(04-06-2016 11:49 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 12:16 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You guys are just wrong.

The football schools were already trying to form the Big East football conference in 1981. And you guys have it happening a decade later? No.

Here it from Tranghese and Crouthamel who were actually there.

This is from 1981!!!!: "Clearly, three schools in the Big East had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us," Crouthamel wrote. "In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our 'basketball' conference."

Here is Tranghese, again, in 1981:

"Syracuse and Boston College really fought to have Penn State because Jake understood the importance of Penn State. What happened in the previous fall, Penn State had tried to form a football league. What never got written was that the basketball league was being pretty successful and they couldn't agree on revenue sharing in football. There wasn't going to be any revenue sharing. Jake just wasn't going to do that. The next year Dave brought it up for discussion and Jake was absolutely supportive. We voted five different times and all five times Jake voted for Penn State. And Bill Flynn at Boston College, God rest his soul, voted for Penn State all five times. The reason that they didn't get in was that the league was new, a lot of the directors felt it was a basketball league. Some of the directors felt that the concept of the Big East was big markets. It was a 5-3 vote that changed the face of history."

So, the Catholic schools voted to keep it a basketball league, but the football schools were already thinking football and they were not at all of the basketball first mentality.

As I wrote, the eventual split was already there from the very beginning of the conference.

Several bullet points:

- You mentioned in a post something about Syracuse balking at joining the Big East when Rutgers declined Gavitt's invitation in 1979. I had never heard this.



The balking about joining the Big East came from St John's, until Gavitt convinced Louie of BE positives on their plane ride to Moscow to prep for the upcoming (later boycotted) 80 Summer Olympics. Without St John's, the Big East wouldn't have formed.

- Of the first 8 Big East members, only 2 played "major" football, Syracuse and BC. Of those 2, BC was expendable or at least they weren't a "can't lose" member. They were the second choice of Gavitt's behind Holy Cross. They were great conference mates, had some great success early on, but they were never one of the straws that stirred the Big East drink.

Syracuse was a school that was significant to the Big East, and it was worth making the effort to add Penn State if it helped SU's football situation.

The Big East in 1981 discussing football was an effort to accommodate Syracuse (and to a much lesser extent, BC). Looking back, to avoid the football baloney that hung on us through 2013, we should have just let Syracuse walk if they wanted to. But at the time in 1981, why not make an effort to help Syracuse out? They were great conference mates, a great school, etc, and Gavitt and Crouthamel were college friends.

- Pitt wasn't even playing Big East hoops til late 1982 (the 1983 season). I think Pitt was accepted after Penn State failed to put a football conference together and/or was voted down. Remember, 6 of 8 BE schools in 1982 were non-football schools.

Pitt also, like BC, in 1982-83, was not a "can't lose" hoops school. Pitt used to finish 6th every year. BC eventually started struggling in the late 80's. Besides, Pitt had absolutely no say in anything Big East related prior to 1982, cuz they weren't in the league yet.

It really comes down to some in the Big East looking to help Syracuse (the only BE football school that mattered) by inviting PSU (and then Pitt). The great majority of fans of the Big East didn't care about football.

I guess thats where you and I have our disconnect... SU and BC were the only football schools. Me, and a majority of Big East fans back then were hoops fans first by far, and were neutral or didnt give a crap about building a northeast football league (especially looking back seeing how it was a 25 year headache). In fairness to you, Gavitt and Tranghese also thought football, Penn State, and maintaining membership of Syracuse was worth trying.

You, and other football fans, and i'm not saying youre wrong, but only that we have different opinions on this, are mad at the hoops schools starting in 1982, for not embracing the football idea by adding 6 more football-focused full members in 1983 or whatever, i guess. But why should we, except to keep Syracuse, because as i said, BC and Pitt were expendable. I liked both Pitt and BC, but we didnt need Pitt or BC to maintain our great BE success and identity back rhen.

Sorry for the long post, and if i'm repeating myself.

What we have now, with 10 hoops schools here in 2016, is what most Big East fans loved about the 80's BE.

Again i'm tired of talking about it.

My replies:

"You mentioned in a post something about Syracuse balking at joining the Big East when Rutgers declined Gavitt's invitation in 1979. I had never heard this."

Even though I never wrote that Syracuse balked, my words might have been difficult to understand. I meant that there were schools who were invited that balked. Because of PSU and what it would imply for football.

"The Big East in 1981 discussing football was an effort to accommodate Syracuse (and to a much lesser extent, BC). Looking back, to avoid the football baloney that hung on us through 2013, we should have just let Syracuse walk if they wanted to."

