(08-21-2016 09:39 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:57 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:16 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 06:57 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 06:28 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Um...yes you are sticking your nose into this here as my commentary has nothing to do with Uconn...but since you decided to do that, let me ask you to do one thing. Go back and pull up every one of my posts for say, the past six months. If you do that, you will find that pretty much every one of my posts dealing with Uconn comes as a RESPONSE to one of the "BCU is the devil" posts INITIATED by a Uconn poster. Sorry, but when one of you guys attacks my alma mater here, I will respond. Just the way you do when you feel Uconn is attacked here. This isn't the Uconn fan board where you can just tee off at BC without a response. Here, you will get some return fire.

I dont initiate. I just respond. Deal with it. You guys don't slam BC, this is a non issue, Ok?

I notice you didn't deny my assertion that you laugh at UCONN being in the AAC. It's ok, I get it.

Oy vey! What part of the concept for responding to attacks vs. initiating them don't you understand? Again, go back and look at my posts. You will be hard pressed to find one where I poked fun at Uconn for being in the ACC.

Again, yes, we laugh at BC haters. We laugh because they are funny in their hatred of all things BC. Not because they are Uconn fans or in the ACC. I think I was pretty clear in that comment.

How is it that you highlight a comment to make your point which has nothing to do with Uconn? Paranoid much?

I guess you missed the part of my post where I stated "I bolded something I don't think you restrict to just G'Town fans.". Reading comprehension, it's your friend.

Nope, my reading comp is just fine. Again, you responded to my comment I made about BC haters - which had nothing to do with Uconn and, in true paranoid fashion, attached it to Uconn. Forget the fact that I have never poked fun at Uconn in the AAC - you won't find any post of mine which does so; and I never initiate posts about Uconn - only respond to BC slams by guys like you.

Again, the fact that you chose to insert yourself into this specific discussion I was having with a G'Town fan that had NOTHING to do with Uconn says it all about your level of paranoia, IMO. Oh, and BTW, I am not the only one who thinks that around here. Other here have also stated as such.

...and yet you lump UCONN fans into your BC haters "club". Call it paranoid if you wish, I'll just call it the truth.

(08-21-2016 10:51 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 09:39 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:57 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:16 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 06:57 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  I notice you didn't deny my assertion that you laugh at UCONN being in the AAC. It's ok, I get it.

Oy vey! What part of the concept for responding to attacks vs. initiating them don't you understand? Again, go back and look at my posts. You will be hard pressed to find one where I poked fun at Uconn for being in the ACC.

Again, yes, we laugh at BC haters. We laugh because they are funny in their hatred of all things BC. Not because they are Uconn fans or in the ACC. I think I was pretty clear in that comment.

How is it that you highlight a comment to make your point which has nothing to do with Uconn? Paranoid much?

I guess you missed the part of my post where I stated "I bolded something I don't think you restrict to just G'Town fans.". Reading comprehension, it's your friend.

Nope, my reading comp is just fine. Again, you responded to my comment I made about BC haters - which had nothing to do with Uconn and, in true paranoid fashion, attached it to Uconn. Forget the fact that I have never poked fun at Uconn in the AAC - you won't find any post of mine which does so; and I never initiate posts about Uconn - only respond to BC slams by guys like you.

Again, the fact that you chose to insert yourself into this specific discussion I was having with a G'Town fan that had NOTHING to do with Uconn says it all about your level of paranoia, IMO. Oh, and BTW, I am not the only one who thinks that around here. Other here have also stated as such.

...and yet you lump UCONN fans into your BC haters "club". Call it paranoid if you wish, I'll just call it the truth.

Um, the only reason why you and I are even discussing this is because YOU decided to insert yourself into a discussion I was having with a G'Town poster where Uconn was not even being discussed, so please spare me this malarky. I didn't bring Uconn into this discussion. You did. Yeah, that's classic paranoia.

(08-21-2016 10:36 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  I don't hate BC but I wasn't happy when they left. I do understand why there is more anger directed at BC as opposed to Miami & VTech.

Virginia Tech wasn't in league that long and quite frankly I don't think many fans from other schools really cared one way or another about them. It also seemed like it made sense for them to be in the ACC.


