Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[_lh]

UCONN is not in great shape if they get left behind in the AAC. They may find out by this summer that they are left out and have to re-evaluate pursuing big time football. Sunk costs are sunk costs but only idiots continue to throw money at a losing proposition.

It may be a long shot but the long shots are the only ones that make sense for additions. The BE can stay at 10 and be just fine or welcome in a long shot or two if things break that way. There is no need to add anyone else...ever.

Idiots and visionaries.

You really don't understand what UConn's vision is and you should before commenting on what's in their future. I expect that the Big East office has researched this and understands fully what's going on in Storrs. As a result, I don't expect that they're wasting any time on considering this as a future contingency.

UConn wants to be affiliated wth like institutions. That's not The Big East. Similarly the new Big East wants to be affiliated with like institutions as well. That's not UConn.

This kind of discussion is simply a parlor game for college basketball fans. It's not how university presidents think. Nor is it how their Boards and major boosters think either.

They may have been visionaries 10 plus years ago but now they are looking more like idiots with each passing day. Was it a good investment/gamble 20 years ago? At the time, it seemed so and it still may pan out but it is not looking good.

If the Big XII expands to 12 teams and UCONN is not one of them, UCONN football will continue to lose money and prestige by the hour. Someone posted here or on another site about the financial trouble UCONN is in because of them chasing this vision you keep talking about. Without a P5 conference affiliation, that vision is a fool's vision!

UCONN may want a lot of things but what UCONN wants and what they actually get may be two entirely different things. We all WANT stuff but we don't necessarily GET it. UCONN does not appear to be in a good position to get anything they want.

You don't get it do you? I don't care what UCONN wants and neither does the BE. The BE does not need UCONN. UCONN may not want to be in the BE but it may turn out in 10 years to be the best option for them. If that proves to be true, then the BE could add them and their two great college basketball teams. If not, fine, stay at 10.

To say it will never happen just because it's not what UCONN WANTS is just ignorant.

[Fieldhouse Flyer]

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?

Thank you very much Devil's Advocate – good catch. Butler

I corrected that typo in my first post on Page 11 and the edited version is awaiting approval by a Moderator.

To my second post on Page 11, I added the Enrolment figures for Big East schools because Enrolment is a proxy indicator of the number of present and future alumni – many of whom are or will become Big East basketball fans. The edited version of that post is also awaiting approval by a Moderator.

Hi guys,

I approved the long posts by Fieldhouse Flyer, because he put a ton of work into them and in the spirit of goodwill.

Some day, and that day may never come, we will call upon him to do a service for us and/or he might possibly be invited to join us in the Big East. But until that day, consider this justice a gift on our daughter's wedding day** and/or on the morning after our Villanova brothers won the National Championship.

** paraphrased "Godfather" quote, of course

Thank you very much billyjack.

[Michael in Raleigh]

UConn is such an interesting case because even though they were at the bottom of the league for the first ten years of the league's existence, they are the most successful men's basketball program that ever played under the Big East banner. Combined with their utter dominance in women's hoops, there's irony that they, along with Cincy and USF, ended up in the least prestigious league for basketball (the others being the Big East, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten, which sort of take turns as the best league year to year).

I used to argue that UConn should try to get back in the Big East, the conference with the highest number of former rivals, and maybe try to become football-only members of the Mountain West or even try independence. I said that going to the MAC or C-USA for football only, pretending that either would even be interested, would knowingly degrade football, and that UConn is never going to do that on purpose. The Mountain West would be close enough to a lateral move for football from the American. Independence, I said, would work through some sort of brilliance in scheduling and brilliance in negotiating a decent TV contract with ESPN.

Now I'm beginning to realize that the attitude is that basketball can take care of itself. UConn feels that it has built enough of a brand name in hoops that people will still come to games regardless of who they're playing. They're going to rely more on pre-conference games against former Big East rivals as well as nationally respected programs like Ohio State and Arizona, but they're not as worried about basketball. And hey, at least there are some good teams in the American (Memphis, Cincy, Temple, Tulsa is decent, SMU is good for now, Houston maybe). The attitude for basketball seems more like, "Yes we miss the Big East, but this isn't the end of the world. We're still UConn." They don't believe that being in the American can ruin basketball, even if their league isn't what it used to be. They think that the BE Tournament can't ever be replicated, but they can still get on the New York stage by playing against St. John's and doing other neutral site games their. They seem to think that will be good enough.

