Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Article: great past, questionable future for BE
Author Message
Jackson1011 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 7,863
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 170
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
 
20 years ago, Big East owned March madness
By Malcolm Moran, USA TODAY
Look at the stage. Two coaches, Jim Boeheim of Syracuse and Jim Calhoun of Connecticut, stood together Friday night on the floor of Madison Square Garden, where the Orange and Huskies, the last two national champions, met in a nationally televised Big East Conference semifinal. They each have coached teams to more than 700 victories. They have become finalists for enshrinement in the Basketball Hall of Fame.

Gary McLain holds the trophy after Villanova upset Georgetown in what some regard as the most memorable March madness moment.
1985 Villanova University photo

After a troubling period of contraction and expansion for the Big East, two national championship-caliber programs feature leaders who have become national figures in their sport. The coaches have managed to lift an already imposing conference standard, 20 years after the Big East defined the ultimate achievement in the NCAA men's basketball tournament.

When six Big East teams enter the NCAA Tournament that begins Thursday, dominance will be measured by the March weekend in 1985 when Georgetown, Villanova and St. John's qualified for the Final Four. No league had done that before. (Restrictions on having only two teams from the same conference in the field were lifted in 1980.) More impressively, no league has done it since. Feisty Villanova's 66-64 upset of Georgetown in Lexington, Ky., is regarded as one of the most memorable March madness moments.

And the overlooked aspect of the league's perhaps unmatchable accomplishment is how closely the Big East, then in just its sixth season, came to producing a sweep.

"We could have had four," says Lou Carnesecca, then the coach of St. John's. "I mean, four." A banner in the stands at Rupp Arena back then directed a message toward Boston College, which lost by two points to Memphis in a Midwest semifinal. "WHAT HAPPENED?" it read.

Mike Tranghese, now commissioner and then Dave Gavitt's assistant, remembers seeing Gary Williams, then coach of the Eagles, in Lexington. "Gary said to me, 'We're a play away from having all four teams here,' " Tranghese recalls as he sits in his office in Providence. "You were just overwhelmed by what had happened. But with that, the expectations became so out of sorts."

The league continues to meet those expectations, returning to a dominant position the last two seasons. The UConn and Syracuse titles bookend the last two decades with the back-to-back of Georgetown in 1984 and Villanova in 1985. In the intervening 20 years, only the Atlantic Coast Conference won successive national championships: Duke (two) and North Carolina from 1991-93 and Duke and Maryland in 2001-02.

As this tournament begins, the ACC finds itself with lofty expectations, five teams in the field and two — North Carolina and Duke — seeded No. 1 after opening the season with three teams (Wake Forest, UNC and Georgia Tech) ranked in the top four.

Wake Forest is No. 2 and Tech No. 4 in Albuquerque, setting up the possibility of three ACC teams advancing to St. Louis.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said the policy of separating conference members until regional championship games gives a collection of teams from a strong league a chance to advance.

"I don't think it's a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence," Delany said of the Big East's 1985 performance. "I think it's a once-in-20-year occurrence. I think it will happen again someday."

He cited two Final Fours that included multiple Big Ten teams, including one that defeated another league school in a regional final. In 2000, Wisconsin defeated Purdue to join Michigan State in the Final Four. In 1992, Michigan defeated Ohio State in the final eight to join Indiana in the national semifinals. The Big 12 has had two recent chances. In 2003, Kansas and Texas reached the Final Four, and Oklahoma lost in a regional final to eventual champion Syracuse. In 2002, Oklahoma beat Missouri in the final eight to join Kansas in the Final Four.

The new face of college hoops

Look at the faces. So many of them, and so young, packed into a small space on the 7th Avenue side outside Madison Square Garden. The Big East is preparing for the 1982-83 season, with its fourth tournament shifting to New York, and this is the generation that made that step possible. In the foreground is Gavitt, the former Providence coach whose persuasiveness created a tightly knit collection of what had been loosely gathered schools in the Northeast.

In the back is the angular face of Georgetown sophomore Patrick Ewing, who had already led the Hoyas to the national title game. There is John Thompson, the coach who within a decade led the Hoyas from the bottom of Division I to a national final. There is Chris Mullin of St. John's under his moptop, and a smiling Carnesecca, Mullin's coach, in a brown leather coat.

