Supposedly it's FSU, Miami, Clemson, etc... holding out for better football programs.Interesting. But he has been wrong alot. someone else would have to be helping BC
What move since they moved to the ACC has BCU made that makes good business sense?Makes no business sense to them at all.
Besides, all the particulars from '03 on UConn's side are gone now, save for Jim Calhoun. Who are they trying to punish?...
It makes perfect business sense for them, especially now w/ SyraPitt in tow. We are over taking their product in the NE. It's no coincidence that with our succes their FB is beginning to slip (that and some terrible hiring/personnel decisions from GDF). We are their primary competition in this market, and we are beating them in just about every product category, and have at the very least pulled even with them in the BIG category that the country cares most about (and it only took us 8 years or so to do it). They want to cut off the head while they have a chance. It would not surprise me one bit if they were trying to block us. What would surprise me a little is if they could get the votes. I'd assume we'd get the 4 NC schools, GT, UVa, and Maryland as yes votes. BC, UM and FSU as no's, with Clemson and VT as a on the fence vote. This will all come down to who is the otehr team to get them to 16.Makes no business sense to them at all.
Besides, all the particulars from '03 on UConn's side are gone now, save for Jim Calhoun. Who are they trying to punish?...
I think its just a majority vote. If not it's probably something like two thirds.
Do Cuse and Pitt have voting power in the ACC now?
In 2003, at least, the ACC required more than a 2/3 vote. Miami and Va. Tech were admitted on 7-2 votes (with Duke and UNC voting against). On BC, NC State voted "no" because its President, Marye Ann Fox, was a member of Notre Dame's Board of Trustees, and wanted the ACC to kick the tires on Notre Dame first before offering BC.
If that >2/3 rule is still the case, and there are 12 voting members, that means that 4 ACC members can vote "no" and block an admission. If Pitt and Syracuse can now vote, however, 5 ACC members would be required to block our admission.
My guess on the "no" votes would be BC (if they still wish to hold a grudge, but frankly I'm not sure that DeFilippo has the job security to hold a grudge at this point), FSU (wanting someone with a greater football reputation -- a legitimate point, I suppose) and maybe Miami (we sued them, too). I am having a hard time coming up with 4 and a really hard time coming up with 5.
I think the ACC is just sitting back and waiting to see where the chips fall. There's support, but not universal support, for us, but I don't think they're going to move unless they feel like they have to, or until they get 100% support for us from everyone.
Mike DiMauro said:The ACC will take UConn - at some point - because it won't get Notre Dame or Texas. And it will take UConn more because of league officials' trust and respect for new president Susan Herbst than anything UConn has accomplished on or off the field.
They should be more worried about hitting 20 yard FG's so they could beat DukeI think BC may be concerned about recruiting in the northeast against UConn, if UConn is in the ACC. They are already having trouble due to UConn.