Yesterday, Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese addressed the media for 25 minutes. Here is a transcript of the entire press conference, which was short on solutions and encouragement, but long on rhetoric.

Let me thank you for coming. This is going to be my only appearance. This is it. I'll give you some information. I'm probably not going to give you things that you're really going to want, which will probably come as no surprise. I'll take some questions, and then I'm done.

We will continue to meet while were here. We're not going to arrive at any decisions while we're here. Our institutions are in the process of evaluating any and all options, all conceivable things, in an effort to keep this league together.

The job of our ADs is to explore every one of those options, and every piece of detail that is necessary, and then they're going to have to bring this information back to their respective CEOs.

I think Paul Dee has been very explicit in the time he was here. He has come here with an open mind, and Paul has done nothing to give us cause to disagree with that. Paul in particular has been as open and as forthright as we would have expected. Our members have been very forthright with him, as well.

Paul has obviously been under obligation to go back to President Shalala, who will ultimately be responsible for what their university decision is, and Syracuse and Boston College are now faced with the same obligation. And my other 11 institutions are faced with getting the same kind of material.

I don�t know if there is a timetable. I think we would all like to get this matter resolved, but I think the timetable will be determined by Miami, Syracuse, Boston College, and the ACC. Our understanding is that the ACC at some point will begin the formal discussions with these three schools.

These three schools have a lot of questions. What those questions are, you would have to ask them. You take someone such as Syracuse, until Syracuse was contacted on Friday, they had not been engaged in any conversations [with the ACC]. So they've got to do their due diligence, they're going to have to review. They're going to have to do all that, so that's going to take some time, but I think there is a -- I don�t sense that people want this thing to go on and on and on. And I don't know that there is a need for this to go on and on. Candidly, this ain't about rocket science. It's a very simple thing.

I'm not going to talk to you about the options. Some of our directors may have, that's their choice. I'm not going to bother getting into it. You've projected what they are, and in most cases, you've been right, but I'm certain that we've explored some things that I'm sure you haven't thought of.

I would describe the heart of our discussions as focused on three things: money, as always; integrity; and the irreparable harm that would be caused to schools in my league if this act occurs. Those conversations couldn't be any more candid, couldn�t be any more direct. To a man, our directors have said what's on their mind.

We did take time to talk about our history. We've been at this 24 years. We've been involved with football for 13 years. We talked about where we were, and how we've gotten to where we are. And if you don�t mind me saying so, we think it's a pretty impressive accomplishment. As always, we've been prepared to stand up and compete with the best and relish the same opportunity.

This is a crisis. Make no mistake about it. Don�t hide from that fact. At the end of the day, this is no secret, the University of Miami is going to make a decision. That decision's going to drive the wagon.

That's why the ACC went to them, why the ACC's been involved with them for a long period of time, discussing this possibility. Because if Miami doesn�t go, there's not going to be any expansion.

So at the end of the day, President Shalala's going to have to look at the issues we've talked about, have to look at the financial implications, have to look at the integrity issue. That she's been involved with 13 other presidents. And then [she's] going to have to factor in the irreparable harm that's going to be caused to the members of my league.

Aside from that, and this will sound self-serving, this will be the most disastrous blow to intercollegiate athletics in my lifetime. It's wrong. I don�t want to hear about previous pieces of expansion. People were not damaged. Go back to the history. Penn State was an independent. Miami was an independent. Florida State was an independent. Arkansas was a member of a conference that was already going through the throes of breaking up. South Carolina had been a member of the Metro.

We've been through expansion, and in each and every case, we went to those respective leagues and talked about it. They had members who wanted to leave, but they had answers. So this situation should not be compared to it, because there is no other situation in the history of intercollegiate athletics like this.

Take yourself away from the ACC, take yourself away from the Big East, and envision eastern intercollegiate athletics without a major basketball and football league. I've read this notion about the ACC having domination of the eastern seaboard. That's a marketing concoction that has no validity. If you think people in New York City are going to come to see Clemson play Boston College in Madison Square Garden, you're very mistaken. And if you think that just with Boston College and Syracuse, that the East � we've worked so hard to make football part of the fabric in the northeast � it will not happen. I believe that with every ounce of emotion that I can muster.

Our presidents are engaged, will continue to be engaged, they're charged, and they're going to do whatever they think they have to do to keep this conference together. It's just something that's worth saving.

As I said to you, the timetable, I think everyone is in agreement that we want to get through this as quickly as possible, but ultimately, whatever is going to interact between Miami, Syracuse, Boston College, and the ACC is going to determine the timetable. We're doing some things, as well. Those things will be done very quickly. And we'll go from there.

I'm going to take some questions. I'll tell you, I'm not going to stand up here an hour. I don't know how many different ways there are to ask the questions you have to ask. I'm going to try to do the best I can. Let's just do it one at a time, and we'll go from there.

