Big East Conference Realignment v2018

[herodotus]

I really don't see what adding Gonzaga, and UConn really does for the league. No league can be all powerhouses. Someone has to suck. What happens if Gonzaga, and UConn come in and flex their muscles? What happens is that PC, SH, and another team or two, become non contenders. As they struggle to compete, their recruiting falls off, and they become what they were in the old BE, stuck in the second division. All of this is great for Nova, and X, who add a couple of marquee games to the schedule, but not so great for the others, and if by chance Gonzaga came in and struggled, all of a sudden, you're flying out to Spokane to play the equivalent of Dayton, or VCU. That would get old really quick. The league currently has good balance, and the middle benefits from the league not being too top heavy.

With all due respect, i’ll suggest that’s an oversimplification. By the same logic, the Big East never should have expanded beyond their original number of 7-8 teams. There’s no magic in the number 10.

I also don’t think there’s anything to fear from more local competition in conference. BC used the same logic to keep UConn out of the ACC so that they could dominate New England. The result has been that BC now sucks in both major sports and attendance is down because no one cares about the opponents they bring to town. They have no local rival which is a bad thing in the long run. Meanwhile the Carolina schools thrive in the same conference with beastly rivals literally just a few miles down the road.

Actually, there is magic in the number 10. 10 allows for a full round robin schedule, with each team playing 18 games. This allows each team to have a 13 game ooc schedule to earn wins that don't produce offsetting losses the way conference games do. 11 teams reduces the number of ooc games by 2, and adds 20 losses to the cumulative record; 12 teams pretty much forces divisional play. In the old 9 team BE, every team had a taste of some glory; once the football teams came in, a permanent underclass developed.

[Bill Marsh]

I really don't see what adding Gonzaga, and UConn really does for the league. No league can be all powerhouses. Someone has to suck. What happens if Gonzaga, and UConn come in and flex their muscles? What happens is that PC, SH, and another team or two, become non contenders. As they struggle to compete, their recruiting falls off, and they become what they were in the old BE, stuck in the second division. All of this is great for Nova, and X, who add a couple of marquee games to the schedule, but not so great for the others, and if by chance Gonzaga came in and struggled, all of a sudden, you're flying out to Spokane to play the equivalent of Dayton, or VCU. That would get old really quick. The league currently has good balance, and the middle benefits from the league not being too top heavy.

With all due respect, i’ll suggest that’s an oversimplification. By the same logic, the Big East never should have expanded beyond their original number of 7-8 teams. There’s no magic in the number 10.

I also don’t think there’s anything to fear from more local competition in conference. BC used the same logic to keep UConn out of the ACC so that they could dominate New England. The result has been that BC now sucks in both major sports and attendance is down because no one cares about the opponents they bring to town. They have no local rival which is a bad thing in the long run. Meanwhile the Carolina schools thrive in the same conference with beastly rivals literally just a few miles down the road.

Actually, there is magic in the number 10. 10 allows for a full round robin schedule, with each team playing 18 games. This allows each team to have a 13 game ooc schedule to earn wins that don't produce offsetting losses the way conference games do. 11 teams reduces the number of ooc games by 2, and adds 20 losses to the cumulative record; 12 teams pretty much forces divisional play. In the old 9 team BE, every team had a taste of some glory; once the football teams came in, a permanent underclass developed.

The current trend is to move to a 20 game conference schedule, so 11 is the new 10.

I agree that the 16 teams is too big, but there’s a lot of room between 10 and 16.

I agree that the old Big East felt like there was a permanent underclass, and I still struggle to figure out what the reasons were. College basketball is a coach’s sport. The old BE was loaded with Hall of Fame coaches in those days - Calhoun, Pitino, Boeheim + a number of very good younger coaches like Jay Wright who may some day join them in the Hall of Fame.

This was also true in the smaller Big East pre-football. Big John, Looie, Rollie, and Boeheim dominated while there was what seemed like a permanent underclass. Well, permanent until Calhoun got to UConn, PJ did his magic at Seton Hall, and Pitino turned Providence around in his brief stay. Some of the BE programs that struggle today were once the cream at the top of the conference when they had great coaches.

On the national scene, we’ve seen other coaches dominate forever. Will Duke still be a dominant program after Coach K retires? North Carolina struggled with the transition after Dean Smith until Roy Williams returned home. Indiana has never made it back to the success of Bobby Knight. Tom Izzo has set a standard at Michigan State that that school never experienced before him - and may not after he retires. Iconic programs only remain iconic when they get great coaches.

My latest thinking is that coaches determine the stratification of basketball conferences, not size. I may be wrong.

[kayako]

I agree that the 16 teams is too big, but there’s a lot of room between 10 and 16.

I feel the same way. And imo a 11 or 12 team conference probably doesn't need a 20 game schedule. How does that exactly affect our contract with Fox? Bring on the slightly uneven schedule, I don't care about the full round robin tbh. I kind of get sick of seeing a team for the 3rd team in the BET.

