Mike T interview about state of college athletics

[raf4488]

Tranghese has some very interesting, honest comments here.

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=127

 

[SUinNYC]

This, by far, is my favorite reaction from Twitter thus far.

https://twitter.com/pmanley/status/230722654678691841

 

[Noexcuse]

Alot of what he says there sounds like things people have said on this board. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he reads this board.

Mike, sorry if anything I said over the years offended you, it was mostly in jest.

 

[raf4488]

His comment that the ACC is at the "bottom" now is basically an admission that the Big East is no longer a major football league and includes no schools that would provide any value to a major conference.

 

[Cuseman78]

He's not wrong about us owning NY. Nobody "owns" NY. However, later on in the interview, he shows his basketball colors by saying that we were chosen exclusively to kill the BE basketball league. We were chosen for one primary reason -- to re-open up negotiations and allow for a new ESPN deal. Clearly football related. And we were chosen over other potential candidates because of our good athletic brand name (probably the best in the BE). There is no question that hurting the BE basketball conference was a secondary consideration but that certainly wasn't the primary reason that we were added to the ACC.

 

[SU2NASA]

Q. Twenty years ago, you and former ACC commissioner Gene Corrigan talked about having a Big East-ACC football federation, would it have worked?
A. I would have done it in a heartbeat. But Gene said he couldn’t sell his members on anything but full membership. And I understood that. But if it had been done, the ACC would have its original teams in basketball, the Big East would have its original teams and both would have been pretty successful. And the ACC would have been better in football. The ACC can get better in football; it’s just that the two programs they expected to carry it (Miami and Florida State) just haven’t done it.

Which is it Mike? The ACC has taken everyone of consequence from the original Big East football. You say they're the bottom in one answer and then say they would have been better if they took THE SAME EXACT TEAMS MINUS RUTGERS AND TEMPLE.

Q. With all the changes in configuration of conferences, don’t you think it’s sad that teams like Texas doesn’t play Texas A&M and Kansas and Missouri will not play each other any more on a regular basis?
A. ...I’ve always said if you took a map in 1989 and woke up today, you’d say what in God’s name is happening...

Please note San Diego State, Boise State, Houston and SMU in the Big East.

Moron.

I hope you enjoyed being pwned by Swofford.

 

[PhatOrange]

His biggest regret is Penn State but deep down it's probably coasting on auto-pilot back in 2002 and not doing anything to proactively strengthen the league and take it to the next level which would've been 12 teams and a championship game.

I wish someone would ask him if they ever considered proactively expanding back then.

 

[kingottoiii]

What a clown.

I like how he thinks people in the NE will now lose interest in CFB. First they never had interest. Second for the ones who do have interest why would they lose it? Because RU who started caring about FB in 2004 is no longer at the Big Boy table? Or UConn, who was D1AA ten years ago, isn't either?

I also like how he confirmed his bias toward Pitt BBall. He says the ACC took them because of BBall. Really? Pitt BBall isn't all that good. I always thought that the BE favored Pitt BBall with scheduling, by letting them play their style, and by promoting them like they were a somebody. Thanks for the confirm.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

His biggest regret is Penn State but deep down it's probably coasting on auto-pilot back in 2002 and not doing anything to proactively strengthen the league and take it to the next level which would've been 12 teams and a championship game.

I wish someone would ask him if they ever considered proactively expanding back then.

Could FSU have been lured away from the 9 team ACC back then?

Cinci, Louisville, and one more makes 12.

Plus ... Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, GTown, Nova, and ND for 18.

It would have established the BE as the serious Eastern FB conference, while the ACC would have been seen as a BB league.

The BE was going to 12/18 sooner or later.

 

[PhatOrange]

What a clown.

I like how he thinks people in the NE will now lose interest in CFB. First they never had interest. Second for the ones who do have interest why would they lose it? Because RU who started caring about FB in 2004 is no longer at the Big Boy table? Or UConn, who was D1AA ten years ago, isn't either?

agreed, that's a pretty stupid statement by him. The fans of the teams moving aren't going to lose interest. The fans of Uconn and Rutgers aren't losing interest. The casual fan with no rooting interest won't lose interest.

 

[NKR1978]

Tranghese has some very interesting, honest comments here.

http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=127

I love that he comments that its ridiculous that Syracuse and SJU won't play each other. We didn't play them one season when he was commissioner.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[All4SU]

Clearly, MT is not a Big-Picture guy.

 

[texasorange]

He's not wrong about us owning NY. Nobody "owns" NY.

It was never really about "owning" New York either. It was always about extending & strengthening the Syracuse Brand into NYC. The term "owning" may have been used but it seems TGD has more marketing acumen than Tranghese ever had (which is why the league suffered in that respect).

 

[GoSU96]

He's not wrong about us owning NY. Nobody "owns" NY. However, later on in the interview, he shows his basketball colors by saying that we were chosen exclusively to kill the BE basketball league. We were chosen for one primary reason -- to re-open up negotiations and allow for a new ESPN deal. Clearly football related. And we were chosen over other potential candidates because of our good athletic brand name (probably the best in the BE). There is no question that hurting the BE basketball conference was a secondary consideration but that certainly wasn't the primary reason that we were added to the ACC.

