Why will the ACC fall apart? The UConn principle.

[uconnfan68]

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.

Do we even want to go there now? I mean, it is falling apart after all.
ps. I totally agree with everything but your last sentence, and I'm still thinking about that.

 

[Carl Spackler]

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?

revisionist theory

http://mysite.verizon.net/fethrs/Minutes July 2003.pdf

Buzz Shaw led the discussion toward the reorganization in July 2003, not Leahy. Leahy was pursuing creating a 16 team basketball league, with a completely separate and distinct constitutions between the football and basketball conferences. Buzz Shaw talked to Graham Spanier in 2003 about Penn State joining the Big East.

Item 3, page 4. I wonder why Leahy didn't want to discuss a formal committment among members moving forward in July 2003. I wonder wonder wonder. Maybe it has somethign to do with the stuff on page 3 where Buzz Shaw actually puts together a formal statement for the "small group of football CEO's - which include Leahy" to approach the small group of basketball CEO's - to discuss the inevitable dissoloution of the Big East conference.

No - UConn people, when you realize that our leadership, completely ducked up in 2003, and sat on the sidelines doing nothing while the football future hung in the balance, among the people that were in that room, and then allowed tricky dick blumenthal to take the point, and go public and attack the integrity of the people that very - very clearly indicated in the same room with Hathaway and Austin, that they were not solid with the Big EAst moving forward.........I'm not a fan of Randy Edsall on the football field, but the man understands, and understood football, and he knew moving forward in the Big East, that UConn was in trouble with the leadership we had, after what went down with the first ACC migration of Big East football programs.

It makes it easier moving forward for where we are now. I hope that this info, somehow makes it Susan and Warde, b/c they need to know what happened, to get our university to where it is now, and start to rebuild the character bank accounts and integrity bank accounts among the intercollegiate landscape for the Univeristy of Connecticut.

 

[upstater]

revisionist theory

http://mysite.verizon.net/fethrs/Minutes July 2003.pdf

Buzz Shaw led the discussion toward the reorganization in July 2003, not Leahy. Leahy was pursuing creating a 16 team basketball league, with a completely separate and distinct constitutions between the football and basketball conferences. Buzz Shaw talked to Graham Spanier in 2003 about Penn State joining the Big East.

Item 3, page 4. I wonder why Leahy didn't want to discuss a formal committment among members moving forward in July 2003. I wonder wonder wonder. Maybe it has somethign to do with the stuff on page 3 where Buzz Shaw actually puts together a formal statement for the "small group of football CEO's - which include Leahy" to approach the small group of basketball CEO's - to discuss the inevitable dissoloution of the Big East conference.

No - UConn people, when you realize that our leadership, completely ducked up in 2003, and sat on the sidelines doing nothing while the football future hung in the balance, among the people that were in that room, and then allowed tricky dick blumenthal to take the point, and go public and attack the integrity of the people that very - very clearly indicated in the same room with Hathaway and Austin, that they were not solid with the Big EAst moving forward.........I'm not a fan of Randy Edsall on the football field, but the man understands, and understood football, and he knew moving forward in the Big East, that UConn was in trouble with the leadership we had, after what went down with the first ACC migration of Big East football programs.

It makes it easier moving forward for where we are now. I hope that this info, somehow makes it Susan and Warde, b/c they need to know what happened, to get our university to where it is now, and start to rebuild the character bank accounts and integrity bank accounts among the intercollegiate landscape for the Univeristy of Connecticut.

Revisionist? Bull. What you presented was revisionist. Believe it or not, we went over this on this site in real time. We had daily updates on all this stuff. When Leahy was in charge of putting things back together. Leahy's excuse that reorganization wasn't going to go as planned was horsepucky. He already knew how the votes came down and how the football playing schools were already locked up--with no BCS contract, no NCAA credits, no BE name. Leahy knew that everyone's hands were tied. Why? Because the vote had happened prior to the official meeting when the minutes were read. And all along he was talking to the ACC.

I have read that document over and over. BC and everyone else's mistake is that they were ONLY considering the potential for ND joining the conference, not the potential damage ND could do by siding with the Catholics. When ND voted with the Catholics, then the presumed 7-5 vote in the minutes you linked to became a 6-6 vote. That ended the possibility of breaking off. This is what UConn fans have been pointing out since forever. There was a fatal flaw in that meeting chaired by Cuse's Shaw (Leahy was put in charge of reorganizing in that meeting) and that was the presumption that ND would vote with the football schools for an 8/9 conference (and they expected ND to stay with them in all but football).

You know, this is precisely why Calhoun came out and said in that period that the football schools were going to split, because he knew the way things broke down during that meeting. What changed afterward is precisely ND's vote, so any story peddled by BC about how they left BECAUSE the administrators including UConn's blew it by opting for a 16 team league is a canard.

 

[Carl Spackler]

FYI - the meeting minutes available online are from the meeting which occured on July 9, 2003. The lawsuit against the ACC, filed in CT by Blumenthal, specfically naming DeFillippo, and the ACC leadership was filed on October 13, 2003. The suit against Miami had already been filed previously. In March 2002, Shalala explicitly committed to the Big EAst conference.

In the following months, she entered open, long term negotiations between the Big East and the ACC about where Miami would continue their future. Everybody knew about these negotiations, nothing was hidden about the fact that Miami was actively pursuing the ACC. Good lord, the Big East membership, led by Tranghese voted to increase Miami's revenue sharing with the conference substantially in the meantime!!! By July 1, 2003 - the move was official.

