Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
John Marinatto
Author Message
Jackson1011 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 7,490
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 110
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
RE: John Marinatto
As a fan of BE school, I remember being very frustrated that we went with a providence college guy again. And let’s just say John was not Dave Gavitt.

The best chance for a split prob would have been in the early 90s with the controversy around the cbs football contract.

Miami
Pitt
Syracuse
BC
West Virginia
Va Tech
Rutgers
Temple

And add two out of Louisville/Cincinnati/East Carolina. People forgot how good ECU football was then and how often they played Miami/va tech and wvu in football. It would have been a fun league. Prob not have survived either but fun while it lasted

Jackson
02-10-2021 04:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,197
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 135
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #42
RE: John Marinatto
You would have had WVU and VT screaming “no” on ECU, but you’re spot on with their strength during the 90’s. It’s precisely the politics that was at the core of the conference. The basketball schools didn’t like WVU and really pushed against VT to the point where the Hokies had to buy into the Big East (back when these guys parked basketball in the A10). And it was like nobody wanted ECU, though they played a Big East-lite schedule and demonstrated they could hang with the Big East and ACC.

There was a pedigree, and ECU was not of that class. And once Louisville got in, well, that’s how we got here.
02-10-2021 06:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,160
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1179
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #43
RE: John Marinatto
(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Having lived through Marinatto's 2009-2012 reign, I will say that IMO he got more criticism than he deserved. Yes, he could have been more proactive about realignment rather than sitting like a duck for the ACC to raid us. Failure to do that was a fatal mistake for the old Big East.

But in the end, he did bring us a $1.4 Billion TV contract that, had it been ratified, might have kept the conference together. The presidents rejected it, an unwise move. Blame Marinatto for not convincing them otherwise if you want, but ultimately that was on them, not him.

In the end, history has been too harsh on him. I don't think anyone could have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from leaving for the ACC, and once they left, everything else that happened was inevitable.
The TV contract was bigger than the ACC's at the time.

I remember arguments about that, but it certainly was right about the same. If it had been signed, nobody was going to leave the Big East for the ACC over the TV deal.

Back then, in the year or so right before Syracuse and Pitt left and sunk that version of the conference, I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal, and also (2) why so much hullaballoo about Villanova football. I thought the whole tempest over whether Villanova should go FBS and the Big East should reserve a space for them was a massive tempest in a teapot that distracted the conference at a critical time. I never cared about that issue one way or the other and had no idea, then or now, why so many were passionate about it. There were massive, never ending threads on the Big East forums about Villanova football. And what I mean by not understanding was the concern from *within* the Big East. I mean, sometimes fans of schools like Temple or ECU or Houston or whoever would jump in with an opinion, but they were obviously angling to get their schools in to the conference. But the biggest arguments were among fans of teams that were already members of the conference.

Didn't compute then or now.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2021 10:14 AM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2021 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,405
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 560
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #44
RE: John Marinatto
(02-09-2021 10:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 08:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 07:29 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Meatball Marinatto. In charge of the BE when the ACC stole teams right from under his nose. Reacted to slow to everything. Should have twisted arms and convinced BE to accept ESPN's offer as well as go to 12 football schools which would have secured future.

Basically, a failure.

Was there really anything he could do to keep Syracuse and Pittsburgh in?

The raid the decade prior dealt a crippling blow to the Big East. It was to be expected that if the ACC came back for more that the schools offered would jump at the stability and cash.

He could have convinced the BE prez's to accept the ESPN deal, which MAY have caused them to stay, particularly if the TV deal also included expansion to 12 among the football schools. Remember this was a very big TV deal at the time.

He was very slow reacting. His first job should have been adding TCU, UCF, Memphis, and someone else. An 8 team football conference is too unstable. He failed to take action on that.

The BE was not that far behind the ACC at the time and was probably co-equal in basketball.

