Was there ever a chance of RU going to the ACC?

[RutgersROB]

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

Originally posted by Saint Puppy:
People can trash the ACC all they want, but when we were in limbo looking like we were left holding the bag any of us would have taken the ACC in a heartbeat. We hit the conference lottery though, and I couldn't be happier.

I beleive a year or two befire the B1G invite , this board had a discussion on which conference Rutgers would fit better in.
If memory serves me correct, some felt the ACC was a better fit .

I remember that as well people were hoping for a ACC invite because at that point we just wanted anything out of BE...

people wanted ACC but I said made the debate that the top 3 teams in B1G were waaaay better programs than top 3 in ACC....


Michigan, Ohio St, Nebraska > Florida St, Clemson, UNC?

 

[Caliknight]

Someone whom I trust associated with the department told me the acc was an easy get, if we wanted it. As it was said, we put them off in hopes the B1G would move forward.

 

[JoeRU0304]

Something that was an interesting read- Boston Globe article from October 2011 mentioned the original 2011 ACC expansion candidates were cuse and UConn, but BC threw a s**tfit about UConn so the powers that be backed off. The BigXII was sniffing around Pitt, which lead the the ACC focusing there to preempt them getting a foothold in the Northeast (I said 3 years ago I thought the BigXII should have tried for Cincy, Rutgers and UConn to bracket WVU and give them a foothold in the Northeast). It also seemed like the PAC/ B1G expansions destabilizing the BigXII is what prompted the ACC to act before someone else did.


Joe P.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by JoeRU0304:
Topdeck, cuse/ Pitt to the ACC was absolutely announced in September 2011, not 2012 (stone-cold fact not even up for debate). I also remember the BC article where their official mention ESPN telling them they identified the 2 candidates they wanted the ACC to go after (the article quickly vanished although other outlets picked up on it).


Joe P.


Here is the Boston Globe article. What was actually said has been misrepresented. Here is what DeFilippo actually said:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he [DeFilippo] said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.''

I understand why the narrative has gotten out like it has, but you have to be honest about this, and not twist around words. DeFilippo began the statement by mentioning that money was the driving factor. The ACC chose the schools that it did based on which ones would bring in the most revenue. Since ESPN is the one paying for the contract, then obviously the schools for which ESPN will pay the most money would be the ones the ACC would take. That's not ESPN giving an order. That's a business decision based on the value to both sides. The ACC didn't have to expand at all, if they didn't want to. They wanted to expand to get more money, ESPN then said which schools it would pay the most for, and thus the decision.

Link

 

[MADHAT1]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by JoeRU0304:
Topdeck, cuse/ Pitt to the ACC was absolutely announced in September 2011, not 2012 (stone-cold fact not even up for debate). I also remember the BC article where their official mention ESPN telling them they identified the 2 candidates they wanted the ACC to go after (the article quickly vanished although other outlets picked up on it).


Joe P.


Here is the Boston Globe article. What was actually said has been misrepresented. Here is what DeFilippo actually said:

"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he [DeFilippo] said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.''

I understand why the narrative has gotten out like it has, but you have to be honest about this, and not twist around words. DeFilippo began the statement by mentioning that money was the driving factor. The ACC chose the schools that it did based on which ones would bring in the most revenue. Since ESPN is the one paying for the contract, then obviously the schools for which ESPN will pay the most money would be the ones the ACC would take. That's not ESPN giving an order. That's a business decision based on the value to both sides. The ACC didn't have to expand at all, if they didn't want to. They wanted to expand to get more money, ESPN then said which schools it would pay the most for, and thus the decision.

According to Pittsburgh
when Boston College expressed objections. Boston College athletic
director Gene DeFilippo was surprisingly candid about the role his
school played in keeping UConn out, telling the Globe, "We didn't want
them in. It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/boston-college-ad-admits-to-blocking-uconns-path-to-acc?urn=ncaab,wp5260

 

[seels2662]

Just an FYI, there was ZERO chance the ACC would have taken us. They still wouldn't. They want no part of a school that has neglected the basketball program like we did.

 

[PatrickRU92]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PatrickRU92:



How does BCU get favored over Vtech?


Because expansion is about markets now. It's not about how good an individual team is.

I agree. But BCU delievers a grand total of zero markets.