Football, though, is the program they really have to fight for. Going independent or joining the Mountain West for football would be too much of a risk. Again, the belief is that basketball will be okay whether they're in the Big East, American, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten... whatever. But football would be compromised by leaving the American for an uncertainty like the MWC or for independence.

UConn's best case scenario would be for, somehow, the Longhorn Network to be converted into the Big 12 Network. Without a Big 12 Network, UConn is a lot less appealing, but because conference networks can capitalize so much on the idea that cable subscribers would pay to have the local school's network in their basic package. Without a conference network, markets matter a lot less and quality of football (i.e., willingness of casual fans to watch across the nation) matters more; Houston wouldn't want a conference network because it adds absolutely nothing to the Big 12's list of markets covered. With a conference network, quality of football matters less and presence in new, large markets matters more (i.e., Rutgers & Maryland in the Big Ten).

I think UConn will be willing to wait a long time for the Big 12, ACC, or Big Ten to come calling. Football is a very long-term investment for them, and it would have to take far more radical events than conference realignment for them to drop it. For example, if the viewership and interest level in football drops over the next 20 years as dramatically as interest in boxing has dropped over the past 25-30 years (due to less participation, ever-increasing scrutiny over football-related health hazards, etc.), then sure, it may be worth dropping. But UConn wouldn't be alone in a case like that. LOTS of schools would be dropping football, and it would not just be a UConn issue. Otherwise, the allure of that sport is going cause UConn to keep digging in. Every tiny bit of positive reinforcement, like their upset over 13-1 Houston last year, is all they need to keep on trying to make football more appealing for these other leagues.

From the Big East's perspective, there shouldn't be so much concern. UConn's problem isn't their problem.

[_lh]

UConn is such an interesting case because even though they were at the bottom of the league for the first ten years of the league's existence, they are the most successful men's basketball program that ever played under the Big East banner. Combined with their utter dominance in women's hoops, there's irony that they, along with Cincy and USF, ended up in the least prestigious league for basketball (the others being the Big East, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten, which sort of take turns as the best league year to year).

I used to argue that UConn should try to get back in the Big East, the conference with the highest number of former rivals, and maybe try to become football-only members of the Mountain West or even try independence. I said that going to the MAC or C-USA for football only, pretending that either would even be interested, would knowingly degrade football, and that UConn is never going to do that on purpose. The Mountain West would be close enough to a lateral move for football from the American. Independence, I said, would work through some sort of brilliance in scheduling and brilliance in negotiating a decent TV contract with ESPN.

Now I'm beginning to realize that the attitude is that basketball can take care of itself. UConn feels that it has built enough of a brand name in hoops that people will still come to games regardless of who they're playing. They're going to rely more on pre-conference games against former Big East rivals as well as nationally respected programs like Ohio State and Arizona, but they're not as worried about basketball. And hey, at least there are some good teams in the American (Memphis, Cincy, Temple, Tulsa is decent, SMU is good for now, Houston maybe). The attitude for basketball seems more like, "Yes we miss the Big East, but this isn't the end of the world. We're still UConn." They don't believe that being in the American can ruin basketball, even if their league isn't what it used to be. They think that the BE Tournament can't ever be replicated, but they can still get on the New York stage by playing against St. John's and doing other neutral site games their. They seem to think that will be good enough.

Football, though, is the program they really have to fight for. Going independent or joining the Mountain West for football would be too much of a risk. Again, the belief is that basketball will be okay whether they're in the Big East, American, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten... whatever. But football would be compromised by leaving the American for an uncertainty like the MWC or for independence.

UConn's best case scenario would be for, somehow, the Longhorn Network to be converted into the Big 12 Network. Without a Big 12 Network, UConn is a lot less appealing, but because conference networks can capitalize so much on the idea that cable subscribers would pay to have the local school's network in their basic package. Without a conference network, markets matter a lot less and quality of football (i.e., willingness of casual fans to watch across the nation) matters more; Houston wouldn't want a conference network because it adds absolutely nothing to the Big 12's list of markets covered. With a conference network, quality of football matters less and presence in new, large markets matters more (i.e., Rutgers & Maryland in the Big Ten).

