The Ball talks Big East basketball

[Bill Marsh]

I've provided a source. Like it or not, I've told you what I'm going on. You've provided squat to back up all your claims about what the BE presidents are thinking. You're making a lot of assumptions. Just sayin' . . .

No, you just said that orangebloods ran some article back in 2011. You didn't post a link or anything. Thats not providing a source. A source is actually showing what people have said like I did. I don't need a source to know that the presidents aren't going to the hybrid split again. It's common sense to anyone who follows sports just like it's common sense that anyone on the outside of the F5/ND would accept an invite in a nanosecond. I don't need a source for that, it's common sense. Do I need a source when I say that Tulane would accept a SEC invite the second offered? No, because everyone just thinks. "Well yeah, of course they would." Same goes for any G5 school, which according to the F5 conferences BYU is a part of.

Here is what a source actually looks like.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... layoff-era

… because of its geography. One reason BYU wasn't snapped up by the Big 12 in conference realignment was its location. The Pac-12 apparently wasn't interested and BYU finally made the decision to go independent.

Thats CBSSports not Orange Bloods, with a legit sports writer attached to it. Oh and at the beginning of the article.

The ACC and SEC essentially are going to have a scheduling prejudice against BYU. Both conferences -- the ACC this week -- decided that in the future the Cougars won't count as a BCS-level opponent in their new scheduling philosophies.

That doesn't mean those leagues won't play BYU, it means the Cougars have been branded -- somewhat formally by a couple of Big Five conferences -- as something less than worthy. The two leagues came to this conclusion independently and, if nothing else, reminded BYU of its place in the playoff era. The program kind of falls between the cracks as an independent.

To be honest, you sound like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

1. I did not say that "Orangebloods ran some article back in 2011." I said that Chip Brown ran a SERIES of articles in Orangebloods. He was the primary to-to guy for the U of Texas side of things in the PAC-12/Big XII expansion struggle then.

2. I didn't provide a link, but I told you who my primary source was. That IS providing the source. I have better things to do than dig up old links, which you're perfectly capable of googling for yourself if you want to read what Chip wrote.

3. Thanks for admitting that you have no source on what the presidents think. That means that you really don't know what they think. So, stating it as fact when you're merely speculating is treating your opinion as fact. I'll keep that in mind next time I read your posts.

4. You're claiming that Dennis Didd is a "legit" reporter, implying that Chip Brown is not. Apparently you did not follow realignment very closely. Chip Brown was closer to what was going on in the Big XII than Dennis Dodd will ever be. He's the one who broke the story on the PAC-12 attempted raid of Texahoma schools. He's the guy who was being quoted by people like ?Dennis Dodd. And his reports that I referenced were current in real time back when those decisions were being made. You're quoting Dodd in a current article, staring "one of the reasons" for a decision years ago with no attribution. I can't evaluate it because I don't know where he's getting his information.

5. You appeal to common sense and then use a Dennis Dodd claim that "BYU wasn't snapped up by the Big XII in conference realignment was it's location."

Really???

A little common sense here, NJ Redman. How does that possibly make any sense? Does Dodd expect me to believe that the Big 12 passed on BYU's location so they could take . . . West Virginia???

Seriously? Because Morgantown is so much better a location for Big XII schools?!!! That alone should tell you that Dennis
Dodd doesn't know what he's talking about on this subject. If location was a primary concern, they could have taken Louisville. And they probably regret to this day that they didn't. But they certainly wouldn't have taken WVU over BYU for that reason. Ignoring the fact that the two are a similar distance from the Big XII schools, it's got to be a lot easier to fly into and out of Salt Lake City/Provo than it is to fly in and out of Morgantown.

But why should Dodd be paying much attention to whether this detail of his article is accurate. The article was about the ACC and the SEC. And BYU is remote from those 2 conferences. That's the point he was making. The reference to the Gig XII was just a throwaway line. Obviously.

Please, NJ Redman, common sense.

[Bill Marsh]

UConn is not going to the ACC. They tried to sue BC when the Eagles left the Big East.

BC will pitch a fit if the ACC offers UConn a spot, and other schools will listen to them.

That stuff is almost a dozen years old at this point. Most of the people involved in that lawsuit are gone from the 2 universities. The 2 ADs have a longstanding relationship. I doubt that the lawsuit is a factor at all any more.

No doubt that BC would regard UConn as unwanted competition, but BC is only 1 vote and that's not enough to stop any decision. Let them throw a fit. It won't matter. The ACC almost took UConn last time. The decision to choose Louisville instead had nothing to do with a BC his say fit.

[TheBall]

TheBall, some of these guys were talking about adding UAB....F'ing UAB, so there is a little bit of a mid-major mentality here that needs to be addressed with some of these new guys, not all. You wanna play in the big boy league, you gotta wear the big boy pants. UAB basketball doesn't wear big boy pants.

Seriously?

