Geno Auriemma thrashing Notre Dame for not joining in football

[The Funster]

Funster: I have said this before but will say it again. WHO CARES ABOUT ND? I don't. They would have been worse off without the Big EAst for other sports, no question. But not having let them in would have hurt them, but it wouldn't have helped UConn or the Big East. So why am I supposed to care about helping ND as opposed to what is in UConn's best interests?

OK, I must have missed the "I don't care about ND" sentiment. You amde it clear with that post You feel ND's effect on the BE was a net neutral. I think it contributed negatively to the BE's perception both by other conference and by it's own conference members. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[businesslawyer]

If it was just about lack of market power, why did Miami, VT, BC, Pitt and Syracuse get poached? Could it be that the hybrid nature of the league contributed to a perceived lack of market power or that, as a conference, the BE was just weak and schools were just waiting to bail?

I don't understand your argument. Why did the ACC want those schools? Because it thought it could generate more money, stability and market power by expanding (and, in the first expansion, actually strengthen their football conference). Why did those schools accept offers? Because they thought they could get more money, stability and prestige. I apologize for missing your point, but I am fairly certain I am.

 

[businesslawyer]

OK, I must have missed the "I don't care about ND" sentiment. You amde it clear with that post You feel ND's effect on the BE was a net neutral. I think it contributed negatively to the BE's perception both by other conference and by it's own conference members. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. But, obviously, the member institutions, football and catholics, all looked at everything and thought it was in their interest.

 

[Danzz]

We wouldn't have gotten some of those bowl games without capitulation to ND.

You can pretend that the Big East was always strong and never needed ND, but history tells us otherwise.

The BE never needed ND (not sure what history you are referring to) but they were a good addition for sports other than football. Their independence in football is well documented and they will make decisions in the best interest of ND. No surprise there just as Uconn will dump the BE if we get an invite to the ACC and WVA, Cinn. and Louisville will jump to the Big 12 if they are invited.
Would the BE have been better off without ND? Probably. It was insane to allow them a vote on football issues but it is unrealistic for the BE to expect ND to salvage the BE.

 

[The Funster]

BL, the ACC wanted those schools because they brought value. The schools left because the hybrid model did not reciprocate their value, instead it brought instability. Part of that instability was the ND situation. Maybe not from the get go but by at least 2008 the FB schools were fed up with the ND situation and asked the BE to address it. The conference didn't.

In summary, one can conclude that the ACC valued the schools that left more than the Big East did.

 

[businesslawyer]

BL, the ACC wanted those schools because they brought value. The schools left because the hybrid model did not reciprocate their value, instead it brought instability. Part of that instability was the ND situation. Maybe not from the get go but by at least 2008 the FB schools were fed up with the ND situation and asked the BE to address it. The conference didn't.

In summary, one can conclude that the ACC valued the schools that left more than the Big East did.

You have any support for the statement that "the FB schools were fed up with the ND situation and asked the BE to address it." Not fans, not coaches, but athletic departments and administrations? Because I have never heard anything like that from anyone other than fans.

 

[flyonthewall]

ND by the numbers...I have no idea of what ND adds to the BE for BB but the analysis is simple. Say each BE BB team gets $2 mil per year from TV contracts, or 32 million assuming 16 teams. If ND left and the payoff went below 30 million then they add value, if not then they do not. The ppl in the BE must think that ND would/does add value for BB but for the next point.

I always assumed part of the BE's willingness to take ND in a hybrid arrangement was that the BE thought that would position them as the first choice if ND ever decided to join for FB. In hindsight the BE should have told ND you are in for all but FB on the condition if you ever want to join a conference for FB it has to be the BE with some sort of pennalty attached.

As far as ND adding anything to the bowl tie-ins I do not have the time to do an analysis but with so many bowls looking for teams and with the last two years seeing the possibility of sub 500 teams having to be invited to fill slots I don't see how any of the better bowls that have BE tie ins could do much better with another conference. The second place BE team is likely to be a better team than say 7, 8 or 9 in the SEC, B1G.

 

[noeynox]

The silly thing is that people on here crap all over the instability of the Big East... and the football/basketball hybrid... but the only way UConn would ever have been able to upgrade to a BCS conference is with the Big East. UConn is still the only school to go from I-AA/FCS to a BCS game. It just wouldn't have been possible anywhere else... so before you get in your time machine and form a eastern football super-conference or block Notre Dame... think about that. It's just silly to try to blame this on Notre Dame. The same reason Notre Dame is able to park their non-football sports in a high level conference is the same reason UConn was able to upgrade.