That would have been tough when then-Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg, who was the chair of the Big East Presidents, recommended to the other presidents that they decline the contract while he was also negotiating with the ACC to join that conference, hence stabbing the rest of the conference schools in the back.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8560...e-big-east

As others have said, it wouldn't have mattered who the commissioner was when the fatal blow to the conference was struck from within. Not that ESPN didn't help. Go look up the comments from the BC president at the time - ESPN effectively gutted the conference once they turned down the offer. Not unlike their behind the scenes efforts to rip the MWC apart now. And why I think the AAC was better off signing with ESPN this last contract, even if it wasn't necessarily the most lucrative, instead of going out to market. Bristol is brutal and has a long memory.

USFFan
02-10-2021 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 47,042
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1767
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #45
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Having lived through Marinatto's 2009-2012 reign, I will say that IMO he got more criticism than he deserved. Yes, he could have been more proactive about realignment rather than sitting like a duck for the ACC to raid us. Failure to do that was a fatal mistake for the old Big East.

But in the end, he did bring us a $1.4 Billion TV contract that, had it been ratified, might have kept the conference together. The presidents rejected it, an unwise move. Blame Marinatto for not convincing them otherwise if you want, but ultimately that was on them, not him.

In the end, history has been too harsh on him. I don't think anyone could have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from leaving for the ACC, and once they left, everything else that happened was inevitable.
The TV contract was bigger than the ACC's at the time.

I remember arguments about that, but it certainly was right about the same. If it had been signed, nobody was going to leave the Big East for the ACC over the TV deal.

Back then, in the year or so right before Syracuse and Pitt left and sunk that version of the conference, I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal, and also (2) why so much hullaballoo about Villanova football. I thought the whole tempest over whether Villanova should go FBS and the Big East should reserve a space for them was a massive tempest in a teapot that distracted the conference at a critical time. I never cared about that issue one way or the other and had no idea, then or now, why so many were passionate about it. There were massive, never ending threads on the Big East forums about Villanova football. And what I mean by not understanding was the concern from *within* the Big East. I mean, sometimes fans of schools like Temple or ECU or Houston or whoever would jump in with an opinion, but they were obviously angling to get their schools in to the conference. But the biggest arguments were among fans of teams that were already members of the conference.

Didn't compute then or now.

If Villanova had gone all in like UConn it would have been one thing. But they were talking about playing in a 25k soccer stadium. That wasn't even a G5 level stadium. It was FCS. It would make the whole league look bad.

It was a league run out of Providence for Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova and Georgetown.
02-10-2021 12:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,625
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 222
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #46
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 09:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Having lived through Marinatto's 2009-2012 reign, I will say that IMO he got more criticism than he deserved. Yes, he could have been more proactive about realignment rather than sitting like a duck for the ACC to raid us. Failure to do that was a fatal mistake for the old Big East.

But in the end, he did bring us a $1.4 Billion TV contract that, had it been ratified, might have kept the conference together. The presidents rejected it, an unwise move. Blame Marinatto for not convincing them otherwise if you want, but ultimately that was on them, not him.

In the end, history has been too harsh on him. I don't think anyone could have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from leaving for the ACC, and once they left, everything else that happened was inevitable.
The TV contract was bigger than the ACC's at the time.

I remember arguments about that, but it certainly was right about the same. If it had been signed, nobody was going to leave the Big East for the ACC over the TV deal.

Back then, in the year or so right before Syracuse and Pitt left and sunk that version of the conference, I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal, and also (2) why so much hullaballoo about Villanova football. I thought the whole tempest over whether Villanova should go FBS and the Big East should reserve a space for them was a massive tempest in a teapot that distracted the conference at a critical time. I never cared about that issue one way or the other and had no idea, then or now, why so many were passionate about it. There were massive, never ending threads on the Big East forums about Villanova football. And what I mean by not understanding was the concern from *within* the Big East. I mean, sometimes fans of schools like Temple or ECU or Houston or whoever would jump in with an opinion, but they were obviously angling to get their schools in to the conference. But the biggest arguments were among fans of teams that were already members of the conference.

Didn't compute then or now.

Quo I think they sunk the tv deal because they just saw the record setting deal that the PAC 12 received and thought they could do better on the open market than taking ESPN’s figure from their exclusive negotiating window.

