Tranghese Meltdown | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Tranghese Meltdown

Tranghese "The #BigTen came to the conclusion that adding #UConn, #Syracuse or #Rutgers was not going to deliver the New York market."

That is the most important nugget in the whole interview. If true that is really BAD BAD news for Rutgers...because they become just another mouth to feed.

This has become really simple. The ACC is going to hold out for ND. That means that Rutgers fate will not be resolved until ND makes a move - the same could be said for UCONN, but I could see the ACC snagging UCONN (because of their hoops program) before ND decided. And we know ND wants to hold onto its independence until the last freaking moment. If ND goes to the Big Ten, my guess is Rutgers gets the call from the ACC.

If ND really ends up in the ACC, then I think Rutgers is completely screwed, because the Big Ten will not add them if they believe that Rutgers doesn't deliver the NYC market. They either sit tight at 12 or maybe add Missouri and BYU? and stop at 14.

Either way...the longer this takes...the longer Rutgers appears to be stuck at the kiddie table and during all that time we will begin to rape and pillage NJ like the Deleone years.
 
Jake said:
Tranghese "The #BigTen came to the conclusion that adding #UConn, #Syracuse or #Rutgers was not going to deliver the New York market."

That is the most important nugget in the whole interview. If true that is really BAD BAD news for Rutgers...because they become just another mouth to feed.

This has become really simple. The ACC is going to hold out for ND. That means that Rutgers fate will not be resolved until ND makes a move - the same could be said for UCONN, but I could see the ACC snagging UCONN (because of their hoops program) before ND decided. And we know ND wants to hold onto its independence until the last freaking moment. If ND goes to the Big Ten, my guess is Rutgers gets the call from the ACC.

If ND really ends up in the ACC, then I think Rutgers is completely screwed, because the Big Ten will not add them if they believe that Rutgers doesn't deliver the NYC market. They either sit tight at 12 or maybe add Missouri and BYU? and stop at 14.

Either way...the longer this takes...the longer Rutgers appears to be stuck at the kiddie table and during all that time we will begin to rape and pillage NJ like the Deleone years.
Expand...

I think if ND goes to the B10, that is where rutgers ends up. Not necessarily the same though if ND goes to the ACC or stays indie.
 
BleedsOrange44 said:
Except Notre Dame, Georgia, Oklahoma, Florida State, Miami, Clemson, Kansas (when they were #13), Auburn, North Carolina, Colorado, Wake Forest, Kansas State, Northwestern, Miss St, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, Illinois, Oregon St, NC State. Not saying those are all big time wins, but let's not act like we haven't beaten anyone.
Expand...
I know what you are saying, but here are some more facts:

UCONN:
Never beat a team with a winning record in the ACC in 13 tries.
Never beat a team with a winning record in CUSA.
2-1 against the SEC (7-6 S. Carolina); beat a 2-10 Vandy team and lost to a 2-10 Vandy team
Never beat a team with a winning record in the Big10
Never beat a team with a winning record in the Big12

LOUISVILLE:
2-0 vs the Big 12, 5-7 KSU Team and a 7-5 KSU team. Not exactly world beaters.
4-1 vs the ACC; beat 7-6 Miami, 5-7 NC St., 5-6 UNC, 11-3 Wake (very good win)
0-2 vs the Pac 10; OSU both times 5-7 and 5-6 OSU teams
2-4 vs the SEC; beat 8-5 and 3-8 Kentucky teams.
0-2 vs the MWC; lost to Utah (10-3 and 9-4 teams)

PITTSBURGH:
0-1 vs the SEC (under .500 Kentucky team)
2-1 vs the Pac 10; beat 8-5 OSU (decent win); beat 3-8 Wash St., lost to 9-4 OSU
4-7 vs the ACC: 2 wins against teams with winning records...both had 5 losses
4-9 vs the Big 10: 1 win against a team with a winning record (9-4 Iowa)

RUTGERS:
1-1 vs the SEC; beat 2-9 Vandy, lost to 8-5 Tenn
4-5 vs the Big 10; no wins against a team with a winning record
4-7 vs the ACC; no wins against a team with a winning record
1-2 vs the Big 12; beat 7-6 KSU
0-3 vs the Pac 10; lost to 1-10 Cal and 4-7 Cal.
0-1 vs the WAC