Haven't read the entire thread, but this is wrong. Boise was 1aa/in the Big Sky conference as well.

 

[nadav]

How about all people associated with Uconn Athletics stop talking trash about other institutions for a while, it can't help. Geno is a great coach and a funny man, but he clearly is in over his head when talking about realignment issues.

 

[BlueMAB]

OK, first off, where do I say "I'm pissed"? Let's start off by not putting words into my mouth. Secondly, I'm of the opinion that the Big East has been flawed for a very long time. It is the only major conference that has basketball only schools, football only schools and one school that is in for everything except football. It is also the only major conference that is being forced to it's knees by other major conferences. It's not a dumb idea to suggest that the construction of the Big East made it susceptible to what is happening (and has happened already). Were there other mitigating circumstances both for and against ND? Certainly. But the thought that ND is some innocent bystander who just happened to accept a sweetheart deal is a bit of a reach. But that's just my opinion. You can have your opinion. I won't intimate that it's "dumb" though.

I didn't call those ideas dumb. What's dumb, is blaming ND for the perceived negative results of a relationship that the Big East freely and happily accepted.

Why should Notre Dame be held even partially responsible for the current situation the big east is in, when they were up front about the fact they were never going to join the conference, and the conference invited them as a partial member anyway?

And how would the Big East be better off, more stable, or more valuable if we never accepted them as a partial member? Because that is what your posts are suggesting by laying blame (even partial) at the feet of ND for the current situation.

 

[BlueMAB]

ND needs to quit being selfish (which seems to be part of Geno's point) and become a real member of a conference. Forget the Big East, pick the B.I.G. or ACC. But pick one so the football dominoes can start falling.

Everyone is being selfish. Why should ND behave any differently? Why would you advocate they do something that isn't in their best interest? Would you expect the same from UConn?

 

[nycscooby]

That was a great post until the end. So let me try one more time to be as clear as possible.

1. Given the choice between all-in and all-out in the Big EAst, we know for a metaphysical fact that Notre Dame would elect all out. They have said that, and, given they could all-in to the Big Ten, there is no rational reason they should have committed all-in to the Big East.

2. Unless you disagree with 1., you need to set forth a clear reason as to why the Big EAst would be in better shape today if Notre Dame were all-out. Because, having nothing to do with you, this argument continues on and not one poster has hypothesized even a stupid reason as to how the Big EAst would be better off.

I agree with point 1 but had I been in the BE offices 20 years ago, I would have made ND make that decision then. Clearly, ND gained far more from the relationship than did the league in my opinion.

As to 2, I think it is not an unreasonable opinion that admitting ND the way the league did negatively impact the BE's perception/reputation and, together with the artificial football/basketball split, contributed to its target status and general instability. Obviously, I have no direct knowledge but I have to believe that ND's non-FB presence may have also hurt the BE in different ways as for example, contributing to a larger divergence of interests amongst the members or perhaps increasing the possibility of factions amongst the members (ND is much different in athletic marketing and spending than say Providence), or even a higher degree of difficulty to get things decided because of the sway it has with the media and public. Finally, is it unreasonable to assume that the theoretical possibility of ND someday joining for FB could have influenced certain decisions in the league office? Do you think it not reasonable to assume that ND could have used this over and over to influence league decisions?

 

[businesslawyer]

ND by the numbers...I have no idea of what ND adds to the BE for BB but the analysis is simple. Say each BE BB team gets $2 mil per year from TV contracts, or 32 million assuming 16 teams. If ND left and the payoff went below 30 million then they add value, if not then they do not. The ppl in the BE must think that ND would/does add value for BB but for the next point.

I always assumed part of the BE's willingness to take ND in a hybrid arrangement was that the BE thought that would position them as the first choice if ND ever decided to join for FB. In hindsight the BE should have told ND you are in for all but FB on the condition if you ever want to join a conference for FB it has to be the BE with some sort of pennalty attached.

As far as ND adding anything to the bowl tie-ins I do not have the time to do an analysis but with so many bowls looking for teams and with the last two years seeing the possibility of sub 500 teams having to be invited to fill slots I don't see how any of the better bowls that have BE tie ins could do much better with another conference. The second place BE team is likely to be a better team than say 7, 8 or 9 in the SEC, B1G.

Better on the field. Does not sell more tickets.

 

[Uptop]

I believe that the leadership in this conference, specifically Tranghese in the past, just completely despised college football as a sport, and the conference itself was completely disinterested in football until the early 90's when it became necessary for survival and inclusion among the big boys club of athletic conferences. I'm not sure why Tranghese doesn't like football so much.