I was also confused over the fuss with Villanova football. Yes, Villanova was going to bad and that streak of badness was probably going to last several years but that’s to be expected with most every call up. The only reason a program like Boise St was able to move up and win big right away is because they moved up into an awful conference. Yes, there were plenty of schools out there in C-USA that were better football choices but Villanova was an attempt to crack the division between football and basketball by having a legacy school sympathize with the football faction.

Had things taken place within a vacuum I think a 10 member Big East football with TCU and Villanova would have worked. The reality of outside pressures however meant that other conferences were on the prowl and the Big East’s vulnerability was fully realized.
02-10-2021 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 17,402
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 796
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #47
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league. Or, if the ACC had invited Syracuse, who they were actually considering, at the same time they invited Florida State. The ACC presidents were not thinking big enough at the time; they thought that dividing up ACC basketball tournament tickets among "too many" new members was a bigger problem than not having enough football strength or TV appeal.
02-10-2021 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,800
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 316
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #48
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 12:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  It was a league run out of Providence for Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's, Villanova and Georgetown.

I strongly disagree.

As previously stated, especially near the end of his tenure, Marinatto was very much siding with the football schools and was challenging the basketball schools on their train of thought/interests. It was the schools like TCU, Houston, UCF and SMU that were invited and approved as full members. Sure, Houston is a top-25 program now, but - when they were invited - had just two NCAA appearances in the prior 20 seasons. SMU, TCU and UCF were all in the same boat - they had known and perceived weak basketball programs. Memphis was included as well and, as a basketball-first school, definitely helped push (or cushion) the weaker basketball programs as full members. San Diego State and Boise State were also invited as football members.

So, no, the Big East at this time was most definitely run for only Providence, Seton Hall, Villanova and Georgetown (and St. John's should also be included in this grouping as well). Marinatto made several mistakes, but catering to the basketball schools was most definitely not one of them. If anything, he was doing more for the football side than preserving the basketball side (which, by this point, was fractured beyond repair).
02-10-2021 03:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,625
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 222
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #49
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league. Or, if the ACC had invited Syracuse, who they were actually considering, at the same time they invited Florida State. The ACC presidents were not thinking big enough at the time; they thought that dividing up ACC basketball tournament tickets among "too many" new members was a bigger problem than not having enough football strength or TV appeal.

I don’t know that they were looking to go to 10 at the time but had Miami spent the 90s in the ACC that dramatically changes the Bowl Coalition/Alliance and BCS.

I wonder what happens to the rest of the Big East football conference? Do they still form without a tent pole? Would they get admitted to those bowl agreements in that format or does the BCS and its precursors have a spot reserved for an independent which would allow ND or one of them automatic entry?

That style BCS system might have worked ok.
02-10-2021 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,160
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1179
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #50
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league.

Yes, most schools made more money. But IMO at a price that was too high - the destruction of a great hoops conference and a very good football conference.

As for the ACC and FSU/Miami, you could make the same argument in reverse - had the Big East invited FSU along with Miami, maybe the Big East becomes more stable and the ACC fails to launch as a 1990s football major.

In any event, I always did think that that this split, Miami to the Big East and FSU to the ACC, made war between the conferences inevitable. It was clear back then that between the ACC and Big East there was really just one AQ/P5 level football conference, so one would conquer the other. Sadly for the Big East, the ACC leaders, for all their faults, recognized this and struck the Big East twice, while Big East leaders seemed to think peaceful coexistence was possible and so never adopted the proper posture. Big East leaders never reacted even after the ACC's 2003 raid, which the ACC surely believed was a kill-shot, failed to kill the Big East and to their embarrassment the Big East of the late 2000s was at least as good a football conference and a better hoops conference than the ACC.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2021 04:30 PM by quo vadis.)
02-10-2021 04:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,449
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 147
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #51
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 10:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 08:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 07:29 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Meatball Marinatto. In charge of the BE when the ACC stole teams right from under his nose. Reacted to slow to everything. Should have twisted arms and convinced BE to accept ESPN's offer as well as go to 12 football schools which would have secured future.

Basically, a failure.

Was there really anything he could do to keep Syracuse and Pittsburgh in?

