Why will the ACC fall apart? The UConn principle.

[UCFBfan]

Because they would have been left out like UConn otherwise, and this would be called the Louisville principle, not the UConn principle.

lol.....I hear you but I just feel that if the ACC was really this vunerable, Louisville would not have bought in. Maybe their hand was forced and they were truly hoping the B12 would come calling. I guess I feel that every praises Jurich as if he's the role model AD and yet he would make the choice to join a soon to be dead conference? It doesn't add up....but then again, being in our current spot is atrocious and it just might not be worth taking the risk....

 

[Adios]

lol.....I hear you but I just feel that if the ACC was really this vunerable, Louisville would not have bought in. Maybe their hand was forced and they were truly hoping the B12 would come calling. I guess I feel that every praises Jurich as if he's the role model AD and yet he would make the choice to join a soon to be dead conference? It doesn't add up....but then again, being in our current spot is atrocious and it just might not be worth taking the risk....

That probably has to do with instant gratification. Making fans happy, making more money as soon as possible. Even if the ACC falls apart, Louisville still would probably have a shot at the Big 12.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

For those young uns around here, I'm not particularly found of Ms. Shalala, but it's nothing personal, I don't like the way she blackballed our university. But that doesn't mean I don't respect her. I also understand that my university brought it entirely upon ourselves by helping put Dick Blumenthal in charge of a lawsuit against the U and the ACC, and BC back in 2003.

The modern tricky dick was all too happy and motivated to take the point and go public with his lawsuit, to draw publicity just like he always did, with everythign he did, and actively, and strongly questioned Shalala's personal integrity in public in 2003. This ass hat, that actively lied about his service in Vietnam to promote himself, was actively knocking and questioning the integrity of a career politician and educator, through a large scale lawsuit - a woman who had worked in the white house as a presidential cabinet member for the past decade, and had worked under previous presidents as well, and actually - actually had a hell of a lot of integrity.

She was actually very clear and concise about her intentions with Miami all along. She wanted a travel arrangment that made better sense for the university, she wanted better security of cash revenue streams through athletics, and she wanted a confrence with better academic communication and academic partenrship within the conference. The ACC provided that. Miami was never a natural fit for the Big East, and the Big East, literally did nothing to help the situation.

Blumenthal went out and attacked her integrity, and Shalala said that Miami would never play a football game at Connecticut. I'm pretty sure that Big Jim's statement about never playing BC again, was sparked by that.

Miami had the chance in the very early 1990's to go to the Big East, the ACC or the SEC. They opted for the Big East, because most of their student population came from the northeast - particularly New Yawk. The chose the Big East.

Don't blame Blumenthal. He did the right thing. The ACC was nothing more than preditory practice designed to destroy Big East Basketball so that they could resume their past role as the dominent hoops conference. UConn had just invested millions and was (is now) going to be harmed.

You want to blame someone, blame the weak-kneed judges and court interpretations. The Old USFL (Steve Young, Herschal, Jim Kelly, Steve Spurrier) wins a major antitrust case against the NFL in the mid-80s and should have been positioned to negotiate a merger at worst. The courts decide on damages of $1 and treble damages of $3. A flippin disgrace to the American Judicial System. The "fix" was obviously in and the judge and the court where in on it.

Relevance for today? The court should have told Miami (and Shalala) that they were free "never to play a game in Connecticut" as long as they were willing to be saddled with a forfeiture each time they were a no show. That would have "shut her up" quickly. Oh and the message to Miami, BCU and VT (and even SU who was testing the water) should have been a judical pronouncement that they could play in the Big East or play in no conference at all. Take your pick.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Blumenthal saved the Big East for 7 years. That UConn did not make it happen for themselves in that period is UConn's fault, not Blumenthal's. Regardless, the lawsuit is not the problem because every other school that joined that lawsuit ended up just fine.

