Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[NJRedman]

Aw, billyjack, that stings me a bit. Fair enough, the UNCs and UVAs of the world can be pretentious, but you can get on the ground floor with me to watch Virginia Tech's rise to the top of college basketball! We don't play much defense, but we shoot a lot of 3s and are pretty fun to watch!

(Sorry, Marquette fans...)

Don't be sorry. The number of off-the-court incidents, as well number of players that end up not graduating, has significantly declined to zero since Wojo took over. When Buzz no longer feels like the underdog at VT, he will move on to another job. I'd be shocked if he was still there in three years.

I'm under no illusion that Buzz will stick around forever at VT. He's stated lots of reasons why he took the Virginia Tech job, but I think the most important one (unsaid, of course) is that the administration was basically going to give him free reign to run the program as he sees fit. And as a VT alum and fan of the program, that's exactly what they had to do to land a guy like Buzz. It was in the pits and they had to do something drastic to turn it around.

And I may end up proven wrong, but I think he'll stick around a little longer than you do. If I'm reading Buzz right, I think he genuinely wants to leave the program in a better place than he found it. My guess is we'll see him in Blacksburg five more years after he's set an expectation of tournament success.

But yeah, his personality isn't for everyone and he's a pretty weird dude in some respects, but ever since he cleaned house after the first year it seems like the guys really love him and play hard for him. He's also a guy that may decide to just quit coaching altogether at a relatively young age compared to his peers - he's made statements since being at VT that he doesn't want to be a guy who coaches forever, plus he's made (and saved) a ton of money by the age of 44.

Also, in the three years of his tenure so far, I can't recall a single player involved in the program who has been involved in off-the-court incidents. As for graduating players, that's a different story since it's fairly early to tell if that will be a long-term issue. But considering the older players who have transferred in to the program have earned their degrees (like Seth Allen and Zach LeDay), I haven't seen any red flags there.

I'm glad it's worked out for both Marquette & VT fans though. Wojo took over after Buzz wore out his welcome there and seems to have stabilized the program, while VT has enjoyed seeing early success under Buzz after years of futility. I think everyone is happy in the grand scheme of things.

Easier to cover up for a player in the middle of nowhere compared to a major city like Milwaukee.

[Toronto Rapture]

With the Finebaum piece on OU looking around, are we going to see conferences move to 16?



Right now, the B1G is at 14 Bball, the SEC is at 14 Bball, the ACC is at 15 Bball, the Pac 12 is at 12 Bball, and the Big 12 is at 10.

So, the Big 12 (the runt at 10) is obviously being singled out as the weakest. Even though it was one of the stronger Bball conferences.

If the Big 12's 10 schools get assimilated into the other all-sports conferences, the B1G, ACC, SEC, and Pac 12, will likely move to 16 (not a stretch). The AAC is also poised to assimilate up to 4.

Where does that leave the current Big East?

The NBE all of a sudden looks very dissimilar in that landscape. Not only would it be down 6 schools but there is no similarity between a small group of catholic schools and the large publics that are steering the marketplace. One of the biggest strengths of the former Big East was the shield (i.e. umbrella) of the large enrollment all-sports schools. That component made the Big East one of the establishment.

The adherence to strictly religious schools has stripped the NBE of that armor. At 10 religious schools, conference consolidation could seemingly put the conference in a perilous predicament. Would it still be wise to use a religious litmus test to expand the conference at that point? I'm not so sure. I'm not sure why that action plan ever went into effect.

So the large enrollment all sports schools were a strength of the BE? Those schools and football played a big part in the instability of the conference. By comparison, the current makeup of private and basketball focused schools has created stability in the conference and solidified it's identity as a premier basketball conference.

The litmus test for conference expansion is not a religious one. Though being religions/private is a part of the conference's identity (as well as geography to an extent), the ultimate litmus test is basketball and the market of a potential expansion candidate. I think we can all agree that given the right conditions, the BE would accept public/non-religious schools (UCONN).

However, I do not disagree that the BE looks dissimilar in that landscape, but was it ever really a part of the establishment? The BE was a hybrid league after all. Currently, it is a basketball focused conference that is not part of the establishment by not having football, and if the F5 continue to grow, will be a smaller conference than the F5 in comparison. This is one of the reasons why I think the conference should expand. The perception of the league as a premier basketball conference in comparison to the F5 might be diminished if it remains at 10 while at the F5 continue to expand. The BE could very well continue to succeed on the court, but the conference's appearance might be diminished optically. Look at the Big XII; it is rightly perceived as the weakest of the of the F5. That is because of the conference's instability, but also because it is the smallest conference of the F5.

