Geno Auriemma thrashing Notre Dame for not joining in football

[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.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Also I forgot to add.

Miami - the hurricanes were one of those independants up until 1990 with Syracuse, Pitt, and BC that were looking for football conference homes when the bowl games started getting allied with conference champions.

The only reason Notre Dame survived as a football independant after the inception of the bowl system tied to conference champions, was their existing contract with NBC, that no other team could manage with any network.

Death to the BCS. I say.

 

[BlueMAB]

Also I forgot to add.

Miami - the hurricanes were one of those independants up until 1990 with Syracuse, Pitt, and BC that were looking for football conference homes when the bowl games started getting allied with conference champions.

The only reason Notre Dame survived as a football independant after the inception of the bowl system tied to conference champions, was their existing contract with NBC, that no other team could manage with any network.

Death to the BCS. I say.

I will try to simplify my question.

You say the big east was hurt because the football teams didn't have the full support of the leadership. You said some probably don't leave if we had different leadership. If that's the case, then why did they support replacing one Tranghese with another Tranghese?

 

[IthacaMatt]

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%.

The real problem is not Notre Dame - or at least not the primary problem. The primary problem is that basketball schools RUN the conference, and the world of sports contracts is all about football, and the basketball people in Providence have never really cared about the football side of things, or else they would have accepted Penn State as a member way back when, in the very early 80s. It all traces back to that.

The early days of the Big East coincided with ESPN becoming a national brand, and people getting cable more universally throughout this country. It's hard to remember, but back in 1980, cable penetration was much lower than it is now, and there were far, far fewer channels available (30 maybe ?). HBO was still really new.

So against that backdrop, the Big East as a basketball conference became one of the flagship properties of ESPN. The other conferences started coming onboard with their own nights of the week AFTER the Big East has set the bar. The Providence guys still are living in the past, thinking that it's still those days, and not today.

There have been so many opportunities for them to get this right, and they have consistently failed to do so, because the only thing tha matters to them is protecting their small time hoops schools.

 

[Druken Friar]

I've been readin your rantings carefully, focusing on the one in the middle. You remind me of a good GOP presidential candidate. There's a lot of truth in what you say but buried in there is the big lie.

First off, the President of the USA doesn't control the economy or get to make any laws, and the Big East Commissioner doesn't get to add and drop schools at his whim. The school president's have that power. The commissioner is more like an advisor to the presidents, no real power except looking important.

Second, back in 2003-2004 when the Big East lost BC, Miami and VT, it was Trangehese who helped patch things back up. The schools he helped add have won BCS bowls, Big East Football championships and generally represented the conference very well. He quit because he knew this was coming and he didn't want to deal with it again.

Third, I'd love to see ND join the Big East for football, really. I'd like to see Penn State and BC in the conference too. But again, that is between the school presidents, the commissioner can't deliver some ultimatum. And I know for a fact most ND fans want to stay independent for football, makes 'em feel special. It's stupid but true.

Fourth, ND playing in the league for other sports is no different than any other BB only school. It doesn't cause instability. Is Villanova causing instability by stradling the fence on going FBS? The instability stems from the general perception that the Big East is not worthy of being in the BCS. The perception is false, in my opinion, but just listen to the blabber mouths like Craig James on ESPN. The Big 12 is actually more unstable than the Big East because they can't get along and Texas is just a big . But I digress.

I appreciate your frustration, but it's focused in the wrong place. Death to the BCS, I'll drink to that.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I will try to simplify my question.

You say the big east was hurt because the football teams didn't have the full support of the leadership. You said some probably don't leave if we had different leadership. If that's the case, then why did they support replacing one Tranghese with another Tranghese?

Before I can answer that, you need to show me that the promotion of Marinatto was a unanimously approved decision by all the schools.

The thing you might not know, is that Tranghese wanted the conference split in 2003. He despises football. He wanted football out and didn't care what happened to the schools in the BCS system.

Marinatto actually saved the football schools in the big east conference, and he earned the job.