The raid the decade prior dealt a crippling blow to the Big East. It was to be expected that if the ACC came back for more that the schools offered would jump at the stability and cash.

He could have convinced the BE prez's to accept the ESPN deal, which MAY have caused them to stay, particularly if the TV deal also included expansion to 12 among the football schools. Remember this was a very big TV deal at the time.

He was very slow reacting. His first job should have been adding TCU, UCF, Memphis, and someone else. An 8 team football conference is too unstable. He failed to take action on that.

The BE was not that far behind the ACC at the time and was probably co-equal in basketball.

That would have been tough when then-Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg, who was the chair of the Big East Presidents, recommended to the other presidents that they decline the contract while he was also negotiating with the ACC to join that conference, hence stabbing the rest of the conference schools in the back.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8560...e-big-east

As others have said, it wouldn't have mattered who the commissioner was when the fatal blow to the conference was struck from within. Not that ESPN didn't help. Go look up the comments from the BC president at the time - ESPN effectively gutted the conference once they turned down the offer. Not unlike their behind the scenes efforts to rip the MWC apart now. And why I think the AAC was better off signing with ESPN this last contract, even if it wasn't necessarily the most lucrative, instead of going out to market. Bristol is brutal and has a long memory.

USFFan

False narrative. False information in the fanboy bleacher report blog post. For example, Nordenburg wasn't even the chair of the Big East Presidents at the time. It was Notre Dame's John Jenkins. And it was Georgetown's DeGioia that was leading the charge to take the contract to the open market, which would have been the correct move which most everyone was on board with doing. All besides the point as no tv deal would have kept any members from leaving, because it was openly known no members were permanently committed.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2021 05:07 PM by CrazyPaco.)
02-10-2021 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 17,193
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 707
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #52
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league. Or, if the ACC had invited Syracuse, who they were actually considering, at the same time they invited Florida State. The ACC presidents were not thinking big enough at the time; they thought that dividing up ACC basketball tournament tickets among "too many" new members was a bigger problem than not having enough football strength or TV appeal.

Worked out great for everyone but Cincinnati, UConn and USF. Along with New Mexico State and Idaho they are the only schools making less today than they were a decade ago. They also have less access to a a NY6/BCS Bowl (instead of AQ it is they compete with 72 teams for one bid).
02-10-2021 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
slhNavy91 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,021
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 531
I Root For: Navy
Location:
Post: #53
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 02:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(02-08-2021 06:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  Worst commissioner ever.

Villanova was the straw that broke the camel's back. They were trying to do FBS on the cheap. And then he was apparently pushing Navy which guaranteed the Big East would not be considered a power conference. He alienated the football schools and the basketball schools.

Navy was wanted. It was a legacy consideration that seemed to have the support for years but Navy resisted because it felt it couldn’t compete with those schools. Eventually, they got good, and their confidence grew, and they considered.

But the Villanova thing was just a mess. Not just for the conference, but even at the school itself. What could have been had Villanova not won the FCS title, as awful as that sounds, since that seemed to generate a lot of noise on their consideration. Just nevermind the gates at their playoff games. Magically, they would have a crowd at the Linc or Citizens Bank Park? To me, that’s all Meatball for wanting to appease everyone but pleasing nobody at the same time.

It wasn't JUST the inability to compete on-field behind Navy's resistance.
Obviously which decade you're discussing comes into play. And even when we took the plunge, with a much-improved Navy joining a much-depleted Big East, there was plenty of hand-wringing around Annapolis that it was taking on more than Navy could handle.

There were other factors as well.
Navy was pretty proud of a century-plus of successful independence. Not on the level of Notre Dame, but in the decade before we joined - once we got Gladchuk and Johnson on board - independence was a pretty good place to be. Not just one, but TWO bowls were created with independent Navy in mind as a tentpole.
Also, historic reluctance about the Big East was because of its perception as a regional, northeastern conference. Navy has always been a national program with a national footprint. We were ready to join a coast-to-coast conference in 1959, and when the Big East looked at coast-to-coast in response to the Pitt-Syracuse-WVU departures, it was more appealing.

