I view you as generally correct, Orangeman. Where I think confusion comes with this is that the Penn State thing with the BE pertained to basketball and pre-dated the BE football arrangement. I am not defending PSU's matter with football BE schools; I can understand why Syracuse had said no to two away games at PSU to one home game.

Here is a perspective on Tranghese's leadership by a writer on the EagleInsider web site. It summarizes well the perspective of all those BE schools and fans whose "all-sports" vision have repeatedly been discounted by the poor visionary quality of BE leadership...

"Michael Tranghese expressed his “surprise” at BC’s departure. Um, Mike, step back from the buffet table for a moment, turn on your computer or pick up any paper and you should have known for weeks that this was at worst, a possibility. You are a reactive leader and a failure as a football commissioner and your leadership chased three of the conference’s top programs right into the arms of a lucrative and successful conference. Since Dave Gavitt left the Big East, the Big East brand has not appreciated, no matter how much on-field success its teams had, no matter how well they fared on the court, the Big East was unable to parlay anything into better bowls, more NCAA bids, higher rankings or national respect. Meanwhile, Mike Tranghese appeared to the uninformed eye to be a bystander more interested in whining, complaining, and finger pointing or hitting the buffet line than taking proactive steps. A real leader tackles the seemingly impossible, Mike Tranghese threw up his hands faster than he grabs the last slice of pizza and gave up. Say what you want about Swofford and his Teflon coiffure, the man got results and was relentless in his pursuit of what he thought would improve the ACC. BC fans everywhere are thrilled for leadership from above while the remaining Big East football schools are stuck in Mike Tranghese’s kung-fu grip and basketball-first mentality."

Although this is the view of a BE insider (now a "former" insider) and fan, most of the folks outside the BE, far more accustomed to the normalcy and health of "all-sports" thinking, fully share this view...

8-)

Javaman, the above message is piercing but directly reflective of many. While it is ethically difficult to embrace Swofford's tactics, he delivered for his conference. For him, the goal surpasses the means.

Tranghese has seemed immobile and reactionary in a high stakes game. Perhaps he gave it his best, but the results have immensely compromised whatever positive legacy he hoped to garner as the Commissioner. Maybe he will come up with a clever scenario for the future, but what has been reported to date does not generate much enthusiasm.

Thanks for sharing it, Javaman.

javaman, I know a lot of Big East fans are very unhappy with the recent results of ACC expansion and want to blame someone.

Mike Traghese may or may not be the best conference leader, however, I can think of a lot more folks to blame.

First of all, the leadership of the University of Miami are as much to blame as any. I have always supported Miami sports, however, the leadership is another issue.

If Miami wanted an all sports conference, all the Big East football schools would have followed in a NY minute. The eight BE football schools could have simply hired a consultant and started the process to form an all sports conference (i.e. MWC did the same thing in breaking away from the WAC).

The ACC leaders are the most ruthless people in the world.

The plotting by ACC, Miami, and BC to undermine all of college sports is inexcusable.

BC fans have a lot of nerve to criticize anyone.

The one mistake that Mike Traghese made was assumming the ACC would not expand due to financial reasons. As it turns out, Mike was right. Even if the ACC gets its championship game, there is no gurantee the conference will maintain the current revenue with 12 teams. If this becomes a fact, the expansion will be perceived in the future as a big mistake.

Unfortunately the inocent BE football schools will suffer the the most along with other non BCS conferences.

The BE law suit may or may not succeed, however, it is right on target with the culprits who are to blame.

I place the blame squarely on MT's shoulders...I'm as pissed as the next guy about how this whole thing came about but in retrospect you have to ask yourself, can you really blame UM, VT, and BC for leaving?

The SU President admitted in an interview yesterday that the league knew for atleast 5 years that UM and ACC were talking but as you said MT assumed that it would never happen. Well after 5 years of seeing smoke he should've assumed there had to be fire. Its his job to advise the presidents, his advice has consistently been to maintain the status quo. Even in the face of all thats happened its my guess its was his advice to answer this fball problem with a bball heavy answer.