It is kind of silly to have a thread about why the ACC split up when the ACC is not going to split up.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Miami had the chance in the very early 1990's to go to the Big East, the ACC or the SEC. They opted for the Big East, because most of their student population came from the northeast - particularly New Yawk. The chose the Big East.

Don't blame Blumenthal. He did the right thing. The ACC was nothing more than preditory practice designed to destroy Big East Basketball so that they could resume their past role as the dominent hoops conference. UConn had just invested millions and was (is now) going to be harmed.

You want to blame someone, blame the weak-kneed judges and court interpretations. The Old USFL (Steve Young, Herschal, Jim Kelly, Steve Spurrier) wins a major antitrust case against the NFL in the mid-80s and should have been positioned to negotiate a merger at worst. The courts decide on damages of $1 and treble damages of $3. A flippin disgrace to the American Judicial System. The "fix" was obviously in and the judge and the court where in on it.

Relevance for today? The court should have told Miami (and Shalala) that they were free "never to play a game in Connecticut" as long as they were willing to be saddled with a forfeiture each time they were a no show. That would have "shut her up" quickly. Oh and the message to Miami, BCU and VT (and even SU who was testing the water) should have been a judical pronouncement that they could play in the Big East or play in no conference at all. Take your pick.

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. THe USFL thing happened because Donald Trump went head to head with some other big time business people, with serious connections, and lost big time. Nothing new for the Donald - he's always been a risk taker with bigger balls than brains. The professional football world could be entirely different than it is now, if not for Trump's ego. The USFL was poised to be a major competitor to the NFL, but Trump decided he wanted to go head to head with the NFL, and lost.

And make no mistake, just because the subject matter at hand might be be billions of dollars, entire state universities and private universities, attorney generals, and united states president cabinet advisors, dealings are no different than when you get two or more ego's clashing over what movie to watch on a friday night among teenagers. The power players in the current intercollegiate athletics world, are all driven by ego.

Things would be a lot different for UConn right now, I believe whole heartedly, had Dick Blumenthal's ego (and frankly Jim Calhoun's too) not been at the forefront of how business was handled in 2003.

As for the actual subject matter, yes - UConn had invested a ton of money and stood a chance to lose out on it. The fact is that we didn't. It could have and should have been handled much differently. The problem, as always with the Big East, was that people believed basketball trumped football, and in 2003, UConn football was non-existent and it was foolish for the CT AG and UConn leadership to get into an arena like we did, and pretend it did.

Times are different now, but read this NY Times piece in 2003. UConn football isn't even mentioned as a hope for maintaining viable Big East football confernce, because we were non-existent in the national landscape, although our leadership made it the centerpiece of that lawsuit against a multiple national championship football program.

We have proved the MIami AD completely wrong in the past 10 years, and we need to continue building, but going into that lawsuit in 2003 with all guns blazing,is a major, major reason we stand alone as a founding member of the Big EAst right now.

All we can do, is continue to win, and prove the naysayers wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/01/s...ft-of-power-expected.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

 

[RMoore1999]

Blumenthal saved the Big East for 7 years. That UConn did not make it happen for themselves in that period is UConn's fault, not Blumenthal's. Regardless, the lawsuit is not the problem because every other school that joined that lawsuit ended up just fine.

It is kind of silly to have a thread about why the ACC split up when the ACC is not going to split up.

Depends on your definition of "split", I guess. 6-12+ teams leaving constitutes a split in my book. I'd be interested in learning more about the perspective that doesn't see the ACC schools at some point leaving for more revenue potential.

 

[freescooter]

I guess these doomsday scenarios could come to pass, but I think it's pretty unlikely that the ACC will lose 6 teams (who in heavens name would want to take Miami?) to the Big 12 and another 4 to the Big 10. I guess its possible, bu tI htink its highly unlikely. A much more reasonable scenario would be for the Big 12 to take a couple of ACC teams to get to 12, at least in the short term. And they will be easily replaced. The ACC has had a strategy and they've been pretty aggressive in following it. While they might have the occassional setback I think they are in a very good position to survive.

 

[businesslawyer]

upstater? bueller? I'm curious. to my knowledge, shalala's been rock solid with the ACC for a long time, but she's an old lady now, and the U is in trouble with the NCAA so who knows? Really wondering what made you right that Miami wants to move.

For those young uns around here, I'm not particularly found of Ms. Shalala, but it's nothing personal, I don't like the way she blackballed our university. But that doesn't mean I don't respect her. I also understand that my university brought it entirely upon ourselves by helping put Dick Blumenthal in charge of a lawsuit against the U and the ACC, and BC back in 2003.

The modern tricky dick was all too happy and motivated to take the point and go public with his lawsuit, to draw publicity just like he always did, with everythign he did, and actively, and strongly questioned Shalala's personal integrity in public in 2003. This ass hat, that actively lied about his service in Vietnam to promote himself, was actively knocking and questioning the integrity of a career politician and educator, through a large scale lawsuit - a woman who had worked in the white house as a presidential cabinet member for the past decade, and had worked under previous presidents as well, and actually - actually had a hell of a lot of integrity. She despised the pettiness and crap of Tranghese and the big east leadership. She called the negotiations and dealings that went on in that time some of the goofiest and strange political dealings she'd ever encountered. I have no reason to doubt her.

She was actually very clear and concise about her intentions with Miami all along. She wanted a travel arrangment that made better sense for the university, she wanted better security of cash revenue streams through athletics, and she wanted a confrence with better academic communication and academic partenrship within the conference. The ACC provided that. Miami was never a natural fit for the Big East, and the Big East, literally did nothing to help the situation.

Tranghese was pissed off in 2003, b/c he had put together a deal with Big East membership, which would have paid Miami I think $10 mill more than the Big East was revenue sharing agreement an for 5 years from 2003-2008 to keep them, but Shalala still was packing up and leaving. (Kind of similar to what Boise just did with the MWC)

Blumenthal went out and attacked her integrity, and Shalala said that Miami would never play a football game at Connecticut. I'm pretty sure that Big Jim's statement about never playing BC again, was sparked by that.

She flat out lied to other Big East institutions about Miami's intentions and got them to spend money upgrading their programs, to Miami's benefits, by virtue of that lie.

Now, regardless of how you view her political career (and I think she did a good enough job while in Washington), why you wanted anyone to roll over and play dead in that scenario is beyond my comprehension. And Blumenthal's love for the camera (which is certainly true) is beyond irrelevant to whether the University of Connecticut, like Pitt and WVU and Vir Tech (before being invited) and Rutgers, needed to act to protect itself.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

What in the past actions of the ACC has defined them as being passive when it comes expansion and/or protection of the league?

BCU, Miami, Pitt, and Syracuse were all weak moves. Weak is the older cousin of passive. Passing on UConn, Rutgers, and WVU were passive (non) moves.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The Big 12 isn't sitting in the catbird seat and never was. In the pecking order they are number 3 behind the B1G and SEC. If I were them I would be proactive and go after the 4 or 6 schools they want, give them the sh#t or get off the pot ultimatum. Give FSU a choice to choose now or play the waiting game to go B1G or SEC. So far neither conference has shown interest in them. The one thing the ACC did well was to be aggressive (not sure they chose wisely) and not stand by.

Ultimatums are rarely the best method for changing cherished, long-held beliefs. Solid reasoning over time (years) is needed. Fortunately for the B12, they wouldn't be starting at square one. Evaluating one's conference affiliation has been going on for some time now. "Here's why you should join us..." is the B12's first move. Then assess the responses. Refine the message based on that assessment. Re-present the "Here's Why" case. Reassess the responses. Lather, rinse, repeat until a conslusion is clear.

 

[RMoore1999]

I guess these doomsday scenarios could come to pass, but I think it's pretty unlikely that the ACC will lose 6 teams (who in heavens name would want to take Miami?) to the Big 12 and another 4 to the Big 10. I guess its possible, bu tI htink its highly unlikely. A much more reasonable scenario would be for the Big 12 to take a couple of ACC teams to get to 12, at least in the short term. And they will be easily replaced. The ACC has had a strategy and they've been pretty aggressive in following it. While they might have the occassional setback I think they are in a very good position to survive.

I think it's more likely than not that at some point, SEC takes at least 2, B1G takes at least 1 and as many as 4, and B12 takes at least 2 and as many as 6.

Those conferences all seemingly generate a lot more revenue than the ACC, and I don't think 14 is a preferred # for any conference.

Absent Texas joining the P12, which i think is unlikely at least until the GOR expires, The only thing that can save the ACC long term is ND determining it prefers a less competitive all east coast conference to whatever form the B1G ultimately takes, and thus goes all in to save the league.

I guess time will tell.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ESPN wants the ACC to survive because ESPN gets more content for less money through the ACC than it would if the ACC split up. The demise of the Big East has proven this in spades. ESPN could have had 9 football schools and 17 basketball schools for roughly $150MM. It ended up paying for than that for Notre Dame basketball, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville alone through the ACC, and lost Rutgers, most of TCU and WVU, and the C7 in the process. I have seen lowball bids backfire before, but ESPN's screw up of the Big East negotiation is epic. Oh, and in the process, ESPN slapped the state of Connecticut in the face about a year after the state had provided $100MM in tax breaks and other subsidies.

ESPN could save the ACC for another $50 to $100 million. It will cost the worldwide leader a lot more than that to get comparable content back if the ACC splits up.

UConn's best hope is that it puts a full court press on ESPN to have ESPN put UConn into the ACC when the ACC TV deal is renegotiated in the next few months.

 

[RMoore1999]

ESPN wants the ACC to survive because ESPN gets more content for less money through the ACC than it would if the ACC split up. The demise of the Big East has proven this in spades. ESPN could have had 9 football schools and 17 basketball schools for roughly $150MM. It ended up paying for than that for Notre Dame basketball, Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville alone through the ACC, and lost Rutgers, most of TCU and WVU, and the C7 in the process. I have seen lowball bids backfire before, but ESPN's screw up of the Big East negotiation is epic. Oh, and in the process, ESPN slapped the state of Connecticut in the face about a year after the state had provided $100MM in tax breaks and other subsidies.

ESPN could save the ACC for another $50 to $100 million. It will cost the worldwide leader a lot more than that to get comparable content back if the ACC splits up.

UConn's best hope is that it puts a full court press on ESPN to have ESPN put UConn into the ACC when the ACC TV deal is renegotiated in the next few months.

It will be interesting to see if the likes of FSU, Miami, GTech, VTech and UVA decide to wait on espn to pony up, or whether they follow MD and take the plunge...

 

[zls44]

Yeah, ESPN really messed up the Big East negotiation when they turned down the billion dollar offer.

Oh, wait. That was the Big East.

 

[CTMike]

I need to know what you mean by the ACC surviving. Do you mean as currently constituted? Or do you mean like the Big East is, technically, still alive? There's a lot of gray in between.

If other conferences decide to extend invites to ACC members offering more money- who says no?

 

[Jericho]

The Big 12 isn't sitting in the catbird seat and never was. In the pecking order they are number 3 behind the B1G and SEC. If I were them I would be proactive and go after the 4 or 6 schools they want, give them the sh#t or get off the pot ultimatum. Give FSU a choice to choose now or play the waiting game to go B1G or SEC. So far neither conference has shown interest in them. The one thing the ACC did well was to be aggressive (not sure they chose wisely) and not stand by.

The problem remains that its an open question if anyone from the ACC wants to go Big 12. The Big 12 has two major points in its favor: (1) a decent TV contract; and (2) a large footprint in the best football territory in the nation, Texas. The points against it are as follows: (1) it's not geographically convenient; (2) it's an "inferior" academic conference; (3) it cannot start a network as long as the Longhorn Network exists; and (4) it still chased away four quality programs in Colorado, Missouri, Texas A&M, and Nebraska and nearly had the crown jewels, Oklahoma and Texas, voluntarily leave.