Considering the current size of F5 conferences and that they are likely going to continue to expand, and the AAC might too, I think the BE should add the best two schools at present to bring it to 12, and then when when F5 realignment goes down, maybe even expand again. I disagree with waiting though; I am not as optimistic as some are about the BE being able to scoop up schools like a Kansas or Duke at the time of the next F5 shakeup.

[Bill Marsh]

With the Finebaum piece on OU looking around, are we going to see conferences move to 16?



Right now, the B1G is at 14 Bball, the SEC is at 14 Bball, the ACC is at 15 Bball, the Pac 12 is at 12 Bball, and the Big 12 is at 10.

So, the Big 12 (the runt at 10) is obviously being singled out as the weakest. Even though it was one of the stronger Bball conferences.

If the Big 12's 10 schools get assimilated into the other all-sports conferences, the B1G, ACC, SEC, and Pac 12, will likely move to 16 (not a stretch). The AAC is also poised to assimilate up to 4.

Where does that leave the current Big East?

The NBE all of a sudden looks very dissimilar in that landscape. Not only would it be down 6 schools but there is no similarity between a small group of catholic schools and the large publics that are steering the marketplace. One of the biggest strengths of the former Big East was the shield (i.e. umbrella) of the large enrollment all-sports schools. That component made the Big East one of the establishment.

The adherence to strictly religious schools has stripped the NBE of that armor. At 10 religious schools, conference consolidation could seemingly put the conference in a perilous predicament. Would it still be wise to use a religious litmus test to expand the conference at that point? I'm not so sure. I'm not sure why that action plan ever went into effect.

So the large enrollment all sports schools were a strength of the BE? Those schools and football played a big part in the instability of the conference. By comparison, the current makeup of private and basketball focused schools has created stability in the conference and solidified it's identity as a premier basketball conference.

I appreciate your post.interesting thoughts as we try to make sense of all this. Here's my 2 cents.

TBH, I'm not sure that it was football per set that created the instability. I think that the money that had become associated with football was the bigger issue. If Big East Football had been generating the most money of any conference and basketball continued to be as good as it was with the hybrid, I don't know that any of the BE football schools would have been going anywhere.

So why wasn't BE Football generating more revenue? College sports in general and football in particular don't have the following in the Northeast that they do in other parts of the country. Without ratings/viewers, TV contracts are going to be smaller as they were for the old BE vs the other power conferences. My POV is that it was money that broke up the old BE more than football in and of itself. Money continues to be a factor in the path that lies ahead.

The litmus test for conference expansion is not a religious one. Though being religions/private is a part of the conference's identity (as well as geography to an extent), the ultimate litmus test is basketball and the market of a potential expansion candidate. I think we can all agree that given the right conditions, the BE would accept public/non-religious schools (UCONN).

However, I do not disagree that the BE looks dissimilar in that landscape, but was it ever really a part of the establishment? The BE was a hybrid league after all. Currently, it is a basketball focused conference that is not part of the establishment by not having football, and if the F5 continue to grow, will be a smaller conference than the F5 in comparison. This is one of the reasons why I think the conference should expand. The perception of the league as a premier basketball conference in comparison to the F5 might be diminished if it remains at 10 while at the F5 continue to expand. The BE could very well continue to succeed on the court, but the conference's appearance might be diminished optically. Look at the Big XII; it is rightly perceived as the weakest of the of the F5. That is because of the conference's instability, but also because it is the smallest conference of the F5.

You make several good points, but let me respond with a point of disagreement if that's okay. I don't think that size is the Big XII's problem. Small markets and the disproportionate power held by 2 members are their main problems IMO.

I agree with your point that the BE fortunes could wane even if the conference continues to succeed on the court. Those who think that the BE is operating from a position of strength are simply ignoring the challenges that lie ahead. That's not to say that there aren't strengths that put the conference in a good position. There are. But the very uniqueness of the conference as presently constructed also places limitations on it.

Considering the current size of F5 conferences and that they are likely going to continue to expand, and the AAC might too, I think the BE should add the best two schools at present to bring it to 12, and then when when F5 realignment goes down, maybe even expand again. I disagree with waiting though; I am not as optimistic as some are about the BE being able to scoop up schools like a Kansas or Duke at the time of the next F5 shakeup.

You seem to be a man of action, and I like that. Expansion is one way to address the issue of generating interest, growing the ratings, and improving revenue in order to remain competitive. Your idea of moving now makes total sense. The idea that I've read elsewhere that the BE might pick up members from conferences that are the victims of realignment is a pipe dream. I agree with you that Kansas and Duke are not on the horizon. Neither is UConn. For my money, any benefits from expansion would have to come from additions that make the conference's profile even higher. The only way to do this is to throw out the rules that governed decisions in the past and become as creative as possible. I would start with Gonzaga.

[Savannah Jay]

Thanks for the heads up on the Finebaum comments about Oklahoma.

