Big East Conference Expansion Ideas and Discussion

[xubrew]

A couple of thoughts after reading this thread.....

-It's not the number of teams a league gets into the NCAA Tournament, it's the percentage of teams. In a nine team format, the ACC would routinely send four or five, and occasionally six teams to the NCAA Tournament. Since going out to 12, and now 15, they haven't gotten anywhere close to that high a percentage of teams in. They may be getting more teams in, and they may get more money as a whole, but each school actually takes home less once it's divided up. Five pizzas for twelve people is actually less pizza per person than four pizzas for nine people. So, if it's NCAA Tournament credits, and NCAA Tournament accessibility (IE, the statistical chances of your team making it) that you're concerned about, expansion actually hasn't helped anyone. Ever. Where is the evidence??

The ACC?? It's good now, but a smaller percentage of teams make it now than they did before.

The Big Ten?? At best, it's the same as it was as an eleven and ten team league.

The Pac Twelve?? It's worse.

The Mountain West?? It's worse. With 8 teams in the league, they sent 4 teams. With nine teams in the league, they sent 5 teams. Now that they've expanded, they're substantially worse.

The Big Twelve?? The basketball has actually gotten better since they went to a ten team format.

The SEC?? They're no better at 14 than they were at 12. A smaller percentage of teams make it.

the Atlantic Ten?? Their heyday as a conference was when they actually had ten teams. As a twelve team league, they never sent more than five, and they only did that once. They typically only got three in. As a fourteen team league, they were worse, and as a sixteen team league, they did send five teams, but that was still less than 1/3rd of the teams.

If expansion is such a great idea, then where is the evidence of that?? Why aren't their any examples where a conference is significantly better off in basketball after expanding out to more than ten teams?? At best, there are a few examples of where conferences are the same, and even that is debatable.

There is an actual mathematical study that the ideal number is nine. When you don't play everyone in your conference twice, the impact each team has on the overall power ratings goes down significantly. It's 16 league games among teams that played 13 OOC games. If you play fewer than that, you don't maximize the number of games that can give you the boost. If you play more than that, then you beat up on yourself a little bit because it's two less OOC games for each team to establish themselves. I forget the exact study, but it was interesting. I don't think it makes THAT big of a difference, but the point is that there is no reason in the world to go beyond ten teams.

If we were to invite anyone, it would have to be someone that is better than the current status quo of the conference. Basically, the percentage of teams that make the NCAA Tournament would have to go up, not just the number. Gonzaga and VCU are the only teams I can think of that meet that standard, but even with them you're reducing the number of home and homes, which reduces the mathematical impact that each team has on the league, so would it really make things better??

Gonzaga is also a continent away. I'm not saying that disqualifies them completely, but it is something that isn't ideal.

VCU, I like, because if you look at the programs that have built themselves up and stayed built up, they all have something in common. (San Diego State, Butler, Xavier, Kansas State, Colorado (sort of), are the ones that come to mind. It was a progression. Over time, they've continued to progress as a program. VCU really started to improve around 2001. Everyone talks about the Final Four run as a flash in the pan, and I guess I can see that to a point, but in reality I think VCU had better teams in 2008-09, 2011-12 and 2012-13 then they did during the Final Four year, at least if you look at the entire season. VCU seemed to be good during the year, then get to the NCAA as a low seed, then take their opponents to the wall, but never get over the hump. In the Final Four year, they actually weren't as good as some of their previous years, but I guess Karma decided to even itself out for them. I guess what I'm saying is that even if you overlook the FF run, they've still improved and still show more evidence of continuing to improve than all the other candidates (minus maybe Wichita).

Richmond?? I think Chris Mooney is solid. I'm not sure Richmond is.

SLU?? Admittedly, I'm not sure about them. Maybe they'll stay good, but I can't help but think it was more Majerus than it was a strong athletic department, especially (at least this is how I understand it) the athletic department was kind of bullied into hiring him in the first place. I also think Jim Crews has a history of digressing programs rather than progressing him, and after these seniors are gone, I'm not entirely convinced that they'll continue to be good. I'm not convinced that they'll be bad, but I'm just not convinced they'll be good. That's a very long winded way of saying I don't know.

Dayton?? Dayton has power conference resources in a non-power conference, and can't even finish in the top half of it. Everything about them is great.....except their leadership, which is a very bad area to be lacking. They can't figure out what's wrong, as obvious as it is. They just don't know how to hire coaches. They're like a man who is sitting their with his thumb up his ass, but yet can't figure out why his ass is always sore. I really did enjoy the rivalry Xavier had with them, but until they can get their leadership in order, I can't argue that they'll be good for the league, ESPECIALLY if it means going out beyond ten and taking a mathematical hit.

Wichita?? I'm not completely sold on their staying power, but I'm more sold on them than anyone else. Still, I'm not sold enough to want them.

There is no reason to expand. There are no examples of it helping a league do anything other than be able to stage a championship football game. In every single example, the basketball has either declined, or at the very best stayed the same, and even that is a rarity.

No thanks. To anyone. If two schools leave the Big East, then we should think about adding one more, but unless that happens, there is no reason to do it.

Having said all that, Expansion seems to be so much of a fad, that the people in charge don't sit down to think about how it hasn't really helped anybody else. So, it wouldn't shock me if the BE made a huge mistake, and decided to expand.

[HoosierPal]

A couple of thoughts after reading this thread.....

-It's not the number of teams a league gets into the NCAA Tournament, it's the percentage of teams.

Really? Do you actually believe this?

So let me get this straight.....having 3 teams in the NCAA is better than having 4 teams in and W A Y better than having 5 teams in? That unfortunate ACC looks like they may be doomed with possibly 7 teams in this year. It would be better if they only had 2.

So a 3 in 68 chance is better than a 4 in 68 chance at the lottery?

My math isn't as good as yours. But I'm just a Hoosier.

[Xudash]

A couple of thoughts after reading this thread.....

-It's not the number of teams a league gets into the NCAA Tournament, it's the percentage of teams.

Really? Do you actually believe this?

So let me get this straight.....having 3 teams in the NCAA is better than having 4 teams in and W A Y better than having 5 teams in? That unfortunate ACC looks like they may be doomed with possibly 7 teams in this year. It would be better if they only had 2.

So a 3 in 68 chance is better than a 4 in 68 chance at the lottery?

My math isn't as good as yours. But I'm just a Hoosier.

Did you read the 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph?

Do you not like pizza?

[BillikensWin]

From a financial standpoint, brew is 100% correct.

From a national perception standpoint (mostly with the casual fan), number of bids in a league matters more than percentage. If the Big East as currently constructed gets 6 bids, that's the best of both worlds. To the hardcore fans, % matters more. But there's more TV sets with casual fans behind them than there are of us.

[Bluejay]

The Big Twelve?? The basketball has actually gotten better since they went to a ten team format.

True, but this was because the teams shed (Nebraska and Colorado) were perennial doormats of the league anyway.

I agree with everything in your post. Percentages matter, not raw numbers. The only people impressed by raw numbers are those that are poor at math or that those that are prone to being manipulated.

[GreatDaneAttorney]

The Big Twelve?? The basketball has actually gotten better since they went to a ten team format.

True, but this was because the teams shed (Nebraska and Colorado) were perennial doormats of the league anyway.

I agree with everything in your post. Percentages matter, not raw numbers. The only people impressed by raw numbers are those that are poor at math or that those that are prone to being manipulated.

And also, if the Big XII could keep Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado, and Texas A&M, they would have. The Big XII is not where they want to be, and we should not use them as an example of what we could be--I think the Big East is already a better and more stable conference than the Big XII in many ways. Just because the Big XII has a lot of ranked teams this year does not mean they will sustain that level, especially since they're adding geographically remote (WV) and below-average (TCU) schools with few real prospects for expansion.

