Big East Conference Expansion Ideas and Discussion

[NJRedman]

What got your panties all in a bunch? You asked a question, i answered it. Are you suggesting long term success is not desirable in an expansion candidate?

The 3 schools that the C7 added last year had a run of success that went back more than 2 or 3 years.

Xavier - 22 NCAA tournament bids over the past 30 years under multiple coaches, 2 Elite 8's & 5 Sweet 16's in the past decade.

Butler - 11 NCAA tournament bids over the past 16 years, highlighted by 2 runs to the NC game but also including a total of 4 runs to the sweet 16 and they did it under 3 or 4 different coaches.

Creighton - 9 bids to the NCAA tournament over the past 14 years with tournament wins over Florida, Louisville, Alabama, and Cincinnati. Add to that incredible home attendance.

Those are established programs, which is why they were chosen. Whether you look at the past 15 years or the past 30 years, St Louis' record simply doesn't compare.

St Louis - 6 bids to the NCAA tournament in the past 19 years with a total of 4 tournament wins - New Mexico State, Memphis, UMass, Minnesota

Whose panties are in a bunch? Not mine.

This Saint Louis program just won the A-10, in what was one of if not THE strongest year that conference has had. Not just the regular season or the tournament but BOTH. Butler was not a national power coming out of the Horizon league. Yes, they made the tournament in a weaker conference. Saint Louis was vying for a bid playing against tougher competition. Not knocking Butler, but we can all see their struggles once they started playing stiffer competition.

Saint Louis can't help who they get matched up with so your listing of who beat who is inconsequential.

Also once again, the part of my argument that you clearly continue to ignore is that it doesn't matter how good the program is! Teams will finish 1-12 no matter how many good teams you add. You can add the best teams in the country, that just means the established teams will now be bottom feeders not making the tournament. Also, everyone will have bad years. Look at Butler and Marquette. IT'S NOT THE VALUE YOU BRING WHILE YOU'RE PLAYING WELL, BUT THE VALUE YOU BRING WHILE PLAYING POORLY THAT MATTERS! I can't believe how so many of you continue to ignore this since it is what will be used by the presidents and commissioner when discussing who they will add.

You're ignoring the point of the conversation.

You asked, "What more could we want?"

I said, "Long term success."

You went off on a diatribe.

I made the simple point that long term success would make any candidate more desirable. Why in the world would you argue against that?

As for Butler, they certainly have been a national power in the past decade. They didn't just make the tournament out of the Horizon League, they validated their bid by making it to the Sweet 16 4 times in a decade and getting to the championship game twice. If that's not a national. Power, what is?

St Louis didn't make the tournament because they were facing tougher competition? Be serious. If St Louis couldn't win their way into the tournament in a mid major league, then they didn't belong. It's not like they were playing in the Big East where you could get away with that argument.

If your argument is the value that a program brings when they're losing, then Dayton is your team. Automatic for 12,000 fans in the seats every year for 35 years. Top 25 in attendance despite having a mediocre program on the court. They're your boys.

Diatribe? There you go again, another shot in your response. You didn't answer it, you gave a snarky answer being a wise ass.

Okay, I laid out all that SLU had going for it which is good tv market, institutional fit, academic fit and currently a quality program. You think they need more on top of that? If not then why say they need long term success? Besides just being a general annoying smart ass.

[tsmithohio1234]

"I really don't get some people's animosity towards any possible new schools. There is nothing wrong with either Dayton or SLU in my book. With my Bulldogs trending down, and SLU trending up, SLU will end up with a higher average attendance than we do. Both of our arenas are 10,000, so it's a valid comparison"

It is just XU people who do not seem to grasp the fact that the XU/UD rivalry helped make XU what it is today and if they are smart, will want it to continue long into the future.

[ChicagoX]

It is just XU people who do not seem to grasp the fact that the XU/UD rivalry helped make XU what it is today and if they are smart, will want it to continue long into the future.

I don't see how a regional rivalry that was completely and utterly dominated by Xavier the past 30+ years helped make XU's program what it is today. Xavier is who they are today because of three decades of smart investments to their basketball program, the opening of the Cintas Center, great coaching hires, strong recruiting and routinely winning conference championships and NCAA Tournament games.

If anything, Xavier made Dayton what they are today by allowing UD to ride X's coattails to get into the Atlantic 10 and providing their fans with their biggest home game of the year. Xavier's rivalry against Cincinnati provided much more national exposure and did much more to advance the program than any game played against Dayton.