Miami similar situation. Were they ever really embraced as a BE member in terms of BB? A little harder to accept thatn Vtech leaving but still being in Florida most could understand why the felt ACC was a better fit.

BC being a northern founding member felt more like a kick in the groin. After initially and publicly being replaced by Vtech, they swore loyalty to the BE. They were privy to the plans and plans were designed with BC being part of them. Finally after a few months of behind the scenes talks with the ACC the truth came out. A week or so before the BE was to announce that Louisville, Cincy Marquette and DePaul were being ivited. The bomb was dropped and the BE had to quickly go to Plan b replacing BC with USF.

BC did what it thought it needed to. Right or wrong I think more fans felt betrayed and hurt by this move. Whats done is done. Its been over 10 years. The time to move on from the BC hatred (or anger) has long past

Gosports, the Conference changed. The BE in the fall of 2003 was not what it had initially agreed to be during the summer of that year. BC objected and reached out to the ACC, which BC knew needed a 12th school as their request to play a CG with 11 teams had been rejected by the NCAA. There is no evidence that BC was dealing with the ACC prior to the BE decision to move away from the previously agreed to all-sports conference structure.

That said, your argument is interesting. If I am understanding you, it seems BE fans were more bitter about BC leaving because Miami and VT were not founding BE members. That's quite as bit different, though, then being bitter because supposedly BC did something unique that the other departing schools did not do - which is a totally inaccurate perspective, IMO. Basically, to hold BC primarily accountable while giving Miami and VT a pass; as well as every other school that has left a conference doing pretty much the same thing, is hardly fair, IMO. Again, there were schools that voted down the ESPN media deal, then shortly thereafter bolted the Conference.

(08-21-2016 05:12 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 04:59 PM)bigeastern55 Wrote:  Please Golden Warrior don't lecture me on what went down long before you ever found your way to the Big East and honestly your a great part of the conference. Were there other options probably not but BCs spending a year behind the scenes made the only future option for football schools to get out of Dodge asap. At least SU had a little dignity but they had a quality A.D. BC is still trying to replace Bill Flynn.
The decline of BC athletics continues within the guise of the American Catholic Congregationalists as he seeks to mold once was once a very good College into a politically correct Harvard Light on the other side of the river.
He has just about reached that stage. Its time not just to add Holy Cross back to the schedule {and yes the Hoyas have beaten them 2 out of the last three years} but Brown and Dartmouth as well. I know a little more challenging than U Maine.

Given his objective is to make BC into the premiere Catholic University in the World the march to Irrelevancy will continue.

You are a Georgetown fan, right. Great school. My daughter graduated from there.

Look, I can understand your bitterness at BC. BC has completely left Georgetown in the dust athletically. This past year, despite having historically bad FB and BB seasons, BC still finished #48 in the Directors Cup - thrashing Georgetown at #72. I have been to Georgetown FB games - my old high school appears to have higher attendance and, IMO, better FB.). I know many Georgetown grads that are green with envy about the fact that BC successfully competes at a P5 FB level. (Make no mistake - it HAS been successful. 14 winning seasons in the last 17 years!) Sounds like you could be in that group.

BC's endowment is larger than Georgetown's. BC is undergoing a huge building campaign. Lot's of exciting things happening.

BC is doing just fine, thank you very much. We laugh at the jealous BC haters like you.

Having BC, GU, UConn, and SU in one conference was fun. I miss the ENDLESS hate and amazing rivalries.

(08-22-2016 01:14 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 10:36 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  I don't hate BC but I wasn't happy when they left. I do understand why there is more anger directed at BC as opposed to Miami & VTech.

Virginia Tech wasn't in league that long and quite frankly I don't think many fans from other schools really cared one way or another about them. It also seemed like it made sense for them to be in the ACC.


Miami similar situation. Were they ever really embraced as a BE member in terms of BB? A little harder to accept thatn Vtech leaving but still being in Florida most could understand why the felt ACC was a better fit.

BC being a northern founding member felt more like a kick in the groin. After initially and publicly being replaced by Vtech, they swore loyalty to the BE. They were privy to the plans and plans were designed with BC being part of them. Finally after a few months of behind the scenes talks with the ACC the truth came out. A week or so before the BE was to announce that Louisville, Cincy Marquette and DePaul were being ivited. The bomb was dropped and the BE had to quickly go to Plan b replacing BC with USF.

