Conference Realignment: What Next?

[MUPanther]

ACC just adds Stanford, Cal and SMU......this is just getting ridiculous. Definitely a P2 going forward.

I agreed with almost everything that UNC Chancellor said in his public statement about why this did not make any sense for the AAC. And then someone switched their vote and now the Atlantic Coast Conference includes teams on the Pacific Coast.

Notre Dame made NC State change its vote.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Outside of FSU, Clemson, UNC and Miami, these moves were based on survival, nothing more more. In that regard, it's a huge success. NC State has no guarantees of a P2 invite (it might very well get a life raft with UNC), so the prospect of associating with Stanford/California/SMU is miles better than Temple/ECU/USF.

These moves almost certainly eliminate the possibility of Syracuse/BC/Pitt ever coming back either. With 17 members, the ACC will always have a group behind to reload with. UConn will get invited as soon as the ACC loses FSU/Clemson/UNC.

The need for the BE to get Gonzaga on board is greater than ever IMO.

[Burrito]

The recent ACC additions were a good move from a conference perspective. There is strength in numbers.

But looking at it through a basketball lens, I don't see the additions of Stanford, CAL and SMU being that great. All three will (most likely) be bottom half teams.

[adoraz]

I agree that the Big East should add Gonzaga, but I also think this round of realignment has went really well for us. Not only did we keep all teams, but the ACC and Big 12 would now be far less attractive to MSG given their western expansion. Schools such as SMU, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona St would all draw terribly at MSG. Arizona is the only one that might do fine just based on their brand.

Even if a poached ACC one day adds UConn, they'd also add schools like USF and a bunch of football schools in middle America. As long as the Big East retains all of our members (outside of UConn), then there shouldn't be a risk that we'd lose MSG for the BET.

[Bogg]

I agree that the Big East should add Gonzaga, but I also think this round of realignment has went really well for us. Not only did we keep all teams, but the ACC and Big 12 would now be far less attractive to MSG given their western expansion. Schools such as SMU, Cal, Stanford, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona St would all draw terribly at MSG. Arizona is the only one that might do fine just based on their brand.

Even if a poached ACC one day adds UConn, they'd also add schools like USF and a bunch of football schools in middle America. As long as the Big East retains all of our members (outside of UConn), then there shouldn't be a risk that we'd lose MSG for the BET.

Also, one of the other multi-bid conferences looks like it may have gone away entirely, and that's not nothing.

[Violet Ram]

I'm always a bit surprised that Gonzaga is considered a "no-brainer" for BE expansion. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Gonzaga has 2 tournament appearances without Mark Few at the helm. What Mark Few has built is amazing, but what happens when he leaves Gonzaga (he's in his 60's and entering his 25th season with the Zags). Perhaps he's built Gonzaga into a program that can sustain success even after his departure, but I have my doubts.

Is it worth renting the last few years of Few to add a program that is on the other side of the Country that's in a small market and has limited success outside of one coach?

[Xudash]

I'm always a bit surprised that Gonzaga is considered a "no-brainer" for BE expansion. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Gonzaga has 2 tournament appearances without Mark Few at the helm. What Mark Few has built is amazing, but what happens when he leaves Gonzaga (he's in his 60's and entering his 25th season with the Zags). Perhaps he's built Gonzaga into a program that can sustain success even after his departure, but I have my doubts.

Is it worth renting the last few years of Few to add a program that is on the other side of the Country that's in a small market and has limited success outside of one coach?

VR - - At some point in the not too distant future, we're going to learn which way all this is headed. The Big East Presidents, their AD's, and executives from Fox (most likely) are going to sit down and figure this out.

IMHO, what will transpire will involve the following:

1. Expansion won't happen for expansion's sake. Basketball is basketball. The Big East is unique and in a unique position. In other words, the Big East doesn't have to expand because football conferences have expanded. In fact, it could be that the round robin framework enjoyed by the Big East lends and adds to its attractiveness moving forward. In the event we have a nice pay raise, at least for this "linear cycle" coming up for the next x years into the 30's, then the Big East schools will be well positioned to compete in the sport of basketball for the foreseeable future.

2. Gonzaga is the obvious expansion candidate for the Big East, but it's a "bridge too far" with respect to geography. And your point about Mark Few is understood and makes sense. Imagine bringing them in and then watching them fall off from a bad hire. It's only my opinion, but, should expansion be a GO DECISION, I'm not convinced that a phone will ring in Spokane about it.

