The Gonzaga Thread... with Poll...

[Xudash]

Bill,

I'm not paying as much attention to it as in years past when this was a warmer topic, but I do wonder about the bowl tie-in money.

Specifically, the payouts that come from the NC Bowl game, the two playoff games and the other remaining main bowls of a given year far, far exceed those coming from even the secondary bowls, such as the Capital One Bowl, etc. The lower on the totem poll you go, the worse it gets, such that the teams attending those bowls typically do so at a loss.

At the end of the day, how much of a distribution can a conference make to its schools when it's tied to the former Weedeater Bowl, as an example?

A quick look-up found the following linked article: http://www.realclearsports.com/charts/projected_bowl_payouts_per_team-198.html

[JPSchmack]

I’ll be brief (for me) since by now virtually all of you know my opinion(s)…

1. Adding Gonzaga really helps Gonzaga. But how does it help the rest of you?
NCAA bids roughly the same, maybe one more (to Gonzaga); You might get a deeper run by the Zags out of it; You avoid any future early match ups with Gonzaga in the NCAA Tournament itself…

… But any Big East win Gonzaga has is an extra loss you 10 didn’t have before.

2. The Big East has all the quality programs it needs already.
When you guys formed, it was “hey, all 10 of these schools has NCAA tradition with like, 17 to 40 NCAA bids each. There’s no reason all 10 couldn’t be NCAA calibre each year.” And that’s kinda true. You’ve got 7 to 9 in any given year who could be an NCAA Tournament team if they didn’t have to play 14 games against the top 7 Big East teams.

3. It’s that structure of conference play which eliminates teams from NCAA contention. You go 90-90 against yourself. Your 8th place team is going to be around 5-13 in BE play and the RPI won’t be high enough to be on the at-large board.

4. If you add Gonzaga for an 11th team, you need to add others with them (one of whom should be a travel partner for Gonzaga). Ideally, teams that can win OOC and absorb BE losses.

The ideal configuration for the Big East would be adding a peer like Gonzaga or Dayton. And TWO teams who are going 9-3 or better against their current mid-major OOC schedules (but would go 11-1 or 12-0 by dialing it back when they join the Big East) while probably finishing in the 9-13 range of the Big East.

5. You don’t need to go to Spokane for that. Because Portland can’t win OOC at the same clip someone in the A-10 could.

You could add Dayton, Bonaventure, Duquesne and be an 8 to 9 bid league every year. Because if Dayton goes 10-8, Bona 7-11, and Duquesne 2-16 (reasonable projections), they combined are 19-35 in Big East play. Which means the rest of you just went from 90-90 combined to 98-82 combined. That’s getting your bubble team IN along with Dayton. So it’s +2 compared to now. (This past Big East season was kind of an outlier on how conferences are going to work because of what happened with Xavier & Creighton and injuries. They got to Top 20 status before injuries and then your next tier of teams picked up wins over them in the second half of BE play, elevating that tier into the dance while not dropping X & CU out of the dance. You can’t rely on that happening year in and year out).

[CrawfishBucket]

I’ll be brief (for me) since by now virtually all of you know my opinion(s)…

1. Adding Gonzaga really helps Gonzaga. But how does it help the rest of you?

Remind me what Gonzaga's seed was this year...

Gonzaga helps the Big East by supplying one of the best basketball brands in the country. Period.

[NJRedman]

I’ll be brief (for me) since by now virtually all of you know my opinion(s)…

1. Adding Gonzaga really helps Gonzaga. But how does it help the rest of you?

Remind me what Gonzaga's seed was this year...

Gonzaga helps the Big East by supplying one of the best basketball brands in the country. Period.

Thats if they can go through a Big East schedule with just a single loss. Also that level of success isn't a guarantee moving forward in a tougher conference half a continent away.

[gtmoBlue]

Hey JP,

How u doin' man. Nice to have you back on the boards. I've been carrying the torch and waving the banner for 12 and referencing your conference building platform whenever the subject re-emerges (Often). Been recently pushing for 12 - Zags n Bonnies/HC/Duquesne. Many of these folks just don't get it- stubborn or dense.

