Tranghese Meltdown

[BleedsOrange44]

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

Those are two signature out of conference wins. In order to make your point valid, we'd have to see what the other conferences have done. Specifically, in bowl games, the Big East generally does very well especially when compared to other conferences. I'm not suggesting the Big East is a juggernaut. I'm simply suggesting they are not this horrendous conference that "hasn't won anything." The Big East, historically (when including the teams that were there at the time) has been a very good conference. The last 5 years, it has been arguably the weakest conference (either them or ACC), but is still a BCS conference, and the 5th best conference in the country isn't that bad. It just seems to me people are acting like we are the worst conference in the country, and the MAC and MEAC and Conference USA are much better. I'm simply stating that's not the case, and they have been competitive.
BTW, I have a feeling another signature win could come this weekend with WVU over LSU.

 

[billsin01]

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.

The funny thing here is that outside of VT and FSU, I think you could make the argument that in terms of actual football, the USF/Cincy/L'ville/RU contingent is about as good as UMD/GT/BC/UNC/Miami. At the very least, it's not that much of an upgrade currently (BC is 0-3 right now). Now if you're arguing perception and name only, then yeah, I suppose it's a decent upgrade.

 

[billsin01]

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.

Syracuse is not and will not deliver the NYC market -- at least at any point in the near future. They may be able to make some TV money due to having a team in the vicinity of NYC, but they do not care about Cuse sports outside of the Big East Tourney.

 

[billsin01]

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.

True, but I doubt he looks at his efforts as anything other than at least trying to continue to build a good conference. Plus, was it really his handling of ND that made Miami and VT eager to get to the ACC? Methinks it was the potential dollar signs. And, let's not kid ourselves, the ACC is still potential fodder for an SEC raid at some point.

 

[Scooch]

The funny thing here is that outside of VT and FSU, I think you could make the argument that in terms of actual football, the USF/Cincy/L'ville/RU contingent is about as good as UMD/GT/BC/UNC/Miami. At the very least, it's not that much of an upgrade currently (BC is 0-3 right now). Now if you're arguing perception and name only, then yeah, I suppose it's a decent upgrade.

This is why I always caution people to evaluate these things not just using "on the field" criteria. Your point is valid, on the field one can argie that the middle of the BE has been comparable (or better) than the middle of the over the past 5 years. But the middle of the ACC has schools of brand name value and large followings, the BE does not. Maybe in a perfect world that doesn't matter, but in the world we live in it surely does. A lot.

 

[billsin01]

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.

Not true in any way shape or form. They were in a northeast conference with teams from other locales but the Big EAst's calling card was basketball and basketball was centered around NYC, not only in terms of the teams int eh area (UConn/Cuse/revived SJU) but in terms of the tournament and the league's history. Plus, the G'town's/UMDs/Navys of the world are far more northern than they are southern. To me you get to a different world when you get about an hour south of DC.

 

[billsin01]

This is why I always caution people to evaluate these things not just using "on the field" criteria. Your point is valid, on the field one can argie that the middle of the BE has been comparable (or better) than the middle of the over the past 5 years. But the middle of the ACC has schools of brand name value and large followings, the BE does not. Maybe in a perfect world that doesn't matter, but in the world we live in it surely does. A lot.

I don't disagree with this. But I'm not sure I see how those schools' followings help SU in any real way. GT isn't travelling fans to the dome. Neither is clemson. Neither is NC State. Upstate NY is not going to suddenly become atwitter over the prospect of playing 5-4 NC State. They will come out when the Cuse is real good and exciting or if there is a big time opponent (FSU/ND/PSU...). I'm OK with the expansion and agree with your point, I'm just not really sure the Cuse has put itself in that great a position.

 

[Moontan]

In order to make your point valid, we'd have to see what the other conferences have done. Specifically, in bowl games, the Big East generally does very well especially when compared to other conferences.

For an overview of conference bowl performance take a look at the BCS tab of my Big East Football History page.