The votes were 5-3. So there were 3 members who were in favor of the accommodation that PSU would seek in a BE football conference.

I do find it crazy though that you would so blithely suggest BC was not that important, or that Syracuse could be let go. The Big East wouldn't have become the BE if that happened. We are talking about those early teams that put the BE on the map. In fact, that BC bball team has a hair away from making it an all-BE final 4. I'm not even going to mention how popular those Pearl Syracuse teams were nationally. So, clearly, these were 2 integral teams to building the BE into a national powerhouse. To substitute Holy Cross for BC, or to allow Syracuse to walk, or to NEVER invite Pitt, could easily have lead to the conference not getting off the ground in the first place.

"Pitt wasn't even playing Big East hoops til late 1982 (the 1983 season). I think Pitt was accepted after Penn State failed to put a football conference together and/or was voted down. Remember, 6 of 8 BE schools in 1982 were non-football schools."

I was the one who made the point that the original date for Pitt was wrong. I noted that in my original post. I agree with you.

My whole point here is that the schools including Syracuse, Pitt, and BC, had been at work trying to organize a football conference, either inside the Big East, or even outside. Rutgers and West Virginia were in the wings. PSU was the ringleader. There was acrimony (Syracuse, while supporting a football conference, didn't initially agree in 1980 to give PSU a bigger cut inside the Big East). The next year, they did. But they didn't have enough votes.

"You, and other football fans, and i'm not saying youre wrong, but only that we have different opinions on this, are mad at the hoops schools starting in 1982, for not embracing the football idea by adding 6 more football-focused full members in 1983 or whatever, i guess."

No, you got this wrong. First off, I'm not even a fan of football. I am just going by my understanding of the history of the conference. I became a fan of college bball in the mid 1970s. I went to over 20+ Big East tourneys. But I'm not a football fan.

In fact, the school I root for, UConn, would have been on the outside looking in if any of this (a Big East football conference) ever came to fruition. UConn would have been locked out, very likely. In other words, for UConn, all the infighting was a very good thing, since it lead to UConn immediately being admitted into a BCS conference, which might not have happened if things had played out differently. If, for instance, PSU was immediately invited in along with pitt, Rutgers and West Virginia.

But I have read several articles about the football negotiations in 1980 and again in 1981, and it was clear, the league's administrators were of a different mind about football, than the basketball first schools.

In 1992, when Virginia Tech came up for a vote, the conference almost split apart. UConn actually held it together and provided a key vote to reconstitute the Big East by separating the bylaws into BBall-only schools and BBall/Football schools. UConn had the swing vote between the 2 factions. This saved the BE from splitting. VT actually holds those negotiations against UConn because VT was then forced to join the BE as a football only. I imagine VT thought the break into a new conference was imminent, because it was. Many people are not likely aware of this, but by 1991 UConn had already decided to go D1, and had pushed forth funding for an on campus stadium. So UConn was also looking after its own interests. What stalled UConn was the Patriots around that time seeking to move into Hartford. This is what forced Conn. pols into imagining a downtown stadium that would result in the rebirth of the city. The fiasco set UConn football back.

(04-06-2016 02:41 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 11:49 AM)billyjack Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 12:16 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You guys are just wrong.

The football schools were already trying to form the Big East football conference in 1981. And you guys have it happening a decade later? No.

Here it from Tranghese and Crouthamel who were actually there.

This is from 1981!!!!: "Clearly, three schools in the Big East had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us," Crouthamel wrote. "In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our 'basketball' conference."

Here is Tranghese, again, in 1981:

"Syracuse and Boston College really fought to have Penn State because Jake understood the importance of Penn State. What happened in the previous fall, Penn State had tried to form a football league. What never got written was that the basketball league was being pretty successful and they couldn't agree on revenue sharing in football. There wasn't going to be any revenue sharing. Jake just wasn't going to do that. The next year Dave brought it up for discussion and Jake was absolutely supportive. We voted five different times and all five times Jake voted for Penn State. And Bill Flynn at Boston College, God rest his soul, voted for Penn State all five times. The reason that they didn't get in was that the league was new, a lot of the directors felt it was a basketball league. Some of the directors felt that the concept of the Big East was big markets. It was a 5-3 vote that changed the face of history."

So, the Catholic schools voted to keep it a basketball league, but the football schools were already thinking football and they were not at all of the basketball first mentality.

As I wrote, the eventual split was already there from the very beginning of the conference.

