BC in who the Commish, his Board, and the other School Presidents decide who ultimately comes in. School Presidents are the ones that decide who gets the invite. BC has no ability, neither then nor now, to unilaterally keep UCONN of of the ACC, or any other league or that matter. To believe that BC has this leverage in the ACC just seems silly to me. I'm sure BC wishes they had such power, but UCONN'S fans belief notwithstanding, BC has no such power to keep a school out. They are 1 vote.. no more.

 

[Yawkey Way]

So much misinformation on here that it's comical. I will say that UCONN fans stick to their talking points like no one else. Don't get me wrong though this board is hilarious and always good for a laugh as long as you don't mind fiction. I can only imagine what UCONN fans would be saying if they ever beat BC in football or were ranked at the end of the year in football. The SEC would be kicking Tennessee out so UCONN could join.

What if BC's " pledge and loyalty to remain inthe BE" became a reality back then. What if they said no after Miami left... then VT... then Virginia. BC makes a pact with Syracuse to " pledge to the BE". BC declines an invite to the ACC, ( perhaps Syracuse too ). Then the ACC turns to Uconn and invites UCONN. What coould we expect Uconn to do ? Say, " no, we are committed to bringing back the interest of New England College football , and as such we are looking to play them every year instead ".

. Uconn wouldn't have thrown us overboard. They'd have declined an invite. They can be trusted. We believe in them.. as we're all in this together. So UCONN would have declined an invite to the ACC if it came in my opinion if this was the case.

Sure thing.

 

[SubbaBub]

Once Pitt/Cuse left it was over. Wvu, UL, godspeed, we certainly would have and tried to have done the same. Wvu and UL were open about exploring other offers, the C7 were open about splitting off and UConn, Cincy, USF were open about jumping the AAC, if presented.

Climbing out of the rubble is a different circumstance than dropping a grenade and fleeing the building, which is what BC did while participating in BE reorganizational strategy meetings.
There isn't enough on the public record to accurately describe how Pitt/Cuse's defection was related to the BE's decision to refuse ESPN's offer, but it looks very much like one institution (Pitt) knew it was leaving when it voted. If Cuse was offered by the ACC with the condition that we will take UConn if you say no, then I can't blame them either.

But, I haven't seen a definitive account of that. BC's behavior is well documented.

 

[4BostonEagle]

I can't read all this nonsense from the BCU trolls, but did any of them mention academics? That was the reason given for their dishonest backstabbing by their president at the time - Lyin' Leahy.

Clearly the ACC was willing to overlook academics in this case instead of bringing in the school that spearheaded the lawsuit. Actions do have consequences just like the last time BC played at UCONN in football. I know plenty of people that were there and it wasn't pretty. Boston fans have long memories.

 

[Waquoit]

The message I get from the BCU trolls is that the ends justify the means. Just be honest for a change.

 

[BC1978]

Once Pitt/Cuse left it was over. Wvu, UL, godspeed, we certainly would have and tried to have done the same. Wvu and UL were open about exploring other offers, the C7 were open about splitting off and UConn, Cincy, USF were open about jumping the AAC, if presented.

Climbing out of the rubble is a different circumstance than dropping a grenade and fleeing the building, which is what BC did while participating in BE reorganizational strategy meetings.
There isn't enough on the public record to accurately describe how Pitt/Cuse's defection was related to the BE's decision to refuse ESPN's offer, but it looks very much like one institution (Pitt) knew it was leaving when it voted. If Cuse was offered by the ACC with the condition that we will take UConn if you say no, then I can't blame them either.

But, I haven't seen a definitive account of that. BC's behavior is well documented.

NONE of these other schools were "open" that they were "exploring offers" until after their leaving was a fait accompli. Sure, there were press rumors regarding some of these schools (especially Rutgers) as well as a number of others. However, NONE of thee schools released statements ahead of time saying they were intending to leave the BE and speak with other conferences.

Go back and look at the BE's own meeting minutes. BC signed on to an all-sport conference in the summer of 2003. When that direction changed to the hybrid arrangement in the fall of 2003, BC indicated it could not accept it and would reach back to the ACC. This is what is in the BE's own meeting minutes!

