BC essentially blocked UCONN -Globe Article..

[Jake]

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleg...icles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?page=full

Interesting article. As we expected Syracuse was the clear #1 choice of the ACC. If you read between the lines of the article, essentially what happened was the ACC felt it need to expand to protect itself from a raid, strengthen its east coast position, destroy the Big East, keep the big 12 from encroaching on the east coast or all of the above.

It appears this ultimately was a football move, but a move that they initially tried to appease the basketball factions...until BC got involved.

First, the ACC went to ESPN to seek their guidance on which teams to choose. It was not stated what ESPN's suggestions were. My guess is that ESPN's suggestions were Pitt and Syracuse (best brands - best combination $$ -wise), but the ACC's first choices were a compromise to keep Duke and UNC happy, which was Syracuse and UCONN. But BC had an issue with UCONN being in their geographical neighborhood.

Its clear that BC's #1 motive was to keep UCONN out of the conference, and they are conveniently hiding behind the argument that this was a FB move - and therefore Pitt and Syracuse were the obvious choices. Though Defillipo does not deny that they wanted to keep UCONN out of the conference.

So they went back a second time after BC expressed its reluctance to include UCONN and they decided to go with the strongest FB solution, which was Syracuse and Pitt.

Its funny that who they decided to choose was what I would call the "pizza decision process". You've got 15 people in the room and 14 people want sausage and achovies but one person is refuses. So you end up going with sausage and pepperoni, because its something that everyone agrees on.

It also makes sense that UCONN will be the next included if ND joins...giving in to the basketball factions as I don't think if push came to shove, BC could prevent UCONN a second time. The ACC needed to act fast this time and didn't have time to debate. Pitt and Syracuse were the only unanimous choices.

Interesting, Rutgers never entered the conversation.

 

[orange79]

Interesting, Rutgers never entered the conversation.

Shocking, considering their football history, the number of championships they have won, their basketball prowess, the NYC market, just to name a few things.

Oh, wait...

 

[Toga]

Ultimately it's true that the only way UConn gets in is if ND joins. I'd have to think ND would get to choose who they want to join them (I would guess Rutgers). If ND has no strong preference then it's UConn.

In a few years, if ND is a no go, how would BC, SU and Pitt vote on expanding to 16 in order to prevent the B1G from solidifying its eastern hemisphere? The net $ increase per school (another renegotiation) would have to be enormous to vote in favor.

Regardless, I'm still struck by the speed of bringing SU and Pitt to the ACC, even if they did have prior background discussions.

 

[Jake]

ND wants no part of Rutgers. Remember, Rutgers gave ND the finger and a big when they wanted to work a series with Rutgers and Rutgers Big Timed them and refused to agree to ND's terms.

 

[omniorange]

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleg...icles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?page=full

Interesting, Rutgers never entered the conversation.

While I would prefer UConn myself should the ACC expand to 16 with ND and someone else, I wouldn't put too much weight on the lack of Rutgers being mentioned in this article.

It's focus was on the BC/UConn angle and if one reads it carefully you can see that what initiated this whole article was Blaudschun following up on the fact that Coach K publicly supported an eastern basketball power (had to be UConn) and the rumor that BC had "blocked" them.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[dash-30-dash]

Meanwhile, on the uconn board, fishy continues to say that brand had nothing to do with it.

 

[omniorange]

ND wants no part of Rutgers. Remember, Rutgers gave ND the finger and a big when they wanted to work a series with Rutgers and Rutgers Big Timed them and refused to agree to ND's terms.

While I also am of the mindset that ND wants little to do with Rutgers, didn't ND also want UConn to play them at both Foxboro and the Meadowlands? Did those series ever develop?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[OrangeXtreme]

While I also am of the mindset that ND wants little to do with Rutgers, didn't ND also want UConn to play them at both Foxboro and the Meadowlands? Did those series ever develop?

Cheers,
Neil

ND wanted "South Bend & Neutral" games with both Rutgers and UConn, and both refused.