The Grant of Rights may help keep the current schools in place for the time being, but it is by no means a permanent answer. And without the big-time network money that the Big 10 makes, there's a limit on how much more money the Big 12 can actually provide ACC schools. There's no dought it's a higher number, but at what level does that higher number have to be to make a move worthwhile? Higher than I think the Big 12 can offer. At least based on the current ACC. If the SEC/Big 10 managed to get any more current ACC schools then that equation can change.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

UConn's best hope is that it puts a full court press on ESPN to have ESPN put UConn into the ACC when the ACC TV deal is renegotiated in the next few months.

Given where the ACC is headed, I'd say that's UConn's second worst nightmare.

 

[RoderickSpode]

2) it's an "inferior" academic conference.

Not that this ever mattered to the extent that many suggest, but the ACC abandoned the right to make that case when they invited Colonel Sanders Community College.

Additionally, Louisville's key supporters in the ACC were the very same schools that are rumored to be considering a jump to the Big 12, anyway. Academics can't mean much to them.

 

[RS9999X]

There seems to be enough discontent among the other Big 12 schools that they will insist on a Big 12 network even if Texas is excepted. Let ESPN write off that Long Horn Network loss instead of the other 9 teams absorbing the loss seems to be the new mantra. The payoff deal to Texas to prevent a Big 12 Network from forming and Texas refusing to risk a loss in a champonship game isn't popular. They need two large programs to get Oklahoma on board as Oklahoma has their own Network deal. The incentive is there for the other 8 to form a network and add schools and a championship and the Oklahoma deal isn't a show stopper.

 

[Jericho]

Not that this ever mattered to the extent that many suggest, but the ACC abandoned the right to make that case when they invited Colonel Sanders Community College.

Additionally, Louisville's key supporters in the ACC were the very same schools that are rumored to be considering a jump to the Big 12, anyway. Academics can't mean much to them.

That's somewhat true. Louisville was certainly an acamedic "compromise" and a divergence from past ACC modus operandi. However, it is still 1 school out of 14. NC State and FSU aren't exactly braintrusts either, but there's still something to be said partnering with the likes of Duke, UNC, Notre Dame, Virginia, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, etc... Even with Louisville, the academic level of the ACC remains way above the Big 12.

 

[Jericho]

There seems to be enough discontent among the other Big 12 schools that they will insist on a Big 12 network even if Texas is excepted. Let ESPN write off that Long Horn Network loss instead of the other 9 teams absorbing the loss seems to be the new mantra. The payoff deal to Texas to prevent a Big 12 Network from forming and Texas refusing to risk a loss in a champonship game isn't popular. They need two large programs to get Oklahoma on board as Oklahoma has their own Network deal. The incentive is there for the other 8 to form a network and add schools and a championship and the Oklahoma deal isn't a show stopper.

Who's going to buy a network that features Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech? That will never work. No matter who the other two schools are. Unless one of them rights with Fexas.

 

[upstater]

There seems to be enough discontent among the other Big 12 schools that they will insist on a Big 12 network even if Texas is excepted. Let ESPN write off that Long Horn Network loss instead of the other 9 teams absorbing the loss seems to be the new mantra. The payoff deal to Texas to prevent a Big 12 Network from forming and Texas refusing to risk a loss in a champonship game isn't popular. They need two large programs to get Oklahoma on board as Oklahoma has their own Network deal. The incentive is there for the other 8 to form a network and add schools and a championship and the Oklahoma deal isn't a show stopper.

I'm going to guess that the reason ESPN shelled out $20 million per was Texas.

 

[upstater]

Who's going to buy a network that features Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, TCU, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech? That will never work. No matter who the other two schools are. Unless one of them rights with Fexas.

Yeah, I don't get it either.