If I understand your view of things correctly:

• Miami initiated the BE departures - without any prenotification. But they get a pass.
• VT signs on to the lawsuit as a plaintiff while obviously working the back channels with the ACC. They suddenly announce they are pulling out of the lawsuit against the ACC and joining them. But they get a pass.
• SU, Pitt, and WVU all leave the BE without any prior indication. This occurs within a relatively short time after the BE FB members reportedly vote down an ESPN contract offer. But they all get a pass.

When BC left the BE, Miami and VT, the two top teams in the BE were already gone. By then, IMO, ALL of the FB teams were looking for a lifeboat - and subsequent events prove this to be true.

You can hate on BC, of course, but the facts surrounding the implosion of BE FB are pretty clear. BC was looking out for its best interests. JUST like all of the other FB schools were doing. To suggest otherwise is simply to ignore the facts and how events played out. - simply because you don't like BC.

 

[ZooCougar]

Well....if you read the BE's own meeting minutes for the fall 2003 meeting, BC did, in fact, express dissatisfaction with the hybrid structure of the BE and indicate they were going to reach back out to the ACC, so they did make their intentions known.

For the sake of argument, however, let's say you are correct and BC did "work behind the scenes" saying one thing and doing another. Just how would that be any different than what was ultimately done by VT, WVU, SU, Pitt, and Rutgers? or Maryland in the ACC? None of these school came out and indicated that they intended to leave the BE "at the next opportunity." They just left. Heck, VT WAS A PLAINTIFF IN THE LAWSUIT, while at the same time working the back channels with the ACC - ultimately leading to VT joining the same Conference they were suing.

BC was not the only FB school frustrated by the hybrid nature of the BE. As it turns out, ALL SEVEN OF THE FB SCHOOLS that had been in the BE prior to 2004 left the BE as soon as a lifeboat was available to them (Temple, as you know, was removed from the BE separately.) These moves were going to happen regardless of whatever BC did. What some posters here seem to feel is that BC was wrong because it should have ignored what was in its best interests and stayed in the BE. Yet, if they did that, it seems pretty clear that all that would have happened is that BC's spot would have been taken by another school. This wasn't going to happen as BC is no different than any other school and will make decisions that are in their best interests. To expect or demand otherwise is silly, IMO.

BC pledged to be a leader in what was left of the conference and at the same time it was double dealing. What it did was different because of the timeframe.

When Rutgers announced it was leaving and when Pitt and SU announced it was leaving UConn was pretty forthright about wanting out.

I think BC was a bit dishonest, but I also think it's ancient history. I can't see a BC fan ever owning up to that and there is really no need to. Everyone expects everyone to look out for their own best interests, but you should do it in a way that it is transparent.

Now... I am in total agreeance with you guys that this thing was dead when Miami left. It wasn't a matter of if but when. The damage had been in the years leading up to the raid because the conference wasn't particularly well run. Swofford saw a chance to eliminated the other eastern power conference and he did it. If there was another power conference on the west coast then I think you would have seen the PAC 12 eat them too or the other way around.

 

[BC1978]

BC pledged to be a leader in what was left of the conference and at the same time it was double dealing. What it did was different because of the timeframe.

When Rutgers announced it was leaving and when Pitt and SU announced it was leaving UConn was pretty forthright about wanting out.

I think BC was a bit dishonest, but I also think it's ancient history. I can't see a BC fan ever owning up to that and there is really no need to. Everyone expects everyone to look out for their own best interests, but you should do it in a way that it is transparent.

Now... I am in total agreeance with you guys that this thing was dead when Miami left. It wasn't a matter of if but when. The damage had been in the years leading up to the raid because the conference wasn't particularly well run. Swofford saw a chance to eliminated the other eastern power conference and he did it. If there was another power conference on the west coast then I think you would have seen the PAC 12 eat them too or the other way around.

ZooCougar - we aren't going to agree here. Both of us have stated are positions, so we can agree to disagree.