BC did what it thought it needed to. Right or wrong I think more fans felt betrayed and hurt by this move. Whats done is done. Its been over 10 years. The time to move on from the BC hatred (or anger) has long past

Gosports, the Conference changed. The BE in the fall of 2003 was not what it had initially agreed to be during the summer of that year. BC objected and reached out to the ACC, which BC knew needed a 12th school as their request to play a CG with 11 teams had been rejected by the NCAA. There is no evidence that BC was dealing with the ACC prior to the BE decision to move away from the previously agreed to all-sports conference structure.

That said, your argument is interesting. If I am understanding you, it seems BE fans were more bitter about BC leaving because Miami and VT were not founding BE members. That's quite as bit different, though, then being bitter because supposedly BC did something unique that the other departing schools did not do - which is a totally inaccurate perspective, IMO. Basically, to hold BC primarily accountable while giving Miami and VT a pass; as well as every other school that has left a conference doing pretty much the same thing, is hardly fair, IMO. Again, there were schools that voted down the ESPN media deal, then shortly thereafter bolted the Conference.

Transcripts of the meetings show that before BC even took over the BE reorg in the fall, all participants knew what the composition of the BE would be. So that is no excuse. The transcript were dated in the summer prior to the reorg.

(08-21-2016 10:11 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:50 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 01:12 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 12:58 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 07:33 PM)bigeastern55 Wrote:  You should actually take a course in reading comprehension. Guess you missed the word" unless". Uconn while a decent local draw was never provided the consistent impact that they like to think they had attendance wise at MSG. Try asking the guys on the street for the last 20 years scalping tickets.I'll gladly provide their names next time you are at the Garden.
But back to the main point which you have ignored. Any marginal impact that Uconn would have at MSG for the BET is only adding 1.5 mil max, to tickets sales. Hardly a reason to open the doors. Fox isn't going to bump the payout on the current deal by 7-10mil just because Uconn comes into the league for 1 2 or 7 years.There are also many of the original schools who remember Calhoun advocating that the league breakup Football V Basketball back in 2003 just prior to the traitors in Chestnut Hill commencing the mad dash to irrelevancy.

Ah yes, the old "traitors in Chestnut Hill" "chestnut."

Let's see, BC was the not the first to jump ship. Miami and VT went first. VT went so far as switching from a plaintiff (while secretly holding discussions with the ACC) to a member of the ACC literally overnight. But neither are "traitors."

SU and Pitt jumped to the ACC, WVU to the B12, and Rutgers to the BiG, all after rejecting a reported media deal with ESPN which would have paid BEFB Conference member schools approximately $13M a year. But none of these schools are "traitors."

Louisville jumped to the ACC, MD jumped to the BiG, Nebraska, jumped to the BiG, but none of these schools are "traitors."

In the whole history of realignment, only BC are the "traitors." (Or, as some WV posters labeled BC at the time, "traders.") Got it! ROTFL!

Oh, and by the way, 8 winning FB seasons out of the 11 played in the ACC and a just completed Top 50 (#48) in the Directors Cup is hardly the picture of "irrelevancy." Georgetown's Director's Cup ranking was #72, BTW!

You left out the C7 being traitors as too. Don't forget we bolted for greener pastures as well.

You are missing a helluva lot of history. It is well over 10 years old so it's not worth going into again, but rest assured, the traitor moniker is earned. You have to remember that the first instance of expansion backfire on BC. So BC was then made head of BE reorganization. This is when the backstabbing moves happened. And the criticism doesn't come from fans. There have been open letters from board members of other schools calling the BC Pres. a liar at academic conferences! The vitriol reached unprecedented heights. This is before Marquette joined the BE.

Ahh yes, Realignment 101 according to the Uconn fan. Here are the crib notes: "BC very bad. Caused all realignment woes!" Basically right?

