I hate to even mention this, but a poster on the NCAABBS realignment board, (imagine this forum but as an ongoing concern for the last year), claimed that the BE old guard was so put off by the demands of 2 of the newer football schools that the delicate balance of the conference hybrid was totally screwed and ultimately lead to SU and Pitt (and supposedly Uconn) looking for a way out. And now the basketball schools want to exact their revenge by only agreeing to preposterous football additions like Army.
Glad you did. Most likely each and every one of us has inaccuracies with all the details, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that this set of events is the result of people with different perspectives over issues combined with people with different personalities. If two people disagree over an issue, but they have flexibility and patience and commitment to compromise, chances are pretty good that they will resolve that issue and come up with a decent solution. If one of these individuals lack these qualities than the only way there can be appeasement is if the other gives into the formers demands. This probably will create tension and resentment in the latter that eventually will cause that individual to stop agreeing and lead to the dissolution of the partnership. And if both lack those qualities, they will fight and work to destroy each other.
freescooter and others who advocated the hybrid conference was doomed to failure had a pretty good pulse on things. Things could have worked out, but the number of differences, the wide range of very important issues with dissimilar values, the large number of parties involved, and the wide range of powerful personalities, made the probability for success very low.
The tensions did not just exist between bb only vs. football schools. There were tensions with some old guard vs. some new guard football schools. There were tensions within schools between ADs and presidents or presidents and alumni. There were tensions between those schools who were athletically successful and those who weren't.
I thought freescooter's thread about which BE schools were football centric, which were bb centric and which were equally interested in both sports was a great thread. It began to identify the dissimilarity of values in a little more detail than the simpler model of football vs. bb only schools. But even that breakdown was an oversimplification of the range of differences among and within the various universities in the BE conference.
One of the things that concerns me regarding the admittance of UConn into the ACC is that the ACC has a lot of tensions amongst its members and UConn will be entering into a variation of the turmoil that existed in the BE. You can be certain that tensions exist in the SEC, the PAC and the B!G, but tensions have a way of being soothed when things are going well. And things are going very well for these three conferences at the moment. When they stop going well those tensions will come to the surface and be highlighted. They always existed but the uncomfortable environment makes people less forgiving, more irritable and therefore less compromising. Just look at this board.
IMO, the ACC, like the BE and the B12, is in the predicament of things not going well which is resulting in all the tensions coming to the surface. Within the ACC there are old guard universities, academic elitist universities, hybrid sports universities, football 1st second and third Universites, bb 1st second and third Universities, and geographically polarized Universities. I moved from CT to SC and was surprised, although not shocked, at the degree and extent people in SC still foster animosity towards the north. They don't call it the civil war here. They call it the "War of Aggression" and the "Recent Unpleasantness". Recent Unpleasantness says a lot. One hundred and fifty years later a significant part of the population can't let events go. North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Florida hold the same resentments. These are good people and when they get to know you they warm up to you. But they don't make the leap that many northerners can be nice. They come to the conclusion that you are one of the good ones but are the exception. And the northern states and university members have a polarized opinion about the south, and that these people are redneck, bible beater, and good ole boys driven. It doesn't take too many disagreements before people resort to their cliche, condescending feelings.
So this will be the pot and the environment UConn will be entering by going into the ACC. But instead of being an established member, with credentials and history in a conference with turmoil, they will be the red headed stepchild in a conference with turmoil.
And this is why I'm still scratching my head regarding Pitts and Cuse's decision to bolt to the ACC. There is a reason why people say it is better to stay with the Devil you know than go with the Devil you don't know. In my mind there is not enough potential reward to be gained by jumping from the BE to the ACC relative to all the tensions and turmoil that is waiting for these schools when they arrive. The reward to risk ratio doesn't meet my criteria for making such a jarring move. If the ACC were more stable, then it makes very good sense. But I believe that the instability is so extensive that even ND's inclusion in all sports including football, may not offer the conference enough benefits to allow it to be successful to the point where most of the tensions get buried.
Swofford and the ACC members have no choice. They have to hope for the white knight to come along and save them. They have nothing to lose. At the very least they are buying time. And with the right set of outcomes, such as the newly configured conference suddenly becomes very successful in football and many of the tensions I list can be held at bay, the ACC may survive. Otherwise it will implode like the B12 and the BE.