Many new monikers here. Maybe a brief synopsis of your platform for growth and Postseason bids? Thanks.

[JPSchmack]

I’ll be brief (for me) since by now virtually all of you know my opinion(s)…

1. Adding Gonzaga really helps Gonzaga. But how does it help the rest of you?

Remind me what Gonzaga's seed was this year...

Gonzaga helps the Big East by supplying one of the best basketball brands in the country. Period.

See, this is exactly where our philosophical disconnect is.

There's an oversimplification of:
Gonzaga (32-1, NCAA Finalist) + 10 Big East teams (187-119 on Selection Sunday, 7 NCAA teams) = 11 Big East Teams (218-120, 8 NCAA teams).

But it doesn't work like that.

If Gonzaga was in the Big East this past season, you'd have had: 11 Big East Teams (191-133, ??? NCAA teams).
Gonzaga couldn't go 17-1 in the Big East without the rest of you combining for 82-116 instead of 90-90. And Gonzaga can't go 3-0 in the Big East Tournament without the rest of you going 7-10 instead of 9-9.

I don't know where Gonzaga would slot in, so it's impossible to say how many NCAA teams you'd have had with Gonzaga last year because of the Xavier/Creighton injury situations (which benefited the BE Bubble immensely). The number of NCAA teams you can project is always tough when you're dealing with hypotheticals and trying to say "Well, if you adjust the schedule to account for expansion, Dayton probably isn't beating Villanova in Philly." And on the average, upsets will kinda balance out. Everyone's going to upset someone and everyone's going to get upset, so you just kinda go straight RPI with a home court advantage and people seem to see your point.


But all you have to do is look at the history of expansion…
The ACC had 6 NCAA tournament teams, added FOUR NCAA teams. 6 + 4 = 10? Nope, they got 8 the first year.
In 2012, Louisville, Cincy, USF, UConn (BE), Memphis (CUSA), Temple (A10) NCAA teams about to start play in the AAC. 4 + 1 + 1 = 6? AAC got 4 NCAA bids the first year.

Or the inverse of that. The A-10 had 4 NCAA teams in Temple, Xavier, Butler and VCU. Three left. 4 - 3 = 1! 95% of the people said the A-10 was going to be a one-bid league, MAYBE a two bid league. Six bids in 2014. (I was in that 5% and can prove it, BTW).

NCAA bids a product of the conference configuration.
The combined OOC record = Your conference schedule SOS.
The conference schedule (always = .500) dictates who’s in/out/bubble.

I know I'm not very popular and my opinions run contrary to conventional wisdom. But this is because conventional wisdom is simply wrong. Reality is messier than "add the NCAA bids" together. Now, does having Gonzaga make the Big East LOOK better? Absolutely. But it's not going to have the effect you want for all 11 teams. There is no rising tide. It's a teeter-totter. Someone goes up in conference wins, someone else has to go down in conference wins.

That doesn't mean Gonzaga has no value, because they absolutely do. The Big East could absolutely use "another Villanova" to have multiple NCAA Title contenders. But the Big East doesn't lack for depth/strength. The Big East lacks balance. If you were to add Gonzaga, the smartest play is to find two teams who can match your OOC win percentage (which lots of programs can do if they don't have to take buy games once they join the BE) and will take their lumps in conference.

I have not really been looking at Big East + Gonzaga + 2 others. But I can take a look at that.

[Bill Marsh]

JP, the better the teams in a conference, the more of them will be in the tournament and the greater the odds of teams moving forward. The more wins a conference has in the tournament, the greater their revenue from the tournament and the better their marketability when it comes to TV contracts.

We can see how this works when we look at revenue to the Big East Conference BS revenue to the West Coast Conference where Gonzaga earns all the tournament money but then divides it up with everyone else in the conference.

You're treating this like it's a math game, but it isn't. Who the strong and weak teams are isn't fixed. Just compare where Georgetown and Providence were 5 years ago when the C7 reformed the Big East.