Was BC chairing a Committee on the BE reorganization? Yes, but they were not the only folks involved by any means. BC also pushed for an all sports conference which the BE originally adopted. Later on, the BE changed their initial decision and set up the bifurcated conference which, as BC predicted, would ultimately result in its doom. BC Admins. made that point to the BE in the fall of 2003 and indicated they would reach back to the ACC as they did not support the bifurcated model. All of this is in the BE minutes for the Fall 2003 meeting. I am sure anyone who wants to can google it as I know they were available online. What you are conveniently leaving out is that what was agreed to in the summer of 2003 - right after the first raid with VT and Miami going to the ACC - significantly changed. It was at that point that BC reached back to the ACC.

Now, you may think the conversations with the ACC were ongoing throughout, but there is absolutely no proof of that, so please don't pass it off as fact.

Again, in the final analysis, BC's actions were no different than a whole host of schools. Besides, they didn't vote to spurn a lucrative ESPN media deal and then shortly thereafter bolt the conference, did they? Funny how that never registers with you guys! But then again, I forgot about how you guys look at Realignment 101 - Again,"BC very bad. Caused all realignment woes!"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

BC was covering its tracks by the fall. The earlier transcripts show that BC knew the score because it was shown in the early summer what the BE would look like.

This is entirely why Leahy was taken to task and called a liar by other school administrators.

Hold on. From what I recall of the minutes, during the summer of 2003 the football schools were pursuing a separate conference and a divorce from the basketball onlies. By September that had changed to the hybrid 16 team model that the Big East eventually became. Around the same time, Notre Dame said no to the ACC and the ACC didn't get the exemption for a CC with 11 teams. It created the 12th opening, and BC took it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They forgot to take the "We're committed to the Big East" statement off the athletic department website when they announced the move. That bothered me, but that was it.

This whole discussion has become too much in the way of a Deja VU commentary. I feel like its several years ago following Dr. Upstater breakdown of the facts regarding the "Questionable Ethics" exhibited by our former partner in the old BE on the Boneyard.

Many mistakes were made by all parties including the BBall schools and too many varying agendas on the part of the football schools. The failure of Tranghese to recognize what was going on and a variety of other options that had been floated by other factions in the BE office that may have worked. However, there was always a certain thinking from him according to some in the Providence office that it was still 1980.

In the end all parties sought what was best for them.

I chose to blame Joe Paterno

(08-22-2016 07:06 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 10:11 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 07:50 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 01:12 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 12:58 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  Ah yes, the old "traitors in Chestnut Hill" "chestnut."

Let's see, BC was the not the first to jump ship. Miami and VT went first. VT went so far as switching from a plaintiff (while secretly holding discussions with the ACC) to a member of the ACC literally overnight. But neither are "traitors."

SU and Pitt jumped to the ACC, WVU to the B12, and Rutgers to the BiG, all after rejecting a reported media deal with ESPN which would have paid BEFB Conference member schools approximately $13M a year. But none of these schools are "traitors."

Louisville jumped to the ACC, MD jumped to the BiG, Nebraska, jumped to the BiG, but none of these schools are "traitors."

In the whole history of realignment, only BC are the "traitors." (Or, as some WV posters labeled BC at the time, "traders.") Got it! ROTFL!

Oh, and by the way, 8 winning FB seasons out of the 11 played in the ACC and a just completed Top 50 (#48) in the Directors Cup is hardly the picture of "irrelevancy." Georgetown's Director's Cup ranking was #72, BTW!

You left out the C7 being traitors as too. Don't forget we bolted for greener pastures as well.

You are missing a helluva lot of history. It is well over 10 years old so it's not worth going into again, but rest assured, the traitor moniker is earned. You have to remember that the first instance of expansion backfire on BC. So BC was then made head of BE reorganization. This is when the backstabbing moves happened. And the criticism doesn't come from fans. There have been open letters from board members of other schools calling the BC Pres. a liar at academic conferences! The vitriol reached unprecedented heights. This is before Marquette joined the BE.

Ahh yes, Realignment 101 according to the Uconn fan. Here are the crib notes: "BC very bad. Caused all realignment woes!" Basically right?

Was BC chairing a Committee on the BE reorganization? Yes, but they were not the only folks involved by any means. BC also pushed for an all sports conference which the BE originally adopted. Later on, the BE changed their initial decision and set up the bifurcated conference which, as BC predicted, would ultimately result in its doom. BC Admins. made that point to the BE in the fall of 2003 and indicated they would reach back to the ACC as they did not support the bifurcated model. All of this is in the BE minutes for the Fall 2003 meeting. I am sure anyone who wants to can google it as I know they were available online. What you are conveniently leaving out is that what was agreed to in the summer of 2003 - right after the first raid with VT and Miami going to the ACC - significantly changed. It was at that point that BC reached back to the ACC.