I think UConn will be willing to wait a long time for the Big 12, ACC, or Big Ten to come calling. Football is a very long-term investment for them, and it would have to take far more radical events than conference realignment for them to drop it. For example, if the viewership and interest level in football drops over the next 20 years as dramatically as interest in boxing has dropped over the past 25-30 years (due to less participation, ever-increasing scrutiny over football-related health hazards, etc.), then sure, it may be worth dropping. But UConn wouldn't be alone in a case like that. LOTS of schools would be dropping football, and it would not just be a UConn issue. Otherwise, the allure of that sport is going cause UConn to keep digging in. Every tiny bit of positive reinforcement, like their upset over 13-1 Houston last year, is all they need to keep on trying to make football more appealing for these other leagues.

From the Big East's perspective, there shouldn't be so much concern. UConn's problem isn't their problem.

Fantastic post!

Basketball and even more so woman's basketball does not need conference affiliation to flourish. I think most understand this. UCONN can win and have won both men's and women's National Championships in basketball in the AAC. Football is the issue/problem for UCONN and UC for that matter. Living in Cincinnati, I can see it first hand for UC but I don't care about UC and only care about UCONN if they make the wise decision to drop football down or altogether.

Here is the problem both have, without P5 money and affiliation, how long can UCONN and UC survive trying to keep football programs? Are both okay being Akron for the next several decades? Eventually money runs out, yes? UC is in a deep hole financially and I believe UCONN is too. If the Big XII makes a move this year and UCONN is left out, what then?

[Xudash]

Great perspective MiR.

Everything you wrote makes sense from a strategic and positioning point of view.

I just wonder what it all looks like for UCONN from a financial point of view when it comes to the cost of carry for football. I can't recall the exact numbers, but part of UCONN's Income Statement is about the continuing collection of BE Split run-off monies - the pot of money the AAC schools took with them when they agreed to "walk away" from the Big East. That "fund" is amortizing rather quickly, if I recall correctly.

How many more years of that strip of revenue can they rely upon?

What kind of deficits will they start running after that strip dries up, especially if on-field performance isn't sufficient to draw a strong gate for their home games?

I get the notion that they're heavily invested in the sport, and that they clearly see the value of the end game as being membership in a P5 conference. It's just that they're not the Federal Government; they can't run-up deficits forever chasing a dream. Or can they?

[JPSchmack]

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.

More IS better for you, period. How on earth is sneaking another team in the field because you’re not shooting yourself in the foot administratively affecting anything at THE TOP of the league? What do you think is going to happen to the Big East reputation and seeding if you get more bids to the tournament every year?

“Oh, that silly Big East sends 7 or 8 every year, their regular season champion isn’t very good, so they get a nine seed.”

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.

And who’s arguing that? Whether or not your 6th and 7th place teams get into the dance doesn’t change a single thing for Villanova.

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.

Yes, but it’s going to be at the expense of someone else. You cannot ALL WIN.

You otherwise don't seem to grasp the value of competition.

And you don’t seem to understand that your true grind is grinding three NCAA teams down into NIT squads.

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.

Insanity.

1. You need the bid to get into the tournament to possibly get some wins.
2. You have no way of knowing if the team “left out” was going to lose in the first round or go on a Cinderella run.

3. There’s an actual cash value on making the tournament and losing, and that’s $1.7 million. Which is $1.7 million above “little value.” And that’s to say nothing of what “being on the bracket” does for your image.

4. Being in the NCAA Tournament is greater than any outcome for the season that doesn’t not include the NCAA Tournament.

The Bracket is where your reputation is made: Even if you lose, 100 million Americans had to decide on whether or not to pick you in their bracket.

[Xudash]

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.

More IS better for you, period. How on earth is sneaking another team in the field because you’re not shooting yourself in the foot administratively affecting anything at THE TOP of the league? What do you think is going to happen to the Big East reputation and seeding if you get more bids to the tournament every year?

“Oh, that silly Big East sends 7 or 8 every year, their regular season champion isn’t very good, so they get a nine seed.”

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.

And who’s arguing that? Whether or not your 6th and 7th place teams get into the dance doesn’t change a single thing for Villanova.

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.

Yes, but it’s going to be at the expense of someone else. You cannot ALL WIN.

You otherwise don't seem to grasp the value of competition.

And you don’t seem to understand that your true grind is grinding three NCAA teams down into NIT squads.

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.

Insanity.

1. You need the bid to get into the tournament to possibly get some wins.
2. You have no way of knowing if the team “left out” was going to lose in the first round or go on a Cinderella run.

3. There’s an actual cash value on making the tournament and losing, and that’s $1.7 million. Which is $1.7 million above “little value.” And that’s to say nothing of what “being on the bracket” does for your image.

4. Being in the NCAA Tournament is greater than any outcome for the season that doesn’t not include the NCAA Tournament.

The Bracket is where your reputation is made: Even if you lose, 100 million Americans had to decide on whether or not to pick you in their bracket.

What part of the following don't you understand:

NCAA TOURNAMENT RECORDS BY CONFERENCE

The first record is the league's record in tournament games. The second record is “upsets”: wins as a lower seed-losses as a higher seed. Teams have to be more than one seed apart to count in the upset record.

ACC: 19-7, 2-1
Big East: 9-4, 0-2
West Coast: 2-1, 2-0
Missouri Valley: 3-2, 2-0
Big 12: 9-7, 0-3
Big Ten: 8-7, 1-2
SEC: 3-3, 0-0
Atlantic Sun: 1-1, 0-0
Big West: 1-1, 1-0
Conference USA: 1-1, 1-0
Ivy League: 1-1, 1-0
Patriot: 1-1, 0-0
Southland: 1-1, 1-0
Sun Belt: 1-1, 1-0
Pac-12: 4-7, 0-4
A-10: 2-3, 1-1
American: 1-4, 0-0
15 other conferences: 0-1, 0-0

It isn't even that linear. The A10 is watered down now. The Big East's record against the A10 this year was something like 7-2, including your CoCoCo-Champ having its ass handed to it in Orlando by 29 points. You put a couple A10 teams into the Big East mix and they'll get slaughtered, which means their performance numbers tank, which means the Big East teams that would have to play them would see some degradation in their numbers.

You're singular case for expansion for the purpose of gaming bids is simply myopic. We - the Big East - would get creamed in the national press and in national perception if we brought aboard a couple mid-majors out of the A10.

We love the round robin. We are closely united with one another. We cheer for each other during the OOC slate and during the post-season, and we otherwise look forward to pounding each other during conference play.

We've already proven that we can get 60% of the conference into the NCAA Tournament. We just earned $20 million in 17 days. And now a National Champion has come from the Big East.

You are simply flat out wrong about maximizing - gaming - bids. It is not the end all end game when it comes to managing a conference and a conference's brand. IT ISN'T! Val and the Presidents are very sharp people. They get it and they like what they have, and Fox and MSG are loving it as well.

DILUTION IS NOT THE ANSWER. There is nothing that you can offer - IN FACT - given what happened this year with the Big East, especially compared to what happened in a weaker, but certainly diluted A10, that will convince anyone around here that adding a couple A10 teams to the existing Big East would result in a positive outcome. No one in their right mind would pursue a dilution strategy to game a couple more bids - possibly, never any guaranties when it comes to this stuff - in the face of what the Big East is now accomplishing as it exists.

[Bill Marsh]

UConn is such an interesting case because even though they were at the bottom of the league for the first ten years of the league's existence, they are the most successful men's basketball program that ever played under the Big East banner. Combined with their utter dominance in women's hoops, there's irony that they, along with Cincy and USF, ended up in the least prestigious league for basketball (the others being the Big East, ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten, which sort of take turns as the best league year to year).

I used to argue that UConn should try to get back in the Big East, the conference with the highest number of former rivals, and maybe try to become football-only members of the Mountain West or even try independence. I said that going to the MAC or C-USA for football only, pretending that either would even be interested, would knowingly degrade football, and that UConn is never going to do that on purpose. The Mountain West would be close enough to a lateral move for football from the American. Independence, I said, would work through some sort of brilliance in scheduling and brilliance in negotiating a decent TV contract with ESPN.

