Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Bill Marsh]

I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.

Being a little hard in Dayton here, aren't you?

In you want to talk history, Dayton can point to the 1950's and 1960's when they were clearly a national power. From 1954-67, they were ranked in the final poll 11 times in 14 years, finishing as high as #3. The highlights were winning the 1962 NIT when that was at least as good as going to a Final Four and 1967 when they were national runner up to UCLA. I don't want to single anyone out but I can easily point to more than one Big East program that hasn't had a run like that. If history is what you want, Dayton does have that.

As for the Arlantic Ten, it's not like they didn't replace Temple and Xavier. VCU for starters has been at least as good in recent years as either of those two. Last years A10 with 6 teams going to the tournament was probably the strongest it's ever been.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion about which teams are a good fit, but to be so dismissive of them as to say they flat out don't belong is to ignore what they have accomplished. With 3 tournament bids, including a run to the Elite 8, in the past 6 years, they have been strong on the court. With attendance at 12,000+ year in and year out! they are healthy at the gate and would rank in the top 3-4 in the Big East in attendance if they were in the conference. With a ranking in the top 25 in terms of economic value by both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal, they are in an extremely sound position financially. Dayton is a very strong program right now. The Big East could do a lot worse.

[CBBcrazy]

I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.

Sorry, but wouldn't that argument make them more of a fit?

Villanova 35 NCAA appearances 17 NIT appearances since 2000 4 S16's 2 E8's 1 F4
Marquette 31 NCAA appearances 15 NIT appearances since 2000 4 S16's 2 E8's 1 F4
Georgetown 30 NCAA appearances 13 NIT appearances since 2000 3 S16's 1 E8 1 F4
Xavier 25 NCAAA appearances 7 NIT appearances since 2000 6 S16's 2 E8's 0 F4
St. Johns 20 NCAA appearances 30 NIT appearances since 2000 0 S16's 0 E8's 0 F4
Creighton 19 NCAA appearances 10 NIT appearances since 2000 0S16's 0 E8's 0 F4
Providence 17 NCAA appearances 19 NIT appearances since 2000 0 S16's 0 E8's 0 F4
Depaul 17 NCAA appearances (5 vacated) 16 NIT appearances since 2000 0 S16's 0 E8's 0 F4
Butler 13 NCAA appearances 8 NIT appearances since 2000 4 S16's 2 E8's 2 F4's 2 runner ups
Seton Hall 9 NCAA appearances 17 NIT appearances since 2000 1 S16 0 E8's 0 F4

Dayton slots above Butler and Seton Hall in number of overall appearances, as far as postseason success past the first couple rounds Dayton would be tied for 6th with Seton Hall. Let's also be honest, most of these tournament appearances for Seton Hall, Providence, and even St. Johns have not happened since the 80s. That's not to say they can't reclaim their former glory but its not like they've been stellar lately. Dayton has historically played Marquette, Depaul, Xavier, and to a lesser extent Creighton. Dayton's a Catholic institution with great enrollment, endowment, facilities, and a great fan base. I don't buy the argument about how the NCAA appearances aren't as valuable since Xavier and Temple aren't in the A10. Butler went to most of their tournaments from the horrendous Horizon League and Creighton the Missouri Valley.

[Butlerfan28]

You tell me. We add SLU tomorrow. What do you think ESPN, CBS, etc. are going to say about the move? Nothing positive one bit. Nada. Then when they start worse off than even DePaul, it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Also, I don't see Fox wanting to add SLU right now at all.

Right now, SLU has a problem in some ways similar to Dayton or VCU. They have got to show that the 3 good years were due to more than just Rick Majerus recruiting. The Big East would be absolute fools for adding SLU at least until they can get back at least into the top 100. They have to show a pulse.

In all seriousness, who cares? The pundits are absolutely irrelevant. The Big East presidents should be building an institutional brand that lasts for decades and goes far beyond basketball, not a short-term fix for NCAA Tournament bids. Those pundits certainly ripped the Big Ten for adding Rutgers... and the bosses of those pundits at ESPN and Fox will be falling all over themselves within the next couple of years to make the Big Ten the richest conference in history by far. The university presidents don't care whatsoever about those pundits and shouldn't (just as the Big Ten ignored the pundits with the Rutgers/Maryland addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the BTN and the SEC ignored the pundits with the Texas A&M/Missouri addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the creation of the SEC Network). The Big Ten and SEC didn't wait around for Rutgers, Maryland, A&M and Mizzou to get perfect on-the-field before adding them (and none of them were when they were added). They had a big picture plan based on *institutional* power and markets that can't be changed by a coaching move or some NCAA Tournament appearances.

