Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Know Nothing]

What program has been added in any conference that wasn't good at something like what SLU would be for the Big East though right now? SLU was on the verge of being in the 300's this year.

Also, the Big Ten and all the f5 conferences are a whole lot more Teflon on adds than the Big East would be. The pundits would be all over the Big East for adding such a putrid program. they would be saying- there's a mid major conference now. I don't think that's the press we want at this point.

As far as Davidson, they would in my mind have to be complimented by a school in Richmond to have any chance. I don't see the Big East wanting to have Davidson on just as much of an island as Creighton is right now. I think also they have the same kind of questions about coaching that Dayton/VCU have- if not even more.

One bad season does not make a program. The three years before last, SLU went 27-7, 28-7, and 26-8. They reached the 3rd round of the NCAA tournament each of those years and won the Atlantic 10 twice. Besides if on the court/field results were all that mattered then the Big Ten would be laughing stock of college sports for adding Rutgers. It is not a laughing stock because there are many factors that go into expansion such as location, market size, fan support, facilities, institutional fit, etc in addition to on the court/field performance. SLU brings a lot of great thing to the table and if/when expansion happens I would expect SLU and Dayton will be added to the Big East.

[cm5yz6]

One bad season does not make a program. The three years before last, SLU went 27-7, 28-7, and 26-8. They reached the 3rd round of the NCAA tournament each of those years and won the Atlantic 10 twice. Besides if on the court/field results were all that mattered then the Big Ten would be laughing stock of college sports for adding Rutgers. It is not a laughing stock because there are many factors that go into expansion such as location, market size, fan support, facilities, institutional fit, etc in addition to on the court/field performance. SLU brings a lot of great thing to the table and if/when expansion happens I would expect SLU and Dayton will be added to the Big East.

I still believe that, in the end, they will add SLU and Richmond in the next round of expansion (whenever that may be). I understand that this doesn't really add anything to the general conversation, so to make up for it... please tell me your name is an homage to the old Know Nothing political party. I am envisioning you as the ultimate insider, playing with the general message board public, simultaneously knowing all and contending to know nothing.

[trephin]

As far as Davidson, they would in my mind have to be complimented by a school in Richmond to have any chance. I don't see the Big East wanting to have Davidson on just as much of an island as Creighton is right now. I think also they have the same kind of questions about coaching that Dayton/VCU have- if not even more.

By complimented by a Richmond school, do you mean VCU? Cause I just can't see adding two schools in Davidson and Richmond with a combined enrollment less than 7,000.

The only question about coaching and Davidson is who succeeds when McKillop retires. There's no danger of him being poached.

[Hoyas]

What program has been added in any conference that wasn't good at something like what SLU would be for the Big East though right now? SLU was on the verge of being in the 300's this year.

Also, the Big Ten and all the f5 conferences are a whole lot more Teflon on adds than the Big East would be. The pundits would be all over the Big East for adding such a putrid program. they would be saying- there's a mid major conference now. I don't think that's the press we want at this point.

As far as Davidson, they would in my mind have to be complimented by a school in Richmond to have any chance. I don't see the Big East wanting to have Davidson on just as much of an island as Creighton is right now. I think also they have the same kind of questions about coaching that Dayton/VCU have- if not even more.

One bad season does not make a program. The three years before last, SLU went 27-7, 28-7, and 26-8. They reached the 3rd round of the NCAA tournament each of those years and won the Atlantic 10 twice. Besides if on the court/field results were all that mattered then the Big Ten would be laughing stock of college sports for adding Rutgers. It is not a laughing stock because there are many factors that go into expansion such as location, market size, fan support, facilities, institutional fit, etc in addition to on the court/field performance. SLU brings a lot of great thing to the table and if/when expansion happens I would expect SLU and Dayton will be added to the Big East.

Those 3 years were all due to Rick Majerus and his recruiting. That's it. What SLU is facing is the 3 good years were the fluke.