MT is obviously a man of influence within the BE, you don't keep a job for 20 years despite your performance, without it. It has always been his influence that conviced key members within the conference to stay aligned. He was always able to apply a band aid and convince everyone that UM wasn't going anywhere, while giving UM the perception that a split was coming in the near future.

Read these message boards, most fans believe that a split is going to happen in the near future although since the rebuilding process began you have never heard MT or any other BE decision maker even hint at it.

Think back to when UM and VT left, every administrator at every fball school talked about the need for a regional all sports conference, with a focus on developing fball. In three months that sentiment has changed to a bball dominated conference that expands to Wisconsin and Illinois. IMHO, that screams of MT's influence, and when it fails he will stand in front of us and tell us that he is shocked and surprised that, (you fill in the school), would undermine the leagues hard work in building this dream conference.

MT is a very smart man, he knows how highly the BE presidents think of him. Remember back on BE fball media day...when the conference split rumors were at there peak, MT stood in front of the world and announced that if the conference split he wouldn't go with either side, he would do the noble thing and retire. Since that announcement not one BE administrator talked about a split, atleast not in public. IMO, that was genius. You have two conferences about to approach the most critical period of its existence, the fball schools lost there two heavyweights, are in jeopardy of losing there BCS slot and its almost time to negotiate another TV contract. All of this and they're about to lose the only commissioner they've ever known. The bball schools are about to lose their cash cow in the fball schools and are in jeopardy of not only taking a back seat to the new all sports conference but also the growing A10, and they're going to lose the commissioner that built their league and lead them to their hey days.

My guess is he let both sides chew on that for a few days then he got them together and said, "look guys I'll get us out of this mess, but we do it my way." I know this is ALOT of speculation on my part but its funny that he will be the commissioner of this mess. His message was he'll leave if they split, the obvious flip side is he'll stay if they don't.

I agree that the Presidents and AD's have to accept some responsibility for whats happened, but MT is the man steering this ship.

One point I forgot to make...MT may in fact be right that the ACC will not make as much money as projected. That doesn't excuse him for not taking the necessary action to prevent the destruction of this league. During MT's tenure as commish he was never challenged by any of the membership, I think he was so shocked and surprised because it was the first time he went toe to toe with the membership and lost. As you see he has them back in line because they are back to following him blindly into oblivion once again.

As I said before, UM saw the flaws and weaknesses of this conference, they tried for atleast 5 years to work with MT and the BE to strengthen this conference, when it became apparent it wasn't going to happen, they left, its that simple.

Miami wanted in the ACC when the BE was formed, they wanted in the ACC in 98 and they wanted in in 2003. They made NO sense in the BE. You can't blame MT for losing Miami. VT has been trying to get in the ACC since those schools left them behind in the Southern Conference 50 years ago. If the ACC ever invited either of those schools, they would have jumped whatever setup the BE had.

However, if they had an all sports conference they might have built up their new members and been in a better position with the loss of Miami and VT and possibly may have kept BC.

Where MT can be blamed is that he screwed SU. They would have been in the ACC instead of VT if he hadn't spouted off (and the BE would still have had a top 10 program which may have been decisive in keeping them in the BCS). He sped up what had been a deliberate ACC process and the ACC made a mess of it. The lawsuits slowed down the BE realignment and kept them from completing something which might have kept BC and/or might have discouraged the ACC from inviting another BE team. But suing BC guaranteed they would leave the suing 4 first opportunity they had.

SU was the only one who came out of the mess looking good. That was, until Monday's press conference. Rice, TCU and SMU have been left behind twice, both times in much worse situations than the BE 5, and with 80 years of tradition not just 10, but you didn't hear such whining and name calling. The reporter who asked the B10 question hit the hypocracy on the head. BC was committed. They had nowhere else to go. Then 2 weeks ago things changed. If the B10 invited SU, SU admitted they might not be so committed. Its simply absurd for them to use such terms as double agents, particularly when some of your partners tried to sue BC!