Overall, the decision was taken because the strategic environment was changing and Navy is committed to staying at the highest level possible, and because independence was getting harder to thrive in (scheduling and future bowls cited). A newfound ability to be competitive in a new-new-look Big East also made it possible, but that was far from the over-riding factor.
02-10-2021 04:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,405
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 560
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #54
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 04:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 11:15 AM)usffan Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 10:54 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 08:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(02-09-2021 07:29 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Meatball Marinatto. In charge of the BE when the ACC stole teams right from under his nose. Reacted to slow to everything. Should have twisted arms and convinced BE to accept ESPN's offer as well as go to 12 football schools which would have secured future.

Basically, a failure.

Was there really anything he could do to keep Syracuse and Pittsburgh in?

The raid the decade prior dealt a crippling blow to the Big East. It was to be expected that if the ACC came back for more that the schools offered would jump at the stability and cash.

He could have convinced the BE prez's to accept the ESPN deal, which MAY have caused them to stay, particularly if the TV deal also included expansion to 12 among the football schools. Remember this was a very big TV deal at the time.

He was very slow reacting. His first job should have been adding TCU, UCF, Memphis, and someone else. An 8 team football conference is too unstable. He failed to take action on that.

The BE was not that far behind the ACC at the time and was probably co-equal in basketball.

That would have been tough when then-Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg, who was the chair of the Big East Presidents, recommended to the other presidents that they decline the contract while he was also negotiating with the ACC to join that conference, hence stabbing the rest of the conference schools in the back.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8560...e-big-east

As others have said, it wouldn't have mattered who the commissioner was when the fatal blow to the conference was struck from within. Not that ESPN didn't help. Go look up the comments from the BC president at the time - ESPN effectively gutted the conference once they turned down the offer. Not unlike their behind the scenes efforts to rip the MWC apart now. And why I think the AAC was better off signing with ESPN this last contract, even if it wasn't necessarily the most lucrative, instead of going out to market. Bristol is brutal and has a long memory.

USFFan

False narrative. False information in the fanboy bleacher report blog post. For example, Nordenburg wasn't even the chair of the Big East Presidents at the time. It was Notre Dame's John Jenkins. And it was Georgetown's DeGioia that was leading the charge to take the contract to the open market, which would have been the correct move which most everyone was on board with doing. All besides the point as no tv deal would have kept any members from leaving, because it was openly known no members were permanently committed.

[Image: if-its-on-the-internet.jpg]

USFFan
02-10-2021 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,967
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 207
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #55
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 04:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league. Or, if the ACC had invited Syracuse, who they were actually considering, at the same time they invited Florida State. The ACC presidents were not thinking big enough at the time; they thought that dividing up ACC basketball tournament tickets among "too many" new members was a bigger problem than not having enough football strength or TV appeal.

Worked out great for everyone but Cincinnati, UConn and USF. Along with New Mexico State and Idaho they are the only schools making less today than they were a decade ago. They also have less access to a a NY6/BCS Bowl (instead of AQ it is they compete with 72 teams for one bid).


As I've noted on this board many times, I hated to see Cincy, Louisville and DePaul "go their separate ways." In some ways, those three schools, Memphis and Marquette "make sense" as a quintet in the same conference. But the realities of current conference alignment will not allow for it — and I get it.
02-10-2021 07:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,625
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 222
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Top of Mt Rushmore
Post: #56
RE: John Marinatto
Navy didn’t want to join and be a cellar dweller.

What I wish happened in the post-ACC Raid I era (2005-2012) was bringing in Army and Navy in for 4 games apiece and making them part of the tv deal and bowl bids.

The tv money could be split 10 ways, with the Big East holding the rights to the Service Academies and packaging them with their own.

This would have been one less OOC game the BE schools needed to find (dropping them from 5 to 4).

4 BE games + AFA + their rivalry game would mean that Army and Navy would still have 6 slots to fill—plenty of room for a national schedule and the BE could help them fill late Oct-Nov which are the hardest for Indies to fill.

