GoldenWarrior11 wrote:I hate to break it to the board, but there are considerable barriers for Gonzaga ever becoming a member in the Big East without a full western pod to compliment it. First and foremost, the Big East is an East coast, NYC-centered, basketball conference. If Gonzaga were located in Cleveland, they would have been added a decade ago easily. However, even with our $4-$5 million payouts annually, it makes zero financial sense to add Gonzaga as a full-member (which NCAA laws require, as your basketball home is your home for all sports). Gonzaga cannot be added as a men's basketball-only member. For Gonzaga, being in the WCC does not prevent them from competing for national championships. Their donations are at an all-time high. There is zero incentive for them to join an East Coast league, one that would require annual trips to Newark, New York City, Washington D.C., Storrs and Philadelphia (let alone the other Midwestern states).
Secondly, all of these moves being made (and soon to be made) are all for football, first and foremost. The cold harsh reality that Kansas, a blue blood basketball program, is not going to be picked up by the B1G, ACC or PAC, speaks volumes to where the pecking order of realignment falls. The C7 have very intimate knowledge of this. Every single move is because of football. Because of that, there is no move to make right now. The Big East doesn't need to because it does not affect its standing in the basketball hierarchy, and the Big East continues to be treated as a peer to the power conferences.
Thirdly, for all conferences, a school has to provide value to the league if their top sport suddenly crumbles and is no longer nationally relevant. What value would Gonzaga offer to the Big East if they lost Few and hired a coach that tanked the program? What would happen if they underwent a long rebuild? What value would our programs have traveling in all-sports to Spokane annually if it wasn't a strong matchup? Think like a University President, not a college basketball fan.
Spot on.
What is taking place in college football with respect to conference realignment is taking place because of money that is being driven by media packages. It's taking place in the world of college football, not college basketball. A conference will add to its membership if at the end of the day it manages through its media partners to INCREASE THE PER SCHOOL PAYOUT for each of its members. Can the SEC make that happen by adding UT and OU? Yes, apparently. Could the Big12 make that happen the last time around when it attempted to expand beyond 10? No, much to the chagrin of schools like UCONN, UC, Houston, etc. They couldn't make the media payout numbers work where the corn grows tall, so they moved on, focusing on at least getting approval for a conference championship game for a 10-member conference.
Does this or will this conglomeration of football brands in any combination ultimately screw up college basketball? A student of history could argue that anything is possible, and that change is constant or assured, or whatever. The obvious example is having gone from no NCAA organization to having formed the NCAA, coupled with the reality that the NCAA overtook the NIT in stature at some point and never looked back. Could basketball get screwed up or screwed over? Well, sure, anything is possible.
However, here is the difference as I see it, and this is what I'm banking on. Yes, it is true that the NCAA overtook the NIT in relevance, and all that took place before CBS, in particular, came calling with a wagon load of cash. But THE business model has been cast and has been in place now for the NCAAT since the mid-80's. What did the powers that be learn?
They learned that the formula for success was about expanding the tournament and making it into an inclusive event involving athletic conferences up and down the strada. Maybe a few athletic and media executives could fathom what the NCAAT would become back then, but I doubt many people understood what it would become.
It now is simply one of the premier sporting events on the calendar. If the power elites in college football, essentially, break it up, unwind it, reduce it, split out from it - whatever - they will not end up with as much
unit income as they enjoy from it now (i.e. yes, their denominator would be smaller from having created a power college "U" group, but their numerator (revenue) would be reduced, and I believe fairly seriously. It certainly wouldn't be a compelling 64-team tournament, assuming they're about a 4x16 or 2x32 structure. Political backlash would be severe, IMO. Casual fans who had tuned in for the cinderella, inclusive aspect of it would be put off by such an elitist show, unless they're salivating over the likes of a Washington State v Vanderbilt first round match up.
We have no reason to panic. The power elite in college football are solving for football, not basketball. More importantly for the BE, the change that is coming for football may lead to new opportunities for the BE when it comes to our basketball membership. We should (will; we have bright people running the BE) only add to our membership where and when such additions bring value to our media agreement - we only add when we can INCREASE THE PER SCHOOL PAYOUT, just like the football schools are doing. Our media partner will mutually determine all that with us. Additions to the BE will be made on a proactive, value-added basis, not based on panic moves that may or may not have anything to do with their economic value to the conference.
Unless the world goes truly crazy, the BE will have a seat at THE table that is about the premier college basketball tournament in the United States, whether the organization that runs it is still the NCAA or something else. The NIL dynamic will have to be managed effectively by our members, but we should at least be positioned to deal with that effectively.