SU didn't.

 

[Bayside44]

The Yukon expansion board has lost it's collective mind. Everything from more lawsuits (ummm...not exactly a winner the last time) to the Husky Network (hours of Coach P and Geno, yay!) to Boise joining the Big East. Nuts.

 

[Antz201]

Come on guys, if SUNY Albany was getting an ACC invite.. people would be saying heck no here because both schools are very close to each other.. it's the same thing here with UCONN and BC... UCONN and BC cover the same markets.. which is basically the Boston Market... Whenever I am up by my sister's house in Norwich CT (30 minutes from UCONN), they get all the redsox games on TV, and CT is a really small state of 3.5MM people...

 

[raf4488]

The Yukon expansion board has lost it's collective mind. Everything from more lawsuits (ummm...not exactly a winner the last time) to the Husky Network (hours of Coach P and Geno, yay!) to Boise joining the Big East. Nuts.

The Husky Network idea is killing me, imagine the programming.

Tune in for "Yankee Conference Classics: UConn vs. Northeastern," only on the Husky Network!

 

[Cheriehoop]

Have to wonder how happy ESPN and the ACC are with the quotes attributable to BC and DeFilippo.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...llege-athletic-director-gene-defilippo-espn/1

 

[jerrycuse]

The thing I find interesting is how easily schools can be flipped out. In the original ACC expansion, it was Miami, Boston College and Syracuse (in that order). The VA govenor put up a fight and demanded VPI to be involved or they pulled thier vote. Just like that, it seemed Syracuse was out and Tech was in. No one in the ACC really even seemed to care.

This go around the idea is Syracuse and UConn. BC puts up a fight and just like that UConn is out and Pitt is in.

For all the coverage this gets, and how critical it is to the schools involved, it amazes me how random some of this seems to be or how one strong voice can be in dictacting the direction of a school or conference. (The reality too though, is the life of a 'filler' schools. Yeah conferences may want you, but if you are on that second tier, especially when it comes to football, anything can happen...)

Another point, that I think becomes apparent is how well Syracuse played this through the first expansion and up until this time. No bad blood, no burnt bridges, no public statements that could come back to haunt them and they kept the door open to be the easy, first choice the next go around. I was impressed back in 2003 when Syracuse publicly said all of the right things and did most of their talking/negotiating behind closed doors. It appears they kept these channels open even since then (which Bees has also said many times on the boardz).

 

[omniorange]

The thing I find interesting is how easily schools can be flipped out. In the original ACC expansion, it was Miami, Boston College and Syracuse (in that order). The VA govenor put up a fight and demanded VPI to be involved or they pulled thier vote. Just like that, it seemed Syracuse was out and Tech was in. No one in the ACC really even seemed to care.

This go around the idea is Syracuse and UConn. BC puts up a fight and just like that UConn is out and Pitt is in.

For all the coverage this gets, and how critical it is to the schools involved, it amazes me how random some of this seems to be or how one strong voice can be in dictacting the direction of a school or conference. (The reality too though, is the life of a 'filler' schools. Yeah conferences may want you, but if you are on that second tier, especially when it comes to football, anything can happen...)

Another point, that I think becomes apparent is how well Syracuse played this through the first expansion and up until this time. No bad blood, no burnt bridges, no public statements that could come back to haunt them and they kept the door open to be the easy, first choice the next go around. I was impressed back in 2003 when Syracuse publicly said all of the right things and did most of their talking/negotiating behind closed doors. It appears they kept these channels open even since then (which Bees has also said many times on the boardz).

I think SU being flipped out for VT made sense since the prize was Miami. They had to secure the Hurricanes in order for expansion to 12 to work.

I'm not sure UConn was flipped out for Pitt. I think it was all part of a natural discussion about various candidates of near equal value with varying strengths and weaknesses.

If you take SU and UConn, does the Big 12 take Pitt as was rumored? If you take SU and Pitt, how likely is the Big 12 to take UConn. That argument, in and of itself, probably won the day with the committee.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[sufan]

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleg...icles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?page=full

Interesting article. As we expected Syracuse was the clear #1 choice of the ACC. If you read between the lines of the article, essentially what happened was the ACC felt it need to expand to protect itself from a raid, strengthen its east coast position, destroy the Big East, keep the big 12 from encroaching on the east coast or all of the above.

It appears this ultimately was a football move, but a move that they initially tried to appease the basketball factions...until BC got involved.

First, the ACC went to ESPN to seek their guidance on which teams to choose. It was not stated what ESPN's suggestions were. My guess is that ESPN's suggestions were Pitt and Syracuse (best brands - best combination $$ -wise), but the ACC's first choices were a compromise to keep Duke and UNC happy, which was Syracuse and UCONN. But BC had an issue with UCONN being in their geographical neighborhood.

Its clear that BC's #1 motive was to keep UCONN out of the conference, and they are conveniently hiding behind the argument that this was a FB move - and therefore Pitt and Syracuse were the obvious choices. Though Defillipo does not deny that they wanted to keep UCONN out of the conference.

So they went back a second time after BC expressed its reluctance to include UCONN and they decided to go with the strongest FB solution, which was Syracuse and Pitt.

Its funny that who they decided to choose was what I would call the "pizza decision process". You've got 15 people in the room and 14 people want sausage and achovies but one person is refuses. So you end up going with sausage and pepperoni, because its something that everyone agrees on.

It also makes sense that UCONN will be the next included if ND joins...giving in to the basketball factions as I don't think if push came to shove, BC could prevent UCONN a second time. The ACC needed to act fast this time and didn't have time to debate. Pitt and Syracuse were the only unanimous choices.

Interesting, Rutgers never entered the conversation.

-------------

This article is but a partial view: however, it is interesting that the rumors of Pitt to the Big 12 may have played a role.

Also the ACC move was concerned no doubt with gaining support from the football schools like FSU, Clemson, GT, VT: Pitt has a much better football brand than UConn so in the end it was likely a conference decision.

It certainly wasn't a situation where BC says they don't want UConn and everyone says ok.


"DeFilippo said the move was dictated in part by the expansion of the Southeastern Conference to include Texas A&M, which prompted the Big 12 to inquire about Pittsburgh, which is in the Northeast, an area in which the ACC felt it necessary to expand.


“We wanted new playmates and we wanted Eastern playmates,’’ said DeFilippo. “When the Big 12 inquired about Pittsburgh, we asked, ‘Why let them come into our area?’ ’’

 

[longtimefan]

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleg...icles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?page=full

Interesting article. As we expected Syracuse was the clear #1 choice of the ACC. If you read between the lines of the article, essentially what happened was the ACC felt it need to expand to protect itself from a raid, strengthen its east coast position, destroy the Big East, keep the big 12 from encroaching on the east coast or all of the above.

It appears this ultimately was a football move, but a move that they initially tried to appease the basketball factions...until BC got involved.

First, the ACC went to ESPN to seek their guidance on which teams to choose. It was not stated what ESPN's suggestions were. My guess is that ESPN's suggestions were Pitt and Syracuse (best brands - best combination $$ -wise), but the ACC's first choices were a compromise to keep Duke and UNC happy, which was Syracuse and UCONN. But BC had an issue with UCONN being in their geographical neighborhood.

Its clear that BC's #1 motive was to keep UCONN out of the conference, and they are conveniently hiding behind the argument that this was a FB move - and therefore Pitt and Syracuse were the obvious choices. Though Defillipo does not deny that they wanted to keep UCONN out of the conference.

So they went back a second time after BC expressed its reluctance to include UCONN and they decided to go with the strongest FB solution, which was Syracuse and Pitt.

Its funny that who they decided to choose was what I would call the "pizza decision process". You've got 15 people in the room and 14 people want sausage and achovies but one person is refuses. So you end up going with sausage and pepperoni, because its something that everyone agrees on.

