Big East Conference Expansion Ideas and Discussion

[NJRedman]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

Bringing in money while they're down is kind of why I'm pointing out that any expansion should have a game-changing nature to it (think Nebraska joining the Big 10); a team that's always going to be a draw every year (UConn, ND, etc.), and the fact that we've danced around this for so long, to me, suggests that there simply isn't that kind of team out there.

Maybe...MAYBE Dayton with their attendance, but the problem is that if you add Dayton because they're "a team that's still bringing in money when they're down." You ignore that...they're always down. Dayton has won one NCAA Tournament game in the last 24 years. They don't deliver TV eyeballs outside of Southwest Ohio, and they split your NCAA Tournament credits 11 ways instead of 10 without bringing any tournament berths of their own to the table. If Dayton belonged in the Big East, they'd already be here. Your expansion has to grow the pie enough for every existing member to justify taking a smaller slice.

I agree. There's not a single great candidate out there. Saint Louis is the best one, but their success hasn't been sustained either.

NJRedman, you keep saying it's about who brings more money to the conference. Who out there is going to bring money into the conference without winning at this point?

Well i'm not the one who is in those meetings with our TV partners, but those who are making those decisions are sure going to look at that. Some of it has to do with attendance some has to do with TV market. DePaul has been a bottom feeder since they joined yet they bring money to the table because they reside in Chicago. See, it's not all about wins and losses.

[Xudash]

It is just XU people who do not seem to grasp the fact that the XU/UD rivalry helped make XU what it is today and if they are smart, will want it to continue long into the future.

I don't see how a regional rivalry that was completely and utterly dominated by Xavier the past 30+ years helped make XU's program what it is today. Xavier is who they are today because of three decades of smart investments to their basketball program, the opening of the Cintas Center, great coaching hires, strong recruiting and routinely winning conference championships and NCAA Tournament games.

If anything, Xavier made Dayton what they are today by allowing UD to ride X's coattails to get into the Atlantic 10 and providing their fans with their biggest home game of the year. Xavier's rivalry against Cincinnati provided much more national exposure and did much more to advance the program than any game played against Dayton.

After SLU is admitted to the Big East, I just can't envision any scenario where schools like Marquette, Xavier and Butler would vote for Dayton's inclusion. They are going up against UD in recruiting, so why help a school that most definitely hasn't earned and doesn't deserve an invite? I also can't see East Coast schools such as Georgetown and Villanova wanting a seventh Midwest school in a 12-team league. I think UD will be SOL when it is all said and done. They are well on their way to another 8-8 season the A10, so it's not as if they're making the decision hard for the Big East presidents.

Chill man, you are making Xavier fans look like assholes.

How is he doing that exactly? Everything ChicagoX wrote is spot on.

For a UD fan to come onto this board and claim that UD has had anything to do with Xavier's success is ridiculous. You are making yourself appear uninformed.

[marquette]

SIU does not have the resources of SLU. If SLU has truly decided that they want to be a major hoops player, then they have the resources to do it. SLU is a private, Catholic, Jesuit university. SIU is a medium-large public school. SLU is in Saint Louis. SIU is in Carbondale. This "nearest large market" thing is not very relevant. You are either in a market, or you are not. SIU got extremely lucky to have Bruce Weber with Matt Painter on staff as an assistant. Chris Lowery was able to succeed for 3 years on the foundation that those two built. After that, the program went steadily downhill. I'm pretty sure that Crews is there to stay. Each year he performs at a high level the program becomes more sustainable and will be better able to hire a good coach when he's done. The question is whether Crews can hold it together after Majerus' boys are gone. That test begins next year.

I really think this is an apples to oranges comparison.

[BillikensWin]

SIU does not have the resources of SLU. If SLU has truly decided that they want to be a major hoops player, then they have the resources to do it. SLU is a private, Catholic, Jesuit university. SIU is a medium-large public school. SLU is in Saint Louis. SIU is in Carbondale. This "nearest large market" thing is not very relevant. You are either in a market, or you are not. SIU got extremely lucky to have Bruce Weber with Matt Painter on staff as an assistant. Chris Lowery was able to succeed for 3 years on the foundation that those two built. After that, the program went steadily downhill. I'm pretty sure that Crews is there to stay. Each year he performs at a high level the program becomes more sustainable and will be better able to hire a good coach when he's done. The question is whether Crews can hold it together after Majerus' boys are gone. That test begins next year.

I really think this is an apples to oranges comparison.

The Southern Illinois system is really hurting. Edwardsville is in a much better position than Carbondale going forward. Crews is going into a new world next year, and everyone knows that. St. Louis is still a good-sized market, which is a consideration.

I realize all non-Big East schools are subject to strict scrutiny by the members, and that's fine. Arguing SLU's history is missing the forest for the trees.

[notkirkcameron]

SLU is in Saint Louis. SIU is in Carbondale. This "nearest large market" thing is not very relevant. You are either in a market, or you are not.

While imperfect (I certainly disagree with Richmond posters that they can deliver the Richmond AND Virginia Beach TV markets, which are over an hour and a half apart), in some cases, I think it helps to show the potential reach of a team in nearby media markets. If we only take into account the metropolitan area in which a school is based (particularly when discussing public schools with larger enrollments/alumni bases who would actually tune in to watch), then we're going to end up with a characterization of the media that doesn't reflect the school's reach.

Otherwise, it's like nobody in Milwaukee or Green Bay is watching the Badgers, no one in Indianapolis is watching the Hoosiers, no one in Phoenix is watching U of A, and people in Houston only watch UH and Rice, and never Texas or A&M.

[marquette]

SLU is in Saint Louis. SIU is in Carbondale. This "nearest large market" thing is not very relevant. You are either in a market, or you are not.