Connecticut , UConn, people need to wise up and realize how incredibly stupid it was to allow ourselves to be set up as the point on that lawsuit - the college football world is incredibly tight, and UConn was given an opportunity to join the big leagues, that was incredibly outrageous, and our leadership clearly failed to recognize it, and handle it properly, and the college football world watched. I guarantee that Warde Manuel, if he was AD, or any AD with their salt in a big time athletic program, would have been making sure that everybody in that room in 2003, and the AD's at Miami and VTech that had already left, would be willing to continue scheduling arrangements, instead of burning bridges.

Hell, Tranghese himself was in the press saying that the conference didn't want any part of the lawsuit - that it was for lawyers and politicians....!!!! and that current leadership is going to have to work to show the intercollegiate landscape that things like that won't happen again.

The good news, as I said before, is that the majority of the people involved in setting up the pissing matches, are either gone, or getting really old now and will be gone too.


""On Friday, Tranghese merely issued a brief statement, acknowledging the lawsuit, but stating the conference itself was not involved. He let politicians and university presidents do the talking. ""

-Sports Illustrated

 

[upstater]

FYI - the meeting minutes available online are from the meeting which occured on July 9, 2003. The lawsuit against the ACC, filed in CT by Blumenthal, specfically naming DeFillippo, and the ACC leadership was filed on October 13, 2003. The suit against Miami had already been filed previously. In March 2002, Shalala explicitly committed to the Big EAst conference.

In the following months, she entered open, long term negotiations between the Big East and the ACC about where Miami would continue their future. Everybody knew about these negotiations, nothing was hidden about the fact that Miami was actively pursuing the ACC. Good lord, the Big East membership, led by Tranghese voted to increase Miami's revenue sharing with the conference substantially in the meantime!!! By July 1, 2003 - the move was official.

Connecticut , UConn, people need to wise up and realize how incredibly stupid it was to allow ourselves to be set up as the point on that lawsuit - the college football world is incredibly tight, and UConn was given an opportunity to join the big leagues, that was incredibly outrageous, and our leadership clearly failed to recognize it, and handle it properly, and the college football world watched. I guarantee that Warde Manuel, if he was AD, or any AD with their salt in a big time athletic program, would have been making sure that everybody in that room in 2003, and the AD's at Miami and VTech that had already left, would be willing to continue scheduling arrangements, instead of burning bridges.

Hell, Tranghese himself was in the press saying that the conference didn't want any part of the lawsuit - that it was for lawyers and politicians....!!!! and that current leadership is going to have to work to show the intercollegiate landscape that things like that won't happen again.

The good news, as I said before, is that the majority of the people involved in setting up the pissing matches, are either gone, or getting really old now and will be gone too.


""On Friday, Tranghese merely issued a brief statement, acknowledging the lawsuit, but stating the conference itself was not involved. He let politicians and university presidents do the talking. ""

-Sports Illustrated

So what's your point of view about all the lawsuits going on with the ACC now?

Where's the collegiality?

And as for Tranghese, in that document you linked to, he repeatedly references the anti-trust issues. What's that but a reference to potential lawsuits?

 

[Carl Spackler]

Revisionist? Bull. What you presented was revisionist. Believe it or not, we went over this on this site in real time. We had daily updates on all this stuff. When Leahy was in charge of putting things back together. Leahy's excuse that reorganization wasn't going to go as planned was horsepucky. He already knew how the votes came down and how the football playing schools were already locked up--with no BCS contract, no NCAA credits, no BE name. Leahy knew that everyone's hands were tied. Why? Because the vote had happened prior to the official meeting when the minutes were read. And all along he was talking to the ACC.

I have read that document over and over. BC and everyone else's mistake is that they were ONLY considering the potential for ND joining the conference, not the potential damage ND could do by siding with the Catholics. When ND voted with the Catholics, then the presumed 7-5 vote in the minutes you linked to became a 6-6 vote. That ended the possibility of breaking off. This is what UConn fans have been pointing out since forever. There was a fatal flaw in that meeting chaired by Cuse's Shaw (Leahy was put in charge of reorganizing in that meeting) and that was the presumption that ND would vote with the football schools for an 8/9 conference (and they expected ND to stay with them in all but football).

You know, this is precisely why Calhoun came out and said in that period that the football schools were going to split, because he knew the way things broke down during that meeting. What changed afterward is precisely ND's vote, so any story peddled by BC about how they left BECAUSE the administrators including UConn's blew it by opting for a 16 team league is a canard.

I'm not going to go round and round with you again. You suggested that Leahy led the reorganization of the league. You're wrong. Buzz Shaw did. Tranghese sat in a corner sucking his thumb and whining about not wanting to be in charge anymore. Austin and Hathaway sat there and listened to the men in that room talk about actively dissolving the league, and pursuing dissolution, and then 3 months later led the charge against them in a lawsuit which charged the same people with conspiring to destroy the league. Those are the facts.

What UConn people need to realize, is that our existence at this level of football, our entire university existence moving forward as it is as an athletic department, is entirely dependant on the good fortune, of having been extended an invite into the highest level of athletic revenue around football, when it was completely undeserving of it. We're hanging on by a thread right now, and have nobody to schedule right now.

I';ve talked for months, about how the biggest thing concernign me going forward is scheduling. We've got nobody on the future schedules, and we've been unable to get anybody on the schedule for a while now - (the way Notre Dame was handled didn't help)

We've proven we belong and can compete, but we've burned a hell of a lot of bridges along the way, and now our schedules are empty.