I can understand completely disliking the BCS system, i hate it. It's corrupt. I would love to see a post season system in general around college football. A playoff system of the 11 1-A conference champions play post season games to determine a national champoins. But I'm not in a position to try to change anything.

But you know who was? You know who could have pulled the strings? Tranghese was. He was a commissioner when Notre Dame came in 1995 when all the big time former independents in football were joining conferences, after the SWC had disbanded.... and he was commissioner AND chairman of the BCS in 2003-2004 when the first big east conference raid by the ACC happened.

So if you want to find out why Notre Dame was never squeezed by the big east, in or out, Tranghese is the guy to ask. That's the fact.

And you know what really pisses me off about Tranghese (and Jeff Jacobs - no surprise) - in the paper the other day - Tranghese is quoted as saying that the big east football teams did not win enough, and Jacobs let it go.

WTF? Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Syracuse......they didn't win enough b/w 1991-2003? The ducking big east as a football conference had a national champion in 2001.

LESS THAN 10 YEARS AGO THE BIG EAST CONFERENCE PRODUCED A NATIONAL CHAMPION FOOTBALL TEAM.

let that sink in.

Tranghese had zero, and I mean ZERO - respect for the power that college football holds in the intercollegiate athletic world, or he would have done something - besides let Notre Dame continue to play round ball and little ball with the big east, while they got fat on their own with the pigskin and the big east was getting plundered. That's my opinion.

I hope that Friar Tuck has taken the lessons learned in the past decade and he's not of the same mold that Tranghese is.

Lastly, the esteemed counselor is looking for a theory as to how the big east would have been better off without Notre Dame, than with Notre Dame.

The answer is simple. The conference would be more stable for the schools that played division 1-A football, knowing that their leadership is behind them 100%.

++1

Moderators,

Is there any way you can bronze or gold plate this masterpiece?

When Oregon was promoting Joey Harrinton for the Heisman they placed a billboard of him in Times Square. NYT writer, Bill Rhoden wrote an article saying how brazen and disrecspectful to Big East turf the billboard was and challenged Tranghese to counter punch. I believe Rhoden suggested placing a "Big East Football" billboard in Birmingham, AL. Tranghese never put his gloves on.

The acc has always been the #1 enemy. For MT to offer up his football members to play in the acc is the STUPIDEST idea in the history of college athletics. It showed the enemy and the rest of the nation just how unstabled the conference was. And we've been backpeddling ever since. STUPID!

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree with point 1 but had I been in the BE offices 20 years ago, I would have made ND make that decision then. Clearly, ND gained far more from the relationship than did the league in my opinion.

As to 2, I think it is not an unreasonable opinion that admitting ND the way the league did negatively impact the BE's perception/reputation and, together with the artificial football/basketball split, contributed to its target status and general instability. Obviously, I have no direct knowledge but I have to believe that ND's non-FB presence may have also hurt the BE in different ways as for example, contributing to a larger divergence of interests amongst the members or perhaps increasing the possibility of factions amongst the members (ND is much different in athletic marketing and spending than say Providence), or even a higher degree of difficulty to get things decided because of the sway it has with the media and public. Finally, is it unreasonable to assume that the theoretical possibility of ND someday joining for FB could have influenced certain decisions in the league office? Do you think it not reasonable to assume that ND could have used this over and over to influence league decisions?

O.K. -- I give you credit. You have offered a reason. Look, I must admit, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks that we're weakened in terms of "prestige" or "perception" by one hoops only who plays football somewhere else in a conference which has seven other hoops onlies, but will readily admit that we are now at least to a difference in opinon.

 

[nycscooby]

As I wrote, ND's deal could have allowed ND to use the proverbial FB carrot to influence the league and possible contribute to its instability; or at a minumum, prevent the league from formulating cohesive strategic plans because that theoretical carrot was always present. I do think the FB/BB dichotomy was by far the largest contributor to this instability but I can't ignore this possibility with ND.

 

[BlueMAB]

Lastly, the esteemed counselor is looking for a theory as to how the big east would have been better off without Notre Dame, than with Notre Dame.

The answer is simple. The conference would be more stable for the schools that played division 1-A football, knowing that their leadership is behind them 100%.

If the presidents of the football programs were so upset with leadership please explain why:

1) they never pushed to get rid of Tranghese

and

2) why they voted for his clone as replacement once Tranghese was gone.

Don't misinterpret my post as a defense of Tranghese/Marinatto, it's not. But if their replacement meant teams would felt more stable, and wouldn't have left, why do/did our presidents support them?

 

[BlueMAB]

I do think the FB/BB dichotomy was by far the largest contributor to this instability but I can't ignore this possibility with ND.

It didn't help, but I disagree that it was the largest contributor "by far".

If that was the main problem, why didn't the football schools split and stabilize at the first opportunity?

 

[HuskyHawk]

O.K. -- I give you credit. You have offered a reason. Look, I must admit, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks that we're weakened in terms of "prestige" or "perception" by one hoops only who plays football somewhere else in a conference which has seven other hoops onlies, but will readily admit that we are now at least to a difference in opinon.

I'm with BL on this, but I can acknowledge this one tiny thing. If we rejected ND, we would have forced their hand long ago. The entire conference structure would likely be more stable today. Whether UConn or the BE would or would not be better off is impossible to tell.

 

[Carl Spackler]

++1

Moderators,

Is there any way you can bronze or gold plate this masterpiece?

When Oregon was promoting Joey Harrinton for the Heisman they placed a billboard of him in Times Square. NYT writer, Bill Rhoden wrote an article saying how brazen and disrecspectful to Big East turf the billboard was and challenged Tranghese to counter punch. I believe Rhoden suggested placing a "Big East Football" billboard in Birmingham, AL. Tranghese never put his gloves on.

The acc has always been the #1 enemy. For MT to offer up his football members to play in the acc is the STUPIDEST idea in the history of college athletics. It showed the enemy and the rest of the nation just how unstabled the conference was. And we've been backpeddling ever since. STUPID!

I remember that. Vividly.

The idea of bringing a college football championship game back to new york city? makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. The fact that the new york yankees organization is actually promoting college football again!!

Big east football promoted in Times Square in December....with the christmas lights all around.

BUT - I think I'd be a hell of a lot more comfortable with big east leadership, if they actually do get this thing to 12 teams....and then more importantly....

Set up an entirely new, and distinct leadership of the football conference in New York City. Commissioner of big east football to be determined, and hired completely outside of the big east altar boy track through providence. New offices, new staff.
Football business gets conducted entirely independant of Marinatto's office, but under the umbrella of the big east conference.

If marinatto follows in the footsteps of Tranghese though? I don't want to think about it.

 

[businesslawyer]

Lastly, the esteemed counselor is looking for a theory as to how the big east would have been better off without Notre Dame, than with Notre Dame.

The answer is simple. The conference would be more stable for the schools that played division 1-A football, knowing that their leadership is behind them 100%.

O.K. Ghost. I'll bite. How would have removing Notre Dame changed the fact that the Commissioner had a group of schools that played football and seven other schools that only played basketball? And how would have removing Notre Dame have changed the fact that the Big EAst was created to be a basketball conference, not a football conference, and therefore was always going to have members who didn't play football?

I must say, I'm curious

 

[SAMCRO]

I'm by no means an ND fan, but they've been consistent with their message all along. They like this arrangement as is, and have zero intention of joining the BE for FB. Never had, never will. Those were the terms with which they joined the league.

IMO, this lies squarely on the shoulders of the school Presidents.

 

[The Funster]

You have any support for the statement that "the FB schools were fed up with the ND situation and asked the BE to address it." Not fans, not coaches, but athletic departments and administrations? Because I have never heard anything like that from anyone other than fans.

Nothing from adminsitrations but coaches, yes. Coaches' opinions don't count? They have zero input?

 

[businesslawyer]

Nothing from adminsitrations but coaches, yes. Coaches' opinions don't count? They have zero input?

Coaches are entitled to their opinions. And they are to be respected. But the point is, to my knowledge no school, acting through their authorized representatives, ever asked the Big East offices about removing Notre Dame. The opposite of my statement was implied. I was simply asking if you had any knowledge that my statement was false.

The coaches may be right, but that has nada to do with whether the Big East was failing to listen to the football schools demanding Notre Dame's removal. I fail to see how our debate will be held by implying facts that to our knowledge aren't there.

 

[Carl Spackler]

O.K. Ghost. I'll bite. How would have removing Notre Dame changed the fact that the Commissioner had a group of schools that played football and seven other schools that only played basketball? And how would have removing Notre Dame have changed the fact that the Big EAst was created to be a basketball conference, not a football conference, and therefore was always going to have members who didn't play football?