Response to question #1: There's a story in USA Today which talked about the ACC and the Big East talking about merger and acquisitions. It talked about it like we were in business. We're in a business. [But] We're talking about educational institutions.

I think what bothers me the most is the way the whole thing has happened. We could argue about who has the right to do what, and that's interpretive. I've heard that what happens to us is an "unintended consequence." It's not an unintended consequence. It's there; they see it, and I don't sense one iota of concern about it.

If I were IBM, I'd understand it. I'm not IBM. I represent 14 educational institutions. Educational institutions and intercollegiate athletics are supposed to be controlled by presidents. That's what I've been told for the last 10 years -- presidential control.

Welcome to the world of presidential control. John Swofford isn't doing this, his ADs aren't doing this. Their presidents are making this decision. And when presidents begin to act this way with other presidents, I think it's wrong. Because I think you have to gauge the consequences of this act. They're severe.

I don't want anybody to interpret that a decision has been made, because I don�t believe it has. I strongly don't believe it has. I think our ADs have done a great job here, and I think our presidents will have a chance to visit with President Shalala before a decision is made. I think we have a pretty compelling argument. We're relying quite heavily on her judgment, as well as the judgment of Syracuse and Boston College.

My frustration is how you go about doing your business. I've been through expansion. We've handled it, and I know what I've done. John Swofford and I have been friends for a long time. John and I have talked about this. John's interpretation is that he would call me when they had the vote. I disagree with that. I think you call when you are about to begin courting someone. And I know how courting goes. Not that I've been courted much, truthfully, but I've done our courting for our league.

Response to question #2, about feeling betrayed: Betrayed's a bad word. This isn't about me. This has nothing to do with me. This is about our league. This is about my schools fighting for their athletic lives. That's what this is about. The people in my league have worked so hard to get where they are. They've had to overcome a lot, because we operate in the northeast, dominated by professional teams, and I know where they were.

Where we were in football in 1990 -- there isn't one of you who sat in this room and could have said to me, thirteen years later, you would have won two national championships, had a seat at the table of the BCS, and been head of the BCS -- I'm not the head of the BCS.

In 1979, Dick Weiss and Mark Blaudschun, and these guys from the northeast, they can tell you, intercollegiate basketball as we know it was at its darkest day in the east. College basketball was being dominated by UCLA, the Big Ten, the ACC. The northeast was void of it, because all the best players were leaving. That's not the case anymore. I will remind you, we're just coming off winning a national championship.

I'm very prejudiced about this. I think we should have won a national championship in football, too. We'll have our dinner tonight, and the purpose of this dinner is to honor what Miami did this year [in football]. They've had this incredible two-year run in football. Syracuse won a national championship, with its best player being a freshman, and we've now won four consecutive [national] championships in women's basketball.

And I've got to come here today and talk about this.

My people are fighting for their lives. Are they frustrated? Are they angry? Of course. Those are obvious emotions.

But this is not about me. I'm not going to get damaged by this personally. I feel badly for [BE founder] Dave Gavitt, I tell you that. He had a vision beyond what anybody had, and it's being threatened mightily.

Response to question #3: The ACC, as you know, hasn't articulated their vision to me. I'm the last person they're going to do that with. Reading the paper, they've talked about the need to get larger, and bigger, and more protected. I think I've read a comment where they need to protect their flanks. From whom? I don't know where the danger is coming from. I don't know of any situation where anyone has tried to engage any ACC member in expansion discussions. We've never gone after any of their teams, because we've always recognized the fact that it was going to be beneficial to us for them to be successful. Because there are six of us at the [BCS] table.

I've read in the USA Today where if we go away, there's only going to be five conference champions and three at larges [to go to BCS bowls]. Someone ought to ask the five remaining presidents -- President Shalala is our representative on the BCS committee, and she's not going to be asked to comment because of her current position here -- the other five presidents are going to be challenged, they're already being challenged about accessibility [to the BCS]. If they think this act is going to quiet it down, then they're highly mistaken.

In all due respect to the ACC's analysis, I don�t think there's going to be five champions and three at larges that are now going to be available. I don't think they're going to get away with that. This act will exacerbate the political pressure that will be brought on the BCS. There's little doubt of that in my mind.

Six conferences have been working together not just on football, but on academic reform, student athlete welfare, the so-called "incentive/disincentive package, graduation rates. We're going to reduce it from six to five, and we're going to tell everybody that's okay, and we're going to tell our students this is the way we do business? If I'm a student athlete, it doesn't make sense.

With all due respect to the ACC, they're a great conference. They were great fifty years ago. They're good in football, [but] I would argue that our accomplishments the last four years were better than theirs. They're a great basketball conference. I grew up as an ACC basketball fan. I can tell you a lot about it. I don�t think this is going to help their basketball. But they do, so it doesn't matter what I think.

Response to question #4: We've got existing contracts, access to opportunities and bowls, money, the fact that institutions over the last couple of years have undergone significant financial expenditures, based on the idea that the Big East was here, and we're headed somewhere else. They're going to be forced into a situation that clearly is not as attractive and won't provide as many opportunities. This act will basically limit the playing field at the highest level of college football.

