Question for discussion

[CT93]

Please reconcile these two widely held beliefs:

BC is the unwanted red headed step child of the ACC. (No power)

BC is blocking Uconn's admission to the ACC (Total power)

 

[businesslawyer]

If there was a concensus among the other schools that we should be invited tomorrow, we would be invited tomorrow.

 

[upstater]

Please reconcile these two widely held beliefs:

BC is the unwanted red headed step child of the ACC. (No power)

BC is blocking Uconn's admission to the ACC (Total power)

Those are 4 beliefs. I don't think they are widely held. The first belief is that BC is unwanted stepchild. That may or may not be true. The second belief is that being an unwanted stepchild is equivalent to having no power. I don't think this is necessarily the case. In many organizations, you have forms of veto power which, even if used by the weakest member, are respected simply because all members want the power of the veto in place in order to preserve their own interests.

 

[ZooCougar]

It's never been proven that BC was spearheading an effort to block us. They are probably just one of enough schools in that conference that aren't interested.

It's pretty obvious UConn isn't worth adding on it's own merits. We're good filler to come along with another big fish.

As good as our basketball teams may be, the ACC has no shortage of good basketball. So they can afford to wait. UConn is in the same situation as UCF or ECU. We're here. We're not going anywhere and they'll get back to us if they feel like it.

 

[IMind]

It's like being the 61st vote in the senate... you can be the least respected, least powerful member of the senate... but if you're that swing vote... you can get whatever you want. I could see a scenario where BC goes... we'll only vote yes on expansion IF it's not UConn... or even steering the expansion committee so UConn never even gets a vote.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Whoa - hold on. We are in no way in the same position as ECU, UCF et. al.

The only thing that UConn, West Virginia, Rutgers, USF, Louisville, Cincinatti have going for them is that we've got a BCS AQ status guaranteed through the end of the 2013 season. I'm pretty sure BCS AQ status calculations are up for re-eval in 2014.

We add TCU, and drop Syracuse and Pitt? Guess what - our BCS status just improved a whole heck of alot, and we just need to add one more school.

Geographically, athletic department, academcis (cough)....when you lay out the landscape, and list te potential programs to add in the next 2 years (no other BCS team currently is coming to the big east, big 12 was the only shot) - you end up with Army, Navy, Notre Dame, or a grab bag from the MAC, Buffalo, Akron, Ohio....which in reality from a recruiting standpoint, putting another school in a BCS conference in te middle of Ohio - not a really bad idea.

Anyway - my first choice would be Temple. I think they're the closest to actually be able to adding to the BCS AQ status calculations over the next 2 years.

The key - to anything - going forward, I've become more and more convinced as each day passes, is to get rid of the conference leadership in Providence and establish new leadership. Who? I have no idea, that's the president's AD's jobs to determine.

The football schools need to make a really big decision, West Virginia, Rutgers, UConn, Cincy, Louisville and USF. We need to decide if we're going to try to make this BCS conference work or not.

That decision needs to come entirely independant of the basketball schools. Some kind of agreement needs to be made to ride this thing out to the end of 2013 when the existing broadcasting contracts are out, and we need to add just ONE school.

This is the only way the conference gets stronger.

 

[toppencil]

Please reconcile these two widely held beliefs:

BC is the unwanted red headed step child of the ACC. (No power)

BC is blocking Uconn's admission to the ACC (Total power)

A good friend of mine from Boston told me the Eagles didn't get a call from the refs for years after joining the ACC. So the fans clearly felt like the red headed step child but it sounds like a perception issue.

As to BC blocking UConn, I don't know what the admission requirements are for the ACC re voting. I believe the Big East used to require 75% of existing members approve a new member. I don't know if that is still true. That said, BC doesn't want to compete with UConn for recruits in New England. I suspect they are trying to block UConn. They have been in the league since 2005, so they probably have some solid relationships with other ACC schools. Obviously, this is all speculation on my part.

 

[uconnric]

Please reconcile these two widely held beliefs:

BC is the unwanted red headed step child of the ACC. (No power)

BC is blocking Uconn's admission to the ACC (Total power)

They are using whatever influence they have to try and block us. They fear us and have for a long time. They are unable and unwilling to articulate a good reason for not wanting us but will move behind the scenes to block us from the ACC. They are the reason Pitt was included and not us last week. It's something our administration will have to overcome, and I have a lot of confidence in our new president.

 

[upstater]

It's never been proven that BC was spearheading an effort to block us. They are probably just one of enough schools in that conference that aren't interested.

It's pretty obvious UConn isn't worth adding on it's own merits. We're good filler to come along with another big fish.