Now I'm beginning to realize that the attitude is that basketball can take care of itself. UConn feels that it has built enough of a brand name in hoops that people will still come to games regardless of who they're playing. They're going to rely more on pre-conference games against former Big East rivals as well as nationally respected programs like Ohio State and Arizona, but they're not as worried about basketball. And hey, at least there are some good teams in the American (Memphis, Cincy, Temple, Tulsa is decent, SMU is good for now, Houston maybe). The attitude for basketball seems more like, "Yes we miss the Big East, but this isn't the end of the world. We're still UConn." They don't believe that being in the American can ruin basketball, even if their league isn't what it used to be. They think that the BE Tournament can't ever be replicated, but they can still get on the New York stage by playing against St. John's and doing other neutral site games their. They seem to think that will be good enough.

Football, though, is the program they really have to fight for. Going independent or joining the Mountain West for football would be too much of a risk. Again, the belief is that basketball will be okay whether they're in the Big East, American, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten... whatever. But football would be compromised by leaving the American for an uncertainty like the MWC or for independence.

UConn's best case scenario would be for, somehow, the Longhorn Network to be converted into the Big 12 Network. Without a Big 12 Network, UConn is a lot less appealing, but because conference networks can capitalize so much on the idea that cable subscribers would pay to have the local school's network in their basic package. Without a conference network, markets matter a lot less and quality of football (i.e., willingness of casual fans to watch across the nation) matters more; Houston wouldn't want a conference network because it adds absolutely nothing to the Big 12's list of markets covered. With a conference network, quality of football matters less and presence in new, large markets matters more (i.e., Rutgers & Maryland in the Big Ten).

I think UConn will be willing to wait a long time for the Big 12, ACC, or Big Ten to come calling. Football is a very long-term investment for them, and it would have to take far more radical events than conference realignment for them to drop it. For example, if the viewership and interest level in football drops over the next 20 years as dramatically as interest in boxing has dropped over the past 25-30 years (due to less participation, ever-increasing scrutiny over football-related health hazards, etc.), then sure, it may be worth dropping. But UConn wouldn't be alone in a case like that. LOTS of schools would be dropping football, and it would not just be a UConn issue. Otherwise, the allure of that sport is going cause UConn to keep digging in. Every tiny bit of positive reinforcement, like their upset over 13-1 Houston last year, is all they need to keep on trying to make football more appealing for these other leagues.

From the Big East's perspective, there shouldn't be so much concern. UConn's problem isn't their problem.

Hits the nail on the head.

[Bill Marsh]

Here is the problem both have, without P5 money and affiliation, how long can UCONN and UC survive trying to keep football programs? Are both okay being Akron for the next several decades? Eventually money runs out, yes? UC is in a deep hole financially and I believe UCONN is too. If the Big XII makes a move this year and UCONN is left out, what then?

Money is not and will not be a problem for UConn. (IDK about Cincy.) Remember, this is Connecticut we're talking about, the state withthehighest per capita income in the country. The university has statewide support, statewide interest, and statewide media coverage. Their BOT 2 months ago approved a plan for the independent fundraising arm of athletics to tap new, non-tuition sources of funding. They understand the financial implications of being in the AAC and they have a plan to deal with it.

UConn is not Akron and never will be. UConn is the flagship university of the state and the only major player in college athletics in a state of almost 4 million - with no instate competition from professional sports. Akron is one of a handful of regional public universities in Ohio, none of which are anything more than mid major in any sport, they all rank behind TOSU & Cincy. Akron has no major presence or revenue in any sport while UConn is. The most successful basketball program in the country in recent years - both men's and women's. That makes UConn immediately relevant in a way that Akron never will be, the analogy doesn't work.

UConn is not in a deep hole financially and is unlikely ever to be in one. Thy simply are not.

UConn would obviously accept an invitation from the Big XII if it comes. But if it doesn't, that's not the ended the world because it's not really what they aspire to. They want to be able to associate with research universities like those from the B1G or the ACC. So, if the Big XII doesn't come knocks, they will continue to roll up their sleeves and work toward their goal.