I must say, I'm curious

Ok - first off, you're changing my initial response a bit. My response was that the conference, without Notre Dame would be stable because the schools that played 1-A football would be sure that they're leadership is 100% behind them. Here's what I wrote:

Lastly, the esteemed counselor is looking for a theory as to how the big east would have been better off without Notre Dame, than with Notre Dame.

The answer is simple. The conference would be more stable for the schools that played division 1-A football, knowing that their leadership is behind them 100%.​

Now, in fact, what I should have said is that either with Notre Dame completely, or without Notre Dame completely, the conference would be more stable. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I think that hindsight for the past 15+ years has made it quite clear that any value adding Notre Dame partially has had, is far outweighed by the fact that there is instability in the big east conference. the question then becomes - has Notre Dame contributed to instability in the conference? I think the answer is clearly - YES.

So - it's clear that WITH notre dame, we'd be more stable. So I suppose your question is really why I think the ocnference would be more stable WITHOUT Notre Dame.

Ok - well that could have happened at any time between today and whatever day it was in 1995 when they were formally admitted, partially.....that being the hypothetical at this point in time, that Notre Dame is not affiliated at all with the big east.

So - on to your question(s):

How would have removing Notre Dame changed the fact that the Commissioner had a group of schools that played football and seven other schools that only played basketball?

Easy, it doesn't change the fact that there were schools competing at all different levels of sports, and not all fielding the same sports.

And how would have removing Notre Dame have changed the fact that the Big EAst was created to be a basketball conference, not a football conference, and therefore was always going to have members who didn't play football?

Easy again, it would not have changed anything about the reasons the big east was originally founded, and has nothing to do with any existing members who didn't play football.

Any other questions counselor?

 

[The Funster]

Coaches are entitled to their opinions. And they are to be respected. But the point is, to my knowledge no school, acting through their authorized representatives, ever asked the Big East offices about removing Notre Dame. The opposite of my statement was implied. I was simply asking if you had any knowledge that my statement was false.

The coaches may be right, but that has nada to do with whether the Big East was failing to listen to the football schools demanding Notre Dame's removal. I fail to see how our debate will be held by implying facts that to our knowledge aren't there.

I bow out on that technicality. However, for the record I have to say that just because it was never discussed publicly does not mean that it wasn't discussed privately. Hard feelings seem to indicate that someone was discussing it (or was ignoring it).

 

[Husky68]

History, baloney. We are where we are and need to address situation as a league. Bunch of mostly catholic non basketball schools have a athletic conference with a bunch of "not prime" Div 1A football schools. Mostly all sports in together except for those who don't play Div 1A football. In this conference is one Div 1A level football team that plays all sports in the league except football.

1. Non football schools like having ND in, see lot of prestige in other sports and having that school "attend" league functions. If Div 1A football went away, having ND and adding a few other schools makes the basketball only "better" than other non BCS conferences (not saying true, just my pretend I'm Providence hat and that's how I think). BB onlys expect ND would have no better choice, might even be a wink from ND to inidcate this.

2. Football schools think they are about to hit big time re contract, get TCU (those not named Pitt/Syr) that will make everyone of Div 1A BE football teams "solid and competitive money wise". At least sets bar higher after new contract for football should Big 10 or someone else come calling. ND not much of a thought, are just there. But now to survival mode, both as a football league but also each school for itself if can ESCAPE to conference on more solid footing.

3. ND doesn't want to be in football conference. They then become Penn State. Like to have non football in BCS level conference for oher sports. Talk buddy, buddy with basketball only "brothers" of the cloth. Don't see another BCS conference taking them as non football, backup plan should BE football fold is stay with non football BE league and add few others. Attitude toward BE football is like any parasite, hope host stays alive, if not, just move on.

So, in the current situation, football schools say ND in or out so its just them and BB schools to discuss what's next. It's like a few months ago having discusssion with Pitt/Syr in there about taking the ESPN deal when they were actively seeking to get to the ACC and ESPN was discussing "renegotiation situation" with the ACC. Need as few agendas in BE meeting as possible.

Georgetown, St Johns, Providence, etc. have a lot to gain keeping football/bb schools in conference; my thoughts, if they don't think they do time to force their hands. Keep it between us boys with stake (football and bb only schools). ND is just a hanger on now, to me, if safety net to bb onlys time to force them (bb only schools) to choose.

All groups have rules, voting majorities, etc. But the dynamics of groups is that if a significant portion of the group MAKES A BIG ENOUGH DEAL ABOUT SOMETHING, it gets addressed. Time to make ND in or out one of those BIG DEALS.

 

[BlueMAB]

Ok - first off, you're changing my initial response a bit. My response was that the conference, without Notre Dame would be stable because the schools that played 1-A football would be sure that they're leadership is 100% behind them. Here's what I wrote:

Lastly, the esteemed counselor is looking for a theory as to how the big east would have been better off without Notre Dame, than with Notre Dame.​

The answer is simple. The conference would be more stable for the schools that played division 1-A football, knowing that their leadership is behind them 100%.​

Now, in fact, what I should have said is that either with Notre Dame completely, or without Notre Dame completely, the conference would be more stable. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. I think that hindsight for the past 15+ years has made it quite clear that any value adding Notre Dame partially has had, is far outweighed by the fact that there is instability in the big east conference. the question then becomes - has Notre Dame contributed to instability in the conference? I think the answer is clearly - YES.

So - it's clear that WITH notre dame, we'd be more stable. So I suppose your question is really why I think the ocnference would be more stable WITHOUT Notre Dame.

Ok - well that could have happened at any time between today and whatever day it was in 1995 when they were formally admitted, partially.....that being the hypothetical at this point in time, that Notre Dame is not affiliated at all with the big east.

So - on to your question(s):

How would have removing Notre Dame changed the fact that the Commissioner had a group of schools that played football and seven other schools that only played basketball?

Easy, it doesn't change the fact that there were schools competing at all different levels of sports, and not all fielding the same sports.

And how would have removing Notre Dame have changed the fact that the Big EAst was created to be a basketball conference, not a football conference, and therefore was always going to have members who didn't play football?

Easy again, it would not have changed anything about the reasons the big east was originally founded, and has nothing to do with any existing members who didn't play football.

Any other questions counselor?

If booting ND and finding new leadership was all the conference had to do was save itself why didn't they split from ND at the first opportunity? And why did they all vote in favor of Marinatto who is just a younger version of Tranghese?

You seem to rely on the false premise that schools left because they felt unsupported by leadership. Or they at least would have been much less likely to leave with different leadership. But they could have tried to force the leadership out, and didn't. And when they had the opportunity for new leadership, they picked more of the same.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I can't follow all the quesitnos here at once, makes my head spin.

Here's a new york times article from Jul 11, 1994.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/11/sports/colleges-notre-dame-draws-big-east-s-approval.html

Keep in mind, that in 1990, the big east consisted of nine teams and did not play football, Penn state had been rejected 5 years earlier. In 1991, the league began football membership, coinciding with same time that the first incarnation of teh BCS was created around the biggest post season bowl games. I think it was called the bowl alliance or somethin, and the arrangements were made that conference champoins would automatically play in certain bowls, and the big east had several teams taht had historically been independant (BC/Syracuse/Pitt) and would stand to be left out in the cold for big post season bowl games at 1-A level. Miami is invited as all sports in 1991. Miami becomes the 10th big east team - IN ALL SPORTS. The only program that joins as all sports. Anybody remember those first b-ball games in south beach? miami sports were a joke to the big east regulars, except for football. I don't think miami ever took nice to that and they way they were regarded by big east leadership.

Rutgers and West Virginia, V Tech and Temple aslo get invited to join the football league, but they only get to join to play football, and the first big east football game I believe, was played in fall of 1992.

FFW to 1995, Rutgers and WEst Virginia have earned invites to be #11 and #12 in all sports.

Lets see now - there's a quote at the end of that NY Times piece. About the most serious point in splitting off basketball from football.

Adding Notre Dame is what kept the conference from fracturing in 1995.

It was enough to keep the basketball schools happy, and enough to keep the football schools happy at the time.

Had the commissioner at the time played hardball, or really cared about football at all, besides understanding that football was the key to a seat at the big money table, Notre Dame would have either been kept out, and the conference would have split, and gone forward in everyone's best interests as a split, or Notre Dame would have joined for football.

I believe that if we had a commissioner at the time other than Tranghese, it would have happened one way or the other.

I'm not particularly upset that Notre Dame was kept out at that point in time, because if Notre Dame doesn't join, the conference most likely splits, and UConn probably doesnt' ever move up to 1-A in football.

but by 2003? Totally different story. Notre Dame should have been in or out.

 

[Carl Spackler]

BTW - inthe middle of all that in the early 1990's, Lew Perkins was leaning toward football the whole the way. Leadership at UConn wanted to be with the Miami's, the WVU's, the V'Techs, the Cuse, BC and Pitt's of the world back then, and we do now too.

Things change, but they don't change so much.