[Irishdawg]

I agree that the 16 teams is too big, but there’s a lot of room between 10 and 16.

I feel the same way. And imo a 11 or 12 team conference probably doesn't need a 20 game schedule. How does that exactly affect our contract with Fox? Bring on the slightly uneven schedule, I don't care about the full round robin tbh. I kind of get sick of seeing a team for the 3rd team in the BET.

It depends what kind of teams the league is getting. Right now the full round robin ensures that everyone's SOS is in a good spot and there are plenty of opportunities for quality wins. I don't know if the teams exist to still accomplish that with an unbalanced schedule unless we're talking about going full coast to coast and bringing in Gonzaga and St. Mary's.

Look at the Big Ten this year. Nebraska's 11-5 and they are on the outside looking in because of how weak their conference schedule is, and even before they lost to Illinois last night that was the case.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I agree that the old Big East felt like there was a permanent underclass, and I still struggle to figure out what the reasons were. College basketball is a coach’s sport. The old BE was loaded with Hall of Fame coaches in those days - Calhoun, Pitino, Boeheim + a number of very good younger coaches like Jay Wright who may some day join them in the Hall of Fame.

This was also true in the smaller Big East pre-football. Big John, Looie, Rollie, and Boeheim dominated while there was what seemed like a permanent underclass. Well, permanent until Calhoun got to UConn, PJ did his magic at Seton Hall, and Pitino turned Providence around in his brief stay. Some of the BE programs that struggle today were once the cream at the top of the conference when they had great coaches.

On the national scene, we’ve seen other coaches dominate forever. Will Duke still be a dominant program after Coach K retires? North Carolina struggled with the transition after Dean Smith until Roy Williams returned home. Indiana has never made it back to the success of Bobby Knight. Tom Izzo has set a standard at Michigan State that that school never experienced before him - and may not after he retires. Iconic programs only remain iconic when they get great coaches.

My latest thinking is that coaches determine the stratification of basketball conferences, not size. I may be wrong.

I think the 2005-2013 BE had a few programs that were just so far behind the others in terms of ability to compete and succeed, that it made it virtually impossible for them to ever rebound. No name coach would want to take over the 16th, 17th or 18th team in the Big East, and if a younger coach ended up being successful there, he would have left anyways. Hard to sustain with those parameters. For several years, you always had DePaul, USF, Rutgers, and Providence at the bottom. It's hard to dig that out when you have so many teams in front of you.

On a similar note, DePaul's last eleven years in the Big East have led to a 30-164 (.155) record. DePaul is in a MUCH BETTER position to get out from the bottom of the BE basement (assuming the get rid of AD/HC), but outside circumstances that kept so many programs down in the Old Big East are no longer present. If DePaul wasn't DePaul, it would make expansion more intriguing for the conference. The league would not have to worry about a new member being at the bottom of the conference consistently, nor would it have concerns about a program being unable to compete long-term with other programs. Butler, Creighton, Marquette and Xavier all took the Big East brand and used it to make their men's basketball programs better. Other programs (USF, DePaul) simply did not.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I don’t buy into the zero sum logic that there has to be losers for us to have winners. The reason PC has elevated their program is because of Ed Cooley not because they are in a smaller league. You don’t add programs so they can serve as sacrificial lambs to elevate the rest of us. With that logic why didn’t the C7 add SLU, LaSalle and Richmond to the BE instead of X, BU and CU? I, for one, want the DePaul of Ray Myers and Mark Acquire and Terry Cummings back. We don’t need perennial doormats to make us feel better about ourselves. Bring on the bloodbath.

[gtmoBlue]

2 points...

1) Marquette was a top program long before joining the BE. IMO they sustained what they already had. That is different from the 3 newbies...we are building with the BE brand.

2) you want DePaul, Marquette, StJ, and Gtwn "back"? okay.

Possible look-

Gtwn 26-5 / 16-2
Marq 24-6 / 15-3
Nova 24-6/ 15-3
StJ 23-7/ 13-5
X 23-7/ 12-6
DeP 22-9/ 11-7
-------------------------
But / 6-12
Crei/ 5-13
Prov/ 4-14
SH/ 3-15

For the old power to rise, the wins gotta come from somewhere...they come from the mid and top tiers. It ain't rocket science.
You want the old teams strong again...the bottom 4 become the "new" underclass. the top 2 tiers rotate their positions from time to time. Butler and Creighton get relegated to the bottom tier, and promising recent teams Hall and Prov go back to their former status in the old BE. Without new blood, these 4 would remain the bottom indefinitely.

Yes, 1 or 2 of the top six may "slump" from time to time, giving the possibility of 1 of the bottom feeders to temporarily rise. How often did that happen in the former BE?