In short, over the past nine years the Big East teams have won 62% of their bowl games, as have SEC teams. The only conference to have better results is the Mountain West with 71%. On the big stage the Big East is 6-7 in the BCS era (3-4 since the departure of Miami, 3-3 before), though losing the last 3.

 

[Bayside44]

I don't disagree with this. But I'm not sure I see how those schools' followings help SU in any real way. GT isn't travelling fans to the dome. Neither is clemson. Neither is NC State. Upstate NY is not going to suddenly become atwitter over the prospect of playing 5-4 NC State. They will come out when the Cuse is real good and exciting or if there is a big time opponent (FSU/ND/PSU...). I'm OK with the expansion and agree with your point, I'm just not really sure the Cuse has put itself in that great a position.

When we played a top 5 ranked Cinci the Dome was half full. Not like UNC is going to be top 5 anytime soon with what they're going through, but if they (or Miami, or VT, or whomever came in with a top 10 ranking) came to Syracuse in mid October I'd like to think that place would be full.

 

[Scooch]

I don't disagree with this. But I'm not sure I see how those schools' followings help SU in any real way. GT isn't travelling fans to the dome. Neither is clemson. Neither is NC State. Upstate NY is not going to suddenly become atwitter over the prospect of playing 5-4 NC State. They will come out when the Cuse is real good and exciting or if there is a big time opponent (FSU/ND/PSU...). I'm OK with the expansion and agree with your point, I'm just not really sure the Cuse has put itself in that great a position.

Those followings are why the ACC TV contract is worth nearly 4 times that of the Big East.

Four. Times.

That helps SU.

 

[Scooch]

Not true in any way shape or form. They were in a northeast conference with teams from other locales but the Big EAst's calling card was basketball and basketball was centered around NYC, not only in terms of the teams int eh area (UConn/Cuse/revived SJU) but in terms of the tournament and the league's history. Plus, the G'town's/UMDs/Navys of the world are far more northern than they are southern. To me you get to a different world when you get about an hour south of DC.

Basketball, and that basketball tournament, does not provide enough media money to effectively run a high-level, football-playing, BCS conference athletic program.

Football is entirely what drives revenue, and we were in a quasi-southern/midwestern/Texas football conference that was only going to get more southernern/midwesterner/Texaser.

 

[Chip]

I don't disagree with this. But I'm not sure I see how those schools' followings help SU in any real way. GT isn't travelling fans to the dome. Neither is clemson. Neither is NC State. Upstate NY is not going to suddenly become atwitter over the prospect of playing 5-4 NC State. They will come out when the Cuse is real good and exciting or if there is a big time opponent (FSU/ND/PSU...). I'm OK with the expansion and agree with your point, I'm just not really sure the Cuse has put itself in that great a position.

I can't prove it yet, but I think you'll be wrong on Clemson. Those people love their college football and there are plenty of them. They show up well in any away game they play. Might be harder in the Dome to spot it because our crowd is finally wearing more orange to games.

VT will travel to the Dome, we've seen it. So will FSU. GT? You're right, they'll be Wake Forest-ish, so will Duke. But UVA showed fairly well here in 2005 (not VTish, but not Louisville-ish either). UNC has been here, traveled much better than any Big East school.

We exit a league where one away team comes to the Dome and join a league where maybe 5-7 will travel pretty well. Upgrade.

 

[billsin01]

Basketball, and that basketball tournament, does not provide enough media money to effectively run a high-level, football-playing, BCS conference athletic program.

Football is entirely what drives revenue, and we were in a quasi-southern/midwestern/Texas football conference that was only going to get more southernern/midwesterner/Texaser.

BC is 15-16 in its last 31 games. I get that this is probably due to coaching (the loss of Jags), but I still think wins and losses are determined far less by revenues than people think. You can make plenty of money and still lose a ton of games. I'd rather make the money, so I get the move, but I just don't think it will deliver some massive overhaul of this program (or at least not much more than had things remained the status quo an we were able to hold onto marrone and shafer).