Several bullet points:

- You mentioned in a post something about Syracuse balking at joining the Big East when Rutgers declined Gavitt's invitation in 1979. I had never heard this.



The balking about joining the Big East came from St John's, until Gavitt convinced Louie of BE positives on their plane ride to Moscow to prep for the upcoming (later boycotted) 80 Summer Olympics. Without St John's, the Big East wouldn't have formed.

- Of the first 8 Big East members, only 2 played "major" football, Syracuse and BC. Of those 2, BC was expendable or at least they weren't a "can't lose" member. They were the second choice of Gavitt's behind Holy Cross. They were great conference mates, had some great success early on, but they were never one of the straws that stirred the Big East drink.

Syracuse was a school that was significant to the Big East, and it was worth making the effort to add Penn State if it helped SU's football situation.

The Big East in 1981 discussing football was an effort to accommodate Syracuse (and to a much lesser extent, BC). Looking back, to avoid the football baloney that hung on us through 2013, we should have just let Syracuse walk if they wanted to. But at the time in 1981, why not make an effort to help Syracuse out? They were great conference mates, a great school, etc, and Gavitt and Crouthamel were college friends.

- Pitt wasn't even playing Big East hoops til late 1982 (the 1983 season). I think Pitt was accepted after Penn State failed to put a football conference together and/or was voted down. Remember, 6 of 8 BE schools in 1982 were non-football schools.

Pitt also, like BC, in 1982-83, was not a "can't lose" hoops school. Pitt used to finish 6th every year. BC eventually started struggling in the late 80's. Besides, Pitt had absolutely no say in anything Big East related prior to 1982, cuz they weren't in the league yet.

It really comes down to some in the Big East looking to help Syracuse (the only BE football school that mattered) by inviting PSU (and then Pitt). The great majority of fans of the Big East didn't care about football.

I guess thats where you and I have our disconnect... SU and BC were the only football schools. Me, and a majority of Big East fans back then were hoops fans first by far, and were neutral or didnt give a crap about building a northeast football league (especially looking back seeing how it was a 25 year headache). In fairness to you, Gavitt and Tranghese also thought football, Penn State, and maintaining membership of Syracuse was worth trying.

You, and other football fans, and i'm not saying youre wrong, but only that we have different opinions on this, are mad at the hoops schools starting in 1982, for not embracing the football idea by adding 6 more football-focused full members in 1983 or whatever, i guess. But why should we, except to keep Syracuse, because as i said, BC and Pitt were expendable. I liked both Pitt and BC, but we didnt need Pitt or BC to maintain our great BE success and identity back rhen.

Sorry for the long post, and if i'm repeating myself.

What we have now, with 10 hoops schools here in 2016, is what most Big East fans loved about the 80's BE.

Again i'm tired of talking about it.

My replies:

"You mentioned in a post something about Syracuse balking at joining the Big East when Rutgers declined Gavitt's invitation in 1979. I had never heard this."

Even though I never wrote that Syracuse balked, my words might have been difficult to understand. I meant that there were schools who were invited that balked. Because of PSU and what it would imply for football.

"The Big East in 1981 discussing football was an effort to accommodate Syracuse (and to a much lesser extent, BC). Looking back, to avoid the football baloney that hung on us through 2013, we should have just let Syracuse walk if they wanted to."

The votes were 5-3. So there were 3 members who were in favor of the accommodation that PSU would seek in a BE football conference.

I do find it crazy though that you would so blithely suggest BC was not that important, or that Syracuse could be let go. The Big East wouldn't have become the BE if that happened. We are talking about those early teams that put the BE on the map. In fact, that BC bball team has a hair away from making it an all-BE final 4. I'm not even going to mention how popular those Pearl Syracuse teams were nationally. So, clearly, these were 2 integral teams to building the BE into a national powerhouse. To substitute Holy Cross for BC, or to allow Syracuse to walk, or to NEVER invite Pitt, could easily have lead to the conference not getting off the ground in the first place.

"Pitt wasn't even playing Big East hoops til late 1982 (the 1983 season). I think Pitt was accepted after Penn State failed to put a football conference together and/or was voted down. Remember, 6 of 8 BE schools in 1982 were non-football schools."

I was the one who made the point that the original date for Pitt was wrong. I noted that in my original post. I agree with you.

My whole point here is that the schools including Syracuse, Pitt, and BC, had been at work trying to organize a football conference, either inside the Big East, or even outside. Rutgers and West Virginia were in the wings. PSU was the ringleader. There was acrimony (Syracuse, while supporting a football conference, didn't initially agree in 1980 to give PSU a bigger cut inside the Big East). The next year, they did. But they didn't have enough votes.