The future of the Big 12 and the next round of realignment really hinges on what OK and Texas do. If Finebaum, who is very connected in that part of the country, is right, then the Big 12 as we know it won't exist in 5 years. IMO, that will yield zero candidates for the Big East. Football schools will continue to play football and the BE isn't interested in going down that road again. What's more interesting is the implication for a TV contract if the 10-team Big 12 dies and everyone else grows even bigger than they are now.

Finebaum is an SEC guy...Tennessee grad that made his name covering sports for Birmingham, AL paper. One of the talking heads on SEC network, too. If OU is "looking around" and Finebaum is the one reporting it, I can only assume that means they've inquired with the SEC.

In the last round of realignment, I think the Oklahoma state officials (state as in government, not the school) were making noise about blocking any move by OU unless it took OSU with it...

True. And at one time it was assumed that Texas and A&M had to move only as a package deal . . . until they didn't.

Actually, the A&M thing is different. For starters, I am not sure any UT or A&M folks viewed the two as a package deal. A&M was the school that supposedly needed Texas, until they didn't (though really never did). A&M was eager (and obviously, very willing) to get out of UT's shadow. I don't believe OSU is looking to get out of the OU's shadow. So in the Texas case, the perceived "weaker" branded school jumped ship. If the talk of OU is accurate, it's the stronger brand looking to jump ship.

[Bill Marsh]

Finebaum is an SEC guy...Tennessee grad that made his name covering sports for Birmingham, AL paper. One of the talking heads on SEC network, too. If OU is "looking around" and Finebaum is the one reporting it, I can only assume that means they've inquired with the SEC.

In the last round of realignment, I think the Oklahoma state officials (state as in government, not the school) were making noise about blocking any move by OU unless it took OSU with it...

True. And at one time it was assumed that Texas and A&M had to move only as a package deal . . . until they didn't.

Actually, the A&M thing is different. For starters, I am not sure any UT or A&M folks viewed the two as a package deal. A&M was the school that supposedly needed Texas, until they didn't (though really never did). A&M was eager (and obviously, very willing) to get out of UT's shadow. I don't believe OSU is looking to get out of the OU's shadow. So in the Texas case, the perceived "weaker" branded school jumped ship. If the talk of OU is accurate, it's the stronger brand looking to jump ship.

I understand. You make good points.

What I'm thinking is that Boren has lobbied long and loud enough to convince people in Oklahoma that the place of OU in the world of college football is in jeopardy if they don't strengthen their position. He tried to accomplish this by working within the Big 12 to get the conference to make changes. This effort failed. I think that OU is now at the point of saying, "What do you want us to do? We've tris everything. What's left."

College football has become so crazy that people realize there are too many factors beyond their control. Borne is trying to get OU to be proactive because he realizes that if Texas makes the first move, he could be screwed. The Big 12 has hitched its wagon to the Long Horns, which makes them all toadies. Boren rightfully wants to get OU to call its own shots.

My hunch is that the time has come that the politicians will not stand in OU's way. Better to keep your flagship university's elite reputation intact rather than to sacrifice it in hopes of buoying your secondary state U only to find that both have sunk with the rest of the Big 12 after Texas abandons them.

[Xudash]

I can only speak for myself:

1. I believe the Big East is presently operating from a position of strength.

2. I understand and accept that we face challenges moving forward.

We simply do not have to expand - yet, if at all.

We aren't going to expand if the true-up money is not there from Fox.

Overall, we need to monitor what happens with the NCAA tournament moving forward. Automatic bids. The number of conferences allowed to participate.

In the face of so much uncertainty, it is interesting to read that expansion is the only answer and that it must take place soon. If it takes place real soon, then it will be taking place with schools that not only will not have much impact, but will also be perceived as mid-majors; it will be perceived as a panicked move in some quarters.

We presently do stand in a position of strength. I doubt that anyone with a level head ignores the reality of the challenges we face down the road.

I guess all of this contributes to making this an interesting topic. There is no clarity around the precise course of action to take. All that we seem to know is that there is a camp that believes actions should be proactive and taking now that is up against a camp that believes we are strong right now, have a little time to watch developments from here, while understanding that action will be necessary in some form at some point.

[Bill Marsh]

I can only speak for myself:

1. I believe the Big East is presently operating from a position of strength.

2. I understand and accept that we face challenges moving forward.

We simply do not have to expand - yet, if at all.

We aren't going to expand if the true-up money is not there from Fox.

Overall, we need to monitor what happens with the NCAA tournament moving forward. Automatic bids. The number of conferences allowed to participate.

In the face of so much uncertainty, it is interesting to read that expansion is the only answer and that it must take place soon. If it takes place real soon, then it will be taking place with schools that not only will not have much impact, but will also be perceived as mid-majors; it will be perceived as a panicked move in some quarters.