After SLU is admitted to the Big East, I just can't envision any scenario where schools like Marquette, Xavier and Butler would vote for Dayton's inclusion. They are going up against UD in recruiting, so why help a school that most definitely hasn't earned and doesn't deserve an invite? I also can't see East Coast schools such as Georgetown and Villanova wanting a seventh Midwest school in a 12-team league. I think UD will be SOL when it is all said and done. They are well on their way to another 8-8 season the A10, so it's not as if they're making the decision hard for the Big East presidents.

[DudeAnon]

It is just XU people who do not seem to grasp the fact that the XU/UD rivalry helped make XU what it is today and if they are smart, will want it to continue long into the future.

I don't see how a regional rivalry that was completely and utterly dominated by Xavier the past 30+ years helped make XU's program what it is today. Xavier is who they are today because of three decades of smart investments to their basketball program, the opening of the Cintas Center, great coaching hires, strong recruiting and routinely winning conference championships and NCAA Tournament games.

If anything, Xavier made Dayton what they are today by allowing UD to ride X's coattails to get into the Atlantic 10 and providing their fans with their biggest home game of the year. Xavier's rivalry against Cincinnati provided much more national exposure and did much more to advance the program than any game played against Dayton.

After SLU is admitted to the Big East, I just can't envision any scenario where schools like Marquette, Xavier and Butler would vote for Dayton's inclusion. They are going up against UD in recruiting, so why help a school that most definitely hasn't earned and doesn't deserve an invite? I also can't see East Coast schools such as Georgetown and Villanova wanting a seventh Midwest school in a 12-team league. I think UD will be SOL when it is all said and done. They are well on their way to another 8-8 season the A10, so it's not as if they're making the decision hard for the Big East presidents.

Chill man, you are making Xavier fans look like assholes.

[notkirkcameron]

SLU is one of the better expansion candidates discussed in this thread, although, with all due respect to the Billikens, that really isn't saying much. If this thread has taught us one thing it's that all the game-changing programs worth getting aren't available, barring some seismic shift in the basketball landscape (UConn, Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest), and the programs who are available without a seismic shift aren't the game-changing programs worth getting (Insert your favorite A-10 and CAA menagerie here).

More blind resume time!
Team A: Went to three consecutive NCAA Tournaments*, winning games in two of them. This team has no FBS football, and posted 20-win seasons in a mid-major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 4 out of 5 seasons. They won a conference regular season title and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team B.

Team B: Went to six consecutive NCAA Tournaments, reaching two Sweet Sixteens. This team has no FBS football, posted 20-win seasons in a mid major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 6 consecutive seasons. They won 5 conference regular season titles and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team A.


Team A is Saint Louis from 2009-2014. *= assuming they make it this year
Team B is Southern Illinois from 2001-2007.


NOTE: NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE BIG EAST SHOULD ADD SOUTHERN ILLINOIS.

I presented Southern Illinois' run of success in the past decade to illustrate a point about SLU. Yes, SLU seems to check all the boxes for Big East membership, and have launched themselves into the conversation after all their recent success in getting to the Dance and winning A-10 titles. This success has reinvigorated the program, and for which SLU should rightly be credited for smart coaching hires and an upgrade in facilities after moving basketball back on campus.

But SLU is not quite a slam dunk. Despite their seemingly strong base, there's still an element of "Flavor of the week" and that's because the argument about lack of sustained success is a legitimate one. Southern Illinois made twice as many tournaments in a row as SLU has, but they haven't been back to the Tournament since 2007, haven't won 20+ games since 2007, haven't finished higher than 5th in the MVC since 2008, and haven't finished higher than 8th in the MVC since 2009. Any complaints about "long-term success" for SLU primarily reflects a concern that SLU may have a similar drought to SIU. . Saint Louis may be a good fit, but to an extent, they're still a gamble.

[NJRedman]

SLU is one of the better expansion candidates discussed in this thread, although, with all due respect to the Billikens, that really isn't saying much. If this thread has taught us one thing it's that all the game-changing programs worth getting aren't available, barring some seismic shift in the basketball landscape (UConn, Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest), and the programs who are available without a seismic shift aren't the game-changing programs worth getting (Insert your favorite collection of A-10 and CAA also-rans here).

More blind resume time!
Team A: Went to three consecutive NCAA Tournaments*, winning games in two of them. This team has no FBS football, and posted 20-win seasons in a mid-major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 4 out of 5 seasons. They won a conference regular season title and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team B.

