Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[sciencejay]

Nothing to Wtf about.

Science. You are obviously only seeing things from out in Nebraska. Things are just fine with the 10 we have. WSU is a flash in the pan that is gone once their coach is. VCU and UD are simply bleh.

Perhaps some folks have only been bball fans for a few years. Wichita made 1 NCAA tournament in 25 years before Marshall arrived. One. In 25 years. And they have zero academic standards. They have less chance of joining the Big East than Loras College in Dubuque, IA.

A couple of points:

_lh--you have no idea where I'm seeing things from. You have your perspective and I have mine. I have articulated arguments for my positions. I can't see that you have other than to make absolutist statements about what will be/won't be. I have never argued that we aren't in a good position now. I have argued that with uncertainties regarding expansion and the changing financial model for media revenues, we can improve upon our position with the addition of quality basketball programs. You obviously disagree with that position. Feel free to state your position(s) and make substantive arguments in support of that position. If you're tired of these threads where the myriad pros/cons of whether to expand or when to expand or whom should we target for expansion are discussed, feel free not to read them. You make no contribution other than as a know-it-all blowhard. I don't have to be on the east coast to observe that.

Savannah Jay--what makes a 'quality' program? Marshall has been at WSU for 10 years and has taken them to levels of success that you and I dream about for our Jays. He makes $3.3M/yr and has turned down multiple offers from FBS programs. At what point do we say that this is who WSU is as a program? Creighton certainly doesn't call itself a crappy program because of the 90s. I agree that the institutional fit argument is a negative for WSU's candidacy, but no candidate is perfect (Gonzaga-geography, UConn-football and public, VCU-public and close to GT, etc.), and I have argued that behind closed doors, Fox (or other media providers) and conference execs may push the presidents to expand their concept of 'good fit.' The truth is that many/most of us simply do not know what's going on behind the scenes, but I think we can agree that it is critical that the decision-makers not just pay attention to what's going on, but try to predict where things are headed and get out in front. I think that means proactively looking to expand. Am I saying we desperately need to expand today or we're screwed? No. But the landscape is changing rapidly, and waiting until the next realignment earthquake happens to act is not in our best interest. IMHO.

[FriarJ]

Another poster is correct. there are a lot of fans from other teams outside the BE doing a lot of the talking. I was not aware of this honestly. I do see some Creighton fans calling for it and it just makes me shake my head that they don't apparently see the value and brand that we currently have.

I literally don't know one Creighton fan advocating for expansion, but whatever.

Is this a joke? There are two right away on the second page of this thread!

[FriarJ]

I find it interesting that for the most part the belief we need to expand and some of the ridiculous names that are thrown about are fans of the 3 newer schools. Guys this is not the MVC anymore. This is the BIg East emphasis on Big, meaning Bigtime. Think about what school truly deserves to play in a Conference tournament in MSG when thinking of a school. We have proved this is working great. The league should and will I believe be VERY selective when thinking of expanding if they do at all. This is now an exclusive club, enjoy it.

This isn't the MVC? What? Oh thank you enlightened New Englander for generously teaching us what important, Big Time fans you are! We rough and tumble, uneducated prairie boys sure do 'preciate when you splain things to us like that!

Do you really not have a point to make, or are you simply trying to be an arrogant douche? You've certainly succeeded on both counts. Well played.

I think the 'pro expansion' argument is based on forward-looking issues (maintaining relevancy in a world dominated by football money) while the 'we are good as is' argument is based on 80's era Big East nostalgia. Yes, MSG is great. But does it resonate with 16-18 year old recruits like it did when it hosted OBE brawls, championship-calibur Knicks teams and regular heavyweight championship boxing matches? I simply don't think it does. My interest in WSU has nothing to do with MVC nostalgia. It has everything to do with their basketball-first focus and their success on the court. My argument has always been that more good basketball programs will equate to more high profile (top 10) matchups that most college bb fans will want to watch. I never said we shouldn't be selective. But my arguments for expansion aren't due to some small-town, naive sense about what 'Big Time' means. The fact that your have to target a fan base's geography suggests that you have a very small ability to formulate an argument and offer intelligent counterarguments.

By making expansion only about "Big Time" programs, I guess you are truly limiting it to UConn, ND and KU. ND seems to be truly set for years, and at that point when they can't continue getting their own TV contract, they'll just complete the transition to the ACC. KU may be set for several years, or they may get screwed in the next football-driven realignment. If that happens, I think their next stop is more likely an A10/AAC where they (and K State) could still play FBS-light football. I see UConn in a similar position as KU (in terms of getting left out of the football party next time realignment happens), and I don't think the BEast should bring any school into the conference that still has FBS aspirations.

I have argued that a 12 team conference is better in terms of maintaining 4-6 schools that can compete for the throne. I have made points that some combination of WSU, Gonzaga and VCU can all help us in that regard. None is a slam dunk add, but all would add to the competitiveness of the BEast. I accept that you might have a differing opinion, but yours is the same as mine--an opinion. And my opinion is mine. It is not intended to represent the opinions of all Jays fans (or apparently Butler or X fans since you grouped us all together).

Yes we both have opinions. You advocating for Wichita State shows that yours is incorrect. As far as arrogance goes, get some it will protect the conference from lame brain decisions like you are advocating.

[GoldenWarrior11]

The most interesting aspect with regards to Big East expansion, in my view, is that our current contract stipulates that our contract gets bumped up by $100 million if we go to 12 members. The total payout per team would not change, but the total amount that Fox pays would. Bottom line, we have had and still have the opportunity to add teams at no cost until the end of our deal. These are our wild cards. We can wait until our contract is nearing a conclusion in order to cash-in, but you don't waste your hand on Wichita State or VCU -sorry.

Bottom line, from the actions of the conference since realignment, our league clearly values its current set-up, as well as the ability to have a round-robin set-up. They did not believe that adding a Wichita State or a VCU or a Dayton was worth it - financially or competitively - to amend its current format. Some may not like that, but that is what reality and the market dictate.

If I had to guess the current line of thinking with the Big East Presidents/Val/Fox, it's that they are patiently waiting to see the Power 5 sort itself out with their next TV deals. There could very well be another shift on the horizon, allowing certain programs that you would not think to be available today to be available at that point. You also have the UConn situation - which will never be fully resolved until they join a power conference. There is nothing today that is available that is more valuable than our current membership and round-robin format. Towards the end of the deal, and there are no big time programs available, then I think we will go ahead and add Saint Louis and Dayton, as their added revenue from conference membership (and potential for strong programs in their areas) will be a solid long-term investment for the conference and its membership.

[DudeAnon]

My mind has gone a few ways about this.

Pro Expansion
1) The JPSmack argument. The round-robin does cause cannibalization of seeds. (I do not believe at all that SBU should be considered)
2) Competition level. I do believe that the pool of mid-majors are favorable. And it is very likely that any of VCU, UD and SLU would only elevate their status similar to how X, Butler and Creighton have.
3) Excitement. 2 more schools is 2 more sets of interesting fan-bases, teams, play styles and more.

Anti-Expansion
1) Branding. The basketball zeitgeist is just now beginning to accept the NBE and its place among the power 5. If we add UD & VCU and they tank (which is possible) this would be an immediate blow to the brand.
2) Spite: Fieldhouse Flyer, SactownDog, dwon and many more do not deserve it lol.


Edit: To GoldenWarrior's point about the guaranteed pay bump. Its very possible FOX is telling us not to expand because of this the same way ESPN told the Big 12 not to expand.

[_lh]

I find it interesting that for the most part the belief we need to expand and some of the ridiculous names that are thrown about are fans of the 3 newer schools. Guys this is not the MVC anymore. This is the BIg East emphasis on Big, meaning Bigtime. Think about what school truly deserves to play in a Conference tournament in MSG when thinking of a school. We have proved this is working great. The league should and will I believe be VERY selective when thinking of expanding if they do at all. This is now an exclusive club, enjoy it.

This isn't the MVC? What? Oh thank you enlightened New Englander for generously teaching us what important, Big Time fans you are! We rough and tumble, uneducated prairie boys sure do 'preciate when you splain things to us like that!

Do you really not have a point to make, or are you simply trying to be an arrogant douche? You've certainly succeeded on both counts. Well played.

I think the 'pro expansion' argument is based on forward-looking issues (maintaining relevancy in a world dominated by football money) while the 'we are good as is' argument is based on 80's era Big East nostalgia. Yes, MSG is great. But does it resonate with 16-18 year old recruits like it did when it hosted OBE brawls, championship-calibur Knicks teams and regular heavyweight championship boxing matches? I simply don't think it does. My interest in WSU has nothing to do with MVC nostalgia. It has everything to do with their basketball-first focus and their success on the court. My argument has always been that more good basketball programs will equate to more high profile (top 10) matchups that most college bb fans will want to watch. I never said we shouldn't be selective. But my arguments for expansion aren't due to some small-town, naive sense about what 'Big Time' means. The fact that your have to target a fan base's geography suggests that you have a very small ability to formulate an argument and offer intelligent counterarguments.

By making expansion only about "Big Time" programs, I guess you are truly limiting it to UConn, ND and KU. ND seems to be truly set for years, and at that point when they can't continue getting their own TV contract, they'll just complete the transition to the ACC. KU may be set for several years, or they may get screwed in the next football-driven realignment. If that happens, I think their next stop is more likely an A10/AAC where they (and K State) could still play FBS-light football. I see UConn in a similar position as KU (in terms of getting left out of the football party next time realignment happens), and I don't think the BEast should bring any school into the conference that still has FBS aspirations.

I have argued that a 12 team conference is better in terms of maintaining 4-6 schools that can compete for the throne. I have made points that some combination of WSU, Gonzaga and VCU can all help us in that regard. None is a slam dunk add, but all would add to the competitiveness of the BEast. I accept that you might have a differing opinion, but yours is the same as mine--an opinion. And my opinion is mine. It is not intended to represent the opinions of all Jays fans (or apparently Butler or X fans since you grouped us all together).

Yes we both have opinions. You advocating for Wichita State shows that yours is incorrect. As far as arrogance goes, get some it will protect the conference from lame brain decisions like you are advocating.

Plus 1. WSU makes no sense.

[_lh]

The most interesting aspect with regards to Big East expansion, in my view, is that our current contract stipulates that our contract gets bumped up by $100 million if we go to 12 members. The total payout per team would not change, but the total amount that Fox pays would. Bottom line, we have had and still have the opportunity to add teams at no cost until the end of our deal. These are our wild cards. We can wait until our contract is nearing a conclusion in order to cash-in, but you don't waste your hand on Wichita State or VCU -sorry.

Bottom line, from the actions of the conference since realignment, our league clearly values its current set-up, as well as the ability to have a round-robin set-up. They did not believe that adding a Wichita State or a VCU or a Dayton was worth it - financially or competitively - to amend its current format. Some may not like that, but that is what reality and the market dictate.

If I had to guess the current line of thinking with the Big East Presidents/Val/Fox, it's that they are patiently waiting to see the Power 5 sort itself out with their next TV deals. There could very well be another shift on the horizon, allowing certain programs that you would not think to be available today to be available at that point. You also have the UConn situation - which will never be fully resolved until they join a power conference. There is nothing today that is available that is more valuable than our current membership and round-robin format. Towards the end of the deal, and there are no big time programs available, then I think we will go ahead and add Saint Louis and Dayton, as their added revenue from conference membership (and potential for strong programs in their areas) will be a solid long-term investment for the conference and its membership.

Well said and I agree about the B12 thing too.

[Savannah Jay]

Savannah Jay--what makes a 'quality' program?

This is where, in my opinion, you are off track. Quality program is clearly a benefit when considering a school...but "quality school" comes first because, you know, academics is the mission, right? Athletics are secondary, even if it doesn't always seem like it.

[sciencejay]

Savannah Jay--what makes a 'quality' program?

This is where, in my opinion, you are off track. Quality program is clearly a benefit when considering a school...but "quality school" comes first because, you know, academics is the mission, right? Athletics are secondary, even if it doesn't always seem like it.

I think we're in a complete paradigm shift with college athletics and conferences. And the massive amount of football money in the system is the cause of it. Historically conferences were comprised of similar universities (in terms of academics) that were reasonably close to each other geographically--the Ivy league and earlier versions of the the ACC, SEC, Big 8, the original 10 team Big 10 and the Pac 10. But I truly believe things are different now. Other than the Ivy league, none of the other conferences I mentioned still can say that they have maintained their original 'sense' of what that conference was built upon. They have all expanded to include new institutions that may not add something now (Rutgers, MD--heck, even Nebraska--in the B1G; Missouri in the SEC; Colorado in the Pac), but those institutions are committed to high level athletics and they expand the conference footprint.

I agree that our university presidents would be extremely interested in expanding with schools that are like-minded academically. But it's an interesting relationship between the schools, the conference and Fox, isn't it? Conference execs want to increase the presence of member schools, and the Media company wants to make as much money as it can. And when those two needs are satisfied, the university gets more money/exposure, so the presidents are happy. If we limit ourselves to schools with institutional similarity, we are limiting ourselves to whom? Gonzaga?
UD? SBU? Seems like that criterion basically precludes us from expanding. I think that's untenable in the long run. We will never garner a deal that brings in football money, but we need to do what we can to maximize our basketball money potential. And if things don't go well enough in Fox's eyes, then our next deal will be even worse per school, so we will be at a greater disadvantage relative to the FBS-5.