But apparently, the atlantic coast is so yesterday, what networks really want is plains state dust bowl viewers.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yeah, ESPN really messed up the Big East negotiation when they turned down the billion dollar offer.

Oh, wait. That was the Big East.

Yeah, all those schools that left for $20mm a year or really regret not taking the ESPN offer for half that much. And the C7 seem really upset about making roughly 150% more in a stable conference.

 

[noeynox]

Yeah, ESPN really messed up the Big East negotiation when they turned down the billion dollar offer.

Oh, wait. That was the Big East.

Is ESPN paying more to the schools that left the Big East than they offered the entire Big East? Don't know the answer to that, but the obvious conclusion to me is that UConn, Cincinnatti, and USF were bringing the value of the Big East way downnnnn since every other school has made out better outside the Big East.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Is ESPN paying more to the schools that left the Big East than they offered the entire Big East? Don't know the answer to that, but the obvious conclusion to me is that UConn, Cincinnatti, and USF were bringing the value of the Big East way downnnnn since every other school has made out better outside the Big East.

ESPN is paying the ACC as much for Notre Dame basketball, pitt, cuse and Louisville as it offered for the entire Big East.

 

[Carl Spackler]

She flat out lied to other Big East institutions about Miami's intentions and got them to spend money upgrading their programs, to Miami's benefits, by virtue of that lie.

Now, regardless of how you view her political career (and I think she did a good enough job while in Washington), why you wanted anyone to roll over and play dead in that scenario is beyond my comprehension. And Blumenthal's love for the camera (which is certainly true) is beyond irrelevant to whether the University of Connecticut, like Pitt and WVU and Vir Tech (before being invited) and Rutgers, needed to act to protect itself.

She lied about Miami's intentions? Miami was in open negotiations to join the ACC for months!!!! How did she directly get Big East members - oh never mind them - how did she get UConn to spend money on upgrading our football program? Did you seriously just write that the Big East upgrading their football programs - or UConn upgrading was to Miami's benefit? I must be dreaming.

No BL - there was lying, there was deceit in a lot of waht happened in the early 2000s, mostly from football playing schools not named Miami or Virginia Tech,and targeting Miami in that lawsuit was a mistake, and an even bigger mistake was the tactics that were taken.

Did I want to roll over and play dead? Absolutely not. There are different ways to go about business and Miami's exit from the Big East, could have and should have been handled much differently, a lawsuit was the last thing that should have done. But lawyers.....politicians....they all think alike, and there were none at the time, that understood football.

The fundamental underlying problem, for both UConn and the Big East, in the way things were done in the past, is that basketball was always believed to be more of a driver in the intercollegiate world than football.

FWIW: I remember the game against Miami in 2002 like it was yesterday. I remember that we played our home games still at Memorial, when we traveled down there. We've come a long, long way in a decade when it comes to competition.

Engaging in the BS that was that lawsuit, is a major, major reason why we stand alone right now as the last remaining founding member of the Big East.

 

[businesslawyer]

She lied about Miami's intentions? Miami was in open negotiations to join the ACC for months!!!! How did she directly get Big East members - oh never mind them - how did she get UConn to spend money on upgrading our football program? Did you seriously just write that the Big East upgrading their football programs - or UConn upgrading was to Miami's benefit? I must be dreaming.

No BL - there was lying, there was deceit in a lot of waht happened in the early 2000s, mostly from football playing schools not named Miami or Virginia Tech,and targeting Miami in that lawsuit was a mistake, and an even bigger mistake was the tactics that were taken.

Did I want to roll over and play dead? Absolutely not. There are different ways to go about business and Miami's exit from the Big East, could have and should have been handled much differently, a lawsuit was the last thing that should have done. But lawyers.....politicians....they all think alike, and there were none at the time, that understood football.

The fundamental underlying problem, for both UConn and the Big East, in the way things were done in the past, is that basketball was always believed to be more of a driver in the intercollegiate world than football.

