Big East Conference Expansion Ideas and Discussion

[Bill Marsh]

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.

If it's about moving the needle at Fox, the pair of schools that could best do that are Gonzaga with BYU as a travel partner. Oh . . . but then there's that small issue of distance.

[Bill Marsh]

SLU is one of the better expansion candidates discussed in this thread, although, with all due respect to the Billikens, that really isn't saying much. If this thread has taught us one thing it's that all the game-changing programs worth getting aren't available, barring some seismic shift in the basketball landscape (UConn, Notre Dame, Duke, Wake Forest), and the programs who are available without a seismic shift aren't the game-changing programs worth getting (Insert your favorite collection of A-10 and CAA also-rans here).

More blind resume time!
Team A: Went to three consecutive NCAA Tournaments*, winning games in two of them. This team has no FBS football, and posted 20-win seasons in a mid-major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 4 out of 5 seasons. They won a conference regular season title and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team B.

Team B: Went to five consecutive NCAA Tournaments, reaching two Sweet Sixteens. This team has no FBS football, posted 20-win seasons in a mid major conference within the Big East's geographic footprint in 6 consecutive seasons. They won 5 conference regular season titles and a conference tournament title during that time. Their closest major media market is comparable in size to Team A.


Team A is Saint Louis from 2009-2014. *= assuming they make it this year
Team B is Southern Illinois from 2001-2007.


NOTE: NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THE BIG EAST SHOULD ADD SOUTHERN ILLINOIS.

I presented Southern Illinois' run of success in the past decade to illustrate a point about SLU. Yes, SLU seems to check all the boxes for Big East membership, and have launched themselves into the conversation after all their recent success in getting to the Dance and winning A-10 titles. This success has reinvigorated the program, and for which SLU should rightly be credited for smart coaching hires and an upgrade in facilities after moving basketball back on campus.

But SLU is not quite a slam dunk. Despite their seemingly strong base, there's still an element of "Flavor of the week" and that's because the argument about lack of sustained success is a legitimate one. Southern Illinois made twice as many tournaments in a row as SLU has, but they haven't been back to the Tournament since 2007, haven't won 20+ games since 2007, haven't finished higher than 5th in the MVC since 2008, and haven't finished higher than 8th in the MVC since 2009. Any complaints about "long-term success" for SLU primarily reflects a concern that SLU may have a similar drought to SIU. Saint Louis may be a good fit, but they're still a gamble.

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.

Why are you shouting?

With regard to geographic balance, one of the conference's top priorities has to be attendance at the Big East tournament. If for no other reason than that, the conference should continue to maintain growth in the East as part of its plan when it expands because proximity of a member to NYC works in favor of better attendance while distance is an impediment.

[notkirkcameron]

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.

Somewhat unrelated, but I'm not sure it's realistic for FS1 to be considered a serious challenger to ESPN any time in the next 5 years. They simply don't have the number of high-profile live events that ESPN does. Big East Basketball, NASCAR....and like.....5 versions of the same talk show (OK, maybe they are on the same level as ESPN, har har).

But I've always thought the problem with any new sports network trying to be an "ESPN-killer" is that they are all trying to do it alone. Fox, NBC, and CBS all have their own sports networks, in addition to BTN. Even if just Fox and NBC were to combine their sports inventory into one channel, you would have a serious ESPN challenger. You would have plenty of live content pretty much every day of the week. Big 12 and Pac-12 college football, Big East Basketball, other college basketball (Pac-12/A-10, etc.), NASCAR, Formula 1, the NHL, maybe some select NFL games, the English Premier League, UEFA Champions League, US National Soccer team games (With the rights to the World Cup in 2018/2022), MLS, Ultimate Fighting, and some Olympic sports content.

OK, enough wishful thinking. Back to determining whether we should add Siena or Canisius to make sure there's enough teams in the East and plenty of people at the Garden. I hear they're both programs on the rise...

[HoosierPal]

With regard to geographic balance, one of the conference's top priorities has to be attendance at the Big East tournament. If for no other reason than that, the conference should continue to maintain growth in the East as part of its plan when it expands because proximity of a member to NYC works in favor of better attendance while distance is an impediment.

Huh? I would think that the tourney attendance might be ninth or tenth on the list, and should take care of itself no matter what the make up of the conference is.

First priority is support of FS1 through an attractive market. Second is putting people in seats for the 200 conference games. Third is getting adequate representation in the NCAA tourney.

Are you assuming that us Midwest fans can't find our way east? You don't think Creighton will be the dominate crowd at MSG? The more significant cost of going to the tourney is staying in NYC, not getting there, and the high cost of the tickets. I got to NYC for $180 RT last trip flying Indy to LGA. What does one night stay cost? What does it cost to park my car in NYC for a weekend?

I guess Fordham might be available for addition. Their fan can take the subway to the tourney.

[Bill Marsh]

I'd like to throw out a comment on the whole notion of "fit".

There are those who feel that expansion should be focused on schools that share the same overall mission as the existing 10 members, that associations built on that kind of "fit" will make for a stable conference and that the rest will take care of itself.

