Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[Devil's Advocate]

3-Year Total NCAA Tournament Wins -Team ( 2013-14 NCAA W-L • 2014-15 NCAA W-L • 2015-16 NCAA W-L )

8 - Villanova ( 1-1 • 1-1 • 6-0 )
3 - Butler ( 1-1 • 1-1 • 1-1 )
3 - Xavier ( 0-1 • 2-1 • 1-1 )

2013-14 Butler went 4-14 in the Big East. Who did they beat in the NCAAs that year?

[DudeAnon]

3-Year Total NCAA Tournament Wins -Team ( 2013-14 NCAA W-L • 2014-15 NCAA W-L • 2015-16 NCAA W-L )

8 - Villanova ( 1-1 • 1-1 • 6-0 )
3 - Butler ( 1-1 • 1-1 • 1-1 )
3 - Xavier ( 0-1 • 2-1 • 1-1 )

2013-14 Butler went 4-14 in the Big East. Who did they beat in the NCAAs that year?

?

[JPSchmack]

To the “Brand management” point, the brand is more than “who brings in what RIGHT NOW.” Brands evolve and change.

More of your teams getting NCAA bids, period, improves the overall brand.

You talk about Gonzaga being the only team out there that has such a national reputation prestigious enough to help the brand… How’d the get that? And how’d you 10 get your reputations?

MAKING & WINNING IN THE DANCE. Period.

The more years you go with teams like St. John’s, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown MISSING the NCAA Tournament, the more their brands devalue.

If adding Gonzaga makes them as strong of a program nationally as Nova, you’re going to add a bid, and their brand maintains, but teams 7-8-9-10-11 will see their brands diminish by making the NCAA Tournament less that historically.

However, if you handled expansion the other way, and brought in the programs best for the REST OF YOU, then you get more bids, upping the overall brand. More bids = more chances at wins (and the money that comes with it) and more of YOUR ORIGINAL MEMBERS are getting your allocation of bids.

What do you care if your new additions finish last? Someone’s gotta. Why have it be you?

[Bill Marsh]

So you're telling me that if in 10 years UConn is still in the AAC, have not been successful, have not been making bowls, have not been making money, and therefore their overall brand has negatively effected their basketball program they wouldn't think about dropping football?

Everyone knows the only chance of making it into the CFB Playoffs is if you're in a P5 league. If they are still in the AAC in 10 years, the "money train" will NOT continue. You can't be serious with that statement, right? The citizens of Connecticut aren't stupid. After a decade of losing (both money and on the field), they will be demanding a change. If you don't think this is possible, you're totally clueless. Again, I think this is doubtful to happen, but the chances are not "nonexistent." There's just no way you can speak in absolutes like that. The college athletic landscape is going to be changing significantly in the next 10 years- the have's and the have not's. If UConn feels they are in the have-not's, something COULD happen.

Until something crazy happens with an FBS schools happens, I'm content with 10. I don't want to become the A-10 2.0 so taking any of their schools is out of the question in my mind.

Yes, I'm telling you that UConn has a long term vision for itself that is not dependent on short term results in the next decade. They have made a commitment to that vision and they have backed that commitment up with investments. They realize that it may take them a long time to get the program where they want it to be.

I'll give you the example of another program - Louisville.

In 1985, Louisville hired Howard Scnellenberger away from Miami where he had built a dying program into a powerhouse. Louisville had a vision for its program. After several losing seasons, Schellenberger got Louisville into the 1991 Fiesta Bowl where they bear Alabama. That legitimized the program, but it wasn't enough. It took them another quarter century to get into the ACC - 30 years from the time they hired Schnellenberger.

UConn realizes that's the kind of tenacity and the kind of commitment it will take. That's what they're prepared for.

What you don't seem to realize is that this isn't just about sports for UConn. It's about one piece in the puzzle of re-making themselves into a major, national research university. When they studied the path to get there, they identified the fact that the kinds of public research universities that they are emulating and with whom they seek to associate all have major collegiate sports programs as part of the package. So, they will too.

Even where it is about sports, UConn needs a conference which can provide scheduling for its approximately 25 teams. Big East schools typically don't sponsor that broad a range of sports. It's the same problem that Notre Dame faces in an affiliation with the Big East. It's great for us, but the conference is just too limiting for schhools which compete in as many sports as UConn and Notre Dame do.