It also makes sense that UCONN will be the next included if ND joins...giving in to the basketball factions as I don't think if push came to shove, BC could prevent UCONN a second time. The ACC needed to act fast this time and didn't have time to debate. Pitt and Syracuse were the only unanimous choices.

Interesting, Rutgers never entered the conversation.

The expansion was all about strengthening the ACC. With the open slot in the SEC, they had great fear that they would be the target (FSU, Clemson, VT) of a raid. One of the quotes that came out the week after the move was a leak from their expansion committee (paraphrasing): "Eat or be eaten". Plus, the fact that adding 2 teams allows the league to re-open the (suddenly grossly under-valued) FB contract. The numbers I have read are $13M per 12 teams under the current deal to $15M+ per 14 teams under a re-negotiated deal. That's how much the PAC-12 and Big 12 deals have changed the market.
But, there is no doubt that the BB angle, with K and the Duke prez (chair of expansion committee) plus the clout of UNC, had something to do with the move. Remember that the Big 2 had been against the 2003/2004 moves, because they wanted to protect the BB franchise. Events of the past 8 years--with ACC BB sagging and ACC FB mediocre--have allowed K, etc., to say "We told you so".
So, why were we chosen? I think that getting the shaft in 2003, and not publicly whining over it, made us a no-brainer. We were a perfectly acceptable candidate the first time around, (would have already made the move if not for Virginia politics) and are stronger athletically now (FB turnaround, BB even more of a national brand than it was in 2003, Olympic sports greatly improved--thanks Doc).
The 14th spot is an interesting situation. I think it was a very close call. Maybe BC's hatred for UConn was a factor. Which is to say, the Eagles didn't blackball the Huskies so much because they wanted to support their own FB and BB programs (#1 is hockey--2X football, 10X basketball), but because they wanted to destroy the UConn programs. Strategically, I think Pitt had something else going for them--location. Apparently they were willing to discuss movement to the Big 12, as long as they could bring a partner or two (WVA/LVille?) with them. Which would have been an incursion into Atlantic coast territory, albeit not a huge one (Philly and DC metro). And where is UConn going? They'll still be there, hat-in-hand, if/when the ACC decides to go to 16. [As an aside, this article has to give Rutgers hope.]

 

[orange79]

Meanwhile, on the uconn board, fishy continues to say that brand had nothing to do with it.

Since I'm too lazy to go through their entire meltdown, what exactly then was the reason we were chosen, according to Fishy? Thanks.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Have to wonder how happy ESPN and the ACC are with the quotes attributable to BC and DeFilippo.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...llege-athletic-director-gene-defilippo-espn/1

I agree, Cherie. Those quotes are going to cost DeFilippo his job. Well, that and the terrible decisions he's made, running off their two best coaches in the last few years.

 

[Townie72]

I agree, Cherie. Those quotes are going to cost DeFilippo his job. Well, that and the terrible decisions he's made, running off their two best coaches in the last few years.

If DeFilippo comes or goes won't matter.

UConn's great problem with BC is with the BC president. He's still there and will be for a long time. So whoever is the BC AD is going to have to understand that.

The law suit was the dumbest idea ever. Universities do not sue one another ... ever. And that lawsuit included BC and the ACC including John Swofford personally, I seem to recall. SU's decision not to join that suit may be the reason we are headed to the ACC.

 

[SURules]

Although I like going to the ACC with Pitt, what I don't get with the lawsuit was that Pitt was very big into that as well I believe. Pitt still gets in? I guess UConn's government was the face of that lawsuit though thus they get hit harder but Pitt was a huge supporter and signed up along with UCoon to that action

 

[orange79]

Although I like going to the ACC with Pitt, what I don't get with the lawsuit was that Pitt was very big into that as well I believe. Pitt still gets in? I guess UConn's government was the face of that lawsuit though thus they get hit harder but Pitt was a huge supporter and signed up along with UCoon to that action

UConn is more of an immediate threat to BC.