3. For expansion to make sense for the Big East Presidents, will an expansion candidate have to be able to deliver the new payout per school in order to make the cut? I doubt the Big East Presidents will consider dilution of funding from the media agreement, unless they are told to do that. Why would anyone tell them to weaken their position? What set of factors could make expansion important enough to accept dilution? The potential for more NCAAT Units? Please. No way.

With all that noted, should expansion be forthcoming this round for the Big East, it seems it would have to come from the A10, because football realignment still has to sort itself out in the next decade. Again, only my opinion, but the two schools that have a shot at it would be VCU and SLU. SLU is Jesuit, has the resources and academic rep, and can help balance out that geographical thing with Creighton. But VCU provides an additional eastern presence, a solid program, and, very importantly, big numbers with respect to students/alumni (perhaps for streaming concerns down the road).

We're all sitting around, waiting for the next media agreement negotiation to take place. The Big East couldn't be in a much stronger position, given UCONN's NC, Pitino moving to SJU, and Georgetown making its moves. Hell, even DePaul is now pursuing a $60 million facility for its athletes. It will be interesting to see where all this ends up.

[adoraz]

I'm always a bit surprised that Gonzaga is considered a "no-brainer" for BE expansion. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Gonzaga has 2 tournament appearances without Mark Few at the helm. What Mark Few has built is amazing, but what happens when he leaves Gonzaga (he's in his 60's and entering his 25th season with the Zags). Perhaps he's built Gonzaga into a program that can sustain success even after his departure, but I have my doubts.

Is it worth renting the last few years of Few to add a program that is on the other side of the Country that's in a small market and has limited success outside of one coach?

Hey now, 60's = 60 exactly, which is still 10 years younger than Pitino (who hopefully will be here a minimum of 3-4 years). I get your point but Gonzaga is a major brand and draws very well on TV. If any of the A10 teams accomplished half of what Gonzaga has since 2013 then they would likely be in already.

Personally I think the Big East should hold off on expansion unless it's Gonzaga, but if they had to choose another team then I'd want VCU. VCU has been solid but has consistently been a team in the 40-50 range and only 1 Round of 32 appearance since 2013 (in 2016). I'd argue they were a better expansion candidate back in 2013. That said, I root for them and other A10 teams every year and hope they build a strong resume.

[admin]

Things are about to get wild regarding who actually has power in the PAC12. Ten departing schools want to dissolve the league and their assets, but WSU and OSU believe they alone have rights to the future voting power of the league now.

The essence of Washington State and Oregon State's concerns, if the league's 12 schools formally meet, is that the current members could vote to dissolve or evenly distribute the remaining assets. Washington State and Oregon State consider themselves the only board members and are seeking to survey their options moving forward. They pointed to the conference's bylaws, which state that any notice of withdrawal from the league means a school "automatically cease(s) to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter."

The meeting was scheduled, according to the legal filings, after Washington State president Kirk Schulz, the chair of the Pac-12 board of directors, declined to call a board meeting after a telephone conversation with Kliavkoff on or around Aug. 29. Schulz feared that Kliavkoff "would allow the withdrawing universities' former Board representatives to vote on a number of matters, even though they no longer have the right to vote on any matter," according to the legal documents.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... int-pac-12

[DudeAnon]

Things are about to get wild regarding who actually has power in the PAC12. Ten departing schools want to dissolve the league and their assets, but WSU and OSU believe they alone have rights to the future voting power of the league now.

The essence of Washington State and Oregon State's concerns, if the league's 12 schools formally meet, is that the current members could vote to dissolve or evenly distribute the remaining assets. Washington State and Oregon State consider themselves the only board members and are seeking to survey their options moving forward. They pointed to the conference's bylaws, which state that any notice of withdrawal from the league means a school "automatically cease(s) to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter."

The meeting was scheduled, according to the legal filings, after Washington State president Kirk Schulz, the chair of the Pac-12 board of directors, declined to call a board meeting after a telephone conversation with Kliavkoff on or around Aug. 29. Schulz feared that Kliavkoff "would allow the withdrawing universities' former Board representatives to vote on a number of matters, even though they no longer have the right to vote on any matter," according to the legal documents.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... int-pac-12

Sounds like a money grab for the current year's revenue. I'd imagine most of the schools leaving knew this was a possibility and were ok with it.