[billyjack]

If we were to expand:

- I don't like the idea of gaming the system to get more bids. It shows a lack of confidence in our programs.

- I just want us to have the best possible teams to make us the strongest conference possible.

- Ultimately i want to watch great college hoops. Gaming the system is boring as shit...

Imagine all of us sitting around our flatscreens in early December, freezing cold outside with howling winds, and here we are on pins and needles hoping that newly-added Big East member Duquesne can protect a 4 point halftime lead at home to beat Canisius. Sounds like DePaul under Purnell, which was the least enjoyable part of our 4 years on FS1.

Now compare that to Gonzaga, automatic 12-1 in non-conference, and they want to join us, and where the only Zags question each year will be if they will beat Arizona or UCLA.

By the way, what have Duquesne and St Bona done in non-conference recently? I know Dayton has some wins, but what about these other smaller programs? Saint Louis to me at this point is also as boring as shit, it'd be like "hiring John McNamara" (to use a 1970's and 80's baseball term), although i know they've recruited better under Ford.

Of these weaker programs I'd rather just add Northeastern cuz at least we'd be back in Boston and i could get to some games, and the school is really growing, and it would annoy Judas BC to plant a flag in the Hub, and they did knock off Michigan State last year.

[Bill Marsh]

My comments about Notre Dame football joining the ACC were originally made in response to XUdash's post about a move to a 4 x 16 format. Under these conditions, there is little doubt that Notre Dame would have to move its football to a conference. Because of contractual commitments, this conference would be the ACC.

Without a 4 x 16 format, anything's possible, so I have no argument with any of your comments in this post.

Travel would not be for all non-football sports. That's not the way it works. It would only be for a handful. This has been discussed on this board several times before.

No to St Mary's. Gonzaga has access to a bigger arena, which would have to be a requirement if they were added. Gonzaga has achieved a stature that generates viewership beyond their immediate market. Moreover, they are not a commuter school which only has followers in their immediate metro area. Like all Big East schools they draw their student body regionally and they have alumni concentrations regionally - especially in Seattle. Home/home doesn't do anything for the Big East as a conference other than to guarantee a good OOC game here or there.

Inevitably??? The ACC and Notre Dame thought that the need for ND to place its football in a conference is a realistic enough possibility that they wrote that contingency into their contract. If/when that happens, UConn is the logical choice as #16.

Even if UConn doesn't make it to the F5, they are still a football school and the Big East doesn't sponsor football. I don't see a marriage here unless things change drastically.

Well, a conference cannot be selective in which Olympic sports you can take in.

Did I or anyone suggest they could? What's your point?

Gonzaga's basketball, soccer, baseball, cross country, tennis, track and field and women's volleyball would all need to fall under the Big East banner because we sponsor it.

Yes, that's true. What's your point?

We can't just pick and choose what to take in based on convenience. No conference can operate that way. If we sponsor it, it needs to come with.

Quite true again. This has never been disputed.

The only sport that we don't sponsor that Gonzaga participates in is rowing (which Georgetown is the only BE member). The location of Gonzaga is simply too distant to realistically consider full-membership. No President will willingly agree to such a demand placed on student-athletes for travel, especially Gonzaga's - despite what Mark Few may have to say.

Are you suggesting that athletes from tennis, cross country, track & field would need to travel to Spokane annually? Nope. That's not how Big East competition works right now in these sports. It wouldn't even happen annually in baseball, softball, or women's volleyball. This information has been posted here numerous times before, so I'm not going to rehash it, but there are only 4-5 sports which compete home & home annually. Conference competition for a number of sports involves only a single conference event a year. You need better information on this point.

Anyone who is opposed to this proposal can mount an argument that it is impossible. The only valid argument would be to approach the issue creatively with a positive approach to see what it would take to make it work. Then, when a realistic plan is on the table, the pros and cons can be weighed. For example, men and women can be scheduled together to reduce travel costs. East Coast trips can be piggy backed on trips to Creighton to limit the extra travel. Schools with the longest trips can be prioritized for scheduling during intercession and long weekends to minimize impact on classroom time.