"You, and other football fans, and i'm not saying youre wrong, but only that we have different opinions on this, are mad at the hoops schools starting in 1982, for not embracing the football idea by adding 6 more football-focused full members in 1983 or whatever, i guess."

No, you got this wrong. First off, I'm not even a fan of football. I am just going by my understanding of the history of the conference. I became a fan of college bball in the mid 1970s. I went to over 20+ Big East tourneys. But I'm not a football fan.

In fact, the school I root for, UConn, would have been on the outside looking in if any of this (a Big East football conference) ever came to fruition. UConn would have been locked out, very likely. In other words, for UConn, all the infighting was a very good thing, since it lead to UConn immediately being admitted into a BCS conference, which might not have happened if things had played out differently. If, for instance, PSU was immediately invited in along with pitt, Rutgers and West Virginia.

But I have read several articles about the football negotiations in 1980 and again in 1981, and it was clear, the league's administrators were of a different mind about football, than the basketball first schools.

In 1992, when Virginia Tech came up for a vote, the conference almost split apart. UConn actually held it together and provided a key vote to reconstitute the Big East by separating the bylaws into BBall-only schools and BBall/Football schools. UConn had the swing vote between the 2 factions. This saved the BE from splitting. VT actually holds those negotiations against UConn because VT was then forced to join the BE as a football only. I imagine VT thought the break into a new conference was imminent, because it was. Many people are not likely aware of this, but by 1991 UConn had already decided to go D1, and had pushed forth funding for an on campus stadium. So UConn was also looking after its own interests. What stalled UConn was the Patriots around that time seeking to move into Hartford. This is what forced Conn. pols into imagining a downtown stadium that would result in the rebirth of the city. The fiasco set UConn football back.

Thanks for the reply upstate. A good back and forth. Very interesting history with so many moving parts. Good luck as always to UConn going forward.

(04-06-2016 11:37 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 10:33 AM)SecureDaBall Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 12:16 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  You guys are just wrong.

The football schools were already trying to form the Big East football conference in 1981. And you guys have it happening a decade later? No.

Here it from Tranghese and Crouthamel who were actually there.

This is from 1981!!!!: "Clearly, three schools in the Big East had no concept of the importance of football, but the others realized that this decision not to invite Penn State would come back to haunt us," Crouthamel wrote. "In fact, football would dictate every future consideration of membership expansion of our 'basketball' conference."

Here is Tranghese, again, in 1981:

"Syracuse and Boston College really fought to have Penn State because Jake understood the importance of Penn State. What happened in the previous fall, Penn State had tried to form a football league. What never got written was that the basketball league was being pretty successful and they couldn't agree on revenue sharing in football. There wasn't going to be any revenue sharing. Jake just wasn't going to do that. The next year Dave brought it up for discussion and Jake was absolutely supportive. We voted five different times and all five times Jake voted for Penn State. And Bill Flynn at Boston College, God rest his soul, voted for Penn State all five times. The reason that they didn't get in was that the league was new, a lot of the directors felt it was a basketball league. Some of the directors felt that the concept of the Big East was big markets. It was a 5-3 vote that changed the face of history."

So, the Catholic schools voted to keep it a basketball league, but the football schools were already thinking football and they were not at all of the basketball first mentality.

As I wrote, the eventual split was already there from the very beginning of the conference.

Dude, your quotes aren't from 1981. BC's Bill Flynn that Tranghese references and says "God rest his soul" when speaking about him died in 1997.

Those quotes are from men talking with the advantage of hindsight.

Oh my god, they are taking about the 1981 vote!!!

It is pretty clear that Tranghese and Crouthamel were already thinking they wanted a football conference in 1981. They are referencing first what happened in 1980 (Paterno wanting a bigger revenue share for PSU football), and then what happened a year later. 1981.

Oh my god..... dramatic much?

You said the quotes were from 1981.... the quotes were over 20 years later when Tranghese and Crouthemal had years to see things play out and see where things might have went wrong.

FYI, saying something is from 1981 and something is about 1981 are two completely different things.You are misleading people by saying the quotes were from 1981.

(04-06-2016 03:45 PM)SecureDaBall Wrote:  You said the quotes were from 1981.... the quotes were over 20 years later when Tranghese and Crouthemal had years to see things play out and see where things might have went wrong.

FYI, saying something is from 1981 and something is about 1981 are two completely different things.You are misleading people by saying the quotes were from 1981.

