Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

Xudash wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:After this discussion, I wonder if we can agree on the following:

1. The Big East should not add teams just for the sake of adding
2. The only schools who should be added are basketball programs who are consistent winners with a proven track record.
3. If it takes 5 years to find such programs, then the league should take 5 years.
4. Programs like that are hard to find.

1. Agree. In fact, the Big East should carefully monitor the round robin dynamic, assuming they allow themselves enough time for that (probably at least 3 full seasons). If there aren't other compelling financial reasons to grow the conference and the rivalries really do start to pop and sizzle, leave it alone.

2. Agree. I agree, simply for no other reason than I can only identify UCONN, Temple and Memphis as current football/strong hoops programs that could bring value to the Big East. UCONN isn't going to step away from all they've invested in football, even if they have to continue to sit and rot in the AAC, looking for some way out to a bigger party. Temple's problem is its redundant (to Nova) location. Memphis just scares me due to a lack of institutional fit.

3. Absolutely agree.

4. Agree. St. Louis is closest to meeting the target, especially given their private/Jesuit status.

Given a solid ~3 seasons to evaluate both the league and the team, I wouldn't see harm in inviting St. Louis (obviously assuming they stay strong) and just St. Louis. A couple years of single-digit NCAA seeds/high A10 finishes, combined with strong Academics (and their new market) could make them a good choice. Would a 20 game round robin season be doable? The regular season is roughly 10 weeks long anyway, so every team gets one weekend 'off' from conference play...which would be great to schedule their OOC 'grudge match' game (GTown/Syr, St. J/UConn, Nova/Temple, X/Cincy, etc).

In a decade, when the TV contract is up again, maybe a 12th could be considered (who knows...maybe Dayton finally starts cashing those checks their fans write)...I know it may be a bit of a stretch, but maybe Davidson really grows in the A10 and becomes a good pickup and way to move the conference footprint south and stick it to the ACC.

Hopefully Saint Louis University gets the freaking message for a change.

Winning the A-10 means absolutely nothing. Either get their crap together for the Big East ASAP or...

DeltaV wrote:

Xudash wrote:

Bill Marsh wrote:After this discussion, I wonder if we can agree on the following:

1. The Big East should not add teams just for the sake of adding
2. The only schools who should be added are basketball programs who are consistent winners with a proven track record.
3. If it takes 5 years to find such programs, then the league should take 5 years.
4. Programs like that are hard to find.

1. Agree. In fact, the Big East should carefully monitor the round robin dynamic, assuming they allow themselves enough time for that (probably at least 3 full seasons). If there aren't other compelling financial reasons to grow the conference and the rivalries really do start to pop and sizzle, leave it alone.

2. Agree. I agree, simply for no other reason than I can only identify UCONN, Temple and Memphis as current football/strong hoops programs that could bring value to the Big East. UCONN isn't going to step away from all they've invested in football, even if they have to continue to sit and rot in the AAC, looking for some way out to a bigger party. Temple's problem is its redundant (to Nova) location. Memphis just scares me due to a lack of institutional fit.

3. Absolutely agree.

4. Agree. St. Louis is closest to meeting the target, especially given their private/Jesuit status.

Given a solid ~3 seasons to evaluate both the league and the team, I wouldn't see harm in inviting St. Louis (obviously assuming they stay strong) and just St. Louis. A couple years of single-digit NCAA seeds/high A10 finishes, combined with strong Academics (and their new market) could make them a good choice. Would a 20 game round robin season be doable? The regular season is roughly 10 weeks long anyway, so every team gets one weekend 'off' from conference play...which would be great to schedule their OOC 'grudge match' game (GTown/Syr, St. J/UConn, Nova/Temple, X/Cincy, etc).

In a decade, when the TV contract is up again, maybe a 12th could be considered (who knows...maybe Dayton finally starts cashing those checks their fans write)...I know it may be a bit of a stretch, but maybe Davidson really grows in the A10 and becomes a good pickup and way to move the conference footprint south and stick it to the ACC.

I agree about this. Maybe just add SLU and stop at 11? 20 game round robin?

I can see adding St. Louis because of the market their in, but lets build what we have and see what the footballers do first. The Big 12 might explode and the Kansas teams might wanna come in or teams like UConn, Temple, Cincinati, Memphis might not have anywhere to go but the Big East. As it is, we got 3 new teams coming in who have to adjust to a new league and several existing teams up and coming. Adding another unknown quantity just makes the work harder.

SJU87 wrote:I can see adding St. Louis because of the market their in, but lets build what we have and see what the footballers do first. The Big 12 might explode and the Kansas teams might wanna come in or teams like UConn, Temple, Cincinati, Memphis might not have anywhere to go but the Big East. As it is, we got 3 new teams coming in who have to adjust to a new league and several existing teams up and coming. Adding another unknown quantity just makes the work harder.

I will simply never understand including the possibility of inviting FBS schools into the Big East mix, especially by a fan of an "Old Big East" member. By bringing in the likes of UConn, Temple, Cincy, and Memphis, we will put ourselves in the position of wondering when the first wave of defections will occur. At least two of those four schools are already trying on their skimpiest bikinis in an attempt to pique the interest of the ACC and the Big 12. I wouldn't want to be am "also-ran" member of the AAC now because that is what they'll be living with until the hammer drops!

No FBS schools. I don't really care what happens in any future football realignment. Not our problem. I have been watching the AAC this season and it's one bad football conference. Really bad.
In 16 games, UConn, USF, SMU and Temple have a combined 1 victory.

Going to eleven might not be a bad idea with SLU. The three best basketball only programs out there currently are Gonzaga (too far away) and VCU/ Wichita State (public)
No other BBall program remaining out there jumps out at me. If we are not considering public schools, stay at 10 or just go to 11.

Bill Marsh wrote:After this discussion, I wonder if we can agree on the following:

1. The Big East should not add teams just for the sake of adding
2. The only schools who should be added are basketball programs who are consistent winners with a proven track record.
3. If it takes 5 years to find such programs, then the league should take 5 years.
4. Programs like that are hard to find.

Strongly agree on all 4.

Add UConn.

This may be way off base, but I wonder if the number of teams that get into the NCAA this year, and maybe next, would play a part.
If we only had 3 teams in the tournament, and if part of the reason for that was a crowded middle of conference results, would the math push them to add members to increase the chances for more tournament teams?

The Fox money is nice, but the NCAA credits(and exposure) never hurt.

paulxu wrote:This may be way off base, but I wonder if the number of teams that get into the NCAA this year, and maybe next, would play a part.
If we only had 3 teams in the tournament, and if part of the reason for that was a crowded middle of conference results, would the math push them to add members to increase the chances for more tournament teams?

The Fox money is nice, but the NCAA credits(and exposure) never hurt.

My guess would be yes. If we don't get as many teams as expected into the tourney due to a logjam in the middle, then adding teams even to the lower half becomes more attractive. Let's say we have 2 teams on the bubble and both fail to get in, that would likely spur on the presidents to add more teams. I personally believe that a 12 team conference next year has potentially 7, maybe even 8, tournament quality teams. The odd man or two out is going to be pissed. In my opinion this would likely be after a decent sample period, 3 years minimum.