Thoughtful and respectful presentation of thoughts, Friarfan, attempting to be fair to everyone, and trying to understand the human limitations and hierarchical limitations that faced Tranghese...

I would only add one perception. Tranghese's job was to advise the presidents where things in the college athletic world were headed, to present them with future possibilities, warn them of potential troubles, have his pulse on what was in the best athletic interests of the schools.

The presidents' jobs are to guide the university, secure funding and endowments, guide crucial hiring processes, hobnob with alumni, represent the university in prominent forums and affairs, negotiate with deans and faculty, provide direction for students, etc. Probably only about 3% of their time is spent thinking about the best things to do with regard to the athletic program and affiliations, and they look to Tranghese for guidance in these affairs.

I am a small businessman. I have to see to running the small business, motivate and supervise employees, keep abreast of current product and prices, hobnob with customers, participate in community affairs and boards to serve the community and network for further business, etc. I do not have time to keep up with the detailed legal and accounting laws and intricacies in these areas which may affect my business. I rely on the advice of my lawyer and accountant for these things. If I ever discovered that they had not kept me aware of things which crucially affect the bottom line of my business, I would fire them and get a new accountant or attorney. This year my accountant informed me that new depreciation rules could be applied to my inventory, and as a result, I would realize some additional tax savings which I can use to provide better service and product, and be a better competitor. If I discovered next year he had not apprised me of this, I would have had to fire him.

Mike Tranghese's job is to be the "athletic counselor" to the presidents. I don't know what advice he gave the presidents. If he gave no advice, or incorrect advice, he deserves to be fired. If he gave correct advice, and the presidents ignored it, the presidents deserve to be fired, and the schools' board of trustees should look carefully at these things, and probably inquire to see precisely who had no vision--the presidents or Tranghese.

I do not feel comfortable in a situation in which there is no accountability. The world fails to function without accountability. How we miss you, Harry Truman...

All the above said with utter respect and deference...

:D

friarfan, you make alot of good points but I still find it hard to excuse MT for his actions...or lack of action in most cases.

Here is the difference between MT and Swofford, in July the Presidents voted unanimously to split...if Swofford were the BE commish the official vote would've been held within 24hrs. Instead MT was going to the press and preaching patience, and urging the Presidents to be deliberate and take their time in this process...this was during a time when everyone was screaming for the BE to act, the leagues survival was at stake, the situation was obvious to every knowledgeable person except MT. Its been almost four months since UM and VT left and the only significant thing the BE has managed to do was lose another school.

You speak very highly of MT, you give him credit for bringing the fball schools together and deftly guiding it through its more than 20 years of existence but you constantly excuse him for all the failures over the years.

MT did make the statement that 14 teams was nearly impossible to manage, thats why it amazes me that he is working so diligently to get this 16 team mess done. (As a side note though, he never said that he didn't support a 14 or 16 team league or a split, he simply said it was difficult to manage a 14 team league). IMHO, whether he would retire if the league split or not had absolutely no relevance to what was going on, therefore he should've never expressed those feelings in a public forum. Especially since something as significant as his retirement could affect the way members decided to proceed in the future. In fairness to MT he was specifically asked what he would do if the league split, again IMO he should've taken the high road and given the standard no comment or I haven't decided...unless of course he had a motive for making that statement. This is speculation but if MT supported a split he would've said it publicly, he would've battled the Presidents and if he didn't get it he would've atleast threatend retirement because if this plan fails it means death to the conference he played a major role in building.

College Presidents are highly educated leaders that are at the top of their field, but they aren't exactly sports gurus and don't have their fingers on the pulse of athletics, thus the need for commissioners. I think a commissioner's opinion goes much further than you suggest, if it didn't then the ACC would still be a nine team conference.

I don't think UM and VT used the BE to get into the ACC. I think UM gave the BE every opportunity to do what most leagues were doing...expand to a 12 team conference and develope a league playoff, the BE refused and they left. VT's move wasn't calculated at all, the ACC fell into their lap. I'll admit that VT coveted ACC membership for decades but when this started they were waaay on the outside looking in. UM could've joined the ACC years ago but they didn't, they stuck with the BE, IMO they were giving the BE an opportunity to get its house in order. When it became apparent that the BE was content at maintaining the status quo, they jumped to a more stable situation.

