Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[Bill Marsh]

Wichita State has been to 3 tournaments in the last 35 years. Even in Marshall's 9 years, they had tournament success with basically one team - the one that went to the Elite 8 in 2012 and advanced to the Final Four the following year.

I hate Wichita State but you aren't stating facts. Wichita State has Tourney appearances in 2006 and each consecutive year beginning in 2012. Wichita did not make the Elite 8 in 2012, they got bounced in the first round by VCU. After their 2013 Final Four run, they went 34-0 in the regular season and earned a No. 1 seed in 2014, losing in the second round to Kentucky. They reached the Sweet 16 in 2015, and lost in the second round in 2016.

The reason Wichita State will likely be competitive going forward even if Marshall leaves is because they spend money like a P5/BE program and expect to win. Their ceiling and their floor aligns with programs like Memphis, Cincy, and Tulsa, which is why the AAC is probably a good fit for them.

Thanks for the corrections. My apologies for the errors. See my explanation in my post to Stever. I shouldn't post when I'm too busy to get the details correct.

The AAC may be a good fit for them, but adding them wouldn't be a positive step for the AAC. They bring a much smaller market than VCU and would continue to imbalance the conference west of the Mississippi. They would need an East Coast team for an Atlantic division and to reduce the isolation that already exists for UConn & Temple basketball programs, 2 of the strongest hoops programs in the conference. WSU's spending on its program is very similar to VCU's.

[Bill Marsh]

The reason Wichita State will likely be competitive going forward even if Marshall leaves is because they spend money like a P5/BE program and expect to win. Their ceiling and their floor aligns with programs like Memphis, Cincy, and Tulsa, which is why the AAC is probably a good fit for them.

Their building is named after the Koch Bros who supplement Marshall's salary to the tune of $3-4M a year. He now makes more than most Big East coaches and there is a bottomless pit of money available because of the Kochs.

Respect all the opinions, but yeah I don't think it's any more likely for Marshall to leave that program than any of current BE coaches to leave for greener pastures. If the move to AAC is true, doesn't it make losing Marshall even less likely?

If Marshall prefers to play in the AAC than a power conference, he's probably the only coach this side of Mark Few who feels that way.

still think UCONN wants back in the Big East with or without BCS football program. They're so far removed from the rest of AAC (except middling Temple) geologically, and a 6 team eastern BE division with UCONN, Providence, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Nova, and Georgetown works beautifully for basketball. Well, whatever, I think we're in a good position to take the wait and see approach. As things stand, the Big East is the dream destination for every basketball school in the country.

I live near UConn and I've seen no evidence that UConn wants back in the Big East. Where do you get your information?

[Bill Marsh]

I mean, you could have said the same thing about Butler once Stevens left. Stevens put Butler on the map. The BE took a chance on Butler right when Stevens was leaving for the Celtics. And Holtmann wasn't even their first choice to succeed Stevens. So they've had two head coaches since Stevens left and have proven they are here to stay. Obviously no two situations are exactly the same, but I don't think you can not take a quality school just because one day they might not be what they are today because of a coaching change. I think it would be a great move for the AAC and would clearly be one to make UConn, Cincy, Temple, and Memphis happy. Now that UConn and Cincy are starting to realize that getting out of the conference for a F5 conference is going to be extremely difficult, I'm sure they had some demands to make the basketball conference stronger.

On an unrelated note, I have a question for Stever. I have an honest question that maybe other people have too? Being relatively new to the site (just about a year), I never got the background of your enthusiasm for the AAC. Being a Georgetown fan, how did you become a fan of the AAC? I'm genuinely curious, but if you don't feel the need to answer, that's fine as well. And this was not trying to be snarky at all; I've just been been wondering for a little while so figured I'd ask!

With all due respect Fenway - and I do respect another member of the Friar family - I don't see the Wichita and Butler situations as being even remotely comparable. In 26 years before Marshall got to Wichita, the Shockers had been to exactly 1 tournament - a Sweet 16 in 2006. So, they were a 1 year wonder who has missed the tournament for 24 consecutive seasons before that. Even under Marshall they have gone to the tournament only twice - their Final Four and an Elite 8. As of today they've won a total of 9 tournament games in the last 35 years. They didn't have a program before Marshall got there. He built the program.