We've been through this more times on this board than I care to count in the last decaded--just because a team is IN the market doesn't mean that they DELIVER the market.

 

[brista21]

Originally posted by motorb54:

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

Originally posted by Saint Puppy:
People can trash the ACC all they want, but when we were in limbo looking like we were left holding the bag any of us would have taken the ACC in a heartbeat. We hit the conference lottery though, and I couldn't be happier.

I beleive a year or two befire the B1G invite , this board had a discussion on which conference Rutgers would fit better in.
If memory serves me correct, some felt the ACC was a better fit .

I don't know if it was because of a better fit
or people were voicing their preference for traveling to Florida or the Carolinas for a November game vs. going to Wisconsin/Minnesota/ Iowa

This. Geographically a majority of the conference would have been within 8 hours drive from campus. Where as in the Big Ten, only Maryland, Penn State and Ohio State fit that bill. All other things considered this is a far better fit for us. Institutionally we're with peers, in the ACC it would have been a mix of all different types. There's nothing wrong with that, but I prefer the group we're running with now.

 

[Eagle78]

Patrick - Really? What exactly is "delivering" a market? Of course BC does not dominate the Boston market - the pro teams do. Ditto for every major northeastern city.

What BC does provide is solid ratings (see the 2013 media study that I attached in an above post) and all important presence. The fact is that BC's non-nationally televised games are covered on NESN (the Region's main cable sports network) throughout New England. Don't minimize the importance of that. The Boston market is the #7 median market and one of the wealthiest. Smaller market shares in this market trump bigger market shares in other smaller, less affluent places. The fact is that Boston College and ACC games are televised in the Boston market. The B10 network is not on the basic cable tier in Boston. Without BC in the ACC, who knows. That's the whole point!

This post was edited on 3/8 11:53 AM by Eagle78

 

[G- RUnit]

Originally posted by brista21:

Originally posted by motorb54:

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

Originally posted by Saint Puppy:
People can trash the ACC all they want, but when we were in limbo looking like we were left holding the bag any of us would have taken the ACC in a heartbeat. We hit the conference lottery though, and I couldn't be happier.

I beleive a year or two befire the B1G invite , this board had a discussion on which conference Rutgers would fit better in.
If memory serves me correct, some felt the ACC was a better fit .

I don't know if it was because of a better fit
or people were voicing their preference for traveling to Florida or the Carolinas for a November game vs. going to Wisconsin/Minnesota/ Iowa

This. Geographically a majority of the conference would have been within 8 hours drive from campus. Where as in the Big Ten, only Maryland, Penn State and Ohio State fit that bill. All other things considered this is a far better fit for us. Institutionally we're with peers, in the ACC it would have been a mix of all different types. There's nothing wrong with that, but I prefer the group we're running with now.

I too prefer the group we are in now as well but please stop the silly institutional peers talk. We have just as much common with the ACC schools, UVA, UNC, Va Tech, Pitt, NC State, Duke, then we will ever have with Minny, Iowa, Nebraska, Illini, Wisconsin. Our Alumni are also up and down the east coast. They aren't living in Iowa, Indiana, Minny, Nebraska, Wisc and Illinios. We are in a much much better league but it has nothing to do with a better "institutional fit."

 

[ScarletSteve]

Originally posted by jay_hq:

+1 Bazillion

WE R B1G!

 

[RURM85]

Large public state university with a focus on research and lots of alumni. Yes, our profile is a much better fit with schools in the Big Ten compared to the ACC. Our only fit with the ACC is geographically and that's also questionable.

 

[G- RUnit]

UVA? UNC? NC State, Va Tech, Pitt? FSU? All large state research universities and lots of alumni? Difference really not that much. Is Northwestern that different than Duke?

 

[ruman]

We are great where we are. But anybody who thinks we turned down the ACC in the dark days of the Big East/AAC demise is absolutely kidding themselves. Sorry. Thank goodness for the B1G, Pernetti and Delany. We were very close to being Uconn.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[NorthernKnight]

Ever a chance of rutgers to the ACC?

Simple answer: No.

the B1G wad the target and is clearly the best place for Rutgers.

the ACC will not survive long term

 

[RURM85]

Duke, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Notre Dame, Miami. Yes, there's a difference. ACC is comprised of different types of schools, some private and small, some similar to Rutgers, some with AAU membership and others not. The Big Ten is comprised of almost all large, public state schools (with the exception of NU) and all that focus on research including AAU membership (excluding Nebraska). Our institution fits very well with the B1G compared to a hodgepodge.