 

[juan]

The ACC clearly has no clue of what's going on and what's going to happen to them. They took Louisville because they didn't want the B12 to take them first, at that point they never thought ACC schools would leave to the B12. If they left Louisville on the table for the B12, the ACC would be less likely to lose one of their brand schools.

 

[UConn9604]

No - UConn people, when you realize that our leadership, completely ducked up in 2003, and sat on the sidelines doing nothing while the football future hung in the balance, among the people that were in that room, and then allowed tricky dick blumenthal to take the point, and go public and attack the integrity of the people that very - very clearly indicated in the same room with Hathaway and Austin, that they were not solid with the Big EAst moving forward.........I'm not a fan of Randy Edsall on the football field, but the man understands, and understood football, and he knew moving forward in the Big East, that UConn was in trouble with the leadership we had, after what went down with the first ACC migration of Big East football programs.

Respectfully, doing nothing simply wasn't an option at the time. We had precisely zero leverage. The Rent hadn't yet opened, we were still in trailers, barely at full I-A scholarships, and our two biggest football wins were over a 7-4 Iowa State team in 2002 and a 2-9 Rutgers team in 2001. Meanwhile, on the hoops side, we only had one national championship for men. We weren't just sitting on the sidelines, we were chained there, and had as much to lose as anyone from Miami's, BC's and Virginia Tech's promissory estoppel.

The lawsuit was our only option, I just wish we weren't duped into leading it, based on the mere presence of ESPN within our borders. Why not St. John's or Rutgers? The ACC couldn't exactly argue that it lacked "minimum contacts" in New York or New Jersey. Why not take it on the road, say, to D.C.? The ACC would have a hard time arguing forum non conveniens with its home office in Greensboro (which is closer to D.C. than Providence).

 

[Carl Spackler]

The ACC clearly has no clue of what's going on and what's going to happen to them. They took Louisville because they didn't want the B12 to take them first, at that point they never thought ACC schools would leave to the B12. If they left Louisville on the table for the B12, the ACC would be less likely to lose one of their brand schools.

karma is a bitch. There is no doubt in my mind, that had UConn moved to the ACC as a primary cog, instead of Syracuse and Pitt, that the folding of the Big East would have been neat and tidy, the ACC would clearly be the dominant east coast conference, and the central states, would have a much more stable platform for athletics as well, and Notre Dame, just might have finally gone into a conference, instead of being the lynchpin that is holding up everythign when it comes to establishing a true format to determine a national champion in the post season. But ego's got in the way, and the ACC will struggle in the future, based on what's happened instead. Ego's that are still in power in the ACC. But the people at UConn have all changed. Slowly others are changing. Shalala won't be there forever. DeFillippo is already gone. leahy won't be there forever. Temple is actually back in the mix of things with their leadership. Times change. PEople change. But UConn is on island for now, and we have no choice but to make it the best island resort destination it can be, and start building bridges and tunnels and connections that have been destroyed in the past.

the more time passes, and the more that happens in this period of movement, in the intercollegiate landscape (it's not the first, and it won't be the last).....the more I'm convinced that the reason UConn stands alone on an island right now in the northeast with what our athletic department is, and brings, which is nothing to poo poo....is because of pure ego and arrogance of the people that were in power locally for us in the past, and the peole that are still in power elsewhere in the intercollegiate landscape and the multiple, multiple bridges that were burned as we moved up from 1-AA football into 1-A and the Big East conference crumbled around us.

That's why I started writing on this thread again. It was suggested that Shalala - who's one of those ego's.....still heading up Miami - was looking elsewhere.

Leadership at UConn has changed, and we've got a lot of bridges to rebuild in the intercollegiate athletics world, and as those leaders elsewhere get older, adn will eventually change, those bridges will be easier to build. Miami, was actively pursuing a scheduling arrangement in teh NYC metropolitan area recently for football -
UConn isn't an option for them. Notre Dame? We pissed that away with ridiculous demands (to be fair what they wanted was ridiculous too, but we didn't do a hell of alot to try to find common ground). Boston College? Nope. These are programs that we should regularly have on our non-conference slate at this point, but the arrogance and ego of our former leadership prevented it. Jim Delany, Mike Slive, John Swofford, etc. etc......on down the line. Their successors need to be on good terms with the University of Connecticut and our leadership and how we go about our business with our government. Business deals are and always will be about people. Scheduling football games is major, major big time business.

Maybe peopel out there are reading, that have some kind of influence, and will recognize that at least one UConn football guy, gets it. We need scheduling partners, and we realize our past leadership transgressions were a major pain in the ass, and won't let it happen again.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

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

Right on one count: the Big East was foolish in believing that basketball drove the bus, not football. Lew Perkins warned 'em.

Wrong about the USFL. They won the antitrust case. That alone should have cost the NFL millions upon millions in damages. That's the whole premise of "treble damages" in these kinds of lawsuits. The courts got caught up in the celebrity of the case and made a mockery of it with a $1 judgement. Those judges should have been disbarred. The USFL won and with it lost because justice was not served. Commit murder, get convicted for that crime and what? ...... Be given one day in jail? A travesty of justice that had nothing to do with Donald Trump.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Respectfully, doing nothing simply wasn't an option at the time. We had precisely zero leverage. The Rent hadn't yet opened, we were still in trailers, barely at full I-A scholarships, and our two biggest football wins were over a 7-4 Iowa State team in 2002 and a 2-9 Rutgers team in 2001. Meanwhile, on the hoops side, we only had one national championship for men. We weren't just sitting on the sidelines, we were chained there, and had as much to lose as anyone from Miami's, BC's and Virginia Tech's promissory estoppel.

