Awesome film..plus the extra 30 mins on ESPNU.

Anyone interested in sports history is a must view.

(03-16-2014 10:29 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Awesome film..plus the extra 30 mins on ESPNU.

Anyone interested in sports history is a must view.

Absolutely great documentary. Even I learned a few new things and I consider myself fairly knowledge about the Big East's history. Turned out much better than I anticipated.

For all you ACC fans trying to get a better idea why us Syracuse and Pitt fans are bemoaning the loss of Big East Basketball (particularly the tournament in MSG) please watch this film.

I still am extremely happy Syracuse landed in the ACC and I am looking forward to many more years in the conference but this 30 for 30 made me shed a few tears for our glory days and our history.

I think this is the first time that ESPN has actually acknowledged in print and/or video the key role the Big East played in building the ESPN brand.

Cheers,
Neil

It was an amazing watch! I have to admit I got pretty emotional watching it, and while I love the ACC there is a part of me that just adores those early years of the Big East Conference. I am 51 years old and for me that was college basketball…

what was on the espn u bit

(03-16-2014 11:46 PM)john01992 Wrote:  what was on the espn u bit

30 minutes of bonus footage.

They covered the building of the Dome, GMac's 2006 run, the 6 OT game, a couple of funny bits with Raf and Louie, and the Ray Allen/Allen Iverson BET final.

U notice the only replies are from Cuse fans? LOL

(03-17-2014 11:29 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  U notice the only replies are from Cuse fans? LOL

I didn't watch it but I had read that it focus mostly on the early history of the Big East and that the later years were glossed over/ignored. Is that true? If so, it probably explains the lack of responses from Pitt and UofL fans.

(03-17-2014 11:34 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:29 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  U notice the only replies are from Cuse fans? LOL

I didn't watch it but I had read that it focus mostly on the early history of the Big East and that the later years were glossed over/ignored. Is that true? If so, it probably explains the lack of responses from Pitt and UofL fans.

As good as it was, it didn't go nearly far enough.

First hour should have been basically what the two hours was while the second hour (maybe even a third if necessary) should have picked up from the 90s forward interweaving how the coaches were making huge money, but the players were not.

How expansion for football purposes initially hurt the basketball prowess of the league. How the smaller private basketball only schools had trouble keeping up with the escalation of the arms race.

The documentary mentioned that capitalism helped to create the league and ultimately it was capitalism that was its downfall. Had they hooked onto that, it could have been a compelling story for all of college athletics.

Instead, it settled for being a love poem for the 80s Big East and its four main coaches, or as a UConn fan commented, a circle jerk for Syracuse and Georgetown fans.

Cheers,
Neil

It should have been called requiem for the Georgetown-Syracuse rivalry and focused on that aspect. There wasn't time to cover the whole Big East so schools like Pitt were barely even mentioned. Still a great 30 for 30 though.

(03-17-2014 11:46 AM)omniorange Wrote:  As good as it was, it didn't go nearly far enough.

First hour should have been basically what the two hours was while the second hour (maybe even a third if necessary) should have picked up from the 90s forward interweaving how the coaches were making huge money, but the players were not.

How expansion for football purposes initially hurt the basketball prowess of the league. How the smaller private basketball only schools had trouble keeping up with the escalation of the arms race.

The documentary mentioned that capitalism helped to create the league and ultimately it was capitalism that was its downfall. Had they hooked onto that, it could have been a compelling story for all of college athletics.

Instead, it settled for being a love poem for the 80s Big East and its four main coaches, or as a UConn fan commented, a circle jerk for Syracuse and Georgetown fans.

Cheers,
Neil

I will agree that it was extremely 80's focused (I grew up on 90's BEast) and I was surprised by how little UConn was mentioned considering they were able to interview Calhoun. But given the time constraints, I felt they stayed true to the capitalism motif.

Going to watch tonight. Tried to stay away from Twitter last night figuring it would give stuff away.

(03-17-2014 11:53 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 11:46 AM)omniorange Wrote:  As good as it was, it didn't go nearly far enough.

First hour should have been basically what the two hours was while the second hour (maybe even a third if necessary) should have picked up from the 90s forward interweaving how the coaches were making huge money, but the players were not.

How expansion for football purposes initially hurt the basketball prowess of the league. How the smaller private basketball only schools had trouble keeping up with the escalation of the arms race.