Your argument based on the intelligence of Connecticut citizens and whether I'm clueless is not a convincing argument since I'm a Connecticut citizen who's close to the UConn program and you are obviously not. With regard to your argument, the result is just the opposite. You set up a straw man and then knock it down. Proves nothing. Your argument is not based on the actual facts of what is going on at UConn. It is based on your conviction that decisions about the future of the program will be based on whether it's making or losing money in the short term (10 years) despite the fact that I just told you in my previous post that they have recently opened up new funding sources, which are not based on tuition. This will be privately funded and will not be a burden on the tax payers.

I will again state flatly that neither UConn nor Notre Dame are ever coming back to the Big East. Never. Waiting for them is a fool's errand.

What is UConn's plan when musical chairs stops and they are left standing? I'm not debating you, this is a genuine question. If 16 teams is the plan for the P5 football conferences, I don't see UConn being left out but hypothetically what if they had no chance at a P5 conference?

The 16x4 or 5 is totally an Internet myth, so it's pointless to discuss what it means in the real world. There is no such thing in the real world. The idea that the music will stop when the conferences finally get to some hypothetical number that the powers-that-be really want is equally nonsense.

What's going on is dynamic and fluid just as it's always been. Individual schools and individual conferences make individual decisions. New conditions and circumstances create new opportunities.

Asking what UConn will do is like asking what Notre Dame will do if football independence is unsustainable. They'll cross that bridge when they come to it, based on the opportunities and options available at the time.

The point is that UConn is building its program with a certain goal in mind and that goal will never intersect with the BE. Meanwhile the B.e has been built with its own vision, which does not include schools like UConn.

Will UConn get into a P5 conference? I have no idea, but that's the current plan and there is no Plan B. Challenges along the way isn't going to deter that.

Miami almost eliminated its football program in the 1970s. It did eliminate its basketball program At that time. 25 years later, it was in the ACC. It took Louisville 30 years. UConn understands that's the kind of commitment they have made. They're not giving up within the next 10 years

[CURx]

http://www.startribune.com/yeah-villanova-hallelujah-big-east-you-have-it-right/374630341/

[Bill Marsh]

To the “Brand management” point, the brand is more than “who brings in what RIGHT NOW.” Brands evolve and change.

More of your teams getting NCAA bids, period, improves the overall brand.

You talk about Gonzaga being the only team out there that has such a national reputation prestigious enough to help the brand… How’d the get that? And how’d you 10 get your reputations?

MAKING & WINNING IN THE DANCE. Period.

The more years you go with teams like St. John’s, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown MISSING the NCAA Tournament, the more their brands devalue.

If adding Gonzaga makes them as strong of a program nationally as Nova, you’re going to add a bid, and their brand maintains, but teams 7-8-9-10-11 will see their brands diminish by making the NCAA Tournament less that historically.

However, if you handled expansion the other way, and brought in the programs best for the REST OF YOU, then you get more bids, upping the overall brand. More bids = more chances at wins (and the money that comes with it) and more of YOUR ORIGINAL MEMBERS are getting your allocation of bids.

What do you care if your new additions finish last? Someone’s gotta. Why have it be you?

So, the solution is to add St. Bonaventure?

[Xudash]

To the “Brand management” point, the brand is more than “who brings in what RIGHT NOW.” Brands evolve and change.

More of your teams getting NCAA bids, period, improves the overall brand.

You talk about Gonzaga being the only team out there that has such a national reputation prestigious enough to help the brand… How’d the get that? And how’d you 10 get your reputations?

MAKING & WINNING IN THE DANCE. Period.

The more years you go with teams like St. John’s, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown MISSING the NCAA Tournament, the more their brands devalue.

If adding Gonzaga makes them as strong of a program nationally as Nova, you’re going to add a bid, and their brand maintains, but teams 7-8-9-10-11 will see their brands diminish by making the NCAA Tournament less that historically.

However, if you handled expansion the other way, and brought in the programs best for the REST OF YOU, then you get more bids, upping the overall brand. More bids = more chances at wins (and the money that comes with it) and more of YOUR ORIGINAL MEMBERS are getting your allocation of bids.

What do you care if your new additions finish last? Someone’s gotta. Why have it be you?