I somewhat agree that college football is not as big in the NE as other regions. I think that the NE hasn't taken advantage of its location and been proactive in developing its product...an all sports regional conference with an emphasis on football. I also think that college football is very important to ALOT of people in the NE, just check out the ratings. The problem is not that North Easterners don't watch college football, the problem is they don't watch BE football, why? Because the product stinks...I honestly believe that if the BE committed to being a solid fball first conference it will not only survive but be one of the strongest leagues in the country. The problem is, in order for the BE to evolve into a solid all sports conference, the bball schools have to be sacrificed.

friarfan, i enjoy your posts. I read several boards and you have quickly become one of my favorite posters. Your posts are always well thought out and somewhat convincing, the only problem is that I usually don't agree... ;) IMO that makes for great discussion and an opportunity to look at this situation from more than one point of view. I think the bottom line is we both want to see the BE not only survive but also thrive. I hope we both see that happen.

NJfan-a couple of comments:

IMO you give Swofford too much credit. I clearly remember a quote in the last 3 years that he was certain the ACC would not expand while he was commissioner. My thought on reading that was that he must not plan to be commissioner very long.

And on Miami joining the ACC: The newspaper reports I read at the time indicated that Miami wanted to join in the early 90s, but the ACC didn't want them. Remember, Miami was very much Gangsta U. as far as their fb program was concerned at the time. Miami had the choice of the BE or the SEC and chose the BE.

The C-USA additions of L'ville, Cincy, and apparently South Florida are probably near best the BE can do with maintaining consolidation with the bb schools (adding DePaul & Marquette too). Potentially in basketball, it will be awesome with a bit more need for rivalry cultivation to further intensify.
The immediate BCS stuff prevented a split immediately. The new structure is a ticket to an eventual spit. When there is emphasis on having a balance between football and bb schools, and with 16 schools at play, the formula for a breakup is firmly in place. The revamped BE will only be a temporary structure. A new BCS criteria will help dictate how it splits a couple of years from now.

Well UM has filed a counter suit against the BE, this development is very interesting. UM's lawyer has made statements that BE officials never had any intentions of addressing concerns that UM raised, although the BE led them to believe that they would. Based on the BE promises UM stayed in the league and in turn lost alot of potential revenue.

IMO, this statement by UM is very telling:

Isicoff also said the school was a fraud victim and lost revenue because Big East officials never had any intention of resolving issues Miami had raised regarding ''the way the conference was being administered.''

The concerns included the ability of members to leave the conference, scheduling, marketing and television rights. They were raised by Miami in November 1999; by early 2001, the lawsuit claims, only two of the 16 concerns had been addressed.

''We remained on board and the result was we suffered lost revenues and have suffered additional harm since,'' Isicoff said.

That statement doesn't mention a split or MT personally, but having concerns about how the league was administered points the finger at its key administrator, MT. Also the ability of members to leave the conference...the fball schools have not only wanted to leave but have been actively trying, issues concerning who gets the name, BBall money, who keeps MSG as the tournament site, who keeps the TV contract, and should the fball schools have to pay exit fees have kept them from leaving. Those issues have been discussed for years with no resolution and still exist today. Maybe MT never addressed those issues because he never intended for a split to happen.

It also supports the theory that UM tried to enact positive change within the BE before looking for a new home. I firmly believe that if MT and the BE would've followed UM's lead, they would still be in the conference today. In fact the BE would probably be one of the strongest conferences in the country. The funny thing is the BE had one of the best teams in the country as a full member and they refused to meet their needs, now they are ready to give an overwhelming amount of concessions to ND in exchange for 3-4 fball games a year. UM tried to create a league that offered stability and security for all its members. ND is trying to keep its own athletic dept. stable until they know whether they will be forced to join a conference or not. Its sad that the BE didn't have enough vision to see what would've been the wiser choice.

Here is the rest of the article:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/293/sports/Miami_files_lawsuits_against_U:.shtml

I completely agree with you, J'man, & empathiize with how any of us with responsibilities need to depend on the advice & counsel of our advisors. My complaint lies exactly in one of the points you made. None of us know what advice the commissioner provided to the presidents nor what constraints they placed on him. Judging by public comments & press releases is a dangerous business because a loyal commissioner will often put the best face on a position that he didn't support & he will often take the "hit" for decisions that were made by others. He will do this simply because he is the "face" of the conference & their public spokesman. I see this all the time on boards with which I work.

NJfan23, the feeling of respect is mutual. I too enjoy the repartee. Thanks for your thoughtful posts. Let me comment on a few of your points.

First, I don't give Tranghese credit for guiding the conference through its first 20 years because he wasn't commissioner for 20 years. Dave Gavitt was its first commissioner & was largely responsible for its early success. I'm simply saying that Mike Tranghese has served the conference well - in various capacities - for a long time & should have earned some appreciation for this.

I don't forgive him for his mistakes. I simply don't know what his mistakes are. I know that they are no where near the level of what he's been blamed for. (I'm not talking about you.) Your comment about 4 months of inaction & then lose another school is exactly the point. MT can't take any action. Only the conference through the votes of its members can act. MT repeatedly projected timelines for action, which he repeatedly had to revise & postpone. Why do you think he's responsible for this inaction? It seems obvious to me that he wanted to act quickly but that he couldn't get the Big East members to move forward. I don't know if anyone could have.

I'll simply repeat that the hybrid nature of the Big East makes the internal politics much more complicated than any other conference. This is a complicated situation with many conflicting needs & a situation in which it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain consensus. In addition, any Big East Commissioner who took the position that the conference should split should be fired - & probably would be. The commissioneer is hired to serve the needs of ALL the members, not the interests of some. The vision for an all-sports conference needed to come from someone other than the commissioner, i.e. individual institutions who desired that. The formation of the Big East originally came from indiviuals at individual colleges. A new Break Away Big East would grow out of the same initiatives at the institutional level - not by a commissioner ripping apart his own conference. That's not what he is hired to do.

I agree that a conference commissioner's influence goes a long way. But in the end, it is still only influence. He is not the key decision maker - as the ACC example proved. John Swofford deserves credit for guiding the ACC through its 18 month study of expansion, but if I recall the initiative for that committee & its study came from one of the univiersities. (Georgia Tech?) The point is that these things often develop through many informal conversations - some initiated by the commissioner. A wise commissioner will be able to take the pulse of his membership & nudge it in the direction that the consensus supports. He can't get it here simply because he stands up & makes a persuasive speech or lobbies behind the scenes. Miami didn't get what it wanted because there weren't enough other members who agreed with them. In the end they were wise to find a conference that did agree with them.

UM & VPI both used the Big East in different ways to upgrade their programs. Miami used it to upgrade their image, which was unpalatable to the ACC at the time UM joined the Big east - as others have pointed out. VPI used the Big East to upgrade its football program, which was terrible when they joined the league (2-9 the previous season.). The make-over by both schools made them acceptable & desirable to the ACC as a result.

I agree with your point that Notheastern college football fans watch schools from other regions because the Eastern product stinks. This has been at the heart of my position all along. The individual conference members had the responsibility to make this marriage work. They didn't. Um & VPI deserve credit for using the Big East platform to improve their programs - especially Tech. Why the heck didn't Temple or Rutgers do this - both of whom have been in steady decline. Why has Syracuse joined them in decline since McNabb left? How can the commissioner possibly be responsible for any of this? It was the responsibility of the member universities to strengthen their programs. Do you think that Miami or Tech looked forward to trips to Temple & Rutgers each year - with the paltry fan turn-out & accompanying lack of revenue? Did these games help their strength of schedule? Ultimately, though, these are Southern schools who long ago made their preferences for membership in a Southern conference known - before they joined the Big East. When things weren't perfect in the Big East, there were already plenty of "I-told-you-so's?" among their alumni & fans ready to apply the pressure to move them in another direction.

I find the comment that the basketball schools had to be sacrificed to be astounding! This absolves the football schools completely from any responsibility for the current situation and goes back to my original point of last week. Why the heck did the football schools join a basketball confrence & then complain that they were in a hybrid?! No one handed the Big East control of the Northeast for college sports. They gained a following, TV cointracts, etc. because of the product they put on the floor & on the field. The football schools had every opportunity to do the same thing on multiple occasions. You are now suggesting that having joined the Big East hybrid, the football members should stage an internal palace coup & "sacrifice" the basketball members - kick them out of their conference - the one that they founded & to which they gave credibility?

I happen to agree that the football schools should split & form an all-sports conference. But they should do so by leaving the Big East, not by kicking out its founding members (which they would never have the votes to do anyway, so it can never happen regardless of who the commissioner is). It akes a 75% vote to remove a member. The football schools should do what they should have done decades ago & form their own conference - & then put the product on the field to make the league a winner.

No news here, simply a comment applauding the level of discussion this board is capable of. :D Amazing this level of civility seems so non-existent outside of such mediums, eh? ;)

NJfan23, while I was on the road today, this comment of yours stuck in my mind. Some college presidents are actually avid sports nuts & quite knowledgable. Harry Hartley here at UConn was just such a president & had a lot to do with UConn's success in the '90s. But you are right, that's certainly not the case for all of them.

Athletics are, however, a high priority for any university president. It is one of the most visible things about the university. Mishandling athletics (at least in the eyes of the boosters) has cost university presidents their jobs. Where I disagree with you is whether they are going to leave the fate of their atletic program - & potentially their own career - in the hands of a conference commissioner, regardless of how well regarded he might be.

What I have seen at UConn is that their closest advisor will be the AD. Other department members might also play a role. Jim Calhoun & Harry Hartley, for example, were close friends. They will also seek the advice of trusted members of the "athletic boosters." Typically big donors who have also earned respect & status - some of them successful businessmen or professionals who are also former athletes at the university who have remained close to the university.

While members of a conference are "in it together," they are also competing against each other. The commissioner stands in the middle of them all. As such, he may provide useful information & his own perspective on things, but the presidents are going to look to those who have the best interests of his/her own university at heart - UConn in my case - not to the commissioner who has the interests of the collective group as his primary responsibility.

It has been interesting to watch this play out at UConn. When the university was dissatisfied with the direction of the basketball program in the mid-'80s, the first thing that the president did was to form a committee, with all of the stake holders represented - including faculty reps & reps of student athletes. If nothing else, this served the function of getting the big contributors on board early & giving them a role that was important - or at least would make them feel important. The committee evaluated everything about the basketball program - & took a look at other aspects of athletics. They visited other universities that were similar to UConn but had achieved greater success & asked for their advice. They set fun raising goals. They evaluated & revised the academic support program. (Cliff Robinson had recently been an academic casualty.) The next thing they did was to hire Jim Calhoun - best move they ever made. The third thing they did was to hire Lew Perkins as AD. The fourth thing they did was to develop a plan to enhance facilities, which resulted in 10,000 seat on-campus Gampel Pavilion. In the end, all of the supports necessary for fund raising, recruiting, facilities & program development were in place. A core group had developed a close collaborative working relationship with the university president & other school officials & had a sense of ownership in the program, making it something that they wanted to invest in. Within a few years Lew Perkins came back to them with the proposal to upgrade to I-A football. Because this is a state university, the legislature, governor, & other state officials were involved at all stages.

I describe this picture because this is the network that would determine UConn's future at any point. As people leave, they are replaced with other pieces in the puzzle, but at any point in time, these are the people to whom the UConn president turns after his own AD. It is not the conference commissioner. He is not led by anyone, but rather comes to the table with his own well-developed agenda which he believes will further his own university community's interests. I can only assume that other universities have some similar process.