Even before Stephens got to Butler, the Bulldogs had already built a program that was a consistent winner. Dating back to 1997, they had been to 6 tournaments under 3 different coaches before Stephens, including 2 Sweet 16's. Barry Collier, the coach who had built the program in the 1990's was the AD. Stephens was the 4th Butler coach to take them to the tournament. By the time that Butler was admitted to the Big East, they had been to 11 tournaments, 4 Sweet 16's, and 2 championship games, and had won a total of 16 tournament games. Stephens took Buter to the pinnacle of their success, but he built on what his predecessors had done. He didn't create the success at Butler, he extended it. They had a far more extensive resume than Wichita State has.

Beyond the coaches and the wins and losses, Butler is located in a big city, the capitol of a basketball mad state. Wichita is in the middle of corn country.

My point was that the Big East wouldn't have come calling for Butler without Stevens' success. Just like the AAC wouldn't have come calling for Wichita without Marshall's success.

Fair point. Thanks for the clarification.

Prior to each head coach, Butler had made it into a total of 7 NCAA tournaments and Wichita had made it into a total of 8 NCAA tournaments. Obviously Butler had had much better recent success before Stevens became HC than Wichita before Marshall, no doubt. But it's also important to note Stevens was an assistant at Butler since 2001 during their S16 appearances in '03 and '07, so it's not like he didn't have any impact on their success in the early 2000's. Stevens turned a respectable program into a national brand. Marshall turned an average program into a national brand. C'mon, to say that each situation is not "even remotely comparable" is an absurd statement. So my main point, as I mentioned, wasn't that their histories were the same, but that it's very possible to continue sustained success after the most important coach in school history leaves. Your point made it seem that the AAC having any interest at all in Wichita was a bad idea just because Marshall might leave at some point. As people have pointed out, when school has a 3-4M budget for a head coach, they'll be just fine.

And your point about Butler being in a big city and Wichita being in the middle of nowhere is true, but this move clearly wouldn't have anything to do with media market or tv. It has everything to do with keeping UConn and Cincy (and Temple & Memphis to a lesser degree) happy.

If they want to keep UConn, Cincy, and Temple happy, I don't expect they're going to do it by adding a program half way across the country.

[stever20]

Wichita State has been to 3 tournaments in the last 35 years. Even in Marshall's 9 years, they had tournament success with basically one team - the one that went to the Elite 8 in 2012 and advanced to the Final Four the following year.

I hate Wichita State but you aren't stating facts. Wichita State has Tourney appearances in 2006 and each consecutive year beginning in 2012. Wichita did not make the Elite 8 in 2012, they got bounced in the first round by VCU. After their 2013 Final Four run, they went 34-0 in the regular season and earned a No. 1 seed in 2014, losing in the second round to Kentucky. They reached the Sweet 16 in 2015, and lost in the second round in 2016.

The reason Wichita State will likely be competitive going forward even if Marshall leaves is because they spend money like a P5/BE program and expect to win. Their ceiling and their floor aligns with programs like Memphis, Cincy, and Tulsa, which is why the AAC is probably a good fit for them.

Thanks for the corrections. My apologies for the errors. See my explanation in my post to Stever. I shouldn't post when I'm too busy to get the details correct.

The AAC may be a good fit for them, but adding them wouldn't be a positive step for the AAC. They bring a much smaller market than VCU and would continue to imbalance the conference west of the Mississippi. They would need an East Coast team for an Atlantic division and to reduce the isolation that already exists for UConn & Temple basketball programs, 2 of the strongest hoops programs in the conference. WSU's spending on its program is very similar to VCU's.

In basketball you just don't see basketball divisions in the major conferences.

Also if Wichita came- you would have Tulsa, Wichita, Houston, SMU, Tulane, and Memphis in the central time zone. That's 6. You would have UConn, Temple, Cincy, ECU, USF, and UCF in the eastern time zone. That's 6. So how is that exactly imbalancing the conference?

[JPSchmack]

The problem with gaming the system is there are no guarantees that teams are going to behave as you expect. Also there are no guarantees that the committee is going to behave (SBU had an RPI of 30 last year and was still left out.) Expansion should only be done if there is a program that is consistently competitive at a high level and has a good brand. After that you let the chips lay where they may.

There are no guarantees, true. But there’s tons of data on how programs behave over time:
- Butler averaged 20 wins over a 19-year stretch, you know Butler’s good.
- The Big East has never suffered the level of disrespect the Bonnies suffered last season, where the BCS administrators on the committee think the A-10 is a JV league so Bonaventure’s marquee conference wins over Dayton and St. Joe’s were rendered meaningless. The A-10 hasn’t won a national championship since… La Salle in the 1950s before the league was formed (I think?). The perception of the A-10 as weak wouldn’t apply in the Big East. It is irrelevant.

And you’re applying “How everyone else handles expansion” to the Big East, when the Big East isn’t like everyone else for one simple reason:

What's more is that the Big East showed they didn't want to play that game in breaking off to begin with. The C7 schools had an opportunity to inflate their records by feasting on the likes of East Carolina, Navy, USF, and Tulane every year, but opted to break off because that's exactly what they didn't want to do. The whole point of breaking off was to form a strong basketball conference where everyone is competitive top to bottom, and we're almost there. There's no benefit to adding more deadwood to the bottom of the conference.

The old Big East added those schools that weren’t good in basketball because they were “needed” FOR FOOTBALL. The C7 split so they could make BASKETBALL DECISIONS. And this is a basketball decision.

We’re not talking about “deadwood” to the bottom of the league. We’re talking about strategic balance to the league, how to manage “the conference factor” to create “a strong basketball conference where everyone is competitive” with the REST OF THE COUNTRY, instead of “from top to bottom.”

Why is being competitive “top to bottom” important? Why does that make you a “Strong Conference?” Does it make you a “strong conference” from an “every game is hard”
All you’re doing is forcing Georgetown and Marquette to finish WORSE than they are capable of.

Sounds good in theory. The problem is it's not true. The bigger sized conferences do NOT "routinely get 6-9 bids annually." They just don't.

Conferences with numbers will not get a lot of bids solely on the basis of numbers. (See SEC.) It's the big 12 and the Big East who have been securing bids for half their member or more. The 4 other football conferences have fallen below half their membership for the 5 years.

YES! This is the kind of data analysis you need to configure the best possible conference! But the one thing you’re omitting is the one thing that I KNOW YOU KNOW: The Big East is the best basketball-first conference in the country.

What on earth makes you think that if the Big East had 14 teams, you’d make your decisions like the SEC, which is a football-first conference? You’re not going to add a terrible Missouri basketball team because they’re good at football, are you? No! This is about “what’s best for the Big East, and WHY?”

The WHY is what’s important to me. I know I SOUND crazy, but the explanation and trying to illustrate the effect is data-driven.
Repeating conventional wisdom that “Adding good teams makes you better” really has no data-driven evidence because there’s no other conference that has eight good basketball teams and only two not so good teams and made a decision to expand based on basketball.

[JPSchmack]

BillM nails it yet again. If the argument for expansion is to allow for more middling teams to get wins vs more/new bottom dwellers, it is a loser mentality and proposition. The middle of the SEC doesn't have a better chance to make the tourney b/c of multiple wins vs Mizzou, and the increased size certainly doesn't contribute to a better conference or more bids.

I feel your pain JPS but I don't think St. Bonnie's provides much of anything to consider as a expansion candidate at this point.

Forget “St. Bonaventure.” I’m not arguing that people are wrong because of St. Bonaventure. I’m arguing people are wrong when they’re wrong.

You cannot use the SEC as the basis for “More teams doesn’t automatically mean more bids” because the SEC doesn’t have 7-8 teams as good as your top 7-8 teams:

SEC | BE (or Big XII)
NCAA STUD | NCAA STUD
NCAA STUD | NCAA STUD
BUBBLE/NIT | NCAA TEAM
BUBBLE/NIT | NCAA TEAM
BUBBLE/NIT | NCAA TEAM
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE/NIT
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE/NIT
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE/NIT
NOT GOOD | NOT THAT GOOD
JUST BAD | NOT THAT GOOD
JUST BAD
JUST BAD
JUST BAD
JUST BAD

The Big East’s top eight are 12-1 against the SEC the last two years. Creighton smoked Alabama in the NIT by 20. The lone SEC win is #5 RPI Florida over Hall this season. The Big East NIT-resumes smoked the SEC bubble teams, 4-0 last year. (Give the A-10 and SEC the same budget for scheduling, and they’d be behind us).

Your Bubble/NIT teams WOULD be good enough to get NCAA bids if the Big East had THIRDS: Top, Middle, Bottom. You’ve got a 4-team Top, a 4-team middle, and a 2-team bottom. That’s why Georgetown/Marquette LOOK like bottom teams, even though they aren’t.