As good as our basketball teams may be, the ACC has no shortage of good basketball. So they can afford to wait. UConn is in the same situation as UCF or ECU. We're here. We're not going anywhere and they'll get back to us if they feel like it.

Aren't we basing this on Mark Blaudschun's contention that we were the ACC's first choice?

and, wasn't it reported last year that the ACC was mainly interested in UConn and Syracuse?

And, didn't a Villanova insider post on the Rutgers board several weeks ago that there were internal maneuverings by the ACC to add UConn first?

 

[upstater]

A good friend of mine from Boston told me the Eagles didn't get a call from the refs for years after joining the ACC. So the fans clearly felt like the red headed step child but it sounds like a perception issue.

As to BC blocking UConn, I don't know what the admission requirements are for the ACC re voting. I believe the Big East used to require 75% of existing members approve a new member. I don't know if that is still true. That said, BC doesn't want to compete with UConn for recruits in New England. I suspect they are trying to block UConn. They have been in the league since 2005, so they probably have some solid relationships with other ACC schools. Obviously, this is all speculation on my part.

The 75% rule doesn't apply until the school comes up for a vote after it's application. The ACC had an expansion committee. BC was on it. Some sources have stated that BC blocked UConn which was the first choice.

 

[gars44]

Which is why Herbst "reached out" to Fr. Leahy. But a good reason to block Uconn is that we're they're de facto instate rival. All teams try to block an in state rival. Not all: North Carolina's the exception.

 

[mattp]

Which is why Herbst "reached out" to Fr. Leahy. But a good reason to block Uconn is that we're they're de facto instate rival. All teams try to block an in state rival. Not all: North Carolina's the exception.

i have a feeling if the ACC were starting from scratch today NC would do whatever they could to keep NCSTate out. there was a time when colelge athletics were about playing rivals and creating tradition. apparently now it's a grab for market share and cash. is there anyone that thinks this is the path we should be travelling down?

 

[06029]

The 75% rule doesn't apply until the school comes up for a vote after it's application. The ACC had an expansion committee. BC was on it. Some sources have stated that BC blocked UConn which was the first choice.

Someone posted the expansion committee. There were 12 members on it, one from each ACC school. The AD's included BC, Duke, UNC and FSU. The rest were 4 presidents and 4 academic people. One would assume each member of the committee had equal votes. Is it possible that any of the 4 presidents or 4 academic reps had problems with Uconn that they did not have with Cuse/Pitt? Not saying they did, but that possibility does exist, be it concerns over APR for BB, compliance, etc. Until there is a smoking gun, nobody knows why Pitt and Cuse were selected. Who knows, it could be the AD and presidential transition at Uconn. Was there anyone that was empowered to make a decision when the initial discussions started? Was Uconn even talking to the ACC at any time showing interest in moving during the entirely too long Hathaway 360 review/Herbst transition? Did Hathaway respond to anyone that may have reached out to him about this during his review period? Was he effectively useless during that time? Seems like Pitt and Cuse were in communication with the ACC during that period based on sources that are just as good as Blaudschuns or that conclude BC blocked Uconn. Sources in this day and age are message boards and tweets and are generally unreliable, but if you believe his, you should believe the others too. Everyone here believes that Uconn should have been the first choice, yet they weren't, so find blame anywhere outside the program/institution. As always, BC is a good scapegoat. You guys give them way too much credit.

 

[upstater]

Someone posted the expansion committee. There were 12 members on it, one from each ACC school. The AD's included BC, Duke, UNC and FSU. The rest were 4 presidents and 4 academic people. One would assume each member of the committee had equal votes. Is it possible that any of the 4 presidents or 4 academic reps had problems with Uconn that they did not have with Cuse/Pitt? Not saying they did, but that possibility does exist, be it concerns over APR for BB, compliance, etc. Until there is a smoking gun, nobody knows why Pitt and Cuse were selected. Who knows, it could be the AD and presidential transition at Uconn. Was there anyone that was empowered to make a decision when the initial discussions started? Was Uconn even talking to the ACC at any time showing interest in moving during the entirely too long Hathaway 360 review/Herbst transition? Did Hathaway respond to anyone that may have reached out to him about this during his review period? Was he effectively useless during that time? Seems like Pitt and Cuse were in communication with the ACC during that period based on sources that are just as good as Blaudschuns or that conclude BC blocked Uconn. Sources in this day and age are message boards and tweets and are generally unreliable, but if you believe his, you should believe the others too. Everyone here believes that Uconn should have been the first choice, yet they weren't, so find blame anywhere outside the program/institution. As always, BC is a good scapegoat. You guys give them way too much credit.

We're only going by what has been reported. We're not guessing.