 

[Jonas Grumby]

I think the big10 wanted rutgers going back awhile and rutgers wanted to go, and both sides had discussions and understandings about it. That said, anyone who thinks it was a done deal, fait accompli for years and years is smoking something. It may have been a likely or even the the most likely outcome, it may have been the full intentions of the parties at the time, but it was not and could not have been close to certain. its fantastic that it worked out, but not all serious courtships result in marraige.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

According to Pittsburgh
when Boston College expressed objections. Boston College athletic
director Gene DeFilippo was surprisingly candid about the role his
school played in keeping UConn out, telling the Globe, "We didn't want
them in. It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/boston-college-ad-admits-to-blocking-uconns-path-to-acc?urn=ncaab,wp5260


And see, here's your problem. Most people are trying to draw two narratives out of DeFilippo's quotes, which are contradictory. On the one hand, he said ESPN told the ACC who to take. Then on the other hand, he said BC blocked UConn. You can't have it both ways. If ESPN told the ACC who to take, the Boston College had no say in the matter. If Boston College blocked UConn, the ESPN didn't tell the ACC who to take, since the team they wanted got blocked.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PatrickRU92:

I agree. But BCU delievers a grand total of zero markets.

We've been through this more times on this board than I care to count in the last decaded--just because a team is IN the market doesn't mean that they DELIVER the market.



We've been through it, and you are still wrong about it. It's not up to BC to "deliver" the Boston market. The purpose of having BC is to get the other teams into the Boston market. For example, in the old days, when the ACC had a regional telecast on Raycom (let's say Georgia Tech vs NC State), that game would only have been shown in south of Maryland. Now with BC, that game is broadcast in Boston as well. Similarly, that same Georgia Tech/NC State game is broadcast in New York, on the YES network. That would not have happened if Syracuse wasn't in the league. That's the real point of having these teams. It's not up to Boston College to carry the Boston market. It's up to Florida St, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, etc. to carry it.

 

[MADHAT1]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

According to Pittsburgh
when Boston College expressed objections. Boston College athletic
director Gene DeFilippo was surprisingly candid about the role his
school played in keeping UConn out, telling the Globe, "We didn't want
them in. It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team."
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/boston-college-ad-admits-to-blocking-uconns-path-to-acc?urn=ncaab,wp5260


And see, here's your problem. Most people are trying to draw two narratives out of DeFilippo's quotes, which are contradictory. On the one hand, he said ESPN told the ACC who to take. Then on the other hand, he said BC blocked UConn. You can't have it both ways. If ESPN told the ACC who to take, the Boston College had no say in the matter. If Boston College blocked UConn, the ESPN didn't tell the ACC who to take, since the team they wanted got blocked.

Or they both agreed, for their own reasons, that UConn shouldn't be invited.
So it can be both ways , if two parties want something , but for different reasons.
ESPN could have told the ACC to raid the BE and BC fought UConn being one of the BE schools raided.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by MADHAT1:

Or they both agreed, for their own reasons, that UConn shouldn't be invited.
So it can be both ways , if two parties want something , but for different reasons.
ESPN could have told the ACC to raid the BE and BC fought UConn being one of the BE schools raided.



No, because that's not what was said in the article, and that's not the argument that's been made here. You take the article literally when it suits you, but then extrapolate when it doesn't suit you. If ESPN didn't want UConn, then Boston College's objection is irrelevant. UConn wasn't getting in anyway if ESPN didn't want them. Boston College' objection would only be effective if ESPN agreed, and again, there is no evidence of this in the article. Conversely, if ESPN wanted UConn, and Boston College blocked them, then Boston College has more power than ESPN. Explain how that works. On the one hand, we have posters talking about how Boston College has zero market share, and zero influence. Ok, if that's the case, then how is it that Boston College all of a sudden has this power to convince ESPN to choose a different team? On top of that, Boston College can't block a team by themselves. Two other ACC schools have to go along for a block to be successful. If the vote is 11-1 for UConn, then Boston College's block is overruled. That's another problem with this whole ESPN conspiracy theory. The conference schools still have to have a vote, no matter what.

 

[RUfinal4]

I personally preferred the ACC before the B10 invite.