 

[44cuse]

Those are two signature out of conference wins. In order to make your point valid, we'd have to see what the other conferences have done. Specifically, in bowl games, the Big East generally does very well especially when compared to other conferences. I'm not suggesting the Big East is a juggernaut. I'm simply suggesting they are not this horrendous conference that "hasn't won anything." The Big East, historically (when including the teams that were there at the time) has been a very good conference. The last 5 years, it has been arguably the weakest conference (either them or ACC), but is still a BCS conference, and the 5th best conference in the country isn't that bad. It just seems to me people are acting like we are the worst conference in the country, and the MAC and MEAC and Conference USA are much better. I'm simply stating that's not the case, and they have been competitive.
BTW, I have a feeling another signature win could come this weekend with WVU over LSU.

That, I agree with completely. But 2 signature wins just don't really add up to much. And let's remember, the point here was Tranghese's comment about not beating anyone. And ultimately, I do think that's case. The WVU wins are very good, but in aggregate the BE hasn't really beat that many very good to great teams.

The worst conference in the country? Absolutely not. Completely agree. In fact, I think the BE is better than the ACC (and believe the #'s support that).

44cuse

 

[irishredhomebrew]

I can't prove it yet, but I think you'll be wrong on Clemson. Those people love their college football and there are plenty of them. They show up well in any away game they play. Might be harder in the Dome to spot it because our crowd is finally wearing more orange to games.

VT will travel to the Dome, we've seen it. So will FSU. GT? You're right, they'll be Wake Forest-ish, so will Duke. But UVA showed fairly well here in 2005 (not VTish, but not Louisville-ish either). UNC has been here, traveled much better than any Big East school.

We exit a league where one away team comes to the Dome and join a league where maybe 5-7 will travel pretty well. Upgrade.

Clemson fan here. I think you will be very surprised with the number of fans that travel to Clemson games. Actually, Clemson is known for its traveling fans. For example, Clemson typically has 12 to 15 thousand travel to the Boston College game.

I

 

[BleedsOrange44]

That, I agree with completely. But 2 signature wins just don't really add up to much. And let's remember, the point here was Tranghese's comment about not beating anyone. And ultimately, I do think that's case. The WVU wins are very good, but in aggregate the BE hasn't really beat that many very good to great teams.

The worst conference in the country? Absolutely not. Completely agree. In fact, I think the BE is better than the ACC (and believe the #'s support that).

44cuse

I think that's reasonable. But I think there's a perception that many of the "mid-major" conference (for lack of a better term) are better than the Big East. That's simply not the case. And that's, I guess, what I was trying to convey. I don't think I did it in the clearest way possible but we got there eventually lol.

 

[longtimefan]

It's transcript from WFAN, I just listened to it. But someone hashtagged the transcript.

By the way, has the term hashtagged been patented yet, like teabagged? Because if not, it will be soon. "Hashtagged? Yeah here's what you do, you take your... and make this tic tac toe board on her..." Well, you know.

To me # will always mean "pound" or "number".

 

[Chip]

To me # will always mean "pound" or "number".

That's what she said. After I hashtagged her.

 

[44cuse]

I think that's reasonable. But I think there's a perception that many of the "mid-major" conference (for lack of a better term) are better than the Big East. That's simply not the case. And that's, I guess, what I was trying to convey. I don't think I did it in the clearest way possible but we got there eventually lol.

Absolutely 100% right. That perception is BS (about the mid-majors). I do believe that the Mountain West had years where it was better than the Big East, but none of the others. As a general rule, I believe the conferences over the last 10 years have been: 1. SEC, 2. Big 12, 3. Big 10, 4. PAC 10, 5. BE, 6. ACC.

You are right though...there have been wins the the BE has not rec'd ENOUGH credit for.

44cuse