Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[Jet915]

UCONN basketball loses by 16 at home to Houston.....

[MUPanther]

UConn had 12 points at halftime.

[Bill Marsh]

They were hardly in the lawsuit by themselves.

True, but they were the lead voice. I have no problem bringing the suit, but it isn't a wise choice if you are going to apply for membership in that conference in the future.

As for fool's gold, it worked for Rutgers, a team that was 1-11 and drew only 19,000 fans at home as recently as 2002. And that season was no exception. They were a program that never mattered in the history of college football or in the Big East before UConn joined the football conference, and so were more or less at the same point back then.

You sort of sound like my kids. Just because somebody else does something, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do and it certainly doesn't mean it is the right thing for you to do. UConn doesn't bring to the table some of the things that Rutgers brought to the table; it is a false comparison when taking the entirety of the two schools into account.

Basically, UCONN gambled and lost. Which is essentially what I said before.

Which is essentially what I said too. What are we arguing about?

[GoldenWarrior11]

UCONN basketball loses by 16 at home to Houston.....

UConn had 12 points at halftime.

Couldn't happen to a nicer and more humble fan base.

[DeltaV]

My point being: Other top tier conferences have and probably will continue to "work the system" whether for the benefit of football or basketball. The Big East should enhance its' NCAA payouts by adding a couple of teams to boost the middle and help our case, as other conferences have done.

Yeah, yeah, just because Delany and the B1G jump off a bridge with Rutgers and Nebraska doesn't necessitate the BE doing likewise...I get it. But me and Br. Jelinek don't like the idea of leaving NCAA bucks on the table, that could go into Big East coffers.

I sure as hell didn't intend to start a football topic subthread, so youse guys can can the F5 chatter.

But it also means a couple more schools to split those tourney units with. If that extra school we get in the dance makes a nice run, then sure, it'll work out great! But if they go 1 and done (and let's be honest, if this school wouldn't have made it if not for us adding "free wins" to the conference, that's the likely scenario), our 10 schools will just end up losing money by having 2 more heads to feed. And if we don't get that extra team in at all? More money down that drain.

While I love the idea of comparing the Big East to the BIG10, I don't think it is a rational comparison. The BIG is probably the top conference in the country when you combine football and basketball reputation; they can absorb a few 'huh?' picks without hurting their credibility. Us, on the other hand? 10 private schools, dwarfed in enrollment, cash, and media publicity...you add a definite 'mid major' program or two and you'll see that national championship good-will evaporate quickly.

The round-robin is a strength. The Big East name, when you take the core C7 schools, and the 'mid major-power' adds (Xavier was never really a MM, even though they played in the A10, and Creighton and Butler proved themselves as well), keeps us labeled as a power conference. Except for Gonzaga, a non-factor due to geography, there are no other mid-major powers to add. If any mids do go on a multi year tear (I would consider that to be 3-4 years in a row as a single digit seed, and at least two Sweet 16s), then I think they would be worth while opening the discussion of expansion. But we're not the BIG10...we can't just expand for the sake of expanding and expect it to not hurt our reputation.

[JPSchmack]

Noble commentary, JP. Unfortunately, the Big East will not lower its conference standards simply to stack the deck for the league to possibly get an additional team or two into the tournament.

What would St. Bonaventure add to the conference? It's not basketball prestige. It's not a strong fan base. It's not a big new arena. It's not a brand name coach. It's not a large endowment for the university. It's not a nationally ranked academic university. It's not a history of success in the NCAA Tournament. It's definitely not a big city campus.

Let's say that the Big East did want to rig the system to mathematically increase the odds of sending more teams to the tournament. If that was the case, they would undoubtedly look at schools like Richmond, Fordham, Davidson, Boston University, Northeastern, Dayton and Saint Louis ahead of a school like St. Bonaventure. Each of those schools brings stronger school endowments and larger athletic budgets, not to mention (in many cases) historically stronger basketball programs.

If/when the Big East expands, new schools will add value by elevating the conference by basketball play, academics and commitment to long-term sustained success - definitely not programs that will be expected to lose in conference play to just help out the teams above them.

#1 - School Endowment means nothing when it comes to athletics. Athletic departments are run as self-sustaining separate entities from the university as a whole and have roughly zero correlation to successful athletics. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT are in the top six in endowment. Harvard’s #1 endowment is over 37 times UConn’s endowment.
Vandy: First in SEC Endowment, Last in SEC sports. Northwestern > Michigan State. UIC > Duke. You get the idea.