I think our lack of historical success hurt us with the ACC powers. While we have a better media market compared to SU, Pitt, and BC they have proven they could be competitive in both hoops and football. If RU was better in hoops and started the ascension in football 5 years earler than we would have been on the ACC invite list.

Looking at media markets there are a lot of teams that are situated there that are not the #1 team:
- Temple in Philly is 2nd to PSU
- UNC Charlotte in Charlotte is lower than UNC and DUke
- Towson, Hopkins, and U Md Balt in Baltimore are lower than U of MD
- Miami in Miami and USF in Tampa are below Fl St and U of Fl

In NJ there are a lot of RU fans but also PSU, Mich, and other teams bring in big ratings.

I liked the idea of semi-local travel in the ACC with bus type trips to BC, MD (before the B10 move), UVA, Va Tech, Pitt, and Cuse. That helps the budget for the non-revenue sports. Now we have MD, PSU, and Ohio St. Indiana, Purdue, Mich, and Mich St are about 10 hours driving.

 

[PatrickRU92]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PatrickRU92:

I agree. But BCU delievers a grand total of zero markets.

We've been through this more times on this board than I care to count in the last decaded--just because a team is IN the market doesn't mean that they DELIVER the market.



We've been through it, and you are still wrong about it. It's not up to BC to "deliver" the Boston market. The purpose of having BC is to get the other teams into the Boston market. For example, in the old days, when the ACC had a regional telecast on Raycom (let's say Georgia Tech vs NC State), that game would only have been shown in south of Maryland. Now with BC, that game is broadcast in Boston as well. Similarly, that same Georgia Tech/NC State game is broadcast in New York, on the YES network. That would not have happened if Syracuse wasn't in the league. That's the real point of having these teams. It's not up to Boston College to carry the Boston market. It's up to Florida St, Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame, etc. to carry it.

I don't disagree with you as much as you think I do lol. I hear what you are saying , but if that was fully the case why not pick Rutgers? The NY/NJ market dwarfs Boston does it not (and yes I know RU was a COMPLETE mess back then football wise--but still if it wasn't about the team AT ALL then why target Boston over NY?)

BCU is tiny. Has very few alumni and although I don't know the facts I would venture that a fair amount of their alumni are not from Boston and don't live in Boston after graduating. They have a far below average fan base for a major college sports school, and as noted above Boston wasn't the biggest market Swofford could have targeted in the 1st place.

I believe that BCU had some sort of under the table agreement with Miami (another small private school) and Miami pushed hard to get them. Once BCU was dropped in favor of Vtech, just a year later the ACC took them in. I think it was all Miami's doing. And I still maintain that admitting a tiny private school with no fanbase is nothing but a detriment to your conference (from an overall standpoint). There were far better choices than BCU.

 

[srru86]

Originally posted by Exit117:
Remember, Maryland was a Long time member of the ACC, and bolted to the B!G,that's all you need to know.

 

[JoeRU0304]

I think topdeck's last point is very fair. After doing some more reading this weekend, seems like the ACC was acting more in response to the B1G and PAC expansions at the time (and subsequent destabilization of the BigXII), and also eyed the BE as lingering competition and a threat to their 'spot' on the Eastern region. I'm not sure if RU was ever a serious ACC expansion candidate at the time due to the state of the bball program, which carried much more weight in the ACC vs. other leagues.

I am curious to see how the 'favored nation' status of ND affects the dynamics of the ACC. If ND ends up bumping say FSU or Clemson from the Citrus Bowl, I wonder what the reaction would be.


Joe P.

 

[Eagle78]

Patrick-

You are just wrong on your statement about the makeup of BC's fanbase. I have been a BC season ticket holder for over 30 years and most of the fanbase DOES actually reside in the Boston area. Sure, some do make the trek form NY, NJ, CT, etc. for football games, but most people, who come to games at Alumni Stadium are local

Contrary to what you may believe, BC's game day attendance is right around what it is for other Northeastern programs - some of who significantly inflate their attendance numbers. From what I understand, BC does not have the luxury of doing this as I have heard they have to report actual "butts in seats" to the City of Boston for game licensing purposes.

Beyond all that, you continue to gloss over my earlier point and topdecktiger's restatement of that point above. Specifically, the addition of Boston College was needed to get the ACC platform into the #7 media market. Simple put. There were then (as there are now) no other credible teams for the ACC getting into Boston.