I think Friar Tuck is great person, but I just don't know if he's frankly, greedy, enough to be in charge of this whole thing. He's a good guy, but we need Gordon Gekko out there in charge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/24/s...-addresses-future-of-the-big-east.html?src=pm

 

[businesslawyer]

The real problem is not Notre Dame - or at least not the primary problem. The primary problem is that basketball schools RUN the conference, and the world of sports contracts is all about football, and the basketball people in Providence have never really cared about the football side of things, or else they would have accepted Penn State as a member way back when, in the very early 80s. It all traces back to that.

The early days of the Big East coincided with ESPN becoming a national brand, and people getting cable more universally throughout this country. It's hard to remember, but back in 1980, cable penetration was much lower than it is now, and there were far, far fewer channels available (30 maybe ?). HBO was still really new.

So against that backdrop, the Big East as a basketball conference became one of the flagship properties of ESPN. The other conferences started coming onboard with their own nights of the week AFTER the Big East has set the bar. The Providence guys still are living in the past, thinking that it's still those days, and not today.

There have been so many opportunities for them to get this right, and they have consistently failed to do so, because the only thing tha matters to them is protecting their small time hoops schools.

Please, please, stop making things up. Penn State wasn't accepted not because of the conference office but because of Pitt.

I heard last night at the Republican Debate that the Providence office was responsible for Obamacare.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I've been readin your rantings carefully, focusing on the one in the middle. You remind me of a good GOP presidential candidate. There's a lot of truth in what you say but buried in there is the big lie.

First off, the President of the USA doesn't control the economy or get to make any laws, and the Big East Commissioner doesn't get to add and drop schools at his whim. The school president's have that power. The commissioner is more like an advisor to the presidents, no real power except looking important.

Second, back in 2003-2004 when the Big East lost BC, Miami and VT, it was Trangehese who helped patch things back up. The schools he helped add have won BCS bowls, Big East Football championships and generally represented the conference very well. He quit because he knew this was coming and he didn't want to deal with it again.

Third, I'd love to see ND join the Big East for football, really. I'd like to see Penn State and BC in the conference too. But again, that is between the school presidents, the commissioner can't deliver some ultimatum. And I know for a fact most ND fans want to stay independent for football, makes 'em feel special. It's stupid but true.

Fourth, ND playing in the league for other sports is no different than any other BB only school. It doesn't cause instability. Is Villanova causing instability by stradling the fence on going FBS? The instability stems from the general perception that the Big East is not worthy of being in the BCS. The perception is false, in my opinion, but just listen to the blabber mouths like Craig James on ESPN. The Big 12 is actually more unstable than the Big East because they can't get along and Texas is just a big . But I digress.

I appreciate your frustration, but it's focused in the wrong place. Death to the BCS, I'll drink to that.

I just posted something from the NYTimes in 2003 that completely refutes that in bold. What have you got?

 

[Druken Friar]

I just posted something from the NYTimes in 2003 that completely refutes that in bold. What have you got?

I don't think so.

Cinncinnati league champs 2008 & 2009
Louisville league champs 2006, defeated Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/sports/ncaafootball/02bigeast.ready.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Carl Spackler]

Tranghese quit because he can't stand college football, and there is no way the big east survives as a power conference without it.

If anybody knows why Tranghese hates college football so much, I'd love to know. It's weird.

Nobody likes the BCS and the fact that there's no real equal opportunity for any team to really earn the national title every year on the field.

It's not enough for the complete distaste Tranghese has demonstrated for college football.

 

[Jimdish255]

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'll give you a reason - complacency. That and the false assumption that ND's stature and history was somehow a transferrable asset that would protect and/or rescue the Big East when the time came. The extended flirtation with ND created a false sense of security that allowed leadership to bury their heads in the sand and flip off the concerns of the allsports universities until it was too late. Seeing the handwriting on the wall they were all too ready to take the first best offer rather than continue to pretend that the prettiest girl at the dance had any real interest in them, while their nerdy friends gathered around starry eyed.