Well said, Dash.

Just want to mention that expansion has not been presented as the only answer in this thread. GTMO in particular a number of fascinating ideas about how to strengthen the Big East's market position.

Despite their former status, I don't believe that Xavier, Butler, and Creighton are currently perceived as mid majors. Nor are TCU and Utah, who were brought into power football conferences from outside the P5. If a program is ready to take the next step, it won't hurt to add them. There are also basketball programs out there which are already considered major players despite the fact that they are not in power conferences. In addition to football schools like UConn, Cincinnati, and Memphis, and in addition to Wichita State who just joined the AAC, there are Gonzaga and BYU who are currently playing in a mid major non-football league. The Big East wouldn't miss a beat with either of them.

I know, I know. There's the geography thing. We'll disagree on that until the cows come home, but it's not like there are only inferior mid major options out there. Sometimes it seems that the objections to potential candidates want to make the perfect the enemy of the good. Like Goldilocks, candidates seem to be either too far or too close, too inferior athletically despite being a good fit or too poor a fit despite being a good match athletically. The original Big East would never have been formed and would never have thrived if this same thinking had prevailed 40 years ago.

The point of being proactive is for the purpose of controlling your own choices. It's the same reason tha David Boren pushed the Big 12 toward expansion. Their geeed killed the idea, but in the end they've likely sealed their own demise. I expect that Oklahoma will decide to control their own destiny by becoming a former Big 12 member some time in the next 5 years, following in the footsteps of Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, and Texas A&M. Since it is highly unlikely that any football schools will become non-football schools, there seems to be little to be gained from waiting for the fall out from football realignment.

We presently do stand in a position of strength. I doubt that anyone with a level head ignores the reality of the challenges we face down the road.

I guess all of this contributes to making this an interesting topic. There is no clarity around the precise course of action to take. All that we seem to know is that there is a camp that believes actions should be proactive and taking now that is up against a camp that believes we are strong right now, have a little time to watch developments from here, while understanding that action will be necessary in some form at some point.

I appreciate your position and understand that it has merit. I believe that you have articulated the risks of moving too soon while I've tried to articulate the risks of waiting too long. In explaining my preference, I don't mean to imply that I'm right and that you or anyone else is wrong. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, it is an interesting topic. Especially in the offseason before next year's recruiting and rosters are set. Cheers.

[GoldenWarrior11]

If the Big 12 implodes - a situation where Texas, Oklahoma, and possibly others leave - then a scenario occurs where the Big 12, much like the old Big East, is in danger of losing its power conference affiliation (and lucrative TV deals as well). As an example, what if West Virginia is a school left behind? While a strong athletic program, they do not carry a particularly large market and come from a very small state. It has been speculated that the ACC did not have an interest in them (even after Maryland left for the B1G). The SEC may very well not be interested in them either. We know for a fact that they are not on the B1G radar (not AAU affiliation). A WVU/UConn non-football membership would absolutely qualify as an exception to our current Private/Catholic membership - and if both schools left for another power conference, then we still have our 10-team core together. Heck, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State would all make for excellent non-football members in the Big East, as they each carry a strong and passionate basketball program. This is just a hypothetical to argue against making a move right now - today.

IMO, the situation is as follows: we have our already strong hand at the table, and there is about to be a distribution of new cards for all the players. Do we risk adding what is already available (VCU, Dayton, SLU, etc.), or do we see what is available and potentially win more (UConn/UC/Memphis/Big 12)? VCU, Dayton and SLU will all be there in the next round. Heck, I would make the argument that we could snatch Wichita State right now if we wanted to, but that's another argument entirely.

Regardless of how you feel about the Big East today, it is an absolute certainty that the Big East is in a more stable condition today than 5, 10 years ago. We are the top non-FBS conference out there - our contract stipulates that, our results show that and our prestige shows that. I am confident whatever move(s) are made will be calculated and deliberate, not reactionary or responsive like many of the old Big East adds (Houston, Tulane, East Carolina, UCF, etc.).

[Bill Marsh]

You're absolutely right, Warrior. The Big East is more stable today than it was 10 years ago. Just to be clear, stability is not the issue for me, long term earning power is.

I don't see West Virginia, or UConn, or Kansas, or any other football school coming to the Big East. Those days are over. If the Big 12 implodes, the remnants will likely form a new all sports conference with the best of the American. At least, that's how I see it.

[Bluejay]

The adherence to strictly religious schools has stripped the NBE of that armor. At 10 religious schools, conference consolidation could seemingly put the conference in a perilous predicament. Would it still be wise to use a religious litmus test to expand the conference at that point? I'm not so sure. I'm not sure why that action plan ever went into effect.

For the umpteenth time, all 10 schools in the Big East are NOT religious schools.