Now, you may think the conversations with the ACC were ongoing throughout, but there is absolutely no proof of that, so please don't pass it off as fact.

Again, in the final analysis, BC's actions were no different than a whole host of schools. Besides, they didn't vote to spurn a lucrative ESPN media deal and then shortly thereafter bolt the conference, did they? Funny how that never registers with you guys! But then again, I forgot about how you guys look at Realignment 101 - Again,"BC very bad. Caused all realignment woes!"

Spin. Spin. Spin.

BC was covering its tracks by the fall. The earlier transcripts show that BC knew the score because it was shown in the early summer what the BE would look like.

This is entirely why Leahy was taken to task and called a liar by other school administrators.

ROTFL! you are not even consistent in your arguments.

On one hand, you accuse BC of "backstabbing" because, according to you, they were made "head of the reorganization" (your words). Now you claim that BC was "shown in the early summer what the BE would look like" (again, your words) So much for "leadership"! LOL

And you are factually incorrect about the BE structure having been settled in the summer of 2003. At the July, 2003 BE meeting, the ADs of the six remaining BEFC schools "came to a quick consensus" to separate from the BB schools. See the synopsis below from the Prov. Journal.

http://ninernation.net/index.php?topic=9108.0

Things changed at some point thereafter and the BEFC reversed course. BC indicated that they would not accept the new bifurcated structure and would reach back to the ACC. At the October 2003 meeting, BC let the BE know it was exploring its options with the ACC. That's not spin. You are the one that's doing the spinning here! ROTFL!

(08-22-2016 08:58 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Hold on. From what I recall of the minutes, during the summer of 2003 the football schools were pursuing a separate conference and a divorce from the basketball onlies. By September that had changed to the hybrid 16 team model that the Big East eventually became. Around the same time, Notre Dame said no to the ACC and the ACC didn't get the exemption for a CC with 11 teams. It created the 12th opening, and BC took it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They forgot to take the "We're committed to the Big East" statement off the athletic department website when they announced the move. That bothered me, but that was it.

That's exactly correct, as I show in my link. Methinks Upstater has developed his own view of the sequence of events that appears divorced from actual events. His responses here seem to be evidence of such.

(08-22-2016 09:14 AM)bigeastern55 Wrote:  I chose to blame Joe Paterno

Me too

(08-22-2016 08:58 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Hold on. From what I recall of the minutes, during the summer of 2003 the football schools were pursuing a separate conference and a divorce from the basketball onlies. By September that had changed to the hybrid 16 team model that the Big East eventually became. Around the same time, Notre Dame said no to the ACC and the ACC didn't get the exemption for a CC with 11 teams. It created the 12th opening, and BC took it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They forgot to take the "We're committed to the Big East" statement off the athletic department website when they announced the move. That bothered me, but that was it.

You're wrong and Eagle78 is always wrong about this, unless you assume that Presidents like Leahy were totally unaware of the Big East bylaws, which is farfetched to say the least.

There's a lot out there in print about this. As early as June it was reported in the Hartford Courant and by the Providence Journal that any talk of splitting was moot for obvious reasons. Neither side had the numbers to take the money and the assets (the rights to the Big East name) with them.

The whole reason Leahy's ethics were called into question was because he tried to hide behind a figleaf in those minutes from September. The minutes of a transcript from June though already showed that EVERYONE in the Big East knew they could not split per the bylaws. Unless of course someone wanted to give up money and the BE assets. The thing that the football schools were really concerned about in the early summer of 2003 was the BCS contract. It was an actual contract ascribing BCS rights to the Big East football conference. They could not presume to take that BCS contract into a totally new conference that was comprised of additional members (Louisville and Cincinnati). So they were locked in. And when the Catholic schools realized that the football schools were not going to give up the BE assets, they were locked in too (which is why teams like Marquette and DePaul needed to be added). This was known in June.

It is just a lie from BC and Eagle78 and the like to claim that this was some new revelation in September. BC took over in the early summer. They knew everything.

(08-22-2016 09:57 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 08:58 AM)megadrone Wrote:  Hold on. From what I recall of the minutes, during the summer of 2003 the football schools were pursuing a separate conference and a divorce from the basketball onlies. By September that had changed to the hybrid 16 team model that the Big East eventually became. Around the same time, Notre Dame said no to the ACC and the ACC didn't get the exemption for a CC with 11 teams. It created the 12th opening, and BC took it.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They forgot to take the "We're committed to the Big East" statement off the athletic department website when they announced the move. That bothered me, but that was it.

You're wrong and Eagle78 is always wrong about this, unless you assume that Presidents like Leahy were totally unaware of the Big East bylaws, which is farfetched to say the least.

There's a lot out there in print about this. As early as June it was reported in the Hartford Courant and by the Providence Journal that any talk of splitting was moot for obvious reasons. Neither side had the numbers to take the money and the assets (the rights to the Big East name) with them.

The whole reason Leahy's ethics were called into question was because he tried to hide behind a figleaf in those minutes from September. The minutes of a transcript from June though already showed that EVERYONE in the Big East knew they could not split per the bylaws. Unless of course someone wanted to give up money and the BE assets. The thing that the football schools were really concerned about in the early summer of 2003 was the BCS contract. It was an actual contract ascribing BCS rights to the Big East football conference. They could not presume to take that BCS contract into a totally new conference that was comprised of additional members (Louisville and Cincinnati). So they were locked in. And when the Catholic schools realized that the football schools were not going to give up the BE assets, they were locked in too (which is why teams like Marquette and DePaul needed to be added). This was known in June.

It is just a lie from BC and Eagle78 and the like to claim that this was some new revelation in September. BC took over in the early summer. They knew everything.

Listening to Upstater's dissembling of the facts reminds me of that classic Richard Pryor line where, in his comedic bit, his wife catches him with another woman and his retort to the wife is "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

Contrary to what Upstater claims, I included a synopsis from the Providence Journal above which confirms my point. Let me repeat the quote from the link:

"A July 9, 2003 meeting came two weeks after Miami and Virginia Tech accepted offers to leave for the ACC. BC and Syracuse were surprisingly bypassed by the ACC in favor of the Hokies and left to rebuild a badly damaged football conference.

Presidents and athletic directors of the six remaining football schools (BC, Uconn, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, and West Virginia) came to a quick consensus to split from basketball partners Providence, Georgetown, St. John's, Seton Hall, and Villanova."

Contrary to Upstater's claim, the BEF schools at the July 2003 meeting decided to break apart from the BB schools. This was the decision that BC supported. Yes, the Conference did subsequently decide on the bifurcated structure at some point afterwards, and BC opposed it, and reached back to the ACC. At the October meeting, BC was up front and disclosed they were exploring options with the ACC. The idea they were "backstabbing" the BE schools is a fantasy of his.

Facts are facts. Upstater is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

According to SB Nation, there is mutual interest between the Big East and UConn.

Reports of mutual interest between the Big East and UConn

Not my fight, but it does surprise me that a guy who has been a member for 7 years, has a quarter of the posts he has ever made, on this very menial topic of rehashing things from over a decade ago. Odd.

(08-22-2016 12:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not my fight, but it does surprise me that a guy who has been a member for 7 years, has a quarter of the posts he has ever made, on this very menial topic of rehashing things from over a decade ago. Odd.

No, it would be odd if I was forever bringing the subject up. I don't do that. I just respond to others who bring the topic up. Obviously, the topic has residual Interest. It if wasn't raised by others, I wouldn't be discussing it. Pretty simple.

So, 75% of my posts are on things other than this according to you. And your point is?....

(08-22-2016 10:59 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  According to SB Nation, there is mutual interest between the Big East and UConn.

Reports of mutual interest between the Big East and UConn

Where and who is citing that there is interest from someone in the Big East office. or are we again still talking about an unamed source somewhere in RI.

(08-22-2016 01:14 AM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-21-2016 10:36 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  I don't hate BC but I wasn't happy when they left. I do understand why there is more anger directed at BC as opposed to Miami & VTech.