While imperfect (I certainly disagree with Richmond posters that they can deliver the Richmond AND Virginia Beach TV markets, which are over an hour and a half apart), in some cases, I think it helps to show the potential reach of a team in nearby media markets. If we only take into account the metropolitan area in which a school is based (particularly when discussing public schools with larger enrollments/alumni bases who would actually tune in to watch), then we're going to end up with a characterization of the media that doesn't reflect the school's reach.

Otherwise, it's like nobody in Milwaukee or Green Bay is watching the Badgers, no one in Indianapolis is watching the Hoosiers, no one in Phoenix is watching U of A, and people in Houston only watch UH and Rice, and never Texas or A&M.

I can generally agree with that.

For the record, I don't really care who is number 12 (although I would think my bias for #11 is somewhat obvious at this point). I think everybody brings good value to the table (UD with their attendance, institutional fit, Xavier rivalry, VCU with tournament success, large alumni base, UR with resources, o.k. on court success, etc). Whomever the presidents choose to bring in will not ruin my day.

[HoosierPal]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

For once I agree with what you are saying, but with one caveat. It about who is bringing money to FOX that will be the primary driving force of expansion. I obviously was not privy to Fox Sports game plan, but I doubt if they are too impressed with viewership as it stands today. They want/need more TV's tuned to Fox Sports. Where can they get those viewers? If a market brings in viewers, and the University basketball team is crap, well, they likely won't care. It's all about the money. It's all about how many TV's are tuned in. Sure, they won't want an obvious misfit. No way a Wichita State, Wisconsin-Green Bay or Cleveland State will be a candidate, but if they could figure out how to make Gonzaga work, Fox would have it done.

I agree that those who want to maintain a geographical balance better take a picture of the footprint now cause it won't be the same in the future. Very few, or rather should I say none, of the power conferences have limited themselves geographically. Rutgers and Maryland will be in the Midwestern based Big Ten, Syracuse and Pitt in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Missouri is in the Southeast Conference and Colorado is in the Pac 12.

[XBand15]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

For once I agree with what you are saying, but with one caveat. It about who is bringing money to FOX that will be the primary driving force of expansion. I obviously was not privy to Fox Sports game plan, but I doubt if they are too impressed with viewership as it stands today. They want/need more TV's tuned to Fox Sports. Where can they get those viewers? If a market brings in viewers, and the University basketball team is crap, well, they likely won't care. It's all about the money. It's all about how many TV's are tuned in. Sure, they won't want an obvious misfit. No way a Wichita State, Wisconsin-Green Bay or Cleveland State will be a candidate, but if they could figure out how to make Gonzaga work, Fox would have it done.

I agree that those who want to maintain a geographical balance better take a picture of the footprint now cause it won't be the same in the future. Very few, or rather should I say none, of the power conferences have limited themselves geographically. Rutgers and Maryland will be in the Midwestern based Big Ten, Syracuse and Pitt in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Missouri is in the Southeast Conference and Colorado is in the Pac 12.

And you left out the best example of this which is West Virginia in the Big 12. Not to mention the fact that the AAC which has UCONN and SMU in the same conference. I agree with you that it is all about the money and the TV viewership. When the conference does expand it will be about which schools give Fox Sports more viewership. Obviously the other factors will factor in around that but viewership is key to the people paying us for the TV deal.

[NJRedman]

Once again since no of you can grasp this fact. IT'S NOT ABOUT WINS OR LOSSES IT'S ABOUT WHO BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE CONFERENCE! Someone has to lose every time a game is played. Teams will finish 1-12 no matter who you bring in. It's about who is more valuable when they are down. Anyone can make money while winning, but those who can make money while losing are those you invite. It's really that simple, but you guys continue to ignore this fact. The only time winning or lack there of come into play is if one team is really really good (Butlers back to back NCG appearances) or really really bad (Duquesne).

Also, the idea that presidents want some sort of geographic balance is silly. Who cares if there are 7 mid-west members? It doesn't change anything. They aren't going to all of a sudden move the conference tournament to Cleveland or dominate all voting. Most major conference issues like expanding or NCAA tournament money sharing need more than just a simple majority. I would think there would be more likely divides like Jesuits, Venetian and Dominican. Not to mention that three of the current presidents aren't Priests. Most of these schools are in metropolitan areas so it's not like were dealing with a rural vs urban divide.

For once I agree with what you are saying, but with one caveat. It about who is bringing money to FOX that will be the primary driving force of expansion. I obviously was not privy to Fox Sports game plan, but I doubt if they are too impressed with viewership as it stands today. They want/need more TV's tuned to Fox Sports. Where can they get those viewers? If a market brings in viewers, and the University basketball team is crap, well, they likely won't care. It's all about the money. It's all about how many TV's are tuned in. Sure, they won't want an obvious misfit. No way a Wichita State, Wisconsin-Green Bay or Cleveland State will be a candidate, but if they could figure out how to make Gonzaga work, Fox would have it done.

I agree that those who want to maintain a geographical balance better take a picture of the footprint now cause it won't be the same in the future. Very few, or rather should I say none, of the power conferences have limited themselves geographically. Rutgers and Maryland will be in the Midwestern based Big Ten, Syracuse and Pitt in the Atlantic Coast Conference, Missouri is in the Southeast Conference and Colorado is in the Pac 12.

Well in regards to Fox it isn't just about ratings, but also getting their channel on the same channel tier with ESPN, instead of being off somewhere else and hard to find for casual viewers. That means for instance they would want SLU in the conference so they could force the St. Louis cable providers to put them on the basic cable package for their subscribers and get a higher fee per cable costumer. Thats the real big money at stake.

[whiteandblue77]

The Southern Illinois system is really hurting. Edwardsville is in a much better position than Carbondale going forward

You just ruined this guy's day: