Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Scooch, post: 293307, member: 628"]
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if ultimately that didn't have a huge impact.  I mean maybe it did, I don't know. But I'm guessing a lot of the ACC ADs and Presidents weren't around in 2003/4, and even if some were, the lure of more money seems to trump past offenses in the world of college athletics.

I think Pitt just fit better.  The ACC really wanted to sell the expansion as an all-sports move, with a nod to football.  Now hoops may have been a huge driver, but I think they wanted to downplay that angle. Pitt hasn't been great in a long time, but they've had solid years, and have a storied history.  The brand thing.  They also allow the ACC to place a flag in a talent-rich part of the country.

I also don't recall there being a major Pitt scandal recently (aside from the head football coach thing, but that was rectified quickly) although I may be totally forgetting something else.  The ACC has a lot going on in that regard, so bringing in a relatively clean program probably had some appeal.  And in terms of hoops, Pitt has a record of success under multiple coaches.  I'm sure there is skepticism that with the sanctions, coupled with Calhoun's eventual departure, that UConn's hoops succes is sustainable.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?