So predictable yet so pathetic. That's why the ultimatum should have been made years ago from a position of relative strength and without the sharks circling the cage. Then at least we would have known where we stood and allsports universities could have begun to move forward with members who had a similar vision for the conference. That would not have guaranteed a positive outcome, but given clarity to the situation. A better environment for decision making imo.

 

[BlueMAB]

Before I can answer that, you need to show me that the promotion of Marinatto was a unanimously approved decision by all the schools.

I can't. But he doesn't get the job without support from the football schools. It's 8-8, some football schools had to support him...then there's this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/sports/ncaabasketball/11bigeast.html

In his final interview with a panel of Big East presidents and athletic directors in the fall, Marinatto established himself as the runaway choice in a field that included the former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg.
“The final meeting was one of the most impressive interview sessions I had participated in in 35 years of conducting interviews,” Pittsburgh’s chancellor, Mark Nordenberg, said. “It was the perfect combination of thoughtful professionalism.”

 

[businesslawyer]

I can't. But he doesn't get the job without support from the football schools. It's 8-8, some football schools had to support him...then there's this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/sports/ncaabasketball/11bigeast.html

In his final interview with a panel of Big East presidents and athletic directors in the fall, Marinatto established himself as the runaway choice in a field that included the former Big 12 commissioner Kevin Weiberg.
“The final meeting was one of the most impressive interview sessions I had participated in in 35 years of conducting interviews,” Pittsburgh’s chancellor, Mark Nordenberg, said. “It was the perfect combination of thoughtful professionalism.”

The nerve you have. Trying to respond to people's irrational anger with facts. What are you -- a damn lawyer?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I don't think so.

Cinncinnati league champs 2008 & 2009
Louisville league champs 2006, defeated Wake Forest in the Orange Bowl
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/sports/ncaafootball/02bigeast.ready.html?pagewanted=print

Are you for real? you just posted something that says exactly what I've been saying. Tranghese was preparing for the conference to split, I'm telling you he wanted it. Didn't care that it would happen, it should have happened in 1995. Jurich wasn't even in the league yet then, and wasn't in 2002-2003 either.

Marinatto came up with the plan to save it, and convinced Tranghese to go with it. Jurich never talks to Tranghese without Marinatto.

Tranghese quit because he couldn't stomach football.

The problem the big east has had since 2003, is that Marinatto is a nice guy that plays by the rules, in a system where the Gordon Gekko's of the world rule.

I would love to see the system go away. Tranghese could have played a big part in making it go away, a long time ago, if he had cared at all about football, instead of the bowl championship series, we could have started working toward a playoff system in the early 1990s.

All of the independants in college football were aligned with the big east.

 

[Jimdish255]

Pittsburgh - Ironic. Loved him so much they had to leave

 

[Carl Spackler]

I've got I think three different conversatiosn going at once, not sure.

Here's my summation.

Marinatto is a good guy. If anything, that's his fault in this entire mess. He's a good guy in a system where greed and corruption is rampant.

Tranghese despised football. He never wanted it in the big east conference, and was reluctant to admit it, and was completely supportive of the conference splitting, on at least two and probably three occasions. He wasn't strong enough to ever make it happen.

Notre Dame in 1995 was major stabilizing force in preventing th confernence from splitting. It's argueable if the conference would have been better served splitting then, or remaining together. It's not argueable, that by 2002, the conference was no longer stable, and Notre Dame either in entirely or out entirely at that point, would have significantly strengthened the conference position, because at the time, the reigning national champion in football - was a big east team, and retaining that team, by showing notre dame the ultimatum, would have kept them.

Marinatto saved football as a sport in the big east in 2003 with his plans that he convinced Tranghese to implement.

Marinatto earned the job as commissioner, basically for that reason, being able to demonstrate that he was strongly in favor of keeping the conference together.

All of the NYtimes pieces posted in this thread contain that information. (all except my bit on Miami and Notre dame and an ultimatum in 2002)