The lawsuit was our only option, I just wish we weren't duped into leading it, based on the mere presence of ESPN within our borders. Why not St. John's or Rutgers? The ACC couldn't exactly argue that it lacked "minimum contacts" in New York or New Jersey. Why not take it on the road, say, to D.C.? The ACC would have a hard time arguing forum non conveniens with its home office in Greensboro (which is closer to D.C. than Providence).

Having zero leverage, is exactly the reason why we should have been pursuing scheduling agreements in the future with every member of the Big EAst conference regardless of conference affiliation, or what was happening, adn should have done nothing with a lawsuit. We should ahve walked away from the concept of a lawsuit like it was kryptonite. Telling the leadership and Boston college that we would never schedule them again. Dumb. Creating a situation where the leadership at Miami, openly said they would never play a football game in CT. DUMB. Idiotic dumb.

The true power brokers, Shaw from Syracuse, et. al., were already working at making sure the conference would be successful for at least a few more years, and that we would be part of it - AHEAD of schedule. We pissed on all of that by taking the lead on the lawsuit, and the rest of them, sat back collected their pennies in teh grand scheme, and watched us take the fall, as they continued to wait in the wings for their opportunity to move to a better scheduling situation.

 

[CTMike]

The ACC clearly has no clue of what's going on and what's going to happen to them. They took Louisville because they didn't want the B12 to take them first, at that point they never thought ACC schools would leave to the B12. If they left Louisville on the table for the B12, the ACC would be less likely to lose one of their brand schools.

I like this angle. I think there was another thread not too long ago referring to leaving Louisville hanging out there as a "tethered goat" strategy. Can't wait to see it all blow up (if only because it gives UConn a better chance at a new home).

 

[UConn9604]

Having zero leverage, is exactly the reason why we should have been pursuing scheduling agreements in the future with every member of the Big EAst conference regardless of conference affiliation, or what was happening, adn should have done nothing with a lawsuit. We should ahve walked away from the concept of a lawsuit like it was kryptonite. Telling the leadership and Boston college that we would never schedule them again. Dumb. Creating a situation where the leadership at Miami, openly said they would never play a football game in CT. DUMB. Idiotic dumb.

I don't disagree with this part but one of the weaknesses of being a State institution is that when you justify $125 million in expenses on the basis of future returns, you have to do something when those future returns are threatened and no one in government has the foresight to recognize that sometimes sitting back and waiting can be a good response.

As for smoothing things over, the best guy we've ever had at (Lew Perkins) that got up and left for Kansas in late June 2003. I think that had we coaxed another year out of him, your plan may have been implemented. In the void of leadership at the time, the State government took the reins and all of the other plaintiffs sat back and watched (notably, each of them is off to a greener pasture).

 

[Carl Spackler]

Leahy was put in charge of reorganizing. The very links you gave us contradict you, and I pointed out how. No choice to break up in 2003 could have been made, and that link you gave us showed that the Presidents hadn't even considered that Notre Dame would vote against them. Given all that, it's a head scratcher how anyone can believe BC's claims about being disappointed is what made them leave. Those are about as believable as its claims in this article: http://articles.courant.com/2011-10...esident-susan-herbst-uconn-move-uconn-sources

Vitriol is why UConn is iced out? On this very board, we saw how vitriolic the comments were coming from Syracuse people at the very top, directed at Leahy at public events, face to face, humiliating comments. Where is Cuse? Where is Pitt?

Let's face is, Gene D. was right. BC votes against UConn because they are afraid of competition. And this is precisely what Bob Ryan wrote before UConn even went D1.

The anger from Syracuse toward Boston College back then, was because Syracuse was the actual target that Miami wanted to bring to the ACC with them, not VTech or Boston College, and as Crouthamel promised he would leave his job if the Big EAst moved forward as it did, and made good on his word, Defillippo made the same promise, and didn't make good on it. Leahy, played every possible hand he could, while Shaw remained solid with the Big EAst, and worked to rebuild it in teh best interests of Syracuse he could come up with, and then handed off the job to Cantor, who inherited a mess where Leahy managed to wiggle into the spot that the ACC had reserved for Syracuse after the Virginia state government got involved. (They managed to handle things better than our governor and AD did). Syracuse leadership, and their tradition in football, had a lot more of a gripe with Boston College, in 2004-2005 than we did.

Upstater, you suggested that Miami was interested in leaving the Big East. You hooked me, becuase that would certainly be a major, major, turn of events and I was interested in pursuing it, as to why you'd write that, because Shalala was a major, major player in what led to the eventual destruction of the big east conference, and she has issues she's leaving the U with, and I doubt she's happy about it, but leaving the ACC - I highly doubt that's a road she's interested in.

I'm not writing any more on this. Peace out.

 

[CL82]

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't disagree with this part but one of the weaknesses of being a State institution is that when you justify $125 million in expenses on the basis of future returns, you have to do something when those future returns are threatened and no one in government has the foresight to recognize that sometimes sitting back and waiting can be a good response.

As for smoothing things over, the best guy we've ever had at (Lew Perkins) that got up and left for Kansas in late June 2003. I think that had we coaxed another year out of him, your plan may have been implemented. In the void of leadership at the time, the State government took the reins and all of the other plaintiffs sat back and watched (notably, each of them is off to a greener pasture).

The return on the investment lied with the further existence of the Big East as a BCS conference. That's where the money return on teh investement was going to come from, adn that's where it did come from, and the people in that room in 2003, knew it, and were working toward it. That was already happening. THe entire lawsuit was a publicity stunt / ego trip for the people involved, and our basketball oriented, football novice leadership were set up as punching bags.