I understand your point about Rutgers. IF this decison was being made NOW instead of of 2003 - and Rutgers was not in the BiG - I do believe the ACC might have taken Rutgers over BC. That said, in in the spring of 2003, when the ACC decision was made, Rutgers major sports (FB and MBB) were national punchlines. Rutgers football, going back the prior 4 seasons were 1-11, 2-9, 3-8, 2-9. I could go back many more years with similar numbers. Despite the NY over Boston market advantages, the ACC would have been ridiculed if they took Rutgers at that time.

Sometimes, timing is everything. A fact that worked to Rutgers' advantage 10 years later when the BiG came calling.
This post was edited on 3/9 1:07 PM by Eagle78

This post was edited on 3/9 1:09 PM by Eagle78

This post was edited on 3/9 1:13 PM by Eagle78

 

[PatrickRU92]

Originally posted by Eagle78:

Sometimes, timing is everything. A fact that worked to Rutgers' advantage 10 years later when the BiG came calling.

Well at least we have something we can all agree on. We are both in far better situations. We just had to sweat it out a little more than you guys did.

Actually, that is inaccurate---I didn't sweat it out "a little". It was a lot. A fracking ocean's worth of sweat.

Peace and love.

 

[ScarletRunner]

FWIW...

A client and friend of mine has been been a professor at Rutgers for 40+ years and for many recent years a prominent member of the academic community. When discussing changes to his department and Rutgers as a whole about a year ago he said (completely unsolicited) something to the effect of "This was back when Rutgers was deciding between the Big Ten and the ACC."

Now maybe the guy got bad information, there was some confusion, etc. (again, FWIW). But I know for a fact the guy is honest and very well connected. He is interested in RU athletics, but in a pretty dispassionate way. He has always been extremely engaged in the direction of the university as a whole, and will talk your ear off about the UMDNJ merger, RU leadership, what has gone on at Rowan, etc.

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

The only thing ever spoken about Rutgers and the ACC publicly was that FSU was against it.

The Big Ten Rutgers dance goes back to the time when Penn State was added. But, the timing was never right until now.

 

[imbazza]

JPHoboken:


I do not know this for a fact, but I truly believe Pernetti had an ACC invite in his pocket before the BIG invitation came.

Yes this was what I thought, when the gun was pulled for the B10 it was a fast draw as if the ACC was about to move.

 

[JoeRU0304]

Scourge, any idea what FSU's beef was? I vaguely remember that but don't recall any real detail.

Joe P.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

Originally posted by imbazza:
JPHoboken:


I do not know this for a fact, but I truly believe Pernetti had an ACC invite in his pocket before the BIG invitation came.

Yes this was what I thought, when the gun was pulled for the B10 it was a fast draw as if the ACC was about to move.

This intuitively makes a lot of sense.

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PatrickRU92:

I don't disagree with you as much as you think I do lol. I hear what you are saying , but if that was fully the case why not pick Rutgers? The NY/NJ market dwarfs Boston does it not (and yes I know RU was a COMPLETE mess back then football wise--but still if it wasn't about the team AT ALL then why target Boston over NY?)

BCU is tiny. Has very few alumni and although I don't know the facts I would venture that a fair amount of their alumni are not from Boston and don't live in Boston after graduating. They have a far below average fan base for a major college sports school, and as noted above Boston wasn't the biggest market Swofford could have targeted in the 1st place.

I believe that BCU had some sort of under the table agreement with Miami (another small private school) and Miami pushed hard to get them. Once BCU was dropped in favor of Vtech, just a year later the ACC took them in. I think it was all Miami's doing. And I still maintain that admitting a tiny private school with no fanbase is nothing but a detriment to your conference (from an overall standpoint). There were far better choices than BCU.

Let me preface this by saying the problem is emotional. You (you, plural) get too emotional whenever Rutgers (or a rival) is mentioned, and can't see things clearly.

I say that to set up this point. You mentioned that Rutgers is the New York/New Jersey market. Well, the important part of that market is the "New York" half. Ok, well as I mentioned in the last post, the ACC does get on in the New York market. Specifically, the ACC is on the YES network. That's due to having Syracuse. Well, the ACC is already on in the market that Rutgers brings. The ACC didn't have to give up being broadcast in the New York market by taking Boston College. The ACC gets to be broadcasted in both. If the ACC had Rutgers instead of Boston College, then they wouldn't be on in a new market. They would essentially be on in the same market they already are, just without the bonus of Boston.

Regarding your conspiracy theory, that's silly. The only realistic candidates for ACC expansion were the Big East teams. So the choice is not Boston College vs. an unlimited field. The choice was between Boston College and the 7 (really 5) other Big East teams.

 

[SanFranRutgers]

Yes, there was, and I have it from no less an authority than one of our three previous athletic directors -- man-to-man, no intermediaries.

 

[onesimus]

I thought it was common knowledge that Rutgers had an unofficial invite to the ACC but all the powers-at-be knew the B1G invitation was forthcoming. This is the reason the stadium expansion was approved so quickly despite an "uncertain" future.
The Roundtable used to be full of really juicy insider info, but it seems people have stopped posting.

I remember a particular poster guaranteeing Rutgers' entrance into the B1G as far back as 2009.

He was chased out of the board, but we're all eating crow now.

 

[krup]

Originally posted by topdecktiger:

Originally posted by PatrickRU92:

I don't disagree with you as much as you think I do lol. I hear what you are saying , but if that was fully the case why not pick Rutgers? The NY/NJ market dwarfs Boston does it not (and yes I know RU was a COMPLETE mess back then football wise--but still if it wasn't about the team AT ALL then why target Boston over NY?)

BCU is tiny. Has very few alumni and although I don't know the facts I would venture that a fair amount of their alumni are not from Boston and don't live in Boston after graduating. They have a far below average fan base for a major college sports school, and as noted above Boston wasn't the biggest market Swofford could have targeted in the 1st place.

I believe that BCU had some sort of under the table agreement with Miami (another small private school) and Miami pushed hard to get them. Once BCU was dropped in favor of Vtech, just a year later the ACC took them in. I think it was all Miami's doing. And I still maintain that admitting a tiny private school with no fanbase is nothing but a detriment to your conference (from an overall standpoint). There were far better choices than BCU.

Let me preface this by saying the problem is emotional. You (you, plural) get too emotional whenever Rutgers (or a rival) is mentioned, and can't see things clearly.

I say that to set up this point. You mentioned that Rutgers is the New York/New Jersey market. Well, the important part of that market is the "New York" half. Ok, well as I mentioned in the last post, the ACC does get on in the New York market. Specifically, the ACC is on the YES network. That's due to having Syracuse. Well, the ACC is already on in the market that Rutgers brings. The ACC didn't have to give up being broadcast in the New York market by taking Boston College. The ACC gets to be broadcasted in both. If the ACC had Rutgers instead of Boston College, then they wouldn't be on in a new market. They would essentially be on in the same market they already are, just without the bonus of Boston.

Regarding your conspiracy theory, that's silly. The only realistic candidates for ACC expansion were the Big East teams. So the choice is not Boston College vs. an unlimited field. The choice was between Boston College and the 7 (really 5) other Big East teams.

A household anywhere in the New York market is important when you are making carriage fees off of them, so the "New York" half holds no extra significance to us.

Congratulations on the YES network coverage. The Big East was carried for years on a NY network comparable to YES (SNY), and we all know how well that worked out for them.

 

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by imbazza:
JPHoboken:



I do not know this for a fact, but I truly believe Pernetti had an ACC invite in his pocket before the BIG invitation came.

Yes this was what I thought, when the gun was pulled for the B10 it was a fast draw as if the ACC was about to move.

RU never had an invite from the ACC. There had been discussions but nothing major. ACC wasn't exactly sure what they were going to do as they had ND floating out there, etc. so they were shaking all the branches. RU definitely had support from some programs for sure but the ACC wasn't totally sure what they wanted to do.

That comes from someone working in a ACC athletic department. He also stated that in hindsight, they should have taken Rutgers and probably left Pitt or Cuse to go die on a vine somewhere.

 

[Ridge 22]

What they should have done was taken RU and UConn both as well. They would have locked down the entire East Coast, keeping the B1G out in the process.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[restartRU]

When Swofford and the ACC were vetting RU, they determined that RU wasn't cheating at anything and thus passed.

 

[e5fdny]

Two (maybe three) people in the thread with the knowledge.