Change Ad Consent
Do not sell my daa
Reply to thread | Syracusefan.com
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Chat
Football
Lacrosse
Men's Basketball
Women's Basketball
Media
Daily Orange Sports
ACC Network Channel Numbers
Syracuse.com Sports
Cuse.com
Pages
Football Pages
7th Annual Cali Award Predictions
2024 Roster / Depth Chart [Updated 8/26/24]
Syracuse University Football/TV Schedules
Syracuse University Football Commits
Syracuse University Football Recruiting Database
Syracuse Football Eligibility Chart
Basketball Pages
SU Men's Basketball Schedule
Syracuse Men's Basketball Recruiting Database
Syracuse University Basketball Commits
2024/25 Men's Basketball Roster
NIL
SyraCRUZ Tailgate NIL
Military Appreciation Syracruz Donation
ORANGE UNITED NIL
SyraCRUZ kickoff challenge
Special VIP Opportunity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Syracuse Athletics
Syracuse Football Board
The ACC Invite: From Pitt's Perspective
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
[QUOTE="omniorange, post: 2699773, member: 636"] Surprisingly I actually agree with your overall point about "secret agreements" or even "gentlemen's agreements" not making logical sense, but then nothing about what happened in the 2003, 2011, and 2012 ACC additions is logical unless one considers that the criteria of determining "best available option" changing at each of those additions. In 2003 we were far and away the best option after Miami. It wasn't even close when examining the athletics history of the previous 10 years. BC actually was the least of the four options discussed and honestly they should have been fifth behind WVU but at that point academics meant something to the ACC. Meanwhile VT, the logical third choice didn't even have votes to receive a campus visit per ACC conference guidelines with expansion candidates but had to be shoe-horned in later via political manipulation, the inability to sell an identity change, and good ole southern deviousness. ;) In 2011 we were actually first coveted (not counting Texas or ND, who weren't joining full anyway), but in terms of what was actually accomplished athletics wise the previous 10 years we should have been behind Pitt, UConn, and most definitely WVU and probably even Louisville if, as mentioned above, academics didn't matter, which amazingly a year later it didn't. And in 2012 had academics mattered like it supposedly did in the previous two rounds, than UConn should have been added, but surprisingly it was Louisville and it wasn't even close. Anyway there certainly seems like something was fishy that we went from a clear #2 though not invited as one of the eventual three invites in 2003 (though BC's invite came so late that they had to wait to 2005 to get in) to probably the weakest of the available candidates in 2011 but first in line. Logic doesn't explain it based upon the facts known to the general public. Others, however, may know things you don't or having a keener mind being able to deduce things sometimes hidden from others. Cheers, Neil [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?
Post reply
Forums
Syracuse Athletics
Syracuse Football Board
The ACC Invite: From Pitt's Perspective
Top
Bottom