 

[upstater]

The anger from Syracuse toward Boston College back then, was because Syracuse was the actual target that Miami wanted to bring to the ACC with them, not VTech or Boston College, and as Crouthamel promised he would leave his job if the Big EAst moved forward as it did, and made good on his word, Defillippo made the same promise, and didn't make good on it. Leahy, played every possible hand he could, while Shaw remained solid with the Big EAst, and worked to rebuild it in teh best interests of Syracuse he could come up with, and then handed off the job to Cantor, who inherited a mess where Leahy managed to wiggle into the spot that the ACC had reserved for Syracuse after the Virginia state government got involved. (They managed to handle things better than our governor and AD did). Syracuse leadership, and their tradition in football, had a lot more of a gripe with Boston College, in 2004-2005 than we did.

Upstater, you suggested that Miami was interested in leaving the Big East. You hooked me, becuase that would certainly be a major, major, turn of events and I was interested in pursuing it, as to why you'd write that, because Shalala was a major, major player in what led to the eventual destruction of the big east conference, and she has issues she's leaving the U with, and I doubt she's happy about it, but leaving the ACC - I highly doubt that's a road she's interested in.

I'm not writing any more on this. Peace out.

My reference to vitriol from Cuse toward Leahy personally was when a Cuse BOT member posted that while standing behind Leahy at an academic get-together of Presidents and such, Leahy was called out as a liar for heading BE reorganization while playing footsy with the ACC.

My only point about the minutes was that the document shows it is evident that the schools elected to break from the bball onlies, but not once in that doc did anyone consider that ND would side with the bballs over the others. In that light, BC's so-called indignation at the decisions made subsequently to form a 16 team league was a distraction. Not based in reality.

I didn't suggest Miami was doing anything. In fact, I said I don't give it much weight, but that it made sense that Miami--of all the schools--was the most likely to search for a new perch.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Alright,, I'm not done, becuase this stuff actually matters to me.

It should come as no surpise, (and it didn't to some of us) that when we actually made the BCS bowl system as a participant by 2010, that the same leadership that was involved in that lawsuit (Hathaway) had his athletic department caught with their pants around their ankles when it came to any sort of understanding of what the BCS was all about. The publicity sucked. The media was allowed to portray an image of program that didn't know what the hell it was doing and had no fan support (they were right about the first part) If not for myself, and a few others, begging boneyarders to buy tickets through the school, I shudder to think what the ticket sales media story would have been.

Complete failure for 7 years, by our athletic director and our leadership to grasp the magnitude of what we had been granted as a new BCS member, and failure of grasping the very concept of what a division 1-A/BCS athletic department business is, and no one in charge, to call anyone out on it. It's no wonder that Randy Edsall wanted out, and was actively looking for years, adn took the first offer he could get.

THe BCS is now gone in a year, replaced by a pseudo-playoff system, which as of now, we have taken a step backwards in our revenue stream profile.

Sometimes, things like an internet message board, can have some power.

The leadership at UConn has changed, though, and we have people in charge that get it now, it's just a matter now, of how bad the damage control is and will take to repair, on the bridges burned, and rebuilding as best we can in the meantime to continue to be winners on the field, on the courts and in the classrooms.

As each day goes by, that our future schedules remain wide open in football, it's becoming crystal clear, that the damage done, was pretty severe.

 

[Carl Spackler]

My reference to vitriol from Cuse toward Leahy personally was when a Cuse BOT member posted that while standing behind Leahy at an academic get-together of Presidents and such, Leahy was called out as a liar for heading BE reorganization while playing footsy with the ACC.

My only point about the minutes was that the document shows it is evident that the schools elected to break from the bball onlies, but not once in that doc did anyone consider that ND would side with the bballs over the others. In that light, BC's so-called indignation at the decisions made subsequently to form a 16 team league was a distraction. Not based in reality.

I didn't suggest Miami was doing anything. In fact, I said I don't give it much weight, but that it made sense that Miami--of all the schools--was the most likely to search for a new perch.

What makes you think that BOT members have any idea what's going on? have you learned nothing in the past 10 years?

 

[upstater]

What makes you think that BOT members have any idea what's going on? have you learned nothing in the past 10 years?

I diodn't say the BOT member knew what was going on. I saw the BOT member castigated Leahy vitriolically in public in front of academics, so anyone who thinks that BC blackballs UConn because of vitriol in 2003 is being mislead. What is even being contested about the facts I stated here?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I diodn't say the BOT member knew what was going on. I saw the BOT member castigated Leahy vitriolically in public in front of academics, so anyone who thinks that BC blackballs UConn because of vitriol in 2003 is being mislead. What is even being contested about the facts I stated here?

I don't know what's being contested. I don't care what BOT member overheard somebody saying to somebody else at a cocktail party.

I think it's crystal clear, what I've stated. Here, I'll do it again. In summer 2003, shortly after Miami made the move to the ACC official, there was a meeting of Big East presidents, chancellors and athletic directors and Big East conference office leadership. At that meeting, all present were made aware, that dissolution of the league, was an option moving forward, and not only an option, subcommittees were formed at that meeting, and it was understood, that in the following weeks, there would be meetings among at least 6 different member schools, to discuss DISSOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE. It was common knowledge at this time, that ACC leadership had been in discussions with several members of the conference.

Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult.