We’re talking about THIS vs THIS:

BE 10 | BE 13
NCAA STUD | NCAA STUD
NCAA STUD | NCAA STUD
NCAA TEAM | NCAA TEAM
NCAA TEAM | NCAA TEAM
NCAA TEAM | NCAA TEAM
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE IN
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE IN
BUBBLE/NIT | BUBBLE/NIT
NOT GOOD | BUBBLE/NIT
NOT GOOD | NOT GOOD
XXXXXXXXXX | NOT GOOD
XXXXXXXXXX | NOT GOOD
XXXXXXXXXX | NOT GOOD

The Pac-12 (last season) is a far better example of what you should be trying to do. Only you’re better than the Pac-12 as well. You out performed them in the NCAA’s by one unit, and you did so with two fewer bids.

[JPSchmack]

I don’t think going FBS and joining the American is the smartest move for the future of Wichita State basketball or athletics, because they’re chasing revenue simply not available to them unless they join the Big Ten, SEC or ACC (which ain’t happening).

But I understand why they did it.

They know they can’t get into the Big East, because the Big East is all private schools, and the current 5 midwest/5 east would mean they’d need a eastern partner and the BE isn’t interested in anyone on the Eastern seaboard cause they don’t bring anything to the table (although, Davidson would fit my model quite well).

They know they can’t get into the West Coast Conference, because the WCC is all private schools and the second-closest team to Wichita is 1300 miles away.

The only conference that’s better than the MVC, doesn’t have FBS football, AND accepts public schools would be the A-10, who’s second-closest member is 800 miles away. As an A-10 fan, I’d say add Wichita State right now, because it makes us better. But I think geography makes that a no go.

[BEwannabe]

Good stuff JP! You had me at, "I like Dayton" and you've convinced me UD should only go to NBE in a 4 team expansion so they can play in the middle or top tier year in and out. Teams in current Big East relegated to 7-10 spots annually are going to have a hard time.

I know it's not wanted at any level currently but there is going to come the day when the NBE expands. ESPN and Fox will not be ponying up the kind of money in the first contract as both are having trouble with finances so much so Disney has considered selling ESPN. The future contract will likely demand more content for less dollars.

[stever20]

I don’t think going FBS and joining the American is the smartest move for the future of Wichita State basketball or athletics, because they’re chasing revenue simply not available to them unless they join the Big Ten, SEC or ACC (which ain’t happening).

But I understand why they did it.

They know they can’t get into the Big East, because the Big East is all private schools, and the current 5 midwest/5 east would mean they’d need a eastern partner and the BE isn’t interested in anyone on the Eastern seaboard cause they don’t bring anything to the table (although, Davidson would fit my model quite well).

They know they can’t get into the West Coast Conference, because the WCC is all private schools and the second-closest team to Wichita is 1300 miles away.

The only conference that’s better than the MVC, doesn’t have FBS football, AND accepts public schools would be the A-10, who’s second-closest member is 800 miles away. As an A-10 fan, I’d say add Wichita State right now, because it makes us better. But I think geography makes that a no go.

The thing with Wichita is they had to do it because if not, the way the MVC is tracking, it's going to start hurting them more and more and more. Instead, they get into a conference stronger than the MVC has been in 10 years with a chance to be even stronger than that.

[JPSchmack]

The thing with Wichita is they had to do it because if not, the way the MVC is tracking, it's going to start hurting them more and more and more. Instead, they get into a conference stronger than the MVC has been in 10 years with a chance to be even stronger than that.

I agree on the future of the MVC. I just view the problem as the massive expense of adding FBS football. And how that diverts money away from spending on MBB.

20 programs are revenue positive in football -- which is a misleading statistic, because as non-profits, all colleges are going to spend more than they bring in, solely because they're going to aggressively spend to make their programs better and hope those expenses bring in more revenue. Most schools view athletics as "University Advertising" so it's TOTALLY FINE to lose like $2 million a season for all the exposure your school gets.

But FBS football in a "group of five" conference doesn't bring in large revenue. WSU's football study projects a budget of about $6 million, and initial startup costs of like, $60 million.

I just think they'd be FAR, FAR, FAR better off if they could be the 12th full member of the AAC in all sports but football, with Navy football being the 12th football member. Or, if the AAC isn't willing, same situation for Hawai'i in the Mountain West.