Look - I get it. Many fans and their generally financially and academically ignorant sports media counterparts (with a handful of exceptions like Brett McMurphy) don't want to see the big picture - they just want to see entertaining games NOW. It makes sense - all of those pundits don't want to be writing about cable households and TV networks and just wish they could talk about recruiting classes and whether the game that they have to watch next week will be interesting. That's why they're not running conferences and universities, though.

Now, that being said, the Big East should certainly care what the bosses of those pundits think since they're the ones that actually have some power. The top executives of ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS certainly matter. The blathering TV and Internet pundits that work for them are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment.

The key to a great conference realignment move isn't striking when a school is hot on-the-field/court. Instead, it's about finding those schools (as opposed to teams) that add to institutional conference strength even if they don't win a single game. THOSE are the valuable schools in conference realignment (which is something that the Big Ten and SEC have understood for many years).

I think you completely miss the point about adding some public schools in your comparison to the Big 10. The Big 10's niche is large public flagship universities that represent their state. Yes it's a niche but its a huge niche from an affinity map standpoint. Rutgers and Maryland add significant population bases that have an affinity for those schools.

The Big East also has a niche but that niche is relatively small, declining in an increasingly secular America, and the Big East is missing the main draw for that niche (Notre Dame). The result is the poor ratings the Big East pulls from Fox. The intimate result of poor ratings will be less exposure on Fox and less exposure means fewer top recruits. The push to add public schools with on court results is not about recent success it's about redefining the brand image of the conference to something that has broader affinity potential. Snobbery doesn't sell. If it did the Ivy League would have a TV contract.

The Big East Presidents can ignore the fans as you put it but it's the fans who create the ratings. Adding SLU only further reinforces the image of the Big East as the Catholic Basketball league. The Presidents certainly have that right but in the end it will come at the expense of their long term product.

[jaxalum]

I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.

^^^^^^^ This

UD has had ONE run in the last thirty years. ONE..... Up to last year, they had a staggering total of 2 wins in 30 years. Of course they are national champions in preseason prognostications. Their Elite 8 run was commensurate to dumping a high yield mixture of Nitromethane and Jet Fuel on an already roaring California forest fire of delusional grandeur. Before that run,it was an NIT championship, and yes, the early season Maui Invitational. A-10 Conference Tournament Champions? One (at Dayton no less). Regular season champions? Never overall (best record in their division twice).

There are less than a handful of schools that the majority of posters on this board would agree are "slam dunk" candidates....Uconn? Notre Dame? MUBoxer says it perfectly "They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit." I think we have the luxury of waiting for the right candidate(s). A candidate that will be an exciting, news making, and dynamic addition. Dayton does not fit that description.

I mean, what is the casual basketball fan honestly going to think if the Big East were to announce the addition of the University of Dayton Flyers? Look at that honestly. The Big East is adding who? Where is Dayton? Is the vaunted Big East so desperate that they need to add a school with essentially no recognition on the national landscape? You can rebut with some handpicked numbers and stats but the perception would be poor and one of bewilderment at best. And perception is a big piece of this.

And to my fellow esteemed conference mates, if you want this board to cease being a forum of informed, competent, independent, intellectual discourse pertaining to all things Big East, please invite them. This board would immediately become an unreadable, bloated, oversaturated, mouth breathing, backwater pile of delusional and nonsensical rants. Besides that, they are fantastic!

[GibsoniaPA]

That's good enough for me- bring Dayton in. Where else do we see this seething anger other than a X fan reacting to anything UD? Will be fun to watch.

[augkash]

Lol @ all the hate from XU fans. Why are you guys so scared of Dayton. And most ppl know about Dayton and its basketball program.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Another factor to consider regarding expansion is perception. Regardless of what schools the Big East would take in the next round of expansion, it is highly probable that they will be coming from the Atlantic 10 (Dayton, Saint Louis, VCU, etc.). In taking Butler and Xavier from the A10 in 2013, it needs to be careful about creating and establishing the perception that the Big East will just continually poach the "hot" team from the A10 every few years. Look what happened to the American Conference - with UConn, Cincinnati and USF (both leftover original Big East schools), they poached Tulane, East Carolina, Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF and Tulsa from Conference USA. Today, numerous critics label them as C-USA 2.0 - as UConn, Temple and Navy are the only schools that have never played under the C-USA banner (Cincinnati and USF were C-USA members until 2005).

While the ACC poached numerous Big East schools over the years (Miami, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville and Notre Dame), the ACC brand was already established. They were never in danger of losing their brand or their image. The ACC is also not fighting to be recognized as a power in football or basketball. The Big East, despite strong showings in its first two seasons, is still fighting to be considered an elite basketball conference.

I cannot stress this enough, but the current and reconfigured Big East needs at least several seasons under its belt to rebuild its image and its brand. The 10 schools need to work together, strengthen rivalries and continue putting on exciting games of basketball. Only then will any expansion school(s) be able to be assimilated into the conference and grow into a basketball power. Any school that wishes to be considered a Big East expansion candidate needs to begin putting serious resources into their basketball programs (if they have not yet done so already) and aim for sustained basketball success (repeated NCAA/NIT bids).

[JPSchmack]

It's true that the Flyers have done quite well over the last two years on the hardwood. Furthermore, their fan support has been wonderful for decades and their TV viewing of college basketball has also been traditionally great (although in a smallish media market).

But one has to go back to the Don Donoher/Tom Blackburn years to find a consistently good program on the floor and in the stands. Furthermore, during the years UD was in a Conference (MCC, Great Midwest, and A-10), they have seldom experienced ultimate success in those Conferences in terms of regular season and Conference Tourney championships.

The same deficiencies cannot be applied to a few of UD's main competitors for membership in the Big East, especially Gonzaga, VCU, and Wichita State. Of course, each of those schools lack at least one criterion that Dayton has: geography vs Gonzaga; private institution vs VCU and Wichita State.

In the last 29 years, St. Peter’s has won three conference titles to St. John’s one. Not only is it apples to oranges, but how many times a program has won the conference they’d be leaving, which none of you are in now, is pretty much irrelevant.

And of course, you still don’t need to bring in someone better than your champion. You need to bring in schools that maximize your chances for bids.

I disagree strongly that there is a great desire by this group of presidents to expand…

…With no extra money from Fox, there is no reason to expand now. Perhaps when the pool of NCAA tourney credits builds up or we are a lot closer to the contract renewal period the environment would change, but financially it is just a dumb idea to do it right now.

I agree there’s likely not a desire to expand. But it’s not a dumb idea financially. Staying at 10 is costing you NCAA earnings. And given the size of the BE TV deal compared to the P5, that’s not wise to leave money on the table in that fashion. Especially when you can be prying it away from P5 conferences or the Atlantic 10.

[JPSchmack]

I posted on an MU board about Dayton and wanted to bring that point over here. Dayton has 16 NCAA appearances, 24 NITs. Only three of those are Elite 8s (one a runner up). The thing that this conference has in many of the teams (minus the new three) is that each team had a period where they were pretty much on par with the blue bloods in the country. Dayton never had that and the recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive as a few years ago. They don't belong. No there's not a better fit but we shouldn't try and make something that doesn't fit, fit.

Sure, but recruits don’t give a damn about what happened in the 1980s, all your expansion candidates are in that same boat and half your current members don’t even live up to better than that. Creighton, DePaul, Seton Hall and St. John’s have combined for ONE since this season’s senior class has been alive.

We tend to highly exaggerate “what happens in March” under an ultra-fine microscope. But Florida Gulf Coast isn’t a better program than Georgetown because of 40 minutes in March a couple years ago.

You can’t control what the match-ups are, what the seeds are. All you can do is put yourself in the best possible position to win NCAA games: Having the most bids possible. And a 12-team league is a better position for more bids than a 10-team league, period.


Furthermore, I think there’s a ton of cherry-picking factors when it comes to Dayton: UD has “seldom experienced ultimate success in those Conferences in terms of regular season and Conference Tourney championships.” and “Dayton doesn’t win their league as much as Gonzaga” and UD’s “recent success coincides with the two teams that dominated the A10 (temple and X) leaving so it's not even as impressive.”

You’ve got to apply the same logic to everyone. Creighton and Gonzaga and Butler’s success in the MVC, WCC and Horizon coincided with not having the strength of the A10 around. DePaul was just fine in C-USA when they were kicking the crap out of ECU, Tulane, USF, Houston and So Miss, and they hit the cellar in the 18-team Big East and are still trying to recover. How competitive in the mega-Big East were Providence & Seton Hall from 2001-2013?


Which brings me back to the #1 point of my presence on this site at all:

All Conferences behave the same way. Your top teams are 16-2 or 15-3, your middle teams are 10-8 to 7-11, and the bottom teams are 4-14 to 0-18. It doesn’t matter if the league is full of 10 awesome members, or 10 crappy members; or a mix of awesome and crappy.

Back in December of 2012, some guy made a crazy claim the in 2013-14, the New Big East is probably getting 3-4 bids and the weakened, crappy A-10 was probably getting 3 (maybe 2, maybe 4). That idiot was wrong because the Big East got four when Providence won the BET, and the A10 GOT FREAKING SIX. (Humorously enough, some Xavier fan who made the claim of “If an A10 without Butler, Xavier and Temple gets four NCAA bids, I’ll donate $500 to the charity of your choice).”

The same guy also said that the only way the Big East could improve their bid totals in a 10-team league was by dialing back the number of games against top competition and winning more OOC games. Which they did this year (they played fewer games vs Top 50 of the RPI OOC, AND fewer games vs 201+ of the RPI, playing and winning a ton in the 51-199 range for a higher RPI and six bids).

The same guy also said that without Xavier and Temple, Dayton’s going to go from an average of nine conference wins a year to an average of 11+ wins a year. No other A10 team played Xavier & Temple more than Dayton, who always had the home & home with X, and usually ran into XU/TU at the A10 Tourney. And now, surprise, surprise, with those 2+ extra wins, Dayton’s made the dance instead of being on the bubble.

It’s almost like this dude knows what he’s talking about. It’s not being some amazing prognosticator. It’s understanding how conference play works. NCAA bids don’t come from “bringing in programs who earn NCAA bids.” NCAA bids come from resumes, and the third place A-10 team is always going to be around 12 to 13 conference wins, and with 10 teams, the 6th place Big East team is always going to be around 6 to 9 conference wins.

I cannot stress this enough, but the current and reconfigured Big East needs at least several seasons under its belt to rebuild its image and its brand. The 10 schools need to work together, strengthen rivalries and continue putting on exciting games of basketball. Only then will any expansion school(s) be able to be assimilated into the conference and grow into a basketball power. Any school that wishes to be considered a Big East expansion candidate needs to begin putting serious resources into their basketball programs (if they have not yet done so already) and aim for sustained basketball success (repeated NCAA/NIT bids).

So, having a brand reputation that 4-6 Big East teams that aren’t associated much with the A10 (outside of Xavier and a year of Butler) is better for the image than MORE BIDS coming from your league? You think anyone actually remembers Nova wasn’t a founding Big East member but joined the league from the A10?


You’re not “always” going to be known as the conference that steals the best A10 program every few years, because there’s no reason to expand past 12. The next guys you take are who you’re rolling with. Which is why everyone should stop focusing on silly factors, figure out exactly what is important, exactly what the long term goal is, and who gets you there the best. When you do that, I’m pretty sure it’s Dayton/Bona as the perfect two schools to add.

What was the line from Herb Brooks in the 1980 Olympic trials? “I’m not looking for the BEST players, I’m looking for the right ones.”

[Xudash]

That's good enough for me- bring Dayton in. Where else do we see this seething anger other than a X fan reacting to anything UD? Will be fun to watch.

I believe you are a Dayton fan. You are making jaxalum's point. You do not have a say in this. And try getting past the idea that it is about anger; you guys have not done anything that warrants your inclusion in the Big East.