- Joined
- Apr 27, 2013
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction Score
- 804
@Gfunk I'm sorry, but the fact that Rutgers is in the B1G with an ACC team in Maryland is proof enough that either UNC and or UVA turned them down.
Just look at the facts. NC, VA, NJ have similar populations and similar talent pools. UVA and UNC are more prestigious institutions.
Oh, and while UVA doesn't have much to write home about, it certainly is no where near the ineptitude of Rutgers athletics.
So given all those facts, I'd like to hear how you can say UNC/UVA weren't asked first?
Because I'm one of those ultra stubborn types who needs absolute written proof that invitations were extended and then subsequently rejected
The facts you mention, aren't exactly "facts" but more opinions based on perception, which is always filled with a bit truth and a bit myth - it's what we choose to believe. As I've said in previous posts, Md absolutely measures up to UVa - they have more NCAA titles, they've beaten them, head-to-head, in sports like men's basketball and football & by substantial all-time margins, including victories this season. Md also has a noticeably stronger and more prestigious graduate school than UVa. But at the end of the day, both these universities are high quality and they certainly fulfill their ongoing missions. I don't think we'll ever truly know the extent of UVa and UNC to the BIG & while a "black box" on expansion politics and discussion will be nice to see someday, released to the public, it likely won't happen.
For the very reasons you mention, the "prestige" of UVa and UNC" serve as a cautionary reminder that the BIG would ultimately put themselves in a public, documented context, seeking their membership. It's one thing to put feelers out there, even formal ones, but to go full scale with such desires-intents is a whole different level. I can't imagine any institution-organization spending the necessary resources, part of which are economic in nature, to only get a rejection. The BIG learned their lesson with ND. I also think the BIG recognizes the overall strengths of UNC and UVa, the power they collectively share to ensure the ACC's relevance on the college athletics landscape - sometimes a conference as a whole exceeds it's individual members, more specifically a folded ACC as opposed to a viable one, would ultimately be bad for college athletics & also suggest that history & tradition don't matter. I don't think these conference administrators want to go down this road so much anymore - the death of the Classic Big East produced a lot of negative, permanent damage, thus punitive exit fees and GOR's somewhat make sense to me. If the BIG were to add UConn tomorrow, no doubt major criticisms and public dislike towards the BIG would unfold, esp by AAC members and fans who have plenty to cheer about in terms of the AAC's accomplishments in just less than a year. Would most UConn fans be happy, sure, but that doesn't mean SMU, Memphis, or Cincy fans would be happy.
Speculation then entertaining Internet reaction, at best - that's how I feel about expansion & such will be the way it works from this point on - there's a lot at stake in these expansions, much of it quite sensitive in nature. I won't deny my participation, including right now. But I'm more interested in practical expansion at this point, as I'd really like to see UConn in the BIG & feel such a move would be rather beneficial to both parties. Breaking up the ACC is not a good move by the BIG at this point, anyone for that matter, yes even the mighty SEC who has much stronger cultural ties to the ACC. Such moves will only be met with tremendous negative reaction. I mean Md's move to the BIG, originally, was exceptionally negative on both fronts: all things Md & then the reactions of typical BIG fans, esp the regionalist types.