Javaman, one needs to translate MT's "surprise" into "anger." He was trying to be genteel in how he expressed his comments.

The facts of this situation are that Tranghese did see the BC defection coming, that he so advised the member presidents, & encouraged them to act. The fact is that the presidents & ADs couldn't believe that BC would go back on their word, so they dragged their feet.

NJfan23, you are badly misinformed. Your speculation is wild & shows no understanding of how the dynamics of the relationships among university presidents & a conference commissioner actually work in the real world. The university presidents dropped the ball here & no one else is to blame.

Of course we (most of us) are not privy to all the phone calls, faxes, Emails, conference minutes, political pressures, threats, intimidations, IOU's, finances, etc. that are behind the scenes. What we respond to are press reports, rumors (often verified), and the notice of inaction and reaction. I expect all decision-making players associated with an undesirable outcome end up with some taint. Who acted very noble and wise, and who acted incompetent and/or selfish, are judgments that get made, and with varying levels of information. How outcomes are interpreted, may also be influenced by one's expectations and emotional affiliation.

Most posts are supportive of the BE and feel a degree of empathy for Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Rutgers, and even Temple. The BE itself can be blamed, the ACC can be faulted, Miami and BC can be opportunistic bad guys, Notre Dame can be a villian, selfish bb schools, wacky Commissioners and goofy college presidents-----it has all been said in varying ways.

Did not mean to leave out Syracuse. They look "cleaner" than all the others--no party to the lawsuit and did not ultimately leave for the ACC---but they too have their agenda and their take with the bb situation may be unique.

friarfan, maybe we find it so difficult to agree because we look at things from opposite ends of the spectrum. You see things from the bball point of view, I look at them from a fball point of view. No matter what side of the fence you sit it is pretty hard to defend or justify MT's actions. When was the last time you heard MT say anything specific about the future of the BE? Just about every conference, over the years, has laid out a plan and put in play. Every conference except the BE. Over the past 10 years the Big 12 was formed, The B10 came close to expanding again, the ACC began talking about expansion and got serious about it 5 years ago. They even publicly targeted the BE's #1 program.

While just about every other conference in America was positioning to strengthen itself for the future, MT and the BE just sat there. MT put all of the fball schools eggs in UM's basket and he got burned. As long as UM was in the BE they had a seat at the table and MT knew it...the odd thing is he did absolutely nothing to keep them happy even though he knew they were the BE's meal card.

In my last post I laid out a specific scenario and stated that it was ALOT of speculation on my part, but it is a scenario alot of people speculate about. What were MT's motives when he said he would resign if the league split? You prefer to put the blame on the Presidents, I agree with you to a certain extent. MT is paid to be the advisor to the Presidents. It is obvious that they respect him and his word goes a long way with them. For the past decade there have been rumblings from both sides that the league should split. Through it all, he has been the glue that has held it together. Whether that is good or bad has yet to be decided but right now its not looking good for him.

When most of the fball schools were making it clear that they prefered an all sports regional conference, MT said that the Presidents were talking but haven't asked him for his opinion although he expected them to ask before they got too deep into the process. He was then asked which scenario did he prefer, he said he wasn't sure, but he was positive that he wouldn't go with one side or the other. If the league split he would retire. The obvious flip side to that is if they didn't split he would stay.

After three months, the league has gone from definetly splitting to staying together with MT as its commissioner. You may say thats just how it played out, I say it was a succesful powerplay by MT.

Also you say my speculation is misinformed...is that because you disagree with it? You also offer alot of speculation and seem to overlook alot of major mistakes made by MT and the bball schools. Although I don't express my 'speculation' as eloquently as you, I think I do have some valid points. If you read the various message boards then you know ALOT of people share the same speculation.

Here is something I just found to support my 'speculation'...I said in an earlier post that the BE fball schools were set to split, something changed to make them change their minds, my guess is MT. Check out this interview with the BC admin:

http://bceagles.ocsn.com/genrel/101603aaa.html

Particularly, this statement:

Fr. Leahy: Let me go back to July. The presidents of Big East football schools at a meeting in Newark on July 9 voted unanimously to accept a recommendation from their directors of athletics that an 8-9 school, all-sports conference be established. But within a few weeks, I learned that the other presidents no longer were committed to the 8-9 school concept, but wanted to expand to a conference of 16 institutions. I opposed such a plan on numerous occasions because 14 schools in the Conference had not worked and therefore going to 16 institutions seemed to only worsen the problem.

Staying aligned with the bball schools is killing this conference, I've speculated that not forming an all sports conference and expanding caused UM and VT to leave. After reading this, I know for a fact it caused BC to leave. UM gave MT na ultimatum, split and go all sports or we're gone and MT let them go, apparently he did the same thing with BC.

NJfan, I tend to share your erspective for the most part, and I think it jives with the optimism we were first feeling about the BE in the early days of the ACC raids, since all reports indicated they would be heading toward a healthy split, good for everyone, both the football schools and the basketball schools!

Then something happened, and we got reports there wasn't going to be a split. Who caused this reevaluation. Speculation on the board at the time was that the presidents were compromising, and of course there were speculations of a tie vote--some of it even mimicked in the various conference "games" some of you were playing. Which way was Notre Dame pushing? Obviously they did not want the split, as it would have forced them into a conference sooner than they want--they continually want to postpone the inevitable, and the present arrangement is just peachy keen for Notre Dame, thank you. Together with Tranghese's misguided attempts to keep the schools together, this might have led to the current situation. This is all speculation of course, but many years of watching Notre Dame politics makes me think they were more involved than people realize, both here and in the aborted NCState foxy power push to "put it to BC". Notre Dame wanted BC to stay.

Credit BC. They stuck to their guns, and said 'we don't want a disfunctional joint league, we want an "all sports conference."' That meant even crossing their best rival, Notre Dame, but they may have been mad about Notre Dame playing coy and hard to get for too many years, as are most other schools. The number of schools that continue to cater to ND continues to decline.

I also strongly suspect that the sentiments expressed by BC are shared by the remaining five football schools, only cannot be publicly stated for obvious reasons--too much to lose. They don't look to gain the upper hand in the future either, since Tranghese will carefully control the fact the football schools will never have a majority vote unless Notre Dame sides with them. What are the chances of that happening in the light of all we have learned?

NJfan, don't sell yourself short. You are quite eloquent. In fact, you write exceptionally well.

I assume you get the idea that I look at things from the basketball point of view because I use the handle "FriarFan." Two of my daughters went to Providence, which is why I use that handle. I am not an alum nor connected to them in any other way. I also have a daughter who went to BC & am a long time UConn fan. I look at this thing from both sides.

Let me just make this point about who is responsible for the problems in the Big East - and this is a fact. The only decision makers in the Big East or any other conference are the presidents & their Boards of Trustees. No commissioner has decision making power over anything other than what the conference board delegates to him/her. Decision makers must be held accountable. It is much more convenient to blame a commissioner because he is only one person. It is harder to blame a group because there is no focal point.

When we talk about college & university presidents, we are talking about highly educated leaders who are at the top of their field. I refuse to believe that such a group of people can cop out by saying that they were "under the influence" of their conference commissioner. Sure the commissioner has influence, but in the end the presidents vote & he doesn't. If there trust is misplaced, they are still responsible for their votes.

In regard to MT's comments about this situation, he said way back in early July that he thought 16 schools was too big for the conference & that scheduling 14 schools had been a serious problem for his office. That doesn't sound to me like a man who favored making the conference bigger. Regardless of his of his personal opinion, he manages an office whose job is to research & collate information for the presidents so THEY can decide. Certainly they ask his advice, but that's all it is - advice. We saw John Swofford advise his presidents & they went off in another direction. All commissioners face this same problem.

In regard to MT's statements that he would not take sides in the question of a split, I never saw this as his way of threatening or blackmailing the presidents. The fact is that he is hired by all of the member institutions. He wouldn't be doing his job if he took sides. He is not there to serve either the football or the basketball interests. His job is to serve the interests of all the costituents. I believe that he is 59 years old. He is approaching retirement age. He doesn't want to work with either side of a split conference. Certainly that is his prerogative. Each side would be better off with a new commissioner if they split - which I certainly think they should do.

several years ago college presidents across the country demanded & took more control of college athletics, saying that they had been ignoring athletics. Since they did that, we have only seen an increase in scandal & an escalation of costs, accompanied by increased efforts to find ways to make money. I noticed on a re-run the other day that BC went 9-2 19 years ago - the season of the famous Flutie "Hail Mary pass." That's 10 regular season games + a bowl. Now we are up to 12 regular season games + post-season championship games + the bowls. These are students, not professional athletes. The college presidents must take responsibility for this mess. they can't pass the buck.

The Big East is in a terribly tricky situation. For whatever reasons, it evolved into a highly successful hybrid conference. I believe that they are moving toward a split. However, they can't move too quickly or they will lose the 3 remaining BCS spots they have because the contract is with the Big East & not some new Break Away Big East. Secondly, a split will cost each of the football schools about $5 million dollars apiece unless Notre Dame goes with them, which they have been unwilling to do. This has given them pause. Third, the members see their strong suit as being their success as a basketball conference - which right now it clearly is since they have lost their best football members. I believe that this has also led them to pause before disassociating themselves from traditional basketball names in the East & their identification the big city locations in New York, Philly, & DC.

While this is speculative, their contract with the BCS & the millions of dollars that a split will cost them are facts, not my opinion. These are the facts with which they must deal regardless of any advice the commissioner has for them. I'm sure that their opinions about what to do differ as they would in any group. At the end of the day, they will go with the majority, not in the direction that their commissioner leads them because they are responsible leaders each of whom will serve the interests of their own institutions as they see them. They are too capable & too accomplished to simply be led around by anyone - & too vulnerable to dismissal by their own Boards not to heed their desires.

None of us have any knowledge of what kind of scenarios MT or anyone else presented to conference members over the past 5 years & what vision he had or lacked. But we do know that the presidents did not act. I have been told that the presidents haven't been able to agree on anything over the past 5 years & that their votes were typically 8-6.

I don't believe that there is anything that anyone including the commissioner could have done to prevent Miami or VA tech from leaving. Both have been trying to get into the ACC for decades. They used the Big East to that end. I am very disappointed that BC has chosen to leave & believe that they will come to regret it, but that is only my opinion & I don't get paid to make that decision. I found Father Leahy's remarks to be very self-serving. I have met him & like him, but I don't believe that he was telling the whole story in this instance. His remarks blame others for his decision. He should have just said that he felt the move was in the best interests of BC & left it at that.

I have never met Mike Tranghese, but I feel that he has been unfairly villified all across the Norheast. I find that to be a shame. He has served the conference long & faithfully. It is only through his initiative that a Big east football conference even exists. No one else was able to successfully bring together the diverse interests of football schools in this region. I realize peole would like to find someone to blame for the disappointing set of circumstances in the Big East, but "Fire the commissioner" will not bring the desired result.

I believe that the Northeast is where it is in football because football just hasn't been that important to too many. UConn hung around in the Yankee conference for too long & UMass continues to languish there. The State University of New York has refused to compete in I-A sports. For whatever reason Rutgers & Temple have never been very good for very long. Only Penn State has ever had a long period of sustained excellence. Syracuse, Pitt & West Virginia have only a periodic flirtations with high level success. BC has had Flutie & a lot of good but never great teams. This is not the formula for big time success - especially when the state universities of the region won't commit either to compete or when they do compete, to do so successfully. Maybe the current circumstances will change that, but with Penn State in the Big Ten & BC in the ACC, the region has become fragmented & a regional identity will become much harder to come by now.