SOUTH FLORIDA:
6-3 vs the ACC; 2 wins against team with a winning record and both had 6 losses (FSU and Miami)
1-1 vs the Big 12; beat a 5 loss Kansas team
0-1 vs the Big 10
0-1 vs the Pac 10

SYRACUSE:
3-3 vs the Big 12; 2 wins against teams with winning records: Colorado and KSU (6 loss KSU team)
4-4 vs the SEC; 2 wins against teams with winning records; 10-2 Florida was 20 years ago
6-11 vs the Big 10; 4 wins against teams with winning records (teams had 5, 3, 5, and 4 losses amongst those)
6-12 vs the ACC; 2 wins against teams with a winning record and the last was in 1995
0-2 vs the Pac 10

WEST VIRGINIA:
4-3 vs the Big 12; 1 win vs a team with a winning record
5-4 vs the SEC; 3 vs teams with winning records, none with less than 3 losses
14-15 vs the ACC; 4 vs teams with winning records, none with less than 3 losses
1-5 vs the Big 10; no wins against a team with a winning record

CINCINNATI:
1-0 vs the Big 10; beat a 3-9 Illinois team
1-0 vs the Pac 10; beat an 8-5 OSU team
0-2 vs the ACC
0-2 vs the Big 12
0-1 vs the SEC

Just by looking at this data, it's pretty clear to me that the Big East (or the teams that currently make it up which is the context) really just has not beaten anyone when they were very good or great. I was just eye-balling the data so it may not be 100% accurate, but I believe the ONLY team in the current BE to have ever beaten a team with only 2 losses is Syracuse. So most of those wins that you mention may be against name schools...but they do not appear to be against name schools when those schools were very good to great.

Therefore, I think it is pretty fair to make the claim. The flip side to that is that you play who you play when you play then (ie: you can't control who you get when). But the easy counter to that is that when the BE has played very good to great teams, more often than the BE has lost. Believe the BE is 6-6 in the BCS Bowls with 3 of those wins coming from Miami. Probably the biggest recent win being WVU in 2006 vs Georgia (but even that Georgia team had 3 losses).

44cuse
 
storange said:
true, nor has the ACC
Expand...
Very true...I think VT and FLA ST are the only two teams to win BCS games from the ACC. It's weird...I know Miami is down the most and Fla St has been down. But VT you would have to think would need to look back at the last 10 years and wonder if they had missed the opportunity to climb to the top.

44cuse
 
SU2NASA said:
So if we are of so little value, then why bother getting hot and bothered by it.

What a , another reason to be glad we're leaving that shitshow behind.
Expand...

Exactly. If Syracuse and Pitt are so worthless the Big East should be happy we're no longer their burden.
 
I'm glad to hear that Tranghese always aspired to be a mid-major commissioner.
 
44PRIDE said:
Tranghese "The #BigTen came to the conclusion that adding #UConn, #Syracuse or #Rutgers was not going to deliver the New York market."
Expand...

I'm not sure I could agree more with this. I have plenty of friends in jersey/nyc -- none give two stuffs about college sports period. Those schools don't deliver that market in any real way, from my experience.
 
44cuse said:
I know what you are saying, but here are some more facts:

UCONN:
Never beat a team with a winning record in the ACC in 13 tries.
Never beat a team with a winning record in CUSA.
2-1 against the SEC (7-6 S. Carolina); beat a 2-10 Vandy team and lost to a 2-10 Vandy team
Never beat a team with a winning record in the Big10
Never beat a team with a winning record in the Big12

LOUISVILLE:
2-0 vs the Big 12, 5-7 KSU Team and a 7-5 KSU team. Not exactly world beaters.
4-1 vs the ACC; beat 7-6 Miami, 5-7 NC St., 5-6 UNC, 11-3 Wake (very good win)
0-2 vs the Pac 10; OSU both times 5-7 and 5-6 OSU teams
2-4 vs the SEC; beat 8-5 and 3-8 Kentucky teams.
0-2 vs the MWC; lost to Utah (10-3 and 9-4 teams)

PITTSBURGH:
0-1 vs the SEC (under .500 Kentucky team)
2-1 vs the Pac 10; beat 8-5 OSU (decent win); beat 3-8 Wash St., lost to 9-4 OSU
4-7 vs the ACC: 2 wins against teams with winning records...both had 5 losses
4-9 vs the Big 10: 1 win against a team with a winning record (9-4 Iowa)

RUTGERS:
1-1 vs the SEC; beat 2-9 Vandy, lost to 8-5 Tenn
4-5 vs the Big 10; no wins against a team with a winning record
4-7 vs the ACC; no wins against a team with a winning record
1-2 vs the Big 12; beat 7-6 KSU
0-3 vs the Pac 10; lost to 1-10 Cal and 4-7 Cal.
0-1 vs the WAC

SOUTH FLORIDA:
6-3 vs the ACC; 2 wins against team with a winning record and both had 6 losses (FSU and Miami)
1-1 vs the Big 12; beat a 5 loss Kansas team
0-1 vs the Big 10
0-1 vs the Pac 10

SYRACUSE:
3-3 vs the Big 12; 2 wins against teams with winning records: Colorado and KSU (6 loss KSU team)
4-4 vs the SEC; 2 wins against teams with winning records; 10-2 Florida was 20 years ago
6-11 vs the Big 10; 4 wins against teams with winning records (teams had 5, 3, 5, and 4 losses amongst those)
6-12 vs the ACC; 2 wins against teams with a winning record and the last was in 1995
0-2 vs the Pac 10

WEST VIRGINIA:
4-3 vs the Big 12; 1 win vs a team with a winning record
5-4 vs the SEC; 3 vs teams with winning records, none with less than 3 losses
14-15 vs the ACC; 4 vs teams with winning records, none with less than 3 losses
1-5 vs the Big 10; no wins against a team with a winning record

CINCINNATI:
1-0 vs the Big 10; beat a 3-9 Illinois team
1-0 vs the Pac 10; beat an 8-5 OSU team
0-2 vs the ACC
0-2 vs the Big 12
0-1 vs the SEC

Just by looking at this data, it's pretty clear to me that the Big East (or the teams that currently make it up which is the context) really just has not beaten anyone when they were very good or great. I was just eye-balling the data so it may not be 100% accurate, but I believe the ONLY team in the current BE to have ever beaten a team with only 2 losses is Syracuse. So most of those wins that you mention may be against name schools...but they do not appear to be against name schools when those schools were very good to great.

Therefore, I think it is pretty fair to make the claim. The flip side to that is that you play who you play when you play then (ie: you can't control who you get when). But the easy counter to that is that when the BE has played very good to great teams, more often than the BE has lost. Believe the BE is 6-6 in the BCS Bowls with 3 of those wins coming from Miami. Probably the biggest recent win being WVU in 2006 vs Georgia (but even that Georgia team had 3 losses).

44cuse
Expand...
some of the ones I mentioned were in BCS games (Georgia, Oklahoma) so clearly they were good at the time. And I was only looking in the last 5 years. It also included a #13 ranked Kansas team.
 
rrlbees said:
I think if ND goes to the B10, that is where rutgers ends up. Not necessarily the same though if ND goes to the ACC or stays indie.
Expand...

100% agree with this. I think the only value Rutgers adds to either conference would be if ND wanted to push east. If they did, I think they would bring Rutgers along with them so they would have eastern teams to play in conference (Penn St/Rutgers). They love playing in the northeast. If they decide on the ACC, there is no need to do that due to the presence of Northeastern schools like Pitt, Syracuse, and the Terps. Rutgers better be praying that (a) Texas and Oklahoma head west and blow things up to the point where Notre Dame is forced to choose a conference.
 
BleedsOrange44 said:
some of the ones I mentioned were in BCS games (Georgia, Oklahoma) so clearly they were good at the time. And I was only looking in the last 5 years. It also included a #13 ranked Kansas team.
Expand...
I understand your point completely. But from a macro perspective, the BE really has beaten few very good or great teams out of conference. UCONN has never beaten a team with a winning record in the Big 12, Big 10, or ACC. No BE team except SYR has beaten a team that ended the season with 2 losses.

I took it in aggregate because you included teams like FSU and Colorado.

His comment is not that far off.

44cuse
 
Yes I know but I was looking at the last 5 years, and a
44cuse said:
I understand your point completely. But from a macro perspective, the BE really has beaten few very good or great teams out of conference. UCONN has never beaten a team with a winning record in the Big 12, Big 10, or ACC. No BE team except SYR has beaten a team that ended the season with 2 losses.

I took it in aggregate because you included teams like FSU and Colorado.

His comment is not that far off.

44cuse
Expand...
I think the BE gets a bum rap nationally and whenever someone names teams we've beaten (and legit teams), there's always excuses. Your point isn't discounting what we've done the last 5 years, simply looking at it over a longer period of time.

You know what the major flaw in your argument though? You're only looking at teams CURRENTLY in the Big East. And it's not fair to include UCONN (who wasn't a 1-A team until 1997), doesn't have that long of a history, and most of their early history was transitioning to 1-A. South Florida hasn't been around that long. Louisville, Cincy, etc were in Conference USA prior to recent history. Your argument is also NOT including wins by Virginia Tech, Miami, or Boston College when they were in the Big East. So it's hard to make a fair assessment looking at more than recent history and talking about teams currently in the big east. Too many changes have happened since then to make a reasonable argument there. Miami won national titles as part of the Big East. Va Tech was great when they were in the Big East. BC had some good teams. That can't be ignored.
 
""Tranghese - "I can say this [about #ACC] because I don't give a damn any more - we kicked their butt in basketball for the past ten years.""""

Ok, how much of that butt kicking was done by SU and Pitt?
And the other x-members?
 
BleedsOrange44 said:
Yes I know but I was looking at the last 5 years, and a

I think the BE gets a bum rap nationally and whenever someone names teams we've beaten (and legit teams), there's always excuses. Your point isn't discounting what we've done the last 5 years, simply looking at it over a longer period of time.

You know what the major flaw in your argument though? You're only looking at teams CURRENTLY in the Big East. And it's not fair to include UCONN (who wasn't a 1-A team until 1997), doesn't have that long of a history, and most of their early history was transitioning to 1-A. South Florida hasn't been around that long. Louisville, Cincy, etc were in Conference USA prior to recent history. Your argument is also NOT including wins by Virginia Tech, Miami, or Boston College when they were in the Big East. So it's hard to make a fair assessment looking at more than recent history and talking about teams currently in the big east. Too many changes have happened since then to make a reasonable argument there. Miami won national titles as part of the Big East. Va Tech was great when they were in the Big East. BC had some good teams. That can't be ignored.
Expand...
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. I am fairly certain that when he was making that statement, he was not making it with Miami, VT, and BC in mind. If he was, that would be ridiculous because Miami won three BCS games. So the comment was clearly directed at the BE football results post Miami, BC, and VT departure which...have ultimately not been that good.

AND, my expanding of the results to include those teams still in the Big East for as long as they have been a part of the league should SUPPORT your assertion. But it doesn't. And that is the whole point. Without Miami and VT, the Big East really has not beaten anyone that was very good or great (with 1 or maybe 2 exceptions). When those teams had that chance, they got beat.

So whether you take the data for the last 5 years or the current BE teams for their entirety...nothing changes.

UCONN has still not beaten an ACC team with a winning record.
CINCY has never beaten a team from the Big 10, ACC, or SEC.
SU is the only team to beat a 2 loss team.
WVU (easily the most successful of the current BE teams) has never beaten a Big 10 team with a winning record and has never beaten an ACC team with less than 3 losses.

This is not stating anything that anybody does not already know and Tranghese was right.

