(10-01-2013 11:46 AM)btstimpy Wrote:  Georgia Tech left the SEC. I'm sure there are schools out there that would love to be in the Big Ten. They just aren't in the ACC.

Well, yeah, now that it's GoR + a reasonable exit fee.

If the conference was still getting picked apart on the other hand, B1G would look mighty fine (to a least 1 ACC school anyway... Starts with a V... Not in North Carolina.).

(10-01-2013 12:41 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-01-2013 11:49 AM)TerryD Wrote:  So did Tulane (in 1966).

In the same vein let's not forget that Chicago left the Big Ten in 1946.

People may not remember it, but Sewanee (the University of the South) left the SEC in 1940. They play at the Division III level now...

Sewanee, Tulane, and GT all have very similar academic ratings too...

(09-27-2013 07:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  You need a Federal question or complete diversity of citizenship to file a suit in Federal court.

You have to have all plaintiffs and all defendants to be citizens of different states (diversity of citizenship) or you have to have a Federal question (U.S. Constitution, Federal statute, etc..).

Otherwise, Federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. They are courts of limited jurisdiction.

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction over the subject matter.

To have personal jurisdiction over a defendant in state court, that person/entity has to have sufficient "minimum contacts" with the state (do business there, etc..) and you have to serve the defendant with the lawsuit.

If you are a defendant in state court, you can try to remove the case to Federal court.

Besides the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship or a Federal question, you only have thirty days from when you are served with the state court lawsuit to file your removal action.

If you don't have diversity or a Federal question, and/or you don't remove it within thirty days of service, you are stuck in state court for the duration of the state court lawsuit.

If the other posters had been correct that the State of North Carolina were suing the State of Maryland, original jurisdiction would be the US Supreme Court.

(09-29-2013 01:21 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(09-29-2013 11:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(09-28-2013 07:14 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(09-28-2013 02:22 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-28-2013 02:12 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The ACC had better leadership. The ACC might have factions, but the infighting in the ACC is nothing compared to the infighting in the BIG EAST. Leadership aside, I think that the BIG EAST had more aggregate value and more individual value than the ACC on the night before the raid. Obviously that changed when the BIG EAST lost BC, Miami, and VT, and it was driven home when the BIG EAST lost Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC and then WVU to the Big XII.

And that was my point...

Who had more individual value? FSU was more valuable than any football team in the Big East. UNC and Duke were more valuable than any basketball program in the Big East.

Not going by revenue. Duke and UNC bball > SU bball, but SU fb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duke and UNC football at the time (hence the fact that SU was the most profitable school out of the bunch in '01). Throw in the fact that city schools were also good at the time, like BC and Miami (who was far and away the most high profile team in the nation at that time), and although I don't remember Pitt being great, they had Larry Fitz, so fan support was significantly higher then than it is now (to be fair, the city schools comment was mostly aimed at Miami, but it true to an extent to BC and possibly Pitt).

Then there are the other schools like WVU, VT (who played FSU in the '99 championship and had Vick, I believe), UConn who was winning bball NC's, Georgetown and ND (bball-only). Admittedly ND and GU weren't killers at the time, but they still had good name recognition.

Plus, it's worth remembering that the basketball-only schools that form the current BIG EAST arguably get paid more for their TV content than the ACC does once football is taken out, and that's without high profile teams like SU and UCONN in the BIG EAST and the addition of high profile teams, like Pitt, SU, and UL in the ACC. There's a ton of interest in those games that can't really be appreciated from the outside. It's like when the NC schools play each other.

The current BE gets paid more (for basketball) because FOX overpaid for the content. They're trying to compete with ESPN and needed to make a splash.

The value of a program isn't just based on wins and losses, otherwise UCONN would be in a major conference just due to basketball. You have to look at how much interest a school generates outside of their local area. Even as mediocre as UNC has been in football, networks still consider them a valuable commodity. They are in the top 10 in collegiate sales and has one of the best overall athletic programs in the country. UNC as a whole will always have more value than Syracuse.

Then you look at Duke basketball. Duke basketball is worth more to TV networks than half of the BE's football teams.

Ultimately, the ACC was more valuable because of the teams at the top and not so much about the middle and the bottom. It's very similar to the B1G in football where it's about Ohio St, Mich, Penn St, Neb and everyone else is roll the dice.

Except financially. Syracuse made more money than UNC before the raid. I have the numbers from '01 if you don't believe me.

Also, speaking of teams at the top, who was better from 1980-2002 than Miami? I realize that's somewhat cherry-picked but the end year is right before the raid and the beginning year is the dawn of the modern Miami and coincidentally the year that the graduating seniors of '02 were born.

(09-29-2013 02:01 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(09-29-2013 12:18 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I'm sure Maryland can't wait to play illustrious flagship peer institutions such as Iowa, Rutgers, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue (oh wait), and Northwestern (oh wait),

I agree!

...wait, was that a putdown? OF COURSE Maryland would rather play those schools! They're Maryland-like schools! Well, except Northwestern. And Sparty isn't a flagship either. Purdue is supposed to be a co-flagship but you can claim it if you like. That's 3 out of 14 schools that aren't flagships. The ACC Maryland left was 11 out of 14 non-flagships, and it's about to be 12 out of 14. Like will seek like in this crazy conference realignment game, given the opportunity.

Quote: and I'm sure that they're chomping at the bit to stop playing Duke (their one way rival), Virginia Tech, UVA, NCSU, Clemson, UNC, and so on. Ask almost any UMD fan. I'm sure they'll tell you that they can't wait to leave the conference that UMD unofficially joined in 1921 and officially joined in 1953. I'm sure the 90+ years of history with most of the ACC and great geographic proximity mean almost nothing to them.

I'd ask them, and they might express these opinions you attribute to them, but not chomping at the bit is not the same thing as being deeply opposed or upset and angry. A Maryland fanbase that truly deeply cared about those things would have erupted in revolt. What we saw was more like mild displeasure from a fanbase that didn't care all that much. And not caring all that much is a sad longterm consequence of playing in the ACC, at least for Maryland which was always well-known to be a stepchild.

Quote:RE earlier post: Why would he be concerned about PSU's long term future as an island in the B1G if PSU wasn't looking to the ACC. What other conference would they be talking to? Pac-12? They're too far away. Big XII? They're the least attractive P5 conference. SEC? They're too far away/culturally different.

There's "looking" and there's "this actually has a chance at happening." This--PSU to the ACC--had zero, goose egg, nada chance of happening in the short to medium term, any more than BC moving back to the Big East did.

And at the time the ACC was the least stable Cartel conference, remember? This stuff changes fast.

Quote:As for calling the guy an idiot, he's the AD at Wisconsin. Idiot or not, he's well-informed.

I didn't say idiot! I said cretin. TOTALLY different.

I left out Sparty because MSU is a legit game. The rest aren't, and if you think that the average Terp fan cares whether the other team on the field represents a school that is flagship or not, you're nuts.

UMD fans were upset. I have no idea what world you're living in, but UMD fans complained loudly, whereas SU and Pitt fans danced in the streets when SU and Pitt got the invite to the ACC. Wide-spread celebration is what it looks like when a school's fans actually want to join a conference.

Why were they "looking" if there wasn't a chance of moving?

Who said that the ACC was the least stable conference? (Other than you, a couple of WVU fans, and an occasional ill-informed journalist bent on drumming up interest)

Finally:

cre·tin
/ˈkrētn/
noun: cretin;plural noun: cretins
1. a stupid person (used as a general term of abuse).

id·i·ot
/ˈidēət/
noun
informal
noun: idiot;plural noun: idiots
1. a stupid person.

Notice the similarities in definitions? Don't use words that you don't understand.

Sparty is a flagship that just happens to have an internationally respected school down the road. And if the rule is that you can only have 1 per state...

SU and Pitt were celebrating leaving their former conference-mates in the dust as much as moving on the ACC. UMD fans, as a founding member of the ACC, had a little more class than that and were not feeling as desperate to find a new home.

As far as PSU... I find it curious as to why so many ACC fans wanted to prey on a wounded animal with a hyperactive fan base that didn't know which way was up.

(10-01-2013 11:37 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  cre·tin
/ˈkrētn/
noun: cretin;plural noun: cretins
1. a stupid person (used as a general term of abuse).

You mean Cretins aren't from Crete?

(10-02-2013 06:38 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Sparty is a flagship that just happens to have an internationally respected school down the road. And if the rule is that you can only have 1 per state...

SU and Pitt were celebrating leaving their former conference-mates in the dust as much as moving on the ACC. UMD fans, as a founding member of the ACC, had a little more class than that and were not feeling as desperate to find a new home.

As far as PSU... I find it curious as to why so many ACC fans wanted to prey on a wounded animal with a hyperactive fan base that didn't know which way was up.

Thanks to the Michigan fan speaking for Pitt and Syracuse fans. I will speak for myself and the Pitt fans I know.

The Big East was a house with two agendas. Those of the FBS FB playing schools and those of the BB first schools. Everything in the Big East was a compromise. The debacle that was a year of waiting on Villanova's completely ridiculous proposal was the last straw.

The 4 most vocal opponents of Villanova's plan; Pitt, Cuse, WVU, and Rutgers are not coincidently either in another conference or will be next year.

The Pitt fans I know and myself had no joy at leaving our conference mates of 30 years, but were ecstatic to leave the political BS that was rife in the Big East. Pitt fans are thrilled to be in a conference where the members are similar in academic scope and standing and have similar athletic concerns and aspirations.

I myself was quite open about my mixed feelings about leaving. On one hand it is something that had to happen, but we still had 30 years of history with the Big East schools. If the ACC expands again, I hope Cincy or UConn gets a call.