FWIW: I remember the game against Miami in 2002 like it was yesterday. I remember that we played our home games still at Memorial, when we traveled down there. We've come a long, long way in a decade when it comes to competition.

Engaging in the BS that was that lawsuit, is a major, major reason why we stand alone right now as the last remaining founding member of the Big East.

It's in the damn minutes. She committed to the Big East, and not wanting to go anywhere else, to get some members to expand their stadiums. And then left.

 

[Carl Spackler]

It's in the damn minutes. She committed to the Big East, and not wanting to go anywhere else, to get some members to expand their stadiums. And then left.

THere's a lot of stuff in the minutes of Big East conference meetings. There are minutes of meetings available online for review that clearly indicate Father Leahy's intentions to leave for the ACC and actively pursuing it as well, yet supposedly it was a surpise that BC left.

I'll go ahead and play with you though for a second.......do you mean to suggest that Donna Shalala's statements about wanting bigger venues for Big East football games, were in some way a deciding factor for the leadership at UConn to invest in building Rentschler field? I suppose you think it was ok for our leadership at the time to ignore the fact that Shalala had been openly engaged in negotiations with both the Big East and the ACC for several months?

I'll give you an analogy. Walter Ray Allen. Was offered more money to stay in New England, than he would get in South Beach. Still chose to go south. The Big East offered Miami a hell of a lot more money than they would be making in the ACC in 2003, and Shalala still packed up and left.

The Big East leadership felt the same scorn, that Celtics fans felt, and the lawyers and politicians were all too happy to file the lawsuit, rather than have an understanding that the football program was incredibly fortunate to be where it was, in 2003, and that it would be fine, and pursue things with the schools leaving the conference (like scheduling arrangements) that would actually have made sense.

But nobody, except a few people like me pulling their hair out, understood football - to everyone in charge, basketball was king. Even now, today, you read people writing aroudn here thinking that we cna bargain a basketball scheudling agreement to get major football programs to schedule home and home with us.

The revenue from a handful of basketball games, is dwarfed, miniscule to the revenue around a single football game.

 

[upstater]

THere's a lot of stuff in the minutes of Big East conference meetings. There are minutes of meetings available online for review that clearly indicate Father Leahy's intentions to leave for the ACC and actively pursuing it as well, yet supposedly it was a surpise that BC left.

I'll go ahead and play with you though for a second.......do you mean to suggest that Donna Shalala's statements about wanting bigger venues for Big East football games, were in some way a deciding factor for the leadership at UConn to invest in building Rentschler field? I suppose you think it was ok for our leadership at the time to ignore the fact that Shalala had been openly engaged in negotiations with both the Big East and the ACC for several months?

I'll give you an analogy. Walter Ray Allen. Was offered more money to stay in New England, than he would get in South Beach. Still chose to go south. The Big East offered Miami a hell of a lot more money than they would be making in the ACC in 2003, and Shalala still packed up and left.

The Big East leadership felt the same scorn, that Celtics fans felt, and the lawyers and politicians were all too happy to file the lawsuit, rather than have an understanding that the football program was incredibly fortunate to be where it was, in 2003, and that it would be fine, and pursue things with the schools leaving the conference (like scheduling arrangements) that would actually have made sense.

But nobody, except a few people like me pulling their hair out, understood football - to everyone in charge, basketball was king. Even now, today, you read people writing aroudn here thinking that we cna bargain a basketball scheudling agreement to get major football programs to schedule home and home with us.

The revenue from a handful of basketball games, is dwarfed, miniscule to the revenue around a single football game.

You're off on the BC story.

It's only been stated here 1,000 times+.

Leahy was a conniver--he made that comment AFTER leading the reorganization. The idea that he left because the football schools added Cincy and Ville is ridiculous since it was the basketball schools' vote with ND siding with the Catholics that became a problem. He said the football schools had reversed course, but that was a convenient excuse. He showed absolutely no compunction at voting Ville in this time around, did he?