Why The Big East Won't Expand - - Round Robin

[stever20]

". . . even in the instances where power conferences expanded, where they supposedly "ignored geography", they were just adding an adjacent state or region." - from Frank the Tank

This is an interesting point, but is it true?

The Big East added Miami back in 1991. Maybe they weren't a power conference then. But they sure were when they added Notre Dame a few years later.

The ACC added BC back in 1994 when they certainly weren't contiguous. A few years ago they added Notre Dame when they weren't contiguous either.

The PAC XII added Colorado when they weren't contiguous. Before Colorado actually began to compete in the PAC XII, they also added Utah to make it contiguous. But wasn't that only after they struck out on adding the Texahoma schools who certainly weren't contiguous.

Finally the Big XII added West Virginia, which certainly isn't contiguous. Really only the Big Ten and the SEC were able to expand with contiguous states although there were certainly rumors that the B1G toyed with a number of candidates who would not have been so. (See Purple Book Cat and frank's own blog.)

The Big East itself added Creighton, which isn't contiguous, even though they could have gone with another school in the established footprint.

What most of these additions have shown more than anything is that additions were almost always with schools who were considered to be a good "fit" regardless of geography. Modern transportation has shrunk distances, making these geographically expanded conferences possible and distance less of a factor. In light of this, could there really be a better "fit" for the Big East than Gonzaga?

he said either adjacent state or region....

Big East/ACC moves at first- I agree with you. The Notre Dame move was adding an adjacent region.

Pac 12- Colorado/Utah(added within days of each other) definitely adjacent.

Big 12 really was the only totally oddball thing, and that was more out of desperation/convienence than anything else.

[Bill Marsh]

". . . even in the instances where power conferences expanded, where they supposedly "ignored geography", they were just adding an adjacent state or region." - from Frank the Tank

This is an interesting point, but is it true?

The Big East added Miami back in 1991. Maybe they weren't a power conference then. But they sure were when they added Notre Dame a few years later.

The ACC added BC back in 1994 when they certainly weren't contiguous. A few years ago they added Notre Dame when they weren't contiguous either.

The PAC XII added Colorado when they weren't contiguous. Before Colorado actually began to compete in the PAC XII, they also added Utah to make it contiguous. But wasn't that only after they struck out on adding the Texahoma schools who certainly weren't contiguous.

Finally the Big XII added West Virginia, which certainly isn't contiguous. Really only the Big Ten and the SEC were able to expand with contiguous states although there were certainly rumors that the B1G toyed with a number of candidates who would not have been so. (See Purple Book Cat and frank's own blog.)

The Big East itself added Creighton, which isn't contiguous, even though they could have gone with another school in the established footprint.

What most of these additions have shown more than anything is that additions were almost always with schools who were considered to be a good "fit" regardless of geography. Modern transportation has shrunk distances, making these geographically expanded conferences possible and distance less of a factor. In light of this, could there really be a better "fit" for the Big East than Gonzaga?

he said either adjacent state or region....

Big East/ACC moves at first- I agree with you. The Notre Dame move was adding an adjacent region.

Pac 12- Colorado/Utah(added within days of each other) definitely adjacent.

Big 12 really was the only totally oddball thing, and that was more out of desperation/convienence than anything else.

Steve, my point was that expansion moves during conference realignment were made more on the basis of "fit" than of geography. Do you agree or disagree with that?

I don't really want to get into nitpicking the details, but just to set the record straight. . .

Utah was added to the PAC-10 about a week after Colorado. But if you go back and check the record, I think you'll find that was a turbulent week. In the week in between, the PAC-10 almost added group of Texas & Oklahoma schools. There was a reason for the delay in the Utah add. If the number of Texas/Oklahoma schools + Colorado was an even number, Utah would not have been added. Negotiations with the TX/OK group were ongoing that week before things fell apart at the 11th hour. There was enough uncertainty about the final agreement that they held off on Utah. The targets were Colorado and U of Texas. If at the last minute the PAC-10 had to take an additional Texas school - as the Big XII had to do with Baylor - they would have done it if that was the price to get Texas. And they would have let Utah go.

Colorado was added without respect to a requirement that they be contiguous - with or without Utah. And the Texas/Oklahoma schools would have been added with the same disregard for being contiguous as well.

As for Notre Dame, what contiguous region did they bring? The entire Midwest? I know they're popular, but really. . .

It would be fair to include Notre Dame as part of the Chicago region where they do move the needle. But the Chicago region isn't contiguous with either the old Big East or with the ACC. I think a group of small states like New England is a region similar to many states. With Boston at the hub of that region, BC could be considered to bring New England. Even Providence, which is not contiguous with the rest of the Big East, can be considered more "New England" than just limited to the state of Rhode Island. Similarly DC is not contiguous with the Big East, but viewed as the Washington/Baltimore metro region, then Georgetown can be considered to bring large parts of Maryland.

To me, a school bringing a region in the sense that Frank was suggesting would have to have tie-in's to TV networks that command the region. That can be said for Boston in the New England region. Or even Rutgers and perhaps UConn in the tri-state NY/NJ/CT region. And certainly in the Bal/Wash capitol region. But in between South Bend and Pittsburgh, the western outpost of the old BE or the ACC is the large state of Ohio, which is dominated by THE Ohio State University. Not by Notre Dame - especially when we consider that Notre Dame membership did not include ND football, which is where they command widespread interest across larger regions.

So in the end, we look at -

Miami to the Big East
Notre Dame to the Big East
BC to the ACC
Colorado to the PAC-10
TX/OK almost to the PAC-10
West Virginia to the Big XII
Notre Dame to the ACC
Creighton to the C7 (Big East)

In light of all these non-contiguous moves AND serious reports that the Big Ten was interested in Texas, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, etc, can we really say that conferences who had a choice, i.e. power conferences, were not willing to make additions beyond their existing footprint unless it was in a contiguous state or region?

Heck, why don't we just say that Gonzaga's in an adjacent region? With Creighton in the Great Plains and with Spokane hundreds of miles inland from the West Coast, closer to Idaho's Rocky Mountains than to the Pacific, why not just say that Gonzaga is bringing an adjacent region?

[jfan]

The Great Big East--West. I know all the problems, but I think Gonzaga would be a terrific addition!

[HoosierPal]

Would Gonzaga leave the WCC?

http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/02/12/mail-gonzaga-bulldogs-wcc-adam-woodbury-eye-poking

[Bill Marsh]

On the other hand, this from Mike Flynn, former editor of the Puget Sound Business Journal, Gonzaga alumnus, and very connected to all things Pcific Northwest . . .

http://www.emikeflynn.com/blog/213/flyn ... move-4-3-/