Fortunately it ain't gonna happen. Maybe 1 or 2 recover but not all 4. Let's say StJ rises, going from 6 to 15 wins. Those additional 9 wins come from the middle and top, dropping the Nova's, X's, Creig's, But's, Prov's, SH's numbers, the bottom stands fast, continuing to feed the rest.


Sacrificial lambs- that's what DePaul (11-13 years worth), StJ, Marquette, and Gtwn are today. That's what SH and Prov used to be. Everybody can't be 13-5 in conference.
Nova couldn't win 4 straight titles without the doormats (and a middlin middle tier).

In your bloodbath...Everyone ends up 12-6 thru 7-11? Everyone is in the middle, no one gets ranked?

With that logic why didn’t the C7 add SLU, LaSalle and Richmond to the BE instead of X, BU and CU?

Answer: They should have. All the C7 would dance annually if they had.

[herodotus]

I don’t buy into the zero sum logic that there has to be losers for us to have winners. The reason PC has elevated their program is because of Ed Cooley not because they are in a smaller league. You don’t add programs so they can serve as sacrificial lambs to elevate the rest of us. With that logic why didn’t the C7 add SLU, LaSalle and Richmond to the BE instead of X, BU and CU? I, for one, want the DePaul of Ray Myers and Mark Acquire and Terry Cummings back. We don’t need perennial doormats to make us feel better about ourselves. Bring on the bloodbath.

It's a matter of basic math. Every time Villanova wins a game a loss is added to someone's record. Even in a balanced league like this, there will be a couple of teams that end up losing a ton of games. This can be offset a bit by winning a lot of games ooc, but going to a 20 game schedule is going to reduce the ooc schedule by 2 games. Georgetown is 15-10. If you replace 2 ooc cupcakes with 2 league games vs Gonzaga, Georgetown is now 13-12, and headed towards a losing season. I just think things are good as they are.

[herodotus]

2 points...

1) Marquette was a top program long before joining the BE. IMO they sustained what they already had. That is different from the 3 newbies...we are building with the BE brand.

2) you want DePaul, Marquette, StJ, and Gtwn "back"? okay.

Possible look-

Gtwn 26-5 / 16-2
Marq 24-6 / 15-3
Nova 24-6/ 15-3
StJ 23-7/ 13-5
X 23-7/ 12-6
DeP 22-9/ 11-7
-------------------------
But / 6-12
Crei/ 5-13
Prov/ 4-14
SH/ 3-15

For the old power to rise, the wins gotta come from somewhere...they come from the mid and top tiers. It ain't rocket science.
You want the old teams strong again...the bottom 4 become the "new" underclass. the top 2 tiers rotate their positions from time to time. Butler and Creighton get relegated to the bottom tier, and promising recent teams Hall and Prov go back to their former status in the old BE. Without new blood, these 4 would remain the bottom indefinitely.

Yes, 1 or 2 of the top six may "slump" from time to time, giving the possibility of 1 of the bottom feeders to temporarily rise. How often did that happen in the former BE?

Fortunately it ain't gonna happen. Maybe 1 or 2 recover but not all 4. Let's say StJ rises, going from 6 to 15 wins. Those additional 9 wins come from the middle and top, dropping the Nova's, X's, Creig's, But's, Prov's, SH's numbers, the bottom stands fast, continuing to feed the rest.


Sacrificial lambs- that's what DePaul (11-13 years worth), StJ, Marquette, and Gtwn are today. That's what SH and Prov used to be. Everybody can't be 13-5 in conference.

Great post. Folks used to complain about Rutgers, but Rutgers provided wins for the top and middle of the conference. One of the reasons why SH and PC struggled in the old BE, is that they had a revolving door of coaches. Some were let go because they failed, but others left for "greener pastures". Nova has benefited from having Jay Wright for so long. In the old BE, Jim Calhoun, JT Jr., and Boeheim gave their teams a ton of stability. It helps PC that Cooley is a native that might stay put. At a time when SH will be facing a rebuild, will Kevin Willard stay put? If he leaves, a bad hire could send SH to the bottom.

[gtmoBlue]

Let's leave the 20 game schedule out for a moment.

18 games...

Nova 15-3
Xav 14-4
Those 27 wins come from everyone below them, with maybe a split between the 2 teams-

Prov and SH rose due to coaching AND less better teams above them...no S'cuse, Pitt, L'ville, UConn, others. Now only Nova and Xavier above them in a given year.
Gumby, my man. You want DePaul back AND for Nova to stay in the top 2...same as I want StJ back ANd for the Jays to stay in the top 4.

Look at what the bottom 3 are doing lately - reeking havok on the 3-7 teams...even Nova and X have taken a couple of hits. If Depaul- StJ- Gtw
n where firing on all cylinders, and were rising to the top, this would merely be the beginning of the carnage. The current middle would become the new bottom.