The documentary mentioned that capitalism helped to create the league and ultimately it was capitalism that was its downfall. Had they hooked onto that, it could have been a compelling story for all of college athletics.

Instead, it settled for being a love poem for the 80s Big East and its four main coaches, or as a UConn fan commented, a circle jerk for Syracuse and Georgetown fans.

Cheers,
Neil

I will agree that it was extremely 80's focused (I grew up on 90's BEast) and I was surprised by how little UConn was mentioned considering they were able to interview Calhoun. But given the time constraints, I felt they stayed true to the capitalism motif.

I wasn't surprised at all about how little UConn was mentioned. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the meteoric rise of the league, nor with its ultimate demise.

There certainly could be a separate compelling 30 for 30 about how Calhoun helped make the Huskies an elite basketball program but that isn't what this one was about.

There also should be a separate 30 for 30 about Tom Jurich.

Cheers,
Neil

if anyone can find a web link for the 30 min. bonus footage please post it

(03-17-2014 11:29 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  U notice the only replies are from Cuse fans? LOL

We were the heart of the BIG EAST.

I'd be interested in the extra 30 minutes as well. It was an interesting watch and as someone born in the very early 80's I learned a good deal about the creation of the league and the early rivalries that I had not seen or read elsewhere.

I do have to agree with Neil that the film would have been better with a more even allocation of time to the last 25 years of the league. 1986-2013 was a blur the last 15 minutes of the two hours. I don't care that there was short mention of UofL, UC, etc, but the time allocation left my wanting more and it felt somewhat incomplete.

(03-17-2014 02:03 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 12:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  if anyone can find a web link for the 30 min. bonus footage please post it

Yeah, if anybody knows if the bonus footage will be re-shown (and when), I would be grateful for the help.

Check ESPNU schedules. It might also be on ESPN3?

i don't have espnu. there has seriously got to be another way.

Eh, I thought it was okay but just okay. It certainly hit on some of my own personal favorite Big East stories and memories but it also REALLY missed the mark in a lot of VERY important areas that would have told the league's complete story and would have helped explain the forces and personalities that ultimately led to the league's demise.

I agree with the poster who said it was really a love letter to the Syracuse-Georgetown rivalry more than anything else. That's no surprise though as I have subsequently read that the director, Ezra Edleman is a Washington, DC native and was a self described "huge Georgetown fan" growing up.

And while that rivalry was the league's best hands down and needed to be featured, in serving that master, the director just didn't allot any time for other programs/issues that faced the league.

I would not watch it again.

If anything, the piece only confirmed a lot of long held suspicions I had of the league's mentality, its foibles, Pitt's place in it, and why it ultimately broke apart.

In 2011, when word leaked out that Pitt was headed from the Big East to the ACC, a lot of Panther fans openly fretted that we would always be considered outsiders in the ACC in the same way Penn State fans have long complained about their school having been ostracized by its Big Ten partners (even pre-scandal).

While that fear was and remains a very valid concern, I pointed out then and I think the documentary confirmed that to some degree, we were always kind of seen as outsiders in the Big East as well. I mean the league began in 1979 and we joined it in 1982 - three measly years later. And yet every single guy they talked to talked about Pitt like they talked about West Virginia, Miami and Virginia Tech - necessary evils but always outsiders.

Also, I still don't follow their goofy logic that Dave Gavitt was a genius because he kept pushing for bigger and bigger everything and his great sense of capitalism was great for everyone and blah, blah, blah.

I get that part and I even agree with it. Gavitt's job was to make money for his league and to raise its profile and by all accounts he did that as well as any conference commissioner who has ever lived. However, why does that logic suddenly come to a screeching halt when we apply those same principals to the schools that also happened to sponsor football?

In plainer terms, why is it admirable for Providence to capitalize to the fullest extent on its men's basketball program but when Syracuse uses that exact same logic with regard to its football program, that's just naked greed and something worthy of scorn? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I think the same forces that created the climate for the Big East to come about and thrive were also what ultimately killed it. I think it is a classic Shakespearean "live by the sword, die by the sword" kind of story and that would have been more interesting to me than saying over and over again for two hours, "Wow, wasn't 1985 cool?" and "Weren't those coaches something else?"

Yes, that was cool and yes those coaches were incredible and they were real characters as well. Can we now discuss something of importance that impacted more than one or two fan bases?