The investments, were only in danger, if the BCS affiliation were to go away, and that had been solved well before the lawsuits were engaged, and the BCS existence of the conference was not threatened by the move of Boston College and Virginia Tech, with the way things had been handled with the NCAA and with the BCS leadership and the expansion plans in the meantime. The entire college football world knew that the lawsuit was garbage. It made sense to the majority of UCOnn huskies people in the CT, because very few, had any understanding of the BCS.

If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

The only threat to the investment that UCOnn made in the late 1990s, involved the conference affiliation with the BCS revenue streams and the scheduling therefore involved.

The difference now is that the threat is real, and actively happening, while in 2003, it was non-existent, as the actual football members at the time, had secured the BCS arrangment.

 

[upstater]

POINT A: I don't care what BOT member overheard somebody saying to somebody else at a tail party.

POINT B: I think it's crystal clear, what I've stated. Here, I'll do it again. In summer 2003, shortly after Miami made the move to the ACC official, there was a meeting of Big East presidents, chancellors and athletic directors and Big East conference office leadership. At that meeting, all present were made aware, that dissolution of the league, was an option moving forward, and not only an option, subcommittees were formed at that meeting, and it was understood, that in the following weeks, there would be meetings among at least 6 different member schools, to discuss DISSOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE. It was common knowledge at this time, that ACC leadership had been in discussions with several members of the conference.
Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult.


POINT C: If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

POINT D: We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

POINT E: Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

POINT A: No one overheard anyone saying anything to anyone. I said a Cuse BOT member castigated Leahy and called him a liar openly and in front of his peers, so this idea that Leahy's feelings were hurt because of vitriol from UConn is laughable.

POINT B: The dissolution of the league was impossible because ND voted with the bball onlies. You don't seem to get it through your head. In the document you linked to, the football schools simply assume ND will side with them. Patently ridiculous.

POINT C: ...and you would have been wrong. It was the argument countless BC posters were making on this board back then, and a slew of times UConn posters showed that many were on board for dissolution in July (Calhoun had come out publicly) but the vote with ND siding with bball made it impossible.

POINT D: UNC and Duke and many others simply do not hold a grudge. BC doesn't want UConn because it's territorial. Go back and read those articles from Shaw and Nordenburg castigating the ACC, and what they said was 1ox worse than anything that came from UConn. In fact, the previous link I gave showed that UConn was considered ahead of Pitt for the position.

POINT E: See Point B.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Point A: Back to what I said before, what makes you think that BOT members have any idea that they know what they're talking about? has anything in the past 10 years in the intercollegiate world made you think that BOT's are integrally involved in anythign that's happening in day to day operations, or in fast time negotiations in major business deals? I share some info with you, that wasn't the first time that a high ranking official from a different university accused Leahy of being a liar.

Point B: We will continue to disagree here ad infinitum. The only reason the league remained together, was because the football institutions, led by Shaw's work, found that the only way to secure the BCS bid for the near future for the remaining members, through the next contract cycle was to retain and rebuild the Big East conference as a viable 1-A football conference recognized by the NCAA. Notre Dame's voting on the matter was meaningless. Most votes in a business structure organized the way the Big East was, are meaningless. By the time anythign gets to vote, the course of action has already been decided. The vote to exclude Penn State as a member in 1982, saw to all future business being handled that way. No more surprise votes with things of that magnitude.

Point C: There was a loophole writtent into the Big East bylaws / constitution, that made it so that the basketball schools had primary control over whether or not the league could be dissolved. That's why things went down the way they did. That loophole, and several other administrative issues with the business were corrected after 2003, and correcting that, is actually the reason now, why the Big East still exists, and the catholic schools haven't taken the league name with them. The football schools, it was found, could not initiate a dissolution, even with majority vote in 2003. If they had left, under any circumstances other than the basketball schools voting for the dissolution of the football league, they would be subject to exit penalties. Completely screwy business structure.

Point D: UConn is the last remaining founding member of the Big East. UNC, Duke, BC, Syracuse and Pittsburgh are all members of the ACC.

Point E: Notre Dame - was a basketball school. They already had access to the BCS as in independant in football. There was no reason to expect Notre Dame to do anythign but want the big east to remain the best basketball / non-revenue sport league it could be.

How far are we going to go with this?

 

[upstater]

Point A: Back to what I said before, what makes you think that BOT members have any idea that they know what they're talking about? has anything in the past 10 years in the intercollegiate world made you think that BOT's are integrally involved in anythign that's happening in day to day operations, or in fast time negotiations in major business deals? I share some info with you, that wasn't the first time that a high ranking official from a different university accused Leahy of being a liar.

Point B: We will continue to disagree here ad infinitum. The only reason the league remained together, was because the football institutions, led by Shaw's work, found that the only way to secure the BCS bid for the near future for the remaining members, through the next contract cycle was to retain and rebuild the Big East conference as a viable 1-A football conference recognized by the NCAA. Notre Dame's voting on the matter was meaningless. Most votes in a business structure organized the way the Big East was, are meaningless. By the time anythign gets to vote, the course of action has already been decided. The vote to exclude Penn State as a member in 1982, saw to all future business being handled that way. No more surprise votes with things of that magnitude.

Point C: There was a loophole writtent into the Big East bylaws / constitution, that made it so that the basketball schools had primary control over whether or not the league could be dissolved. That's why things went down the way they did. That loophole, and several other administrative issues with the business were corrected after 2003, and correcting that, is actually the reason now, why the Big East still exists, and the catholic schools haven't taken the league name with them. The football schools, it was found, could not initiate a dissolution, even with majority vote in 2003. If they had left, under any circumstances other than the basketball schools voting for the dissolution of the football league, they would be subject to exit penalties. Completely screwy business structure.

