Do you remember the first Big East shake up in early 2000's? It was all politics and back room deals. You do realize Big East basketball is not with ESPN for a reason. Correct? Because ESPN screwed the Big East and wanted it gone. At the time the ACC thought with one less league their TV revenue would increase with less competition, and you remember the Virginia Legislature wouldn't let UVA vote unless VT was included? I assume you remember how BC, Syracuse, Miami, and the North Caroline schools wanted WVU left in the cold correct? So in the last round lots of pressure was put on again to include those being left out(remember less schools included the more money for others) and schools like WVU used every resource they had including a powerful U. S Senator that Chaired the Commerce Committee. The problem was Mitch McConnell then tried to get U of L into the Big 12 (which appeared to be the final slot in the last round of conference movement) but his involvement got them into the ACC. The two final schools to get a home was WVU and U of L.
No, what you are saying is 100% wrong. When the ACC expanded back in 2003, it was not because they wanted to screw West Virginia, and it was not because ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. That is factually incorrect.
First of all, I can completely obliterate your argument that ESPN didn't want the Big East. Back in 2011, ESPN offered the Big East a new contract, which paid each school about $12 million a year. That was an increase from $3.12 million from the old contract. The Big East
turned down ESPN's offer.
Ok, so let's compare your theory to the facts. You claim back in 2003, ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, so they encouraged Miami and co. to leave for the ACC. Well, from 2003 to 2011, ESPN still had the Big East. That's 8 years. So, you claim ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East, yet ESPN kept them for
8 years. Then, ESPN offered a
new contract to the Big East, which was
4 times larger than the old contract. Well, square that with your theory. ESPN kept the Big East for 8 years. Then, ESPN offered a new contract which was 4 times larger than the old one. But yeah, somehow that's proof ESPN wanted to get rid of the Big East. Sorry, the facts just destroy your theory completely.
Now, let me address your other points. The situation with Virginia wasn't behind closed doors. It was completely out in the open. The state wouldn't allow Virginia to vote for expansion unless Virginia Tech was included. That wasn't conspiracy. They simply wanted to protect an instate institution. Nothing more complicated than that.
Miami, Boston College, Syracuse, and North Carolina did not want West Virginia left out in the cold. That is completely made up. First of all, you have no proof of that whatsoever. None at all. There is nothing you can link to that will support you point. Aside from that, you have a couple more problems. For one, Syracuse was never in a position to oppose West Virginia. The only team added when Syracuse was part of the ACC was Louisville. By that time, West Virginia was already in the Big 12. North Carolina has been against expansion, period. It had nothing to do with West Virginia. The simply didn't want to expand with anyone.
Mitch McConnell didn't get Louisville into the ACC. Louisville was the target from the beginning. There simply wasn't a competitor for Louisville getting into the ACC.
You aren't entitled to make up your own facts.
BTW, if business decision making was used during the last round of conference shake up then why is WVU not in the ACC? Strong southern alumni base, good TV ratings, quality football and basketball programs, and loyal fans that travel is the core assets to the WVU brand. Why? Politics.
Do I like where we are in the Big 12? Yes, but don't give me this crap that politics and back rooms deals didn't have an impact because if so we would be in the ACC. Remember, WVU and Pitt agreed to stay together until they cut a deal with the ACC behind our backs.
West Virginia wasn't taken because the assets you mentioned are not what was valued by the networks. The schools taken in expansion were schools that could deliver big media markets. Look at the Big Ten. They took lousy programs in Rutgers and Maryland, but those schools could deliver big media markets. Colorado was terrible when the Pac 12 took them, but it was because Colorado could deliver a big media market. Missouri and Texas A&M were mediocre programs in the Big 12, but the SEC took them, because they delivered big media markets. Well, that's the same reason the ACC took Pittsburgh and Syracuse. Those schools delivered big media markets. If TV ratings and big fan bases were what mattered, the SEC would have taken Florida ST, not Missouri. However, you see who they took. That's because media markets were what brought the most money.
You are just repeating stupid internet rumors, and not dealing with facts.