This isn't only about getting more bids. It must be about getting the right combination of bids and solid seeds with those bids. It's about sending a logical number into the Tournament and then having those teams be in position to advance. You may have missed the thread here that was about the Big East earning $20 million in 17 days. Xavier screwed that up - not helping the conference to earn more - when it decided to play poorly against the Badgers. Nonetheless, 5 teams made it in and let's just say that the overall conference performance was exemplary. Round One saw a 4-1 performance. Round Two took it to 5-4. There is no arguing with ending up at 7-4 and with a National Championship, thanks in large measure to one of our two 2-Seeds punching through to Houston to victory.

I otherwise wouldn't worry about Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown, in particular, when it comes to realizing long absences from the Tournament. They're highly likely to correct that issue next year.

You otherwise don't seem to grasp the value of competition. Were a Gonzaga to come into this conference, they would be the ones who would have to initially make the adjustment to what is a true grind. I've been a direct witness to competition in the A10 and competition in the Big East. There is no comparison. There are no nights off at LossSalle or Fordham in the Big East.

Overall, were the Big East to add programs at all, adding better programs would make the existing programs work that much harder. Brands do evolve and change. Presently, the Big East brand is strengthening and in a big way. There is no reason to dilute what the Big East is building by adding any team from the A10. For that matter, adding Gonzaga right now makes no sense.

[Bill Marsh]

http://www.startribune.com/yeah-villanova-hallelujah-big-east-you-have-it-right/374630341/

Great article! Thank you.

I love his reference to the AAC as the Orphan's Conference. I'm going to adopt that and refer to them as the AOC from now on.

I think he hit the nail on the head when he said that the conference lost its identity when it got in bed with football schools. Instead of trying to keep Syracuse and BC, they probably would have been better off ro let them walk back in the '80's and have replaced them with Notre Dame, Marquette and DePaul back then.

[Bill Marsh]

To the “Brand management” point, the brand is more than “who brings in what RIGHT NOW.” Brands evolve and change.

More of your teams getting NCAA bids, period, improves the overall brand.

You talk about Gonzaga being the only team out there that has such a national reputation prestigious enough to help the brand… How’d the get that? And how’d you 10 get your reputations?

MAKING & WINNING IN THE DANCE. Period.

The more years you go with teams like St. John’s, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown MISSING the NCAA Tournament, the more their brands devalue.

If adding Gonzaga makes them as strong of a program nationally as Nova, you’re going to add a bid, and their brand maintains, but teams 7-8-9-10-11 will see their brands diminish by making the NCAA Tournament less that historically.

However, if you handled expansion the other way, and brought in the programs best for the REST OF YOU, then you get more bids, upping the overall brand. More bids = more chances at wins (and the money that comes with it) and more of YOUR ORIGINAL MEMBERS are getting your allocation of bids.

What do you care if your new additions finish last? Someone’s gotta. Why have it be you?

This isn't only about getting more bids. It must be about getting the right combination of bids and solid seeds with those bids. It's about sending a logical number into the Tournament and then having those teams be in position to advance. You may have missed the thread here that was about the Big East earning $20 million in 17 days. Xavier screwed that up - not helping the conference to earn more - when it decided to play poorly against the Badgers. Nonetheless, 5 teams made it in and let's just say that the overall conference performance was exemplary. Round One saw a 4-1 performance. Round Two took it to 5-4. There is no arguing with ending up at 7-4 and with a National Championship, thanks in large measure to one of our two 2-Seeds punching through to Houston to victory.

I otherwise wouldn't worry about Marquette, Creighton and Georgetown, in particular, when it comes to realizing long absences from the Tournament. They're highly likely to correct that issue next year.

You otherwise don't seem to grasp the value of competition. Were a Gonzaga to come into this conference, they would be the ones who would have to initially make the adjustment to what is a true grind. I've been a direct witness to competition in the A10 and competition in the Big East. There is no comparison. There are no nights off at LossSalle or Fordham in the Big East.

Overall, were the Big East to add programs at all, adding better programs would make the existing programs work that much harder. Brands do evolve and change. Presently, the Big East brand is strengthening and in a big way. There is no reason to dilute what the Big East is building by adding any team from the A10. For that matter, adding Gonzaga right now makes no sense.

Great post!

More bids have little value if the teams getting to the tournament don't win games. Fewer bids have more value than more bids if the fewer bids actually win a bunch of games and th more bids don't.

[alduflux]

In 1985, Louisville hired Howard Scnellenberger away from Miami where he had built a dying program into a powerhouse.

I just wanted to clarify that Schnellenberger left the Miami Hurricanes for the USFL, not Louisville. That USFL team folded a year later. When Louisville hired him he was not coaching.