Virginia Tech wasn't in league that long and quite frankly I don't think many fans from other schools really cared one way or another about them. It also seemed like it made sense for them to be in the ACC.


Miami similar situation. Were they ever really embraced as a BE member in terms of BB? A little harder to accept thatn Vtech leaving but still being in Florida most could understand why the felt ACC was a better fit.

BC being a northern founding member felt more like a kick in the groin. After initially and publicly being replaced by Vtech, they swore loyalty to the BE. They were privy to the plans and plans were designed with BC being part of them. Finally after a few months of behind the scenes talks with the ACC the truth came out. A week or so before the BE was to announce that Louisville, Cincy Marquette and DePaul were being ivited. The bomb was dropped and the BE had to quickly go to Plan b replacing BC with USF.

BC did what it thought it needed to. Right or wrong I think more fans felt betrayed and hurt by this move. Whats done is done. Its been over 10 years. The time to move on from the BC hatred (or anger) has long past

Gosports, the Conference changed. The BE in the fall of 2003 was not what it had initially agreed to be during the summer of that year. BC objected and reached out to the ACC, which BC knew needed a 12th school as their request to play a CG with 11 teams had been rejected by the NCAA. There is no evidence that BC was dealing with the ACC prior to the BE decision to move away from the previously agreed to all-sports conference structure.

That said, your argument is interesting. If I am understanding you, it seems BE fans were more bitter about BC leaving because Miami and VT were not founding BE members. That's quite as bit different, though, then being bitter because supposedly BC did something unique that the other departing schools did not do - which is a totally inaccurate perspective, IMO. Basically, to hold BC primarily accountable while giving Miami and VT a pass; as well as every other school that has left a conference doing pretty much the same thing, is hardly fair, IMO. Again, there were schools that voted down the ESPN media deal, then shortly thereafter bolted the Conference.

To his point, as a founding member, yeah you would be held to a higher standard. But the thing is, why do you care so much? Conference realignment, to those who were in a position of weakness (i.e. a non-king school in a conference with an uncertain future) it is often kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. Sometimes you do what you have to do. If that is what it takes, you sometimes have to do it. Consider the alterative: what if BC didn't make that play and Syracuse grabbed that spot, and everything else happened as it did? It's quite possible there is no ACC move to 12 teams, or if there is, it is with Pittsburgh, and Louisville, West Virginia, Cincinnati, UConn, and BC are all fighting for the last spot (granted one more spot would later open up with Maryland. With the dynamics changing, there is no telling what the choices may have been. Though not likely, it is possible instead you are in the AAC with UConn, or in UConn's place. Is that a position you would want to be in?

If not, then don't worry about it. Similar to how WVU fans have to take it: you DON'T want the alternative, so if what you (or your admin) felt they needed to do what they needed to do, to get where they are, AND you are happy there, just let it ride.

I am a Louisville fan. I know flat out some of our past administrators phukked over teams and conferences. We (And FSU) were too greedy to let the Metro super-conference take shape (which would have killed the Big East as a conference), even though such a conference likely would not have lasted today. We phukked over Virginia Tech and Virginia Commonwealth when we dissolved the Metro conference, and our leaving C-USA phukked over a lot of teams left there, especially St. Louis and Charlotte who were eventually forced to leave, and Memphis and especially southern Miss. It happens. And if one of their fans were to call out the school for it, there is no reason for me to get mad, or try to defend their actions. They were cruddy actions, and things I wouldn't condon contemporarily, but they happened, and it worked out.

(08-22-2016 12:46 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(08-22-2016 12:35 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Not my fight, but it does surprise me that a guy who has been a member for 7 years, has a quarter of the posts he has ever made, on this very menial topic of rehashing things from over a decade ago. Odd.

No, it would be odd if I was forever bringing the subject up. I don't do that. I just respond to others who bring the topic up. Obviously, the topic has residual Interest. It if wasn't raised by others, I wouldn't be discussing it. Pretty simple.

So, 75% of my posts are on things other than this according to you. And your point is?....

Damn you are defensive. I was NOT talking about you. Math is not your strong suit either I see. I was talking about the guy you were debating. The one with 32 posts over 7 years (2009), with about a quarter of them on this thread. That is my point. What is yours?