Let's try this: Which games are the legit/high caliber wins in the last 5 years. Beating an 11-3 Wake Team? WVU beating an 11-3 Oklahoma team was the best win the conference has had in 5 years. The second best was beating 10-3 Georgia (I had forgotten about this one). But those are the two best by a wide margin. They also lost to a 7-6 FSU team the year after and a 9-4 NC State team the year after that. Those certainly weren't great teams that they lost to. Als0-rans from an almost equally weak conference. They beat an 8-5 Miss St team in 2007. Was that a very good win?

How about Pitt. They beat a 6-7 Kentucky team in a bowl game in 2011. They beat an 8-5 UNC team in 2009. Not a great or even very good win. Beat 9-4 Iowa. Good win? Maybe...OK. Lost to a 9-4 OSU team. Lost to a 10-3 Utah team.

Louisville...had a chance to play an 11-2 VT team and lost. Lost to 10-3 and 9-4 Utah.

The point is, there just are not really any signature wins to point to outside of WVU. Yes, the Wake win could be considered pretty good. But it's a team from a weaker football conference. The Oklahoma win was a great win. But 2 (or 3 if you incude Wake) in 5 years over this number of teams is the equivalent of not beating anyone.

I love college football and I love the Big East. But let's at least be realistic about the results. It's not enough to beat the name. You have to beat the name when the name is reasonably good.

44cuse
 
But the problem is, you say "WVU hasn't beaten a Big10 or ACC team" but they have beaten an SEC BCS (Georgia)team, and a Big-12 BCS team (Oklahoma). Oklahoma was 11-2 before that game, was ranked #3 in one poll and #4 in another poll before that game, including 1 first place vote. After that game they finished #8. That's a big time win. Georgia was 10-2 before that game, was #8 in the country before that game, and finished #10. That's a big time win as well. I'm not saying the Big East have tons of them, but let's not pretend "they haven't won anything." They have.
 
BleedsOrange44 said:
But the problem is, you say "WVU hasn't beaten a Big10 or ACC team" but they have beaten an SEC BCS (Georgia)team, and a Big-12 BCS team (Oklahoma). Oklahoma was 11-2 before that game, was ranked #3 in one poll and #4 in another poll before that game, including 1 first place vote. After that game they finished #8. That's a big time win. Georgia was 10-2 before that game, was #8 in the country before that game, and finished #10. That's a big time win as well. I'm not saying the Big East have tons of them, but let's not pretend "they haven't won anything." They have.
Expand...

I don't really have a problem with Tranghese's tirade and I think his basic points are valid (the debate of wins/losses is less of a point than the fact that no one really cares about any of the football programs in the BE -- And yes, the cuse is included since they struggle to get 35K to the dome for most games).

Regardless, I get it. I'm in favor of the move, but let's call it what it is -- a rush to get to higher ground and grab some coin in the process. It's OK, in fact probably smart and proactive. But it's ugly and makes relatively little sense unless the ACC is really going to make a concerted effort to dive in with both feet to the northeast market.

If they aren't, then the BE that Tranghese put so much work into, essentially folds and it's iconic programs are either irreparably harmed or residing in a conference with a mostly southern identity, which won't do much for marketing.

And unless they play some of their postseason tourney somewhere other than greensboro (NYC/DC), then I know I'll never see an ACC tourney game live. I have zero interest in going to that stupid court in Greensboro.
 
billsin01 said:
And yes, the cuse is included since they struggle to get 35K to the dome for most games).
Expand...

Maybe part of that on the conference side is playing such big names as South Florida, Cincinnati, Louisville, and Rutgers.

I'd rather see VT, BC, UNC, FSU, Miami, GT, UMd, etc. walk through that door.
 
billsin01 said:
I don't really have a problem with Tranghese's tirade and I think his basic points are valid (the debate of wins/losses is less of a point than the fact that no one really cares about any of the football programs in the BE -- And yes, the cuse is included since they struggle to get 35K to the dome for most games).

Regardless, I get it. I'm in favor of the move, but let's call it what it is -- a rush to get to higher ground and grab some coin in the process. It's OK, in fact probably smart and proactive. But it's ugly and makes relatively little sense unless the ACC is really going to make a concerted effort to dive in with both feet to the northeast market.