#2 - I reject your premise of “rigging the system” as a “bad thing.” There’s no rules on aligning a conference. We attach some kind of nobility to this thing as if everyone isn’t
doing what’s best for them. Gaming the system makes it sound shady, but when the C7 decided to add members, they said “What makes us the best group of basketball schools?” It was an intelligent, self-serving thing. I’m merely saying they used an narrow-minded view on “What’s best for us?”

#3 - Same with “Lower the standards.” There’s no “Cost” to “lowering your standard” in this fashion, because it increases the perception of the Big East when you get more bids and then NCAA units. As long as it’s a basketball-focused, private institution that shares your mission, you get the last laugh each March.

#4 - As it pertains to your list of schools to look at instead of St. Bonaventure… GREAT. The Big East absolutely should look at those schools! I feel comfortable for my alma mater’s standing if/when the Big East asks “Who fits what we need the best?” Because THAT is the real question. It’s not “Who’s the BEST,” but “Who FITS the best.”
(And Fordham has no chance, even in my ‘unrealistic’ vision).

#5 - Once we get into THAT discussion, there’s a number of items in the “expansion criteria” that people like to talk about because they’re indicators, but think the INDICATORS are more important than what they are supposed to INDICATE.

For example, we use “market size” as an indicator of TV viewers, just because (A) pro sports expansion does it, so people think it applies to colleges when it doesn’t (Is Rutgers the NY Yankees of college sports?). If you’re using market size to determine what it means to the ratings, why not just USE THE RATINGS? Bona had the highest TV ratings of any college basketball team on NBC Sports last year. Because their fans live in Buffalo, Rochester, NYC, Syracuse, Albany and Pittsburgh, etc (alumni chapters have more members than the Olean Alumni chapter. That’s five markets in the top 80 where you don’t have schools). Who cares if Bona doesn’t have massive attendance? Massive attendance = gate revenue for THEM. Sitting at home and watching on TV = more TV revenue FOR YOU.


The reason I’m gung-ho on BE Expansion is because the conventional wisdom is simply wrong. It’s a lot like the whole “pro team in Las Vegas = Gambling Scandal” mindset. People’s brains associate Vegas with Gambling; and “Sports Gambling” with “Scandal.” So every time it’s “Pro team in Vegas!” everyone says “No! What about Gambling Scandals!” But that completely ignores REALITY: If a game is fixed, it’s THE SPORTS BOOKS THAT LOSE THE MONEY. Vegas are the people noticing unusual action and calling the FBI to prevent a fix.

This is the same type of thing I’m fighting here.

[JPSchmack]

I see what you're saying JP, but you're missing another point. Let's assume SBU goes 3-15 in league play as you said. Chances are, at least 1 of those 3 wins is going to come against that same type of Big East bubble team (a 6th or 7th place team, right? Since the whole point is to try to get an extra bid or 2?). So while you're scenario is certainly possible, the opposite could also be true. A bubble team that would otherwise be in the dance could put up a stinker of a game and end up replacing what would be an acceptable loss to CU or X with a resume destroying loss to SBU.

That's why you see so much frustration with DePaul and St. John's on this board. We don't say "oh goodie, they stink so 4 free wins to boost our NCAA resume." We know damn well that, though they're struggling, they have enough talent that on their day (or an opponent's off day) they're capable of beating just about anyone in the league. We all play enough "nothing to gain, everything to lose" games in OOC play, so the goal is to minimize the number of them we need to worry about in league play.

Example: 2013-14 Seton Hall

EXCELLENT discussion. You’re right it’s easy to cherry pick “If _______ had beat two new teams instead of losing to Nova/Xavier once each,” when we don’t KNOW what the schedule would be. (Easiest schedule projection would be 12 teams, 6 east/6 west, 16-game conference schedule, double-round by your division; which isn’t what I’d suggest, but be the easiest schedule matrix). The biggest flaw in my argument is that “it doesn’t always work out the same way the data suggests it will.”

But just because it doesn’t always work out according to the data, it doesn’t mean “screw ALL the data.” You don’t know where each drop of water is going to hit in your shower, but all the water is generally flowing in the same direction.