Marinatto and Tranghese should have pursued that.
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2021 07:22 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
02-10-2021 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,044
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 196
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #57
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 06:48 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  You would have had WVU and VT screaming “no” on ECU, but you’re spot on with their strength during the 90’s. It’s precisely the politics that was at the core of the conference. The basketball schools didn’t like WVU and really pushed against VT to the point where the Hokies had to buy into the Big East (back when these guys parked basketball in the A10). And it was like nobody wanted ECU, though they played a Big East-lite schedule and demonstrated they could hang with the Big East and ACC.

There was a pedigree, and ECU was not of that class. And once Louisville got in, well, that’s how we got here.

Didn’t ECU apply to the Big East multiple times and they were told no every time? I never understood why. They were a regional team with a history of playing other independent teams and they were solid in football. Was it the directional name? Its basketball program? A saturated market in North Carolina? I even thought it was pathetic they were only given a football only invite to the Big East in late 2012.

I honestly think the best days of ECU football are behind (the same applies to Southern Miss). The Pirates and Golden Eagles were a good option for any recruit who didn’t get a scholarship to an SEC, ACC and Big East school and wanted to play Div I-A football but now they’re surrounded by new FBS schools. In the case of ECU, the rise of UCF and having Old Dominion, Charlotte, Appalachian State, Liberty, Georgia State and Georgia Southern moving up and competing for the same recruits is not having a positive impact on the football program.
02-10-2021 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,044
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 196
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #58
RE: John Marinatto
(02-10-2021 04:43 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(02-10-2021 10:11 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I (as a Georgetown and USF fan who was fine with the existing Big East) did not understand a couple of things: (1) Why some schools sunk the TV deal, which IMO then and now was a good deal

That rejected TV deal doesn't look good when compared to the TV money made by the schools who left. Every FBS school that left made more TV money upon joining their new conference than they could have made in the old BE. Georgetown and every other school in the new BE made a lot more TV money; the rejected TV deal would have paid only about $1.5 million/year to each of the no-football schools. The only schools that did not end up being better off in terms of TV money were the three FBS schools that were unlucky enough to not get a P5 chair before the game of musical chairs stopped.

Also, the irony of the Big East being poached by the ACC is that if the ACC had done what it should have done in the first place -- invite Miami at the same time they invited Florida State -- then it's very possible there would never have been a Big East football league. Or, if the ACC had invited Syracuse, who they were actually considering, at the same time they invited Florida State. The ACC presidents were not thinking big enough at the time; they thought that dividing up ACC basketball tournament tickets among "too many" new members was a bigger problem than not having enough football strength or TV appeal.

Worked out great for everyone but Cincinnati, UConn and USF. Along with New Mexico State and Idaho they are the only schools making less today than they were a decade ago. They also have less access to a a NY6/BCS Bowl (instead of AQ it is they compete with 72 teams for one bid).

You can add Rice, Marshall, Southern Miss, UAB and UTEP to the list. The other 9 C-USA schools might be getting more money now than a decade ago but not the first five.
02-10-2021 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,515
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 147
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #59
RE: John Marinatto
Meatball was like a deer in the headlights of a car about to become ground chuck on the table. He wouldn't be able to stop schools from leaving for the money rich P5 conferences. No commissioner would be able to do that. But he didn't have the savvy to keep the the fighting factions together either like the previous commioners. Thought he was a poor excuse for a commissioner that basically had the job handed to him from the outgoing Trangeese. He was totally in over his head - JMO. 04-jawdrop 04-jawdrop 03-drunk 03-drunk 03-nutkick 03-nutkick 03-banghead 03-banghead 03-hissyfit 03-hissyfit 03-puke 03-puke 04-chairshot 04-chairshot 01-gts 01-france 03-zzz 03-confused 03-talktothehand 05-deadhorse 04-bsCOGS COGS 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 02-11-2021 11:10 AM by panite.)
02-11-2021 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,967
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 207
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Nashville
Post: #60
RE: John Marinatto
Maybe it's just me ... but the nickname "Meatball" for John Marinatto does not seem clever or original. Yeah, he has an Italian surname and likes to eat meatball sub sandwiches. I get it. But ... its just seems lame at this point. The man is out of the spotlight. Show some mercy. I see his father died in 2017 in Providence at the age of 100.
02-11-2021 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2021 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, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.