When has anybody claimed that SU "owns" NYC?

The claim of the campaign is New Yorks College Team. It is the only BCS school in the state, and is the preeminant D-1 team in basketball. It's the only program to have a distribution deal in every upstate market and have a distribution deal with SNY.

New York implies both the State and the City.

And the ACC move wasn't driven by only Basketball or only Football, it's both. SU's reported revenues for basketball and football are each just short of $20M. There are currently only two schools who report more than $20M in each sport, L'ville and Arizona, and Duke and UNC are very close.

 

[PhatOrange]

I love that he comments that its ridiculous that Syracuse and SJU won't play each other. We didn't play them one season when he was commissioner.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

That's pretty funny.

 

[Cuseman78]

It was never really about "owning" New York either. It was always about extending & strengthening the Syracuse Brand into NYC. The term "owning" may have been used but it seems TGD has more marketing acumen than Tranghese ever had (which is why the league suffered in that respect).

Oh I don't disagree at all. I think TGD's marketing in NYC has been nothing but a positive.

And if Tranghese is referring to our "New York's College Team" moniker, he does realize that New York is a state as well as a City, right? Because we are NY State's Team.

 

[Cuseman78]

When has anybody claimed that SU "owns" NYC?

The claim of the campaign is New Yorks College Team. It is the only BCS school in the state, and is the preeminant D-1 team in basketball. It's the only program to have a distribution deal in every upstate market and have a distribution deal with SNY.

New York implies both the State and the City.

And the ACC move wasn't driven by only Basketball or only Football, it's both. SU's reported revenues for basketball and football are each just short of $20M. There are currently only two schools who report more than $20M in each sport, L'ville and Arizona, and Duke and UNC are very close.

I completely agree with everything you said. The problem is that when Big City Mike hears "New York's College Team", he thinks NYC, hence his misconception that we are trumpeting ourselves as NYC's team.

 

[SU2NASA]

I love that he comments that its ridiculous that Syracuse and SJU won't play each other. We didn't play them one season when he was commissioner.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

The only reason anyone cares about playing St. John's anymore is to play at MSG and we can do that without them.

 

[kingottoiii]

I love that he comments that its ridiculous that Syracuse and SJU won't play each other. We didn't play them one season when he was commissioner.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

Yeah and have him explain how the biggest rivalry in the conf was only scheduled twice a year 4 times over an 11 year period (97-07) under his watch. Yet from 1981 to 1996 we played GTown twice a year every year.

 

[KaiserUEO]

agreed, that's a pretty stupid statement by him. The fans of the teams moving aren't going to lose interest. The fans of Uconn and Rutgers aren't losing interest. The casual fan with no rooting interest won't lose interest.

college football and pro football are not 2 different sports. football is continuing to grow. sure, there are a few hoity toity dorks out there who think theyre cooler and smarter than the rest because all they root for is college and not pro or vice versa. but whatever, theyre stupid and clearly in a ridiculously small minority.

the northeast will not stop watching college football because the SEC rules it.

 

[Scooch]

Clearly, MT is not a Big-Picture guy.

Circle gets the square.

And that's really all it comes down to.

 

[rrlbees]

When has anybody claimed that SU "owns" NYC?

The claim of the campaign is New Yorks College Team. It is the only BCS school in the state, and is the preeminant D-1 team in basketball. It's the only program to have a distribution deal in every upstate market and have a distribution deal with SNY.

New York implies both the State and the City.

And the ACC move wasn't driven by only Basketball or only Football, it's both. SU's reported revenues for basketball and football are each just short of $20M. There are currently only two schools who report more than $20M in each sport, L'ville and Arizona, and Duke and UNC are very close.

Exactly. I don't think I have ever heard anyone at SU say we own NYC. Fans yes from a recruiting standpoint but nothing like what Mikey is saying.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SUinNYC]

Sour grapes.

 

[Scooch]

I like how he lamented the failure of his proposal to create that BE/ACC football confederation because the ACC wanted "full members".

No dummy, it was because they already had a plan in the works to pick your conference apart.

But good work revealing your league's utter dysfunction and weakness. I'm sure that helped.

 

[All4SU]

Could FSU have been lured away from the 9 team ACC back then?

Cinci, Louisville, and one more makes 12.

Plus ... Providence, St Johns, Seton Hall, GTown, Nova, and ND for 18.

It would have established the BE as the serious Eastern FB conference, while the ACC would have been seen as a BB league.

The BE was going to 12/18 sooner or later.

It just appears as if all of MT's (and the BE's) solutions revolve around more members, bigger size, more diversity, and NOT on a clear mission or focus. In fact, I will go so far as to say the focus was on being everything possible to everyone. That's no long-term strategy.

I agree that had FSU been lured away from the ACC, the BE had a chance to be something special. But Miami, VT, FSU, Pitt, WVU, SU, BC, Rutgers, Temple alone would not have been enough to lure FSU. He would have needed to make a play for FSU, GTech, Maryland and either NCState, UVA or Clemson. Forget L'Ville, Cincy or others. They were not part of the expansion plan at that time. This was in the 90s, and the existing BE + 4 from the ACC would have been dynamic. I just don't think anything was ever done to try and make that happen. They were just looking for "alliances" and agreements. They weren't building anything for the future.