[stever20]

The Big Twelve?? The basketball has actually gotten better since they went to a ten team format.

True, but this was because the teams shed (Nebraska and Colorado) were perennial doormats of the league anyway.

I agree with everything in your post. Percentages matter, not raw numbers. The only people impressed by raw numbers are those that are poor at math or that those that are prone to being manipulated.

So tell me. When the NCAA brackets are released do they rank the conferences based on % of teams making the tourney? Nope. They rank based on the # of teams in the tourney...

Also, ACC like last year had 4 teams in. This year in the recent bracketology has 6. 40% is greater than 33%. Even if you say ACC normally got 5 in, I'd rather have 6/15 over 5/12- the pct is close enough and you get another shot.

Same with A10. This year projected to send 4/13. That's greater than getting 3/10 that you say was their heyday(I'm sorry but the A10 the last 2-3 years is the best it's ever been).

So not all of the expanded conferences are worse.

Also you were using the ACC when they had 9 teams. Well guess what- they had some years in there where they only got 3 teams in back then. Some years they had 4. There's not that much of a difference between 4/9 and 6/15. Also, basketball is a LOT deeper now than it was back when the ACC had only 9 teams. Mid Majors are a LOT stronger now than back then.

[HoosierPal]

Really? Do you actually believe this?

So let me get this straight.....having 3 teams in the NCAA is better than having 4 teams in and W A Y better than having 5 teams in? That unfortunate ACC looks like they may be doomed with possibly 7 teams in this year. It would be better if they only had 2.

So a 3 in 68 chance is better than a 4 in 68 chance at the lottery?

My math isn't as good as yours. But I'm just a Hoosier.

Did you read the 4th sentence of the 1st paragraph?

Do you not like pizza?

Love pizza. I also love the NCAA tourney. I want my team to win and if not, then a team from my conference. NCAA Credits, etc., don't mean anything to me the fan. Butler hasn't given me any money from their NCAA appearances. I WANT TO WIN, not get a statistical smile on my face.

So the NCAA should NOT list the number of teams per conference, but the % of teams per conference? Not gonna happen.

Not buying this at all. Give me more teams in ANY day. % is for those sitting on the sidelines,

"Ha, ha, my conference got 30% of the teams in. You guys may have won the NCAA, but you only got 25% of your conference in Thus, therefore, I win".

[marquette]

Football conferences expanded to add better FOOTBALL schools and new markets. Anybody really think the B1G was drooling over the Nebraska basketball program when they added them? Same can be said for the ACC, Pac 12, SEC, MW, even the AAC. That has as much or more to do with it than pure numbers. We will expand for basketball schools. The A10 is poor example because the schools that were getting bids have failed to sustain success, and many of the NCAA teams are the new kids on the block VCU, SLU).

Number of bids is more important because of advertising. When you have more schools in the tourney you get more eyeballs on your conference. The NCAA tourney is more important from an advertising perspective than from a credits perspective. What was Butler's return on the 2 final four runs?

[stever20]

Football conferences expanded to add better FOOTBALL schools and new markets. Anybody really think the B1G was drooling over the Nebraska basketball program when they added them? Same can be said for the ACC, Pac 12, SEC, MW, even the AAC. That has as much or more to do with it than pure numbers. We will expand for basketball schools. The A10 is poor example because the schools that were getting bids have failed to sustain success, and many of the NCAA teams are the new kids on the block VCU, SLU).

Number of bids is more important because of advertising. When you have more schools in the tourney you get more eyeballs on your conference. The NCAA tourney is more important from an advertising perspective than from a credits perspective. What was Butler's return on the 2 final four runs?

Florida Gulf Coast(the darling last year in the tourney)- had a 35% increase in applications this year compared to last year.
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... oud-expect

(same article, Butler went up by 41%).

Oh, and yes, I do think the ACC expanded for basketball in a lot of ways. Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Louisville(not to mention Notre Dame).