[Bill Marsh]

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.

More IS better for you, period. How on earth is sneaking another team in the field because you’re not shooting yourself in the foot administratively affecting anything at THE TOP of the league? What do you think is going to happen to the Big East reputation and seeding if you get more bids to the tournament every year?

“Oh, that silly Big East sends 7 or 8 every year, their regular season champion isn’t very good, so they get a nine seed.”

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.

And who’s arguing that? Whether or not your 6th and 7th place teams get into the dance doesn’t change a single thing for Villanova.

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.

Yes, but it’s going to be at the expense of someone else. You cannot ALL WIN.

You otherwise don't seem to grasp the value of competition.

And you don’t seem to understand that your true grind is grinding three NCAA teams down into NIT squads.

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.

Insanity.

1. You need the bid to get into the tournament to possibly get some wins.
2. You have no way of knowing if the team “left out” was going to lose in the first round or go on a Cinderella run.

3. There’s an actual cash value on making the tournament and losing, and that’s $1.7 million. Which is $1.7 million above “little value.” And that’s to say nothing of what “being on the bracket” does for your image.

4. Being in the NCAA Tournament is greater than any outcome for the season that doesn’t not include the NCAA Tournament.

The Bracket is where your reputation is made: Even if you lose, 100 million Americans had to decide on whether or not to pick you in their bracket.

What part of the following don't you understand:

NCAA TOURNAMENT RECORDS BY CONFERENCE

The first record is the league's record in tournament games. The second record is “upsets”: wins as a lower seed-losses as a higher seed. Teams have to be more than one seed apart to count in the upset record.

ACC: 19-7, 2-1
Big East: 9-4, 0-2
West Coast: 2-1, 2-0
Missouri Valley: 3-2, 2-0
Big 12: 9-7, 0-3
Big Ten: 8-7, 1-2
SEC: 3-3, 0-0
Atlantic Sun: 1-1, 0-0
Big West: 1-1, 1-0
Conference USA: 1-1, 1-0
Ivy League: 1-1, 1-0
Patriot: 1-1, 0-0
Southland: 1-1, 1-0
Sun Belt: 1-1, 1-0
Pac-12: 4-7, 0-4
A-10: 2-3, 1-1
American: 1-4, 0-0
15 other conferences: 0-1, 0-0

It isn't even that linear. The A10 is watered down now. The Big East's record against the A10 this year was something like 7-2, including your CoCoCo-Champ having its ass handed to it in Orlando by 29 points. You put a couple A10 teams into the Big East mix and they'll get slaughtered, which means their performance numbers tank, which means the Big East teams that would have to play them would see some degradation in their numbers.

You're singular case for expansion for the purpose of gaming bids is simply myopic. We - the Big East - would get creamed in the national press and in national perception if we brought aboard a couple mid-majors out of the A10.

We love the round robin. We are closely united with one another. We cheer for each other during the OOC slate and during the post-season, and we otherwise look forward to pounding each other during conference play.

We've already proven that we can get 60% of the conference into the NCAA Tournament. We just earned $20 million in 17 days. And now a National Champion has come from the Big East.

You are simply flat out wrong about maximizing - gaming - bids. It is not the end all end game when it comes to managing a conference and a conference's brand. IT ISN'T! Val and the Presidents are very sharp people. They get it and they like what they have, and Fox and MSG are loving it as well.

DILUTION IS NOT THE ANSWER. There is nothing that you can offer - IN FACT - given what happened this year with the Big East, especially compared to what happened in a weaker, but certainly diluted A10, that will convince anyone around here that adding a couple A10 teams to the existing Big East would result in a positive outcome. No one in their right mind would pursue a dilution strategy to game a couple more bids - possibly, never any guaranties when it comes to this stuff - in the face of what the Big East is now accomplishing as it exists.

Hits the nail on the head,

Ten years ago the MVC got a bunch of bids and thought they had figured out how to game the system. At another point the MWC used the same formula and got a bunch of bids. In neither case did success last.

You're right, there's no substitute for quality to achieve long term success.