One question I do have. If you think BC was "double dealing", why do you and so many others on here give a pass to VT. They were a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Miami, BC, and the ACC - all the while apparently working the back channels to secure an ACC invite for themselves. I mean you have the incredible situation where they were part of lawsuit against the ACC - and 24 hours later they were a member of the ACC. Question: Did you consider that "double dealing" and, if so, why do they get a pass from you and others?

 

[ZooCougar]

ZooCougar - we aren't going to agree here. Both of us have stated are positions, so we can agree to disagree.

One question I do have. If you think BC was "double dealing", why do you and so many others on here give a pass to VT. They were a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against Miami, BC, and the ACC - all the while apparently working the back channels to secure an ACC invite for themselves. I mean you have incredible situation where they were part of lawsuit against the ACC - and 24 hours later they were a member of the ACC. Question: Did you consider that "double dealing" and, if so, why do they get a pass from you and others?

No, because it wasn't like they were standing up and saying that they were on board.

We're at an impasse, and have been that way for like 8 years. The AG isn't AG anymore, UConn has a different AD and President. Flipper is gone. It just seems ridiculous for either side to continue to hold a grudge. I don't expect Warde Manual to go hat in hand to BC to beg for a football series. When both sides feel like it is a good idea then I think there will be little trouble in making it happen.

I also think it's a bit ridiculous for fans, donors and other people peripherally connected to either program to hate eachother over this when all of the principal players aren't even in the picture. It's just childish.

I read an old BCinterruption post about how BC should leave Hockey East because they added ND and UConn. The idiot BC Fans in the comment section are still angry over the suit, it's just stupid. Get over yourselves already.

BTW, we won't be at the bottom in Hockey East, not saying we will compete for the conference championship early in, but we won't be the worst team by a wide margin.

 

[Yawkey Way]

.

Now... I am in total agreeance with you guys that this thing was dead when Miami left. It wasn't a matter of if but when. .

Exactly. Miami wasn't seeking instructions from BC on what Miami felt was the best route to take for their school where football is king, and basketball is barely on their radar screen. And Miami didn't make their decision to leave based upon anything going on in Storrs, CT either. But once Miami had had enough of the BE and decided to leave for the ACC, the handwriting was on the wall. BC anticipated the BE fall with the loss of Miami football to the whole thing,and as events turned out, they were correct that the dominos were about to fall. Not only did BC assess it this way, but so didn't the schools in Virginia and they moved swiftly once Miami left... and got themseolves in, months before BC got their invite. Of course BC was feining support of the BE publically. What else could they say publically at the time ? And UCONN last year was claiming fidelity to the BE while it was working behind the scenes to secure a spot for itself in either the ACC or the Big too. Some reports had AD Perkins inquiring about the ACC's interest in UCONN just aas soon as he got the word that Miami football was a goner to the ACC. If true, who could blame him ? And wouldn't Uconn football fans have hoped that Perkins would have at least inquired back then on the interest of the ACC in Uconn, once it became clear that Miami was leaving, and irrespective of whatever it was that BC was doing at the time ? My guess, Perkins WAS pro active for his school, and did indeed inquire with the ACC if the ACC was interested in Uconn, once he heard that Miami was a goner. This surely would have been the sensible thing for the Uconn AD to do once he got the word that Miami was gone to the ACC. This would be my sense of things back then, anyway.

 

[Yawkey Way]

Are you going to present some proof? This myth has been promulgated by BC fans over the years, it's never been substantiated, and you guys always roll it out during this phase of the discussion.

Swofford, the Commish of the AC, is on record that he got an inquiry from Perkins, the AD of Uconn, about the interest of the ACC with UCONN once he got news that Miami was leaving for the ACC. Its even found in the defendant court documents in the BE lawsuit. Now, you are entitled to disbelieve this. This is your perogative. But if you disbelieve this, then you might want to ask yourself " why WOULDN'T Perkins do his best due diligence on behalf of his school to try to get UCONN into the ACC at that juncture, or at least pick up the phone and make a pitch and an inquiry about Uconn to the ACC, once Miami bolted ? ". Thats because if you don't accept the info as valid that Perkins tried to get Uconn into the ACC once Miami left, then that begs the question for UCONN football fans : " well...why didn't he " ?