The message board above the street proclaims: "The Big East and Dave Gavitt are making it big in the big time."

Two years later, they would make it big in the biggest way. Villanova, which had lost by just two points and seven points to Georgetown in the regular season, shot its way to the national title behind Ed Pinckney and Harold Jensen. The team hit 22 of 28 field goals, making a celebrity of coach Rollie Massimino and stopping the Georgetown machine of Ewing and Thompson.

The conference had indeed become a national power. Providence and Syracuse would reach the Final Four in 1987, Seton Hall in 1989. Within just five tournaments, six different league schools reached college basketball's version of mecca. The closest any league has come to that run was the Big Ten, which had five different schools in six years from 1997-2002.

A league comes together

In March 1982, Gavitt was having dinner in a Raleigh, N.C., steakhouse with North Carolina coach Dean Smith and his wife. Two regional finals had been completed with two to come on Sunday. Of the six remaining teams that Saturday night, three were from this 3-year-old conference.

Gavitt glowed that night as he described the chants of "Big East ... Big East" heard at another site as the NCAA Tournament created strange bedfellows. Georgetown fans rooting for Boston College? BC pulling for Villanova? Villanova and Boston College would lose the next day, but conference unity had spread to a once-fragmented fan base.

Look at the problems. The economic and political pressures of football necessitated expansion and the establishment of a football league. The communal effort of the original schools had been invaded by others interested in sharing riches. In the first 10 years six members reached the Final Four, and once-lowly Seton Hall —Seton Hall— had come within a touch foul of a national title. In 1991, Tranghese's first year as commissioner, seven of the nine league members earned NCAA bids. Recruiting had gone from regional to national to global.

"I had thought (a conference) would make it harder for teams to come into the East and take players out," Gavitt remembers.

"But I never, ever imagined the success the Georgetowns and Connecticuts and Syracuses of the world would have recruiting kids from California and Louisiana and South Carolina and Illinois."

But the continued existence of the league was preserved in 1994 only after a series of difficult meetings. Syracuse's unexpected trip to the 1996 title game marked the conference's first Final Four berth in seven years. Then in 1997, after a conference tournament loss before the first non-sellout quarterfinal session in 15 years, divisive remarks by West Virginia coach Gale Catlett drew attention to the problems of a 13-team league.

In a postgame news conference, Catlett campaigned — unsuccessfully — for an NCAA spot while criticizing the credentials of Providence and Georgetown, teams that would earn two of the four Big East bids. The display came to represent a unity that had been lost. "Once you go beyond 10, the conference ceases to be a conference," Gavitt says. "It becomes an association, and you end up losing some of that."

Bigger, yes. But better?

Look at the future. Tranghese stood at a board during a conference meeting last summer and wrote the schools that will form the league this fall when Boston College departs and Cincinnati, DePaul, Louisville, Marquette and South Florida arrive. Twelve of the 16 teams would qualify for the conference tournament.

"I said, 'Based on what we saw this year, let me write down where people would fit had we played a schedule,' " Tranghese remembers. The room grew silent as coaches and athletic directors saw teams with winning records that would not have been in New York.

"For the fans, it's a bonanza," Carnesecca says. "For the coaches, it's a disaster."

There will be issues of compatibility, scheduling, officiating and camaraderie. There is the unknown direction of the I-A football programs. Retired Syracuse athletics director Jake Crouthamel feels the discussions of the past two years have created an orderly future. "We should not find ourselves in five years in the position we found ourselves in (last) year, because we didn't plan 25 years ago for 25 years ahead," he says. "We've laid out a plan of what-ifs, and so I think whichever what-if comes up, we're going to be so much better prepared to deal with it."