Point D: UConn is the last remaining founding member of the Big East. UNC, Duke, BC, Syracuse and Pittsburgh are all members of the ACC.

Point E: Notre Dame - was a basketball school. They already had access to the BCS as in independant in football. There was no reason to expect Notre Dame to do anythign but want the big east to remain the best basketball / non-revenue sport league it could be.

How far are we going to go with this?

POINT A: No matter how many times I answer, you don't get it. There are no facts or inside information being discussed here. There is literally nothing to contest. The only point is that there was vitriol toward Leahy from many corners, and you yourself now claim the same thing! In other words, UConn was not the only school sending vitriol his way--if it ever even did. Therefore, the idea that he held a grudge because of vitrol is questionable. Much more likely he and his stooge were quite worried about UConn as competition. Therefore, we can forget about the impact of vitriol.

POINT B: The document you linked to showed a 6-0 vote among the football schools to dissolve the league. The document showed overconfidence that they had Notre Dame's vote. The only mention of ND was for either joining the fball schools or for its place in the new conference. The reason the schools did not dissolve the league and break off is BECAUSE ND voted with the bball schools. They could not break off at that point without losing the BCS autobid and NCAA credits, not to mention a great deal of other assets. You say ND's vote didn't count. Then how do you account for the total reversal a month later from that position on which they voted 6-0?! All the news sources at the time pointed out the significance of ND's vote.

POINT C: You misread your own document. The loophole was to the football school's advantage, not the bball schools.

POINT D: How does that contradict what I wrote? It doesn't. BC blackballs UConn because it is afraid of competition.

POINT E: Uh, yeah. That's my point. ND voted with the bball schools. That's why the conference didn't dissolve.

 

[06029]

POINT B: The document you linked to showed a 6-0 vote among the football schools to dissolve the league. The document showed overconfidence that they had Notre Dame's vote. The only mention of ND was for either joining the fball schools or for its place in the new conference. The reason the schools did not dissolve the league and break off is BECAUSE ND voted with the bball schools. They could not break off at that point without losing the BCS autobid and NCAA credits, not to mention a great deal of other assets. You say ND's vote didn't count. Then how do you account for the total reversal a month later from that position on which they voted 6-0?! All the news sources at the time pointed out the significance of ND's vote.

The conference did not split in 2003 largely because of Cuse and, yes, Uconn. Both had significant BB credits to lose and let the BB side of their schools run the decision. That is a pretty clear in all of this. The hybrid was being seen by the AD's/presidents as destined to fail. To some at the time, the all sports conference was the model to follow. Note that the minutes show Zero support for a 16 team model. It also clearly states that everyone knew ND was going to be independent. The 8/9 team conference was the only option embraced. Uconn was granted early entrance and Louisville and Cinci had support for inclusion in all sports. It is in writing, in the minutes. The league could have formed overnight. The BCS autobid ran only with FB schools so that was an issue that could have been overcome. It had nothing to do with the conference name. I find it hard that anyone can dispute any of these as fact.

The independent conference was there and there was to be negotiations with the BB's about a split. Stuff happened between that meeting and November. Yeah, there was no negotiated split. Yeah, ND played a game. But one of the keys was the flip on the vote from the original six by Uconn and Cuse just as much as it was anything else. That Cuse and Uconn made this same somewhat short sighted decision (personal opinion) at the time showed very little faith in their ability to continue to have BB success in a new conference. They gave up a chance at something great to save some credit dollars. They would have been in the BB tourney everyone of the years it would have taken to get the auto bid in place. The FB program would have had the same success level. And they would have been one of the kings of the conference. It is funny that after 10 years, the BE is finally going to be an all sports conference only with schools that no one could have imagined at that time. And I guess Uconn is now the king of this too.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Three months later, a lawsuit was filed by CT AG Blumenthal, against the ACC leadership, and those same people in that room, that had agreed to discuss disbanding the league, charging them with conspiracy to destroy the league. The primary argument being that the investments made in upgrading football were in danger, and that the people involved in moving had done what they did without the knowledge of the other membership. The integrity and ethics of the people involved were actively questioned. As they should have been. They never should have been allowed to leave. The Big East was their conference, it offer an automatic BCS slot, it offered a chance at the National Championship. . . end of discussions. Those people were pissed off, and they still are today. THe fact that UConn took the point, in the face of what the program had been given, was more of an insult. UConn had just finished it's investment into major college/BCS football and now it was gonna be taken away? The courts should have mandated a stay put. . . . "Best interest of the game".

The investments, were only in danger, if the BCS affiliation were to go away, and that had been solved well before the lawsuits were engaged, and the BCS existence of the conference was not threatened by the move of Boston College and Virginia Tech, with the way things had been handled with the NCAA and with the BCS leadership and the expansion plans in the meantime. Yeah and how's that automatic berth looking today. The entire college football world knew that the lawsuit was garbage. The lawsuit wasn't garbarge, the conference realignment crap was the garbage. Fuel by greed and television meddling. It made sense to the majority of UCOnn huskies people in the CT, because very few, had any understanding of the BCS.

The courts should have put an end to this whole conference realigment cannibalism. All teams mandate to stay put in their respective conferences. Each conference was free to add new teams but not if those teams were already in a BCS conference. Big East would now be comprised of Miami, West Virginia, BCU, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn, South Florida and any new additions. Not a bad conference.

If I had known about this website, back then, I'd have been saying the same things I'm saying now.