How do I tell Virginia Tech, who will arguably be a contender for the national championship, that they don't deserve to be in a conference that will have automatic access? I can't tell them. I saw Frank Beamer yesterday. I can't tell him that.

Take a school like Connecticut. They've undertaken a major expenditure in the startup of football, based on a variety of things. The things they were basing it on are no longer going to exist.

Response to question #5, about Miami President Donna Shalala going back on her verbal promise to BE presidents that Miami was committed to the league: I think the presidents have got to answer that. You've got to ask our presidents that. President Shalala, in the executive session with our other presidents � how that's become a matter of asking your question. That didn't come from me. I just think you have to ask President Shalala that. It's just not something I should be commenting on.

Response to question #6: I think all of our members have a responsibility to our conference. We've ventured down a path, we have agreements. If we couldn't perform, I'd say fine. I may be stupid, but we've won two national championships in men's basketball in the last five years, four straight women's basketball championships, which no other conference has ever done, and we've had football programs finish either number one or number two the last four years. And we're supposed to accept the fact that we're not supposed to be a player? That's just an unacceptable conclusion, from our perspective.

Response to question #7: I guess we should be 12. All we've done -- we won the championship in basketball, we won the championship in football, we won the championship in women's basketball -- but we're talking about football. We won last year, we lost a great game this year, we got excluded the year before on a pretty controversial decision, and Virginia Tech with Michael Vick played in a [championship] game.

If I go and look at the other five conferences they haven't done as well in the last four years. They're 12, 12, 11, 10, 9, and we're 8.

Response to question #8: We have talked about it [expansion] in the past. If you're going to add people, you have to add people that will bring quality. There are very few people that can bring quality. I'm not going to identify the schools, but in our mind, there were three institutions that could have added quality. Two of them I will not name. The third one was Florida State. We weren't going in that direction because that literally would have taken an entity out of the marketplace, which is the ACC, in terms of football.

We just looked at that as something we didn't want to do, something that didn't make sense. We looked at the ACC, and we said, you're being successful; we looked at ourselves, and we said, we're being successful.

Paul [Dee] will tell you we've been very successful on the playing field, but we haven't been as successful economically, and I won't argue with that. But the reason we haven't been as successful economically is when we negotiated that contract the last time, we were coming off our worst seasons, and we were in a marketplace with no option.

We've done a great amount of work the last four years, and what we want to do is get to a point where we can negotiate and get our fair share. And that's what we're trying to fight for.

I'm probably old school. When it's great, everybody hugs each other, and when it's bad, we leave? This ain't bad. Miami's won the national championship, and they were involved in one of the great moments in college football last year.

Someone in our gathering said it today. This is not just an athletic issue, it's an institutional issue. This has incredible implications. I read all the financial figures in the newspapers, and someone says, this school might make a million dollars. When you start looking at operational budgets of institutions, a million dollars is important, but what percentage is it of a school's operating budget? Is that worth providing a body blow to a group of schools who were there when on one else wanted Miami?

When we extended the invitation to Miami [in 1990], there was no one else there. And I made the presentation. I remember telling President Foote, this will be a union. We will help you in a lot of ways, and you will help us in a lot of ways. And we've done that. So we're going to end it and damage the people who extended that opportunity? I just find that unacceptable. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what I feel, because President Shalala and now BC and Syracuse have something invested in this and are going to have to make a decision.

Response to question #9: We're at the table of the BCS. I don�t think they put me in as the chair because they like me. I think I'm there because they respect the work that we've done. I will never put my colleagues in the other conferences in a position, but I will tell you this decision has enormous implications in all of college athletics, and I am certainly not sitting there cheering about this.

If what we are at the end of the day is a series of superconferences, then they ought to cut to the chase, and go leave the NCAA, and go ahead and do it, if that's what they want. But that isn't what's going to happen, because politically, you can't leave the NCAA, because you have states that have various branches, that are either 1-A's, double-A's triple-A's, Division II. That's why the NCAA's still together, despite all its bureaucratic issues. You have to have people to play. You're providing unbelievable competition. Why would we want to (unintelligible) the marketplace so some school might make a million dollars more?

Some people believe that a championship game is a good thing. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Go talk to the coaches in the Big 12, see if they like it.

Response to question #10: I've already had conversations, and they weren't initiated by me, where conferences have called me about this possibility, and I've told them, we're not engaging in any conversations about anything, other than keeping our current membership intact.

I told both of those people that if the worst possible thing happened and our people had to start looking, I told them before anything happened, I would call them and tell them exactly what my schools were going to talk about and what they would consider doing. I think we were trying to explore ways so that people would not be disrupted, and that's a difficult thing to do. But my five football schools, and my five basketball schools and Notre Dame are going to have to do something if this occurs.

TechSideline Pass Home