I'd like to suggest that if the major part of that "fit" isn't demonstrated success at a high level in basketball, new members will be a drag on the conference and will undermine the efforts of the top basketball programs to successfully compete. No conference in the country has schools with a better fit than the Ivy League, but their athletic programs in the revenue sports are unable to compete. And it's not just because the members agreed to deemphasize athletics when they dropped athletic scholarships. A quarter century after the formalization of the Ivy League in 1954, Penn was still competing at the highest levels, was nationally ranked annually, and made it to the Final Four in 1979. To a lesser extent Princeton was still competing at that level. Yale was still competing in football up through the early '70's as was Columbia in basketball.

If a conference wants to succeed in any sport, everyone has to buy in. Someone who is institutionally a good fit but who doesn't buy in for basketball is a drag on this conference. After all, they didn't come together as a research consortium, they came together as a basketball conference.

The notion that someone has to finish last avoids the main issue, which is competition. If it's the same team(s) finishing at the bottom year after year, then they are non-competitive. No one wants to watch those games. That's the problem with AAC basketball right now. Last night's UConn-USF game was unwatchable - even for UConn fans. Their problem is that it's not just USF, it's literally half the conference, making for numerous awful games.

Teams are going to have down years, so there's always going to be someone who's not up to the competition, but when there are programs that aren't even trying, it's death to the conference's ability to compete and to command major TV contracts.

As for schools being a good fit, often ignored is the existing differences among the members? Since they are all private and urban and 9 are Catholic, it's assumed that they are a good fit. But are they really? DePaul and at. John's are both well over 20,000 students while Providence and Butler are around 4000. Until recently St. John's was a commuter school with no dorms and they still primarily serve the needs of students who live nearby. Seton Hall is a diocesan university whose primary mission is to meet the needs of those in its diocese. In contrast, Georgetown is an Ivy League caliber university, drawing its highly competitive student body from all over the country. Villanova isn't far behind academically.

So, looking beyond superficial similarities, just how much does this group "fit" together? In the most important way, they do because they are all pursuing basketball excellence. To continue to be successful, they must bring in née members who are committed to doing the same.

[Bostonspider]

With regard to geographic balance, one of the conference's top priorities has to be attendance at the Big East tournament. If for no other reason than that, the conference should continue to maintain growth in the East as part of its plan when it expands because proximity of a member to NYC works in favor of better attendance while distance is an impediment.

Richmond does have 5,000 alumni in the tri-state area, plus another 2,000 in Philly and 1,000 in Boston, and 4,000 in DC. So while UR is not large, their alumni tend to live in the east coast BE markets.

[Bluejay]

With regard to geographic balance, one of the conference's top priorities has to be attendance at the Big East tournament. If for no other reason than that, the conference should continue to maintain growth in the East as part of its plan when it expands because proximity of a member to NYC works in favor of better attendance while distance is an impediment.

But doesn't that only matter if the fans of the east coast school will actually go to the tournament? For example, Seton Hall fans don't go to their own home games --- do we really expect they will go to the conference tourney?

[Bill Marsh]

With regard to geographic balance, one of the conference's top priorities has to be attendance at the Big East tournament. If for no other reason than that, the conference should continue to maintain growth in the East as part of its plan when it expands because proximity of a member to NYC works in favor of better attendance while distance is an impediment.

But doesn't that only matter if the fans of the east coast school will actually go to the tournament? For example, Seton Hall fans don't go to their own home games --- do we really expect they will go to the conference tourney?

Yes, that's an excellent point. Other factors must be considered as well. Creighton is the school farthest from NYC, yet they've already sold out their allotment of tournament tickets AFAIK.

I'm just saying that all other things being equal, the school in closer proximity is more likely to turn their fans out because there are fewer hurdles to overcome in getting there. In addition, East Coast schools are more likely to have alums in ther greater NYC area who don't have to travel at all. I take your point to mean that all other things are not always equal. That's a fair and valid point; Creighton is the perfect example.

I'd just like to see it demonstrated in some way that the fan base from schools farther away can be counted on to come to the tournament as part of the process of qualifying them. Of course, this should be factored into qualifying schools from the East as well. Point taken.

[cm5yz6]

No conference in the country has schools with a better fit than the Ivy League, but their athletic programs in the revenue sports are unable to compete. And it's not just because the members agreed to deemphasize athletics when they dropped athletic scholarships. A quarter century after the formalization of the Ivy League in 1954, Penn was still competing at the highest levels, was nationally ranked annually, and made it to the Final Four in 1979. To a lesser extent Princeton was still competing at that level. Yale was still competing in football up through the early '70's as was Columbia in basketball.

I don't know about you, but there is no conference in the country I would rather my school be a member of than the Ivy League. If word got out that any Big East school turned down an Ivy League invite, I have a feeling there would be one or two angry people.

[marquette]

The Ivy League is choosing not to take part in the commercialization of college sports. That's the reason they have no Ivy League basketball tournament. Conferences can give out their bid to whomever they choose. Most choose to have a conference tourney to determine the winner because it makes more money. The Ivy League can do this, they are the highest academic institutions in the country and people will always know who they are. Few other schools have that option and must get their name out however they can. If Harvard, Yale, and Princeton decided tomorrow that they wanted to be the 3 best athletic institutions in the country I would bet anything that by 2020 they would be on top in every sport. They have those kinds of resources.