Warning - going into economics TA mode. With choices one (SU) and two (UConn), the goal was to move to a Pareto superior situation: everyone in the conference becomes better off with no one becoming worse off. BC apparently made the argument that no matter what the benefit, adding UConn would have made them worse off. So, since it appears that everyone else was indifferent between UConn and Pitt, exchanging Pitt and UConn allowed everyone to be 'better off'. Everyone, of course, except UConn.

Ok - lesson over. Class dismissed.

 

[Townie72]

Although I like going to the ACC with Pitt, what I don't get with the lawsuit was that Pitt was very big into that as well I believe. Pitt still gets in? I guess UConn's government was the face of that lawsuit though thus they get hit harder but Pitt was a huge supporter and signed up along with UCoon to that action

What matters is not what you and I think about who was most responsible for the lawsuit. It's what BC President Healy and their AD think. And what John Swoffford thinks. Since both BC and the ACC were targets of the lawsuit. And these people appear to be holding this against UConn.

The suit, itself, was the brainchild of then CT Attorney General Blumenthal, a grandstanding pol who is now a CT US senator.

The WVU president at the time (Hardesty?) explained that he and WVU were extremely reluctant to join the suit and that all he was looking to do was to slow the process down to see if the Big East could respond.

But the suit wasn't about slowing down. It was out for blood and it failed miserably.

Some of the UConn fan base appears to want more legal action against BC, agianst the ACC and even against ESPN. But that's how UConn got where it is now. Nobody wants a lawsuit-happy partner in a Conference. What happens when they don't get the bowl they prefer? Another legal action?

Just how long hard feelings can last between schools can be demonstrated using the SU vs. Notre Dame experience. In the very early 1960's there was a disputed call at the end of an SU vs. ND football game that gave ND the win. There were accusations thrown back and forth between the two schools. It took FORTY years before the schools afreed to play one another. Just about everybody had to die to bury the hatchet.

 

[Townie72]

UConn is more of an immediate threat to BC.

Warning - going into economics TA mode. With choices one (SU) and two (UConn), the goal was to move to a Pareto superior situation: everyone in the conference becomes better off with no one becoming worse off. BC apparently made the argument that no matter what the benefit, adding UConn would have made them worse off. So, since it appears that everyone else was indifferent between UConn and Pitt, exchanging Pitt and UConn allowed everyone to be 'better off'. Everyone, of course, except UConn.

Ok - lesson over. Class dismissed.

Exactly. Since the drive of this was adding two schools (any two schools) to allow them the trigger the new negotiations clause in the TV contract the ACC was looking for the easiest, quickest way to do this.

BC objected to UConn and no one objected to Pitt. Pitt was the path of least (no) resistance.

UConn threatening new law suits will put a huge damper on any Conference wanting them.

 

[orangecuse]

If DeFilippo comes or goes won't matter.

UConn's great problem with BC is with the BC president. He's still there and will be for a long time. So whoever is the BC AD is going to have to understand that.

The law suit was the dumbest idea ever. Universities do not sue one another ... ever. And that lawsuit included BC and the ACC including John Swofford personally, I seem to recall. SU's decision not to join that suit may be the reason we are headed to the ACC.

Really...ever? Please correct me if I'm misinformed, but didn't MSU threaten SU with litgation in regards to the block S logo trademark, hence, the reason for SU's tweak of same?

 

[Townie72]

Really...ever? Please correct me if I'm misinformed, but didn't MSU threaten SU with litgation in regards to the block S logo trademark, hence, the reason for SU's tweak of same?

A minor low-level dust-off like your example is hardly the same thing as a full-fledged lawsuit of one university suing another. The UConn led suit was characterized as "unprecedented" when it was filed.

It doesn't matter. No one is suing anyone in this current situation. The parties to the 2004 were huge losers when attorney's fees were considered. And the long term consequences are dire.