So BC is not irrelevant in the ACC? I thought your opinion was that BC is irrelevant in the ACC. Or are the statements by the fired AD just a figment of his imagination and his self importance?
Its not denial. Its logic based on facts. 75% yes votes required in a 12 team league means 4 were against you. BC and at least 3 others. It could have been more than 4. Jacobs in a column in the last 2 weeks stated that ACC BB coaches lined up against Uconn the last time around too. Or is that just an inconvenient fact that should be ignored too?
It does not matter. The belief of Uconn fans that they have far and away the best qualities to be included in the P5 probably reflects just a little bias. Saying you were in until one person said no just makes no logical sense to me. Because if that were the case, Uconn would be in another P5 conference today if they were the best possible candidate..
I want Uconn in a P5 conference. I want a lot of things personally too. I work hard and plan and sometimes I get them and sometimes I don't. Uconn is not getting in right now for lack of effort. I don't think they were left out last time for lack of effort either. Sometimes things just are and sometimes they are not fair. When that happens to me, I set out to show how the "unjust" and "unfair" decision doesn't matter. As Boyle tweeted, One door closes, another opens.
You have me confused with someone else. I have no idea what you're responding to about who is irrelevant or what not.
I gave you a link that totally contradicted what you said earlier, and you still counter it.
If you've ever been in a committee vote, you very well know that you are there to protect your school's interests. When someone else signals to you that their school's interests are being encroached and threatened by the topic under discussion, you defer to them. Why? Because you expect the same deference when something threatens your interests. This is just the way committees run. Especially if there is another viable alternative, like Pitt. The article was clear when it quoted people saying that Pitt was very viable as an alternative to UConn, so there was no reason to encroach on BCs interests.
We also know that this was a long held concern by BC. Bob Ryan reported as far back as 2002 that people inside the BC AD were very concerned that UConn would become dominant in New England. This article just takes the temperature of the times as to what was happening in 2011.
In fact, this DeFillippo article wasn't even a surprise to many on this board, since we were following what a Rutgers insider was writing on the Villanova board. Long before this article, he wrote that UConn was the choice but that they were being blocked. For some reason, this was a Villanova-Rutgers argument back in 2011, and the Insider went into detail about it and even named BC as the blocker. We paid it a little attention but in retrospect it was clear the Rutgers insider knew what he was talking about.
Finally, the BC block didn't matter in 2013. BC did speak up to block UConn again. Remember, as the Louisville AD said, UConn was "penned in" as a new member. So they were wanted twice. BC again spoke up against them, and there were indeed words of anger at BC from Virginia and UNC's AD at the time. But it was also clear that Clemson, FSU and perhaps others didn't want UConn.
So, this is twice that the ACC had prepared to admit UConn, in 2011, and in 2013, and both times others came in and blocked it. BC in 2011, and FSU/Clemson w/ BC in 2013.