It was far less about the one-upsmanship you suggest and way more about aligning with institutions of similar stature and goals.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 4

(10-02-2013 09:58 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Thanks to the Michigan fan speaking for Pitt and Syracuse fans. I will speak for myself and the Pitt fans I know.

I spent a year or so frequenting the Pitt Rivals board. When they got tired of trashing Penn State and B1G they would turn against the Big East and then especially Rutgers when they got the B1G invite.

As for Syracuse. Yeah, sorry 'Cuse, I really have very little to go on as a basis for making assumptions there.

Actually, I'll submit this local bantering between UConn and Cuse as a possible qualifier for "one-upsmanship". I believe everything I read on the net after all... I slept since yesterday and couldn't remember where I read it:
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=652066&page=5

(10-01-2013 11:46 AM)btstimpy Wrote:  Georgia Tech left the SEC. I'm sure there are schools out there that would love to be in the Big Ten. They just aren't in the ACC.

Yes, where do we sign?

(09-29-2013 11:40 AM)justinslot Wrote:  Every time this is mentioned I feel the need to add: 1. Barry Alvarez said there was a danger in keeping PSU on an Eastern island in the long term, not that there was any chance whatsoever that PSU was about to leave the B1G if they didn't add Rutgers.

Eh, be it the knee-jerk threat of expulsion or the administrative rebuilding at the university after the removals and sanctions, Penn State's place in the Big Ten was not a certainty.

I think you also forget how often PSU campaigned for other eastern schools. Other than the link between Spanier and Perlman, PSU didn't want to be the eastern-most institution in the conference. The Big Ten was Bryce Jordan's vision, carried on by Graham Spanier. I doubt it was mutually on the radar much before it.

It's to that extent, and UMD's leaving the ACC, that I don't find it ridiculous were there frequent discussions between the Big Ten and Vanderbilt. I don't know how this athlete compensation/benefit thing shakes down, but I think Vandy would take the more conservative B1G-like philosophy, not terribly unlike the sort of philosophical issues that saw GT and Tulane peel off.

(10-02-2013 06:38 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Sparty is a flagship that just happens to have an internationally respected school down the road. And if the rule is that you can only have 1 per state...

SU and Pitt were celebrating leaving their former conference-mates in the dust as much as moving on the ACC. UMD fans, as a founding member of the ACC, had a little more class than that and were not feeling as desperate to find a new home.

As far as PSU... I find it curious as to why so many ACC fans wanted to prey on a wounded animal with a hyperactive fan base that didn't know which way was up.

1. I might be misreading your post, but I think it's in response to mine. If MSU isn't the flagship state school for the state of Michigan. The University of Michigan is. However, Sparty fields great teams, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise in any way, shape, or form. If I came off otherwise, it was not intentional.

2. Most SU fans loved the BIG EAST. It was just a sinking ship. I once heard an ESPN journalist say that "nowhere does the BIG EAST's drum beat louder than Syracuse University," and I believe it. I also have a tremendous amount of respect for old BIG EAST foes. Pitt, Miami, WVU, and BC all have rich football histories, and just about every school in the BIG EAST could play round ball at a very high level. All the SU fans that I knew were celebrating the promise of the future, not leaving the past.

3. The ACC is aggressive with conference expansion...trust me. I've been on the giving end of ACC expansion and the receiving end. I don't apologize for it. I wish UMD had stayed, but such is life. As a PSU alum, I am for PSU being in an eastern conference, and I think that the ACC is my best bet. Honestly, I would like to see BC, PSU, SU, WVU, Pitt, ND, UMD, and Army in one conference, with Georgetown, Stj, UCONN, and Nova in basketball. I don't care what they call it, or who gets credit for it. I really don't. I just want to see it happen, and I want to see the bball tourney in NYC and the HQ in NYC.

(10-03-2013 08:09 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-29-2013 11:40 AM)justinslot Wrote:  Every time this is mentioned I feel the need to add: 1. Barry Alvarez said there was a danger in keeping PSU on an Eastern island in the long term, not that there was any chance whatsoever that PSU was about to leave the B1G if they didn't add Rutgers.

Eh, be it the knee-jerk threat of expulsion or the administrative rebuilding at the university after the removals and sanctions, Penn State's place in the Big Ten was not a certainty.

I think you also forget how often PSU campaigned for other eastern schools. Other than the link between Spanier and Perlman, PSU didn't want to be the eastern-most institution in the conference. The Big Ten was Bryce Jordan's vision, carried on by Graham Spanier. I doubt it was mutually on the radar much before it.

It's to that extent, and UMD's leaving the ACC, that I don't find it ridiculous were there frequent discussions between the Big Ten and Vanderbilt. I don't know how this athlete compensation/benefit thing shakes down, but I think Vandy would take the more conservative B1G-like philosophy, not terribly unlike the sort of philosophical issues that saw GT and Tulane peel off.

Some ACC admins saw PSU as a school that would likely end up in the ACC back in the '80's. In fact, it has been speculated that the B1G's PSU add is what caused the ACC to add FSU and the BIG EAST to add Miami.