We are fighting an uphill battle on several fronts:

(1) The FBS conferences more or less act outside the control of NCAA policy, and they control the bulk of the TV revenue as a result (the bowl system is completely out of the NCAA's control). We will never have access to TV money that those schools get. We don't need equivalent media revenues since we don't have to pay for football at the highest levels, but we do need to maximize revenues from our media as much as possible.
(2) For the most part, FBS schools have large(r) student populations, so they produce more alumni who become fans of their schools. This means that they produce more consumers of their athletic programs' events. I know GT and DePaul have larger (>20K) student populations, but the rest of us are pretty small. So there will always be fewer eyeballs watching our games, unless the games are compelling and nationally relevant.
(3) FBS schools have football to keep the fan base fired up in the fall. Our schools fall from national attention until November. Creighton and other BEast schools have made the soccer FF, the college cup, and CU's VB team made the elite 8 last fall, but those just don't move the needle like football does. I don't see this changing either for our member schools.

Because of these obvious obstacles and unchangeable circumstances, I feel like we need to be aggressive (not desperate) in maximizing the terrific start the NBE has made. To me, expansion is a critical component of that. Of course, a 2018 final four of GT, SJ, DePaul and Creighton (sorry, had to 'homer' on this one) would further our terrific start and improve our national brand without expansion--can't imagine what the odds in Vegas are of that happening.

[_lh]

Savannah Jay--what makes a 'quality' program?

This is where, in my opinion, you are off track. Quality program is clearly a benefit when considering a school...but "quality school" comes first because, you know, academics is the mission, right? Athletics are secondary, even if it doesn't always seem like it.

I think we're in a complete paradigm shift with college athletics and conferences. And the massive amount of football money in the system is the cause of it. Historically conferences were comprised of similar universities (in terms of academics) that were reasonably close to each other geographically--the Ivy league and earlier versions of the the ACC, SEC, Big 8, the original 10 team Big 10 and the Pac 10. But I truly believe things are different now. Other than the Ivy league, none of the other conferences I mentioned still can say that they have maintained their original 'sense' of what that conference was built upon. They have all expanded to include new institutions that may not add something now (Rutgers, MD--heck, even Nebraska--in the B1G; Missouri in the SEC; Colorado in the Pac), but those institutions are committed to high level athletics and they expand the conference footprint.

I agree that our university presidents would be extremely interested in expanding with schools that are like-minded academically. But it's an interesting relationship between the schools, the conference and Fox, isn't it? Conference execs want to increase the presence of member schools, and the Media company wants to make as much money as it can. And when those two needs are satisfied, the university gets more money/exposure, so the presidents are happy. If we limit ourselves to schools with institutional similarity, we are limiting ourselves to whom? Gonzaga?
UD? SBU? Seems like that criterion basically precludes us from expanding. I think that's untenable in the long run. We will never garner a deal that brings in football money, but we need to do what we can to maximize our basketball money potential. And if things don't go well enough in Fox's eyes, then our next deal will be even worse per school, so we will be at a greater disadvantage relative to the FBS-5.

We are fighting an uphill battle on several fronts:

(1) The FBS conferences more or less act outside the control of NCAA policy, and they control the bulk of the TV revenue as a result (the bowl system is completely out of the NCAA's control). We will never have access to TV money that those schools get. We don't need equivalent media revenues since we don't have to pay for football at the highest levels, but we do need to maximize revenues from our media as much as possible.
(2) For the most part, FBS schools have large(r) student populations, so they produce more alumni who become fans of their schools. This means that they produce more consumers of their athletic programs' events. I know GT and DePaul have larger (>20K) student populations, but the rest of us are pretty small. So there will always be fewer eyeballs watching our games, unless the games are compelling and nationally relevant.
(3) FBS schools have football to keep the fan base fired up in the fall. Our schools fall from national attention until November. Creighton and other BEast schools have made the soccer FF, the college cup, and CU's VB team made the elite 8 last fall, but those just don't move the needle like football does. I don't see this changing either for our member schools.

Because of these obvious obstacles and unchangeable circumstances, I feel like we need to be aggressive (not desperate) in maximizing the terrific start the NBE has made. To me, expansion is a critical component of that. Of course, a 2018 final four of GT, SJ, DePaul and Creighton (sorry, had to 'homer' on this one) would further our terrific start and improve our national brand without expansion--can't imagine what the odds in Vegas are of that happening.

Expansion, especially for the crappy current options, does not solve or help to solve these "problems".