UCONN scheduled UMASS to a hoop series when UMASS was at its peak 10-15 years ago. Toe-to-toe, two of the then best programs in the country. Something like a 5 game series. Unfortunately for UMASS the Ws in that series went entirely to UCONN and it was not renewed. Might very well have been in UCONN's interest not to move forward, but we had plenty of regional games as a member of the Big East. UCONN ducked nothing! I believe UMASS is on future schedules for football, although I don't really know what that has to do with anything.
The point is this. BC has deliberately and has stated as such it's desire to keep UCONN out of major college athletics to protect its perceived interests. It's words and deeds have made that very clear. Your argument that UCONN would do the same, I think, is just plain wrong. And, more to the point, you're argument is that the behavior is OK because somebody else might do it.
Small, insular = ethically challenged
Oh, come on Uconn.
Uconn did play Umass 10-15 years ago. They also played Umass a couple of times earlier in the new millenium. Umass actually won one of those games, beating a ranked Uconn team. Since those couple of games, Uconn has studiously avoided the #2 BB program in New England. Sure, they have played lots of other New England games, which makes their obvious avoidance of the #2 New England team even more glaring, IMO. Again, that's my point.
BC trying to keep Uconn out of a major conference? Hey, I am sure that BC would be opposed to Uconn coming to the ACC (GDF said as much). But so what? Uconn is a competitor in the market and its not BC's job to aid them. How is that different from say, UF and FSU or S. Carolina and Clemson.
You seem to forget that when BC wanted to first jump to the ACC, Uconn took the lead in a lawsuit to prevent BC from moving out of the BE - a move that successfully delayed BC for a year. A lot of BC fans were quite upset by this suit. While I was angered by the inflammatory tone of the suit, ("conspiracies", "schemes", etc.) and the fact that individuals were sued PERSONALLY, I always understood that the plaintiffs were going to aggressively pursue their best interests; so I understood the nature of the suit. If the lawsuit was ultimately successful, it would have prevented BC from moving to the ACC (it almost did) and would have been very harmful to BC. But that's the nature of the business. IMO, Uconn fans need to realize that other schools are also going to play hardball as well when it suits their best interests. IMO, Uconn does not have a lock on playing hardball.
Look, I know is hard, but look at it from BC's point of view. Uconn was part of an effort that tried very hard to prevent BC from moving to the ACC. Now, when it suits them, Uconn fans would like BC to forget this and "do right by Uconn." Excuse me, but when did Uconn "do right by BC"? (This would probably also would apply to Miami, IMO.)
Besides, BC is ONE VOTE out of 14 in the ACC. The suggestion that BC is singularly keeping Uconn out of the ACC doesn't pass the sniff test. Also, BC has no say whatsoever about Uconn getting into the BiG or B12, so that doesn't pass the sniff test either.
Imo, the issue of "ethically challenged" is nonsense, unless you want to make the case that ALL of big-time college athletics involve "ethical challenges"!