All you have to do is look at the RPI from LAST WEEK of OOC play and then again on Selection Sunday and see my point:

1st: +0.25 RPI places (4 to 4)
2nd: +0.75 RPI places (12 to 12)
3rd: -1.25 RPI places (24 to 25)
4th: -2.00 RPI places (32 to 34)

5th: -13.0 RPI places (45 to 58)
6th: -16.5 RPI places (67 to 84)
7th: -23.0 RPI places (79 to 102)

8th: -25.5 RPI places (106 to 131)
9th: -52.8 RPI places (153 to 205)
10th: -50.2 RPI places (179 to 229)

On average, you have seven programs that are GOOD ENOUGH to make the NCAA Tournament at the end of OOC play. But conference play basically makes it impossible for all seven to make the dance. This isn’t because of “how teams perform.” This is because of “that’s how 10-team conferences HAVE TO PERFORM.”

[JPSchmack]

My point being: Other top tier conferences have and probably will continue to "work the system" whether for the benefit of football or basketball. The Big East should enhance its' NCAA payouts by adding a couple of teams to boost the middle and help our case, as other conferences have done.

Yeah, yeah, just because Delany and the B1G jump off a bridge with Rutgers and Nebraska doesn't necessitate the BE doing likewise...I get it. But me and Br. Jelinek don't like the idea of leaving NCAA bucks on the table, that could go into Big East coffers.

The big reasons to do it is, not only does “More Bids = More Money” for the Big East, but also LESS BIDS, LESS MONEY available to other conferences.
If other power conferences lose bids, it helps your ability to keep up with them longer (especially when they’re trying to serve two masters in football and basketball)
If lesser conferences lose bids, it creates so much more separation and enables you to always be above them.

You take say, Dayton and Bona for 12 teams and it makes the A-10’s OOC performance worse. So their Conference SOS go down .014 per game, which means their bubble teams have no shot because their RPI is so low. They become a bid worse, which makes them poorer and further behind you… unless they steal members from another conference, which makes THAT conference (Horizon? MAAC?) go from 1 or 2 bids to always just one (Like the A-10 did the CAA already by taking VCU/GMU).

It’s consolidation of power.

The BIG is probably the top conference in the country when you combine football and basketball reputation; they can absorb a few 'huh?' picks without hurting their credibility. Us, on the other hand? 10 private schools, dwarfed in enrollment, cash, and media publicity...you add a definite 'mid major' program or two and you'll see that national championship good-will evaporate quickly.

The round-robin is a strength. The Big East name, when you take the core C7 schools, and the 'mid major-power' adds (Xavier was never really a MM, even though they played in the A10, and Creighton and Butler proved themselves as well), keeps us labeled as a power conference. Except for Gonzaga, a non-factor due to geography, there are no other mid-major powers to add. If any mids do go on a multi year tear (I would consider that to be 3-4 years in a row as a single digit seed, and at least two Sweet 16s), then I think they would be worth while opening the discussion of expansion. But we're not the BIG10...we can't just expand for the sake of expanding and expect it to not hurt our reputation.

You’re going to be judged by the RESULTS, not by the PROCESS.

The Big Ten added Rutgers because it put BTN on basic cable in NY/NJ and gave them higher subscription fees. That led to a massive increase in revenue. More revenue than just going from 7 of 12 in the NCAAs to 8 of 14 cut into their sharing of NCAA revenue. NCAA units are six times more valuable to the Big East than the Big Ten, because the Big Ten has six times the TV revenue. Just adding a school isn’t going to get you a massive TV revenue increase. But adding someone to get more NCAA units makes your brand better. If you’re averaging 7 NCAA bids, your inventory becomes more valuable to TV.

The idea that adding Gonzaga makes things better for YOU is simply wrong. It makes things better for GONZAGA.
Adding someone that gets more of YOU into the NCAA Tournament makes YOU better.

[DudeAnon]

We can debate the merits of expanding vs not expanding. But the reality is there is 0% chance St. Bonaventure would ever be added. It would be the single worst expansion choice in conference realignment history.

[SJU1987]

We can debate the merits of expanding vs not expanding. But the reality is there is 0% chance St. Bonaventure would ever be added. It would be the single worst expansion choice in conference realignment history.

Why would somebody want St. Bonaventure or Davidson in the Big East ? I bet they have family members going to those schools.
Just look at the A10 and the mistake they made adding all those mid majors. They can't expand anymore. Look at Fordame in the A 10, the fans rushed the court after beating a St. John's team that went 5-15 the previous year in the Big East . It was the biggest win they saw in years and we wanna add teams like that ?