Tranghese, the administrative link to the beginning, will direct a league more than twice the size of the original. "The thing I'm just trying to get a lot of people to understand is that we're on an historic trek," he says. "We can do this one of two ways. We can all get on the same bandwagon and promote the heck out of this thing, or we can fuss."
03-16-2005 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


bearcatfan Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,518
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 192
I Root For: The Bearcats!
Location:
Post: #2
 
Jackson1011 Wrote:"We can do this one of two ways. We can all get on the same bandwagon and promote the heck out of this thing, or we can fuss."
I actually like this comment. It's time to get behind this now instead of continuously wondering about splitting/adding/rearranging, etc.
03-16-2005 08:37 AM
Find all posts by this user
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #3
 
But T is only thinking of basketball and he has to think what is in the best interest of football, also!
03-16-2005 09:32 PM
Find all posts by this user
Advertisement


Cat's_Claw Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,606
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
bearcatfan Wrote:
Jackson1011 Wrote:"We can do this one of two ways. We can all get on the same bandwagon and promote the heck out of this thing, or we can fuss."
I actually like this comment. It's time to get behind this now instead of continuously wondering about splitting/adding/rearranging, etc.
The reason no one wants to get behind this is that it's bad for the football side. Why would you get behind something that is harming the All-Sports programs?
03-17-2005 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user
tufinal4 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,534
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 40
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
I have two honest questions, because I don't follow some of this sentiment. If there are too many good basketball teams, causing there to be too much "beating up" on one another and having schools miss the tournament as a result, then that is caused by simply having too many basketball teams. But, I don't follow how that harms the teams with football programs. You have to be talking about other problems not described in that article. What things ar harmful to the football schools about the current Big East alignment?

Second, I have read a lot of discussion about scheduling problems caused by having only 8 teams in a 12 game schedule. Therefore, there seems to be a lot more interest in adding a 9th team for football only. My question is, financially, how can solving a scheduling issue by diluting your football revenue sharing by 12%? What I mean is, if you add a team, then one BCS game check of $17 million will result in $1.9 million of revenue being paid to that team, per year. Are you getting $1.9 million per year of value in achieving scheduling symmetry, or would your TV contract go up at all? I am assuming that a typical team in this conference, by having 7 vs. 8 conference games, would be able to schedule a non-conference opponent at home with the same frequency as if it were a conference home game. I don't have a preconceived notion of the right answer, but I don't see the financial justification for it if it were my issue.

CUSA had to (1) replace lost markets to shore up TV value, and (2) get to 12 teams to hold a conference championship game. So, I understood the impetus behind not stopping until they got to 12. But, it does not seem as though the Big East is trying to achieve either of those financial goals, so I'm not sure I follow the financial bouncing ball.
03-17-2005 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,683
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1331
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #6
 
tufinal4 Wrote:I have two honest questions, because I don't follow some of this sentiment.  If there are too many good basketball teams, causing there to be too much "beating up" on one another and having schools miss the tournament as a result, then that is caused by simply having too many basketball teams.  But, I don't follow how that harms the teams with football programs.  You have to be talking about other problems not described in that article.  What things ar harmful to the football schools about the current Big East alignment?

My Take: The Biggest problem is the FB schools have the best BB teams too--the BB onlies are basically leeches.  They are schools that don't have large student fanbases or solid control of their TV markets.

Second, I have read a lot of discussion about scheduling problems caused by having only 8 teams in a 12 game schedule.  Therefore, there seems to be a lot more interest in adding a 9th team for football only.  My question is, financially, how can solving a scheduling issue by diluting your football revenue sharing by 12%?  What I mean is, if you add a team, then one BCS game check of $17 million will result in $1.9 million of revenue being paid to that team, per year.  Are you getting $1.9 million per year of value in achieving scheduling symmetry, or would your TV contract go up at all?  I am assuming that a typical team in this conference, by having 7 vs. 8 conference games, would be able to schedule a non-conference opponent at home with the same frequency as if it were a conference home game.  I don't have a preconceived notion of the right answer, but I don't see the financial justification for it if it were my issue. 

My Take: A 9th team adds value two ways:  A couple new TV markets with the new team and the ability to only have to find 4 OOC opponents each year vice 5 if the 12 game rule is instituted.  This effects the teams with less national stature like Rutgers, UConn, USF, Cinci and somewhat Louisville.  They have harder times getting top 50 type programs to schedule home and homes.  An extra team helps with this and it creates 4 away and 4 home conference games.

CUSA had to (1) replace lost markets to shore up TV value, and (2) get to 12 teams to hold a conference championship game.  So, I understood the impetus behind not stopping until they got to 12.  But, it does not seem as though the Big East is trying to achieve either of those financial goals, so I'm not sure I follow the financial bouncing ball.

My Take: We don't need 12 teams yet.  As long as we get a full BCS share there is no reason to go to 12 teams.
See my responses above:
03-17-2005 03:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.