If you're willing to look at ways to make it work, we can talk. If you're just going to dismiss it out of hand, then we'll agree to disagree. No problem from me on your preference. You have a legitimate POV.

The realistic compromise is some type of scheduling alliance. It helps their scheduling, and improves a handful of our teams' SOS in a given year.

What's the point of a scheduling alliance? Any BE team can schedule Gonzaga right now. There's no point in scheduling the rest of the WCC for an alliance.

Gonzaga doesn't need help with their OOC schedule. They do very well with that right now. It's the conference schedule that's their problem. An even bigger problem is the way that their tournament revenue is dissipated by being shared in a conference where the rest of the members are generating very little revenue. It's an unequal financial relationship for Gonzaga. Frankly, they'd do better financially as an independent.

[EMT]

I’ll be brief (for me) since by now virtually all of you know my opinion(s)…

1. Adding Gonzaga really helps Gonzaga. But how does it help the rest of you?

Remind me what Gonzaga's seed was this year...

Gonzaga helps the Big East by supplying one of the best basketball brands in the country. Period.

See, this is exactly where our philosophical disconnect is.

There's an oversimplification of:
Gonzaga (32-1, NCAA Finalist) + 10 Big East teams (187-119 on Selection Sunday, 7 NCAA teams) = 11 Big East Teams (218-120, 8 NCAA teams).

But it doesn't work like that.

If Gonzaga was in the Big East this past season, you'd have had: 11 Big East Teams (191-133, ??? NCAA teams).
Gonzaga couldn't go 17-1 in the Big East without the rest of you combining for 82-116 instead of 90-90. And Gonzaga can't go 3-0 in the Big East Tournament without the rest of you going 7-10 instead of 9-9.

I don't know where Gonzaga would slot in, so it's impossible to say how many NCAA teams you'd have had with Gonzaga last year because of the Xavier/Creighton injury situations (which benefited the BE Bubble immensely). The number of NCAA teams you can project is always tough when you're dealing with hypotheticals and trying to say "Well, if you adjust the schedule to account for expansion, Dayton probably isn't beating Villanova in Philly." And on the average, upsets will kinda balance out. Everyone's going to upset someone and everyone's going to get upset, so you just kinda go straight RPI with a home court advantage and people seem to see your point.


But all you have to do is look at the history of expansion…
The ACC had 6 NCAA tournament teams, added FOUR NCAA teams. 6 + 4 = 10? Nope, they got 8 the first year.
In 2012, Louisville, Cincy, USF, UConn (BE), Memphis (CUSA), Temple (A10) NCAA teams about to start play in the AAC. 4 + 1 + 1 = 6? AAC got 4 NCAA bids the first year.

Or the inverse of that. The A-10 had 4 NCAA teams in Temple, Xavier, Butler and VCU. Three left. 4 - 3 = 1! 95% of the people said the A-10 was going to be a one-bid league, MAYBE a two bid league. Six bids in 2014. (I was in that 5% and can prove it, BTW).

NCAA bids a product of the conference configuration.
The combined OOC record = Your conference schedule SOS.
The conference schedule (always = .500) dictates who’s in/out/bubble.

I know I'm not very popular and my opinions run contrary to conventional wisdom. But this is because conventional wisdom is simply wrong. Reality is messier than "add the NCAA bids" together. Now, does having Gonzaga make the Big East LOOK better? Absolutely. But it's not going to have the effect you want for all 11 teams. There is no rising tide. It's a teeter-totter. Someone goes up in conference wins, someone else has to go down in conference wins.

That doesn't mean Gonzaga has no value, because they absolutely do. The Big East could absolutely use "another Villanova" to have multiple NCAA Title contenders. But the Big East doesn't lack for depth/strength. The Big East lacks balance. If you were to add Gonzaga, the smartest play is to find two teams who can match your OOC win percentage (which lots of programs can do if they don't have to take buy games once they join the BE) and will take their lumps in conference.

I have not really been looking at Big East + Gonzaga + 2 others. But I can take a look at that.

This makes a ton of sense. Thanks for spelling this out.