One thing I love about the big east now is moments like the other night. Watching the butler v Belmont game they panned out to the big east banner at Hinkle. 9 schools with a lot of pride and another with good history and potential. I liked it. I see the big two toned V. The classic looking G. The blue X. Gold and blue MU, and the red STJ. The monk above the town in Rhode Island. The distinctive pirate and bull dog. All of those schools have such strong brand potential and great programs.

UAB? Ugh. It would be hard enough to bring UMass or Dayton into the mix at this point with confidence, but UAB?

Ugh

Further reason to think, keep it simple, focus on the nine we have, and build from within. The big byu and the dog above the GU would also fit nicely on that flag, but one thing at a time.

[Bill Marsh]

First of all, MSG gets it's money from the tourney up front. The Big East rents the Garden for the Big East Tourny. Attendance does not affect the Garden at all except for possibly concessions. The Big East keeps it's ticket revenue. If it doesn't sell out, the conference loses that money, not the Garden.

However, MSG has the right to opt out of the contract if certain unspecified benchmarks are not met by The Big East. While the details have not been publicly released, it's not hard to guess what those benchmarks might be. The fact that ticket sales were down 11% in 2014 from 2013 has to be of concern. With ticket sales being boosted by all the publicity surrounding the creation of the new version of the BE in 2013-14, ticket sales could actually fall further this year. There has to be concern within The Big East over that.

[TheBall]

Bill Marsh, the sky is not falling. And if it were, Dayton and UMass and VCU aren't going to be the ones holding it up.

We have a decade commitment in place, and we are doing well in yr two. Let's see how things play out and no need to overreact too soon.

[Jet915]

Dayton, VCU, UMass etc. are not going anywhere anytime soon. If we want them, they will be available. We have the luxury of waiting.

[TheBall]

Imagine this conversation:

"Hey MSG, gr8 news, we just added Dayton. It will cost us $4 mill per yr, but it guarantees 500 more ticket sales to the big east tourney and a minimal ratings boost!"

.... And that is why that is an improper talking point.

[redmen9194]

First of all, MSG gets it's money from the tourney up front. The Big East rents the Garden for the Big East Tourny. Attendance does not affect the Garden at all except for possibly concessions. The Big East keeps it's ticket revenue. If it doesn't sell out, the conference loses that money, not the Garden.

However, MSG has the right to opt out of the contract if certain unspecified benchmarks are not met by The Big East. While the details have not been publicly released, it's not hard to guess what those benchmarks might be. The fact that ticket sales were down 11% in 2014 from 2013 has to be of concern. With ticket sales being boosted by all the publicity surrounding the creation of the new version of the BE in 2013-14, ticket sales could actually fall further this year. There has to be concern within The Big East over that.

The New York Post reported last season that the "benchmarks" that must be met in the MSG contract deal only with membership. The Garden gets an out if membership changes and certain programs leave. Has nothing to do with sell-outs. Also, the Garden has already said they want a permanent tenant for the week of the Big East tourney. They are not interested in being a part of a rotation where the week is empty every other year or more frequently. The ACC is not coming to NYC every year. The Big Ten is not coming to NYC every year. We have 12 more tourneys scheduled for the Garden - we will be fine and until stay there as long as the league wants to do so.

[Letsgonova]

Bill, some of the VU folks tried to warn you - this is what Ball does. He is going to keep moving the goalposts on you, and selectively arguing single points despite the overwhelming evidence you've presented. You can't win, because his game isn't about winning or losing; it's about him getting attention. Just walk away, trust me.

[Bill Marsh]

Bill Marsh, the sky is not falling. And if it were, Dayton and UMass and VCU aren't going to be the ones holding it up.

We have a decade commitment in place, and we are doing well in yr two. Let's see how things play out and no need to overreact too soon.

The "decade commitment" with the Garden comes with an opt out clause if the Big East doesn't meet certain benchmarks. It's not as simple as saying that we're set for the next 10 years.

But it's not just the financial ledger that's at issue. If The Big East wants to be in the same conversation as the P5, then the BE tournament must be considered a "big event". The best measure of that is attendance. Ticket sales were down 11% last year from 2013. That can't become a trend. It must be turned around.

The ACC, Big Ten, Big XII, and SEC all had higher attendance at their tournaments than The Big East did last year. The sky may not befalling, but the ACC tournament is coming to town in 2017-18 at Barclays and the Big 10 tournament to the Garden in 2018. Those 2 conferences averaged 20,000 and 18,500 at their conference tournaments last year vs 14,500 for the Big East. What will happen if they put up those kinds of numbers in NYC while the BE is putting up the same numbers it did this year? Worse yet, what if those tournaments become the hot ticket for the non-alum casual fan and BE attendance takes a major hit? The BE has the opportunity to do something that would boost attendance between now and then by growing the league. If they want to hold onto their position, that's exactly what they should do.