Absolutely. Retrospective accounts can be (a) biased by memory loss, and (b) biased by present-day motivations to make the past seem like something it may not have been. Tranghese et al. could have been spinning things about the early days of the Big East to cast their past actions in a better light.

I would take any stories told in 2001 about what happened in 1980 with a big grain of salt. Especially coming from anyone with a reputational or other stake in that history.

(04-06-2016 03:21 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Absolutely. Retrospective accounts can be (a) biased by memory loss, and (b) biased by present-day motivations to make the past seem like something it may not have been. Tranghese et al. could have been spinning things about the early days of the Big East to cast their past actions in a better light.

I would take any stories told in 2001 about what happened in 1980 with a big grain of salt. Especially coming from anyone with a reputational or other stake in that history.

You guys are grasping at straws. This is multiply sourced by a lot of people. On the PSU and Rutgers side as well. Well known stuff.

(04-06-2016 05:58 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:21 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Absolutely. Retrospective accounts can be (a) biased by memory loss, and (b) biased by present-day motivations to make the past seem like something it may not have been. Tranghese et al. could have been spinning things about the early days of the Big East to cast their past actions in a better light.

I would take any stories told in 2001 about what happened in 1980 with a big grain of salt. Especially coming from anyone with a reputational or other stake in that history.

You guys are grasping at straws. This is multiply sourced by a lot of people. On the PSU and Rutgers side as well. Well known stuff.

Rutgers turned down the Big East at the beginning, in favor of Joe Paterno's Eastern Football League. They weren't anywhere near Big EAst decision-making.

Seton Hall and Villanova had every reason to keep the Big EAst a basketball league rather than a multi-sport league. And since the "Eastern LEague" ideas usually involved detaching Maryland from the ACC, Georgetown had an interest as well.

(04-06-2016 05:58 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 03:21 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Absolutely. Retrospective accounts can be (a) biased by memory loss, and (b) biased by present-day motivations to make the past seem like something it may not have been. Tranghese et al. could have been spinning things about the early days of the Big East to cast their past actions in a better light.

I would take any stories told in 2001 about what happened in 1980 with a big grain of salt. Especially coming from anyone with a reputational or other stake in that history.

You guys are grasping at straws. This is multiply sourced by a lot of people. On the PSU and Rutgers side as well. Well known stuff.

Just so you know, that's not my quote.

(04-06-2016 02:41 PM)upstater1 Wrote:  The votes were 5-3. So there were 3 members who were in favor of the accommodation that PSU would seek in a BE football conference.

I recall that the vote was 5-3 in favor of admitting Penn State, but they required 6 votes. http://cuse.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

(04-06-2016 10:33 AM)SecureDaBall Wrote:  Dude, your quotes aren't from 1981. BC's Bill Flynn that Tranghese references and says "God rest his soul" when speaking about him died in 1997.

Those quotes are from men talking with the advantage of hindsight.

Crouthamel's quotes are from 2000.
http://cuse.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

(04-07-2016 02:44 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Crouthamel's quotes are from 2000.
http://cuse.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

Yep, a lot of hindsight. Beyond that, he clearly thinks that the vote to deny Penn State 19 years earlier (at that time) was a huge mistake. Personally, I'm glad it happened that way.

there really isn't much to debate. The BE was formed as a BB league.
One thing id like to add to Billy's detailed post is another reason for the formation of the BE that wasn't mentioned.,
There was a push for independent schools to play more schools in their region. Meaning providence, for example, would have to schedule games with schools like Maine, UVM etc. They were use to playing a more national schedule and wanted to maintain that. Schools in a conference obviously didn't have to do that. So Gavitt came up with the idea of an eastern BB league comprised of urban schools with solid BB programs

Who was invited and who said no has been gone over time and time again.
Paterno proposed his all sport eastern league AFTER the BE was formed.BC and Syracuse didn't want to leave the BE to form a new league. they decided to test the water for PSU membership in the BE. It never came to a formal vote, but it became obvious that it wouldn't happen.
Shortly after that Pitt was invited. . we all know what happened next.

one other point , prior to the BE sponsoring FB, a proposal was made to have the FB playing BE schools join the ACC in FB only. the ACC wasn't in favor of this. Could this have planted the seed in the minds of the ACC powers that be to poach BE schools 2 decades later?

Anyway, BC and Syracuse had the opportunity(several times) to form an all sport league(with or without PSU) and didn't. They must have seen the value of the BE as a BB first conference[/b]

pretty sad news coming from Syracuse where sounds like Pearl Washington doesn't have long. Great player from Syracuse of course. One of the best players in Big East history.