Team B: Went to five consecutive NCAA Tournaments, reaching two Sweet Sixteens. This team has no FBS football, posted 20-win seasons in a mid major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 6 consecutive seasons. They won 5 conference regular season titles and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team A.


Team A is Saint Louis from 2009-2014. *= assuming they make it this year
Team B is Southern Illinois from 2001-2007.


NOTE: NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE BIG EAST SHOULD ADD SOUTHERN ILLINOIS.

I presented Southern Illinois' run of success in the past decade to illustrate a point about SLU. Yes, SLU seems to check all the boxes for Big East membership, and have launched themselves into the conversation after all their recent success in getting to the Dance and winning A-10 titles. This success has reinvigorated the program, and for which SLU should rightly be credited for smart coaching hires and an upgrade in facilities after moving basketball back on campus.

But SLU is not quite a slam dunk. Despite their seemingly strong base, there's still an element of "Flavor of the week" and that's because the argument about lack of sustained success is a legitimate one. Southern Illinois made twice as many tournaments in a row as SLU has, but they haven't been back to the Tournament since 2007, haven't won 20+ games since 2007, haven't finished higher than 5th in the MVC since 2008, and haven't finished higher than 8th in the MVC since 2009. Any complaints about "long-term success" for SLU primarily reflects a concern that SLU may have a similar drought to SIU. Saint Louis may be a good fit, but they're still a gamble.

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

[aughnanure]

Gonzaga and SLU or bust.

[notkirkcameron]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

Bringing in money while they're down is kind of why I'm pointing out that any expansion should have a game-changing nature to it (think Nebraska joining the Big 10); a team that's always going to be a draw every year (UConn, ND, etc.), and the fact that we've danced around this for so long, to me, suggests that there simply isn't that kind of team out there.

Maybe...MAYBE Dayton with their attendance, but the problem is that if you add Dayton because they're "a team that's still bringing in money when they're down." You ignore that...they're always down. Dayton has won one NCAA Tournament game in the last 24 years. They don't deliver TV eyeballs outside of Southwest Ohio, and they split your NCAA Tournament credits 11 ways instead of 10 without bringing any tournament berths of their own to the table. If Dayton belonged in the Big East, they'd already be here. Your expansion has to grow the pie enough for every existing member to justify taking a smaller slice.

[MackNova]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

Bringing in money while they're down is kind of why I'm pointing out that any expansion should have a game-changing nature to it (think Nebraska joining the Big 10); a team that's always going to be a draw every year (UConn, ND, etc.), and the fact that we've danced around this for so long, to me, suggests that there simply isn't that kind of team out there.

Maybe...MAYBE Dayton with their attendance, but the problem is that if you add Dayton because they're "a team that's still bringing in money when they're down." You ignore that...they're always down. Dayton has won one NCAA Tournament game in the last 24 years. They don't deliver TV eyeballs outside of Southwest Ohio, and they split your NCAA Tournament credits 11 ways instead of 10 without bringing any tournament berths of their own to the table. If Dayton belonged in the Big East, they'd already be here. Your expansion has to grow the pie enough for every existing member to justify taking a smaller slice.

I agree. There's not a single great candidate out there. Saint Louis is the best one, but their success hasn't been sustained either.

NJRedman, you keep saying it's about who brings more money to the conference. Who out there is going to bring money into the conference without winning at this point?

[NJRedman]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

Bringing in money while they're down is kind of why I'm pointing out that any expansion should have a game-changing nature to it (think Nebraska joining the Big 10); a team that's always going to be a draw every year (UConn, ND, etc.), and the fact that we've danced around this for so long, to me, suggests that there simply isn't that kind of team out there.

Maybe...MAYBE Dayton with their attendance, but the problem is that if you add Dayton because they're "a team that's still bringing in money when they're down." You ignore that...they're always down. Dayton has won one NCAA Tournament game in the last 24 years. They don't deliver TV eyeballs outside of Southwest Ohio, and they split your NCAA Tournament credits 11 ways instead of 10 without bringing any tournament berths of their own to the table. If Dayton belonged in the Big East, they'd already be here. Your expansion has to grow the pie enough for every existing member to justify taking a smaller slice.

Thats great and all except for the fact that Fox has agreed to keep our payout per school the same if we expand to 12. Well at least thats what we've been hearing from the get go, and if that is true then your worries go out the window. Without a true round robin we would then have a better chance to send more teams to the tournament. The idea that if a team belonged they would already be there is a joke. Conferences change constantly and have been expanding for over a decade. Thats like saying in 2001 if Texas A&M was meant to be in the SEC they'd already be here! Makes zero sense.