If they aren't, then the BE that Tranghese put so much work into, essentially folds and it's iconic programs are either irreparably harmed or residing in a conference with a mostly southern identity, which won't do much for marketing.

And unless they play some of their postseason tourney somewhere other than greensboro (NYC/DC), then I know I'll never see an ACC tourney game live. I have zero interest in going to that stupid court in Greensboro.
Expand...
Tranghese was part of the reason the Big East failed. His handling of the Notre Dame situation and not providing a conference where Miami, Va Tech, and BC wouldn't want to leave is what started this mess. Tranghese acted like a little child who didn't get his way. He needs to realize he was part of the reason this happened.
 
The funny thing is that Syracuse was going to be in a southern-ish oriented conference no matter what.

The choice was to be in a southern-ish oriented conference with Louisville, South Florida, Cincinnati, Navy and TCU...

... or with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Maryland, Duke and Georgia Tech.
 
Scooch said:
The funny thing is that Syracuse was going to be in a southern-ish oriented conference no matter what.

The choice was to be in a southern-ish oriented conference with Louisville, South Florida, Cincinnati, Navy and TCU...

... or with Florida State, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Maryland, Duke and Georgia Tech.
Expand...

It's not like Rhode Island or Colgate filled up the joint. :noidea:
 
BleedsOrange44 said:
Oklahoma was 11-2 before that game, was ranked #3 in one poll and #4 in another poll before that game, including 1 first place vote. After that game they finished #8. That's a big time win. Georgia was 10-2 before that game, was #8 in the country before that game, and finished #10. That's a big time win as well.
Expand...
Ahhhh...OK? Not sure what you are disagreeing with now.

Here is EXACTLY what I said: "The Oklahoma win was a great win."

Does "great" differ substantially from "big time?"

Then: "The second best was beating 10-3 Georgia (I had forgotten about this one)."

Sorry, two signature wins across a conference in 5 years is nothing to hang your conferences hat on. If you want to take Tranghese's comment extremely literally, then I guess you can be right. But the reality is that the BE has not beaten anybody. WVU had a couple of nice wins. In aggregate, the BE has not been strong.

44cuse
 
44PRIDE said:
Pulled this off the Rutgers forums. Gives a bit of clarity as to what the Providence Mafia really thought of Big East football schools...

Tranghese - "Why would #ESPN give the #ACC more money over the addition of #Pitt and #Syracuse football?"

Tranghese "You only add people when they add value. This is a good deal for #Pitt and #Syracuse, but not for #Duke or #NorthCarolina."

Tranghese "The #BigTen came to the conclusion that adding #UConn, #Syracuse or #Rutgers was not going to deliver the New York market."

Tranghese - "I can say this [about #ACC] because I don't give a damn any more - we kicked their butt in basketball for the past ten years."

Said the thought of #ACC Tournament at MSG makes him "want to puke."

Tranghese "the #ACC wanted to get better in football so they added #Pitt and #Syracuse. It is illogical"

Mike Tranghese "[#Bigeast football schools] always complained about wanting more, but they never beat anyone. You can't have it both ways"

Ladies and gentleman, this is why the BE couldn't succeed... This is what the Providence mafia thought about football...
Expand...

When they did that study tho i think was before we started scheduling games in the meadowlands. Dr. Gross is gonna turn the meadowlands into the football version of msg should be real helpful to recruiting as time goes on.
 
On the bowl front the Big East has done OK:
  • BCS era: majors=6-7, all=40-25
  • Bowl Alliance: majors=1-2, all=4-6
  • Bowl Coalition: majors=1-5, all=4-7
  • pre-Bowl Agreement era: majors=2-0, all=2-0
For complete details see Big East Major Bowl Participation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sutomcat
    • Like
    • Love
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
2
Views
812
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
0
Views
524
sutomcat
sutomcat
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
1
Views
584
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Wow
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
1
Views
475
Ozone!
Ozone!
sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Football
Replies
2
Views
742
Oakland
Oakland

Forum statistics

Threads
170,343
Messages
4,885,770
Members
5,992
Latest member
meierscreek

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
36
Guests online
707
Total visitors
743
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom