Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfpack
Hm. Perhaps I wasn't aware of the details going on on the other end of the raid, but my recollection of the events is that the ACC offered BC, Miami, and Syracuse initially. VT (through the Virginia state government) and UConn (through the Connecticut AG Blumenthal) were the muscle behind the lawsuit. The bigger of the two problems was VT's power play, which forced Virginia to support VT instead of BC or Syracuse for the ACC, even though VT was part of the original lawsuit with the remaining Big East schools. BC wanted to come to the ACC all along because they thought they were getting in with Syracuse and Miami. Miami was voted in by the ACC easily, but Virginia couldn't accept anyone else in unless VT got in first, so VT got in as the 11th member. After that, Syracuse basically was off the board and the question was whether BC (which was the more enthusiastic of the two schools about coming to the ACC) would get voted in. However, they fell one vote short because I believe the NC State chancellor at the time wanted to make a play for Notre Dame. When ND refused, the ACC returned to BC later, thus the two-step expansion. I do remember reading about a lot of disappointment on the BC end after they were rejected initially since they were pretty much all set to go to the ACC that first year of the expansion. Led to a pretty awkward exit period.
Edit: An article detailing the original suit filed in Connecticut. BC is named as a defendant while VT is one of the plaintiffs. |
My bad on the lawsuit part. I remembered that they were supposedly involved in sharing confidential information from league meetings and that was part of the lawsuit. In any case, there was no Big East "rule" that prohibited the teams from playing BC, Miami, or VPI.