We're still digging out from the relationships in the intercollegiate world that were destroyed completely by the way UConn handled the Miami move to the ACC and subsequent events.

Why anyone might be able question that this is not the case, I have no idea. That there was a better course of action - to do nothing regarding a lawsuit claiming such damages, would have been better? Especially now with hindsight? Boggles my mind.

The only threat to the investment that UCOnn made in the late 1990s, involved the conference affiliation with the BCS revenue streams and the scheduling therefore involved.

The difference now is that the threat is real, and actively happening, while in 2003, it was non-existent, as the actual football members at the time, had secured the BCS arrangment.

 

[John Greene]

Much as it pains me to say it (it could set off a 3000 word response) Carl is largely correct about the impact of the lawsuit. A couple of years ago I first mentioned a conversation with an SEC official to that point. He was of the opinion that it would hurt UConn's move into another conference. Not prevent it, but make it more difficult. Schools and conferences have sued each other over many things but the thing that made it different, in his opinion, was the naming of Leahy, Swoford, etc as individuals. With the pols making the most they could out of it. This gave some people working in senior conference positions pause.

On the Syracuse vitriol, towards BC. Doesn't anyone find it odd that within 3 years Cuse and BC were talking about a long term OOC series that they in fact renewed. Either Leahy really believes in turning the other cheek or like so much else that passes as fact on the internet the whole thing is questionable.

 

[Danzz]

The ACC will get raided but a raid of 2 teams is still a problem. They could sit tight. Or if it involves Miami and Clemson choose to add USF and Cincy with UCF a back pocket play if FSU gets raided.

The ACC simply may not want to give up a seat in Florida given population projections and recruiting. The Florida University System can virtually guarantee the ACC cross-conference matchups with Florida State and the University of Florida .Miami would add (more like keep) the new ACC Florida Team(s) in the rotation.

Cincy is surrounded by 3 Ohio RayCom Affiliates. Ohio's a fertile recruiting locale and plenty of local games are there to be produced including Toledo, Ohio State, Xavier, Bolwing Green, Kent State, etc) All in Raycom markets and just waiting for ACC bookings with Duke or SU or Pitt etc.

The Florida State University system won't guarantee anything. Example: Florida would block FSU from joining the SEC. As one who went to college in Florida, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between FSU and Florida; at least in Florida's eyes. Comparing the 2 would be similar to comparing Uconn and CCSU. UGA is closer to Gainsville than FSU.
USF has been the dumpng ground for years for problem professors. A few years ago a USF a Arab professor was deported for terroist affiliations and USF has always been like that. The bar I hung at in college in Tampa was owned by 2 USF professors who were openly dealing drugs before the cops (alledgidly) burned it down.
Don't look for the FS University system to do anything to help FSU. It will never happen.

 

[upstater]

The conference did not split in 2003 largely because of Cuse and, yes, Uconn. Both had significant BB credits to lose and let the BB side of their schools run the decision. That is a pretty clear in all of this. The hybrid was being seen by the AD's/presidents as destined to fail. To some at the time, the all sports conference was the model to follow. Note that the minutes show Zero support for a 16 team model. It also clearly states that everyone knew ND was going to be independent. The 8/9 team conference was the only option embraced. Uconn was granted early entrance and Louisville and Cinci had support for inclusion in all sports. It is in writing, in the minutes. The league could have formed overnight. The BCS autobid ran only with FB schools so that was an issue that could have been overcome. It had nothing to do with the conference name. I find it hard that anyone can dispute any of these as fact.

The independent conference was there and there was to be negotiations with the BB's about a split. Stuff happened between that meeting and November. Yeah, there was no negotiated split. Yeah, ND played a game. But one of the keys was the flip on the vote from the original six by Uconn and Cuse just as much as it was anything else. That Cuse and Uconn made this same somewhat short sighted decision (personal opinion) at the time showed very little faith in their ability to continue to have BB success in a new conference. They gave up a chance at something great to save some credit dollars. They would have been in the BB tourney everyone of the years it would have taken to get the auto bid in place. The FB program would have had the same success level. And they would have been one of the kings of the conference. It is funny that after 10 years, the BE is finally going to be an all sports conference only with schools that no one could have imagined at that time. And I guess Uconn is now the king of this too.

How does what you write contradict what I wrote?

Other than the fact you left out concern for losing the BCS autobid?

 

[upstater]

Much as it pains me to say it (it could set off a 3000 word response) Carl is largely correct about the impact of the lawsuit. A couple of years ago I first mentioned a conversation with an SEC official to that point. He was of the opinion that it would hurt UConn's move into another conference. Not prevent it, but make it more difficult. Schools and conferences have sued each other over many things but the thing that made it different, in his opinion, was the naming of Leahy, Swoford, etc as individuals. With the pols making the most they could out of it. This gave some people working in senior conference positions pause.

On the Syracuse vitriol, towards BC. Doesn't anyone find it odd that within 3 years Cuse and BC were talking about a long term OOC series that they in fact renewed. Either Leahy really believes in turning the other cheek or like so much else that passes as fact on the internet the whole thing is questionable.

The BOT member actually posted on the Boneyard.

If these schools are so averse to lawsuits, then why are they suing each other right now? Maryland is suing, Rutgers is suing, the ACC schools are suing, they are all suing? Pitt sued too!!!

The article I linked to shows that Duke and UNC were totally flummoxed by BC's crazy position. Swofford, by the way, is known as a Tobacco Road guy. If UNC and Duke are in favor of UConn, I bet Swofford is too!