Rutgers was actually pretty decent in football. It's not just basketball but football as well. And like I said, P5 conferences are a lot more Teflon than we are.

You tell me. We add SLU tomorrow. What do you think ESPN, CBS, etc. are going to say about the move? Nothing positive one bit. Nada. Then when they start worse off than even DePaul, it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Also, I don't see Fox wanting to add SLU right now at all.

Right now, SLU has a problem in some ways similar to Dayton or VCU. They have got to show that the 3 good years were due to more than just Rick Majerus recruiting. The Big East would be absolute fools for adding SLU at least until they can get back at least into the top 100. They have to show a pulse.

[Hoyas]

As far as Davidson, they would in my mind have to be complimented by a school in Richmond to have any chance. I don't see the Big East wanting to have Davidson on just as much of an island as Creighton is right now. I think also they have the same kind of questions about coaching that Dayton/VCU have- if not even more.

By complimented by a Richmond school, do you mean VCU? Cause I just can't see adding two schools in Davidson and Richmond with a combined enrollment less than 7,000.

The only question about coaching and Davidson is who succeeds when McKillop retires. There's no danger of him being poached.

Point 1- that's the big problem with Davidson. They are so small that it doesn't help out much at all. They would be on an island if we don't take Richmond(who like you say is small) or VCU(who is public).

The question about coaching is who succeeds when he retires. Only 4 guys have been at their school longer then him. He's 64 right now. The question though is just like Dayton/VCU- will the program fall off when their current coach leaves? Some ways, it's even more pronounced with them than VCU/Dayton I would think.

[GoldenWarrior11]

I really like the hire of Will Wade at VCU. I think he will continue with the success there and keep the recruits.

With regards to Dayton, it is certainly more of a community of coaches that has led to its historical success. Before Miller, they had Purnell, Gregory, Jim O'Brien and Don Donoher. Surprising that O'Brien was so poor at Dayton, considering he was able to coach for three different teams in the NBA.

The cool thing about the Big East is that teams are not made by one coach, one player, one team, etc. Each school strives for continued success regardless of head coach, players, administration, etc.

[Frank the Tank]

You tell me. We add SLU tomorrow. What do you think ESPN, CBS, etc. are going to say about the move? Nothing positive one bit. Nada. Then when they start worse off than even DePaul, it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Also, I don't see Fox wanting to add SLU right now at all.

Right now, SLU has a problem in some ways similar to Dayton or VCU. They have got to show that the 3 good years were due to more than just Rick Majerus recruiting. The Big East would be absolute fools for adding SLU at least until they can get back at least into the top 100. They have to show a pulse.

In all seriousness, who cares? The pundits are absolutely irrelevant. The Big East presidents should be building an institutional brand that lasts for decades and goes far beyond basketball, not a short-term fix for NCAA Tournament bids. Those pundits certainly ripped the Big Ten for adding Rutgers... and the bosses of those pundits at ESPN and Fox will be falling all over themselves within the next couple of years to make the Big Ten the richest conference in history by far. The university presidents don't care whatsoever about those pundits and shouldn't (just as the Big Ten ignored the pundits with the Rutgers/Maryland addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the BTN and the SEC ignored the pundits with the Texas A&M/Missouri addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the creation of the SEC Network). The Big Ten and SEC didn't wait around for Rutgers, Maryland, A&M and Mizzou to get perfect on-the-field before adding them (and none of them were when they were added). They had a big picture plan based on *institutional* power and markets that can't be changed by a coaching move or some NCAA Tournament appearances.

Look - I get it. Many fans and their generally financially and academically ignorant sports media counterparts (with a handful of exceptions like Brett McMurphy) don't want to see the big picture - they just want to see entertaining games NOW. It makes sense - all of those pundits don't want to be writing about cable households and TV networks and just wish they could talk about recruiting classes and whether the game that they have to watch next week will be interesting. That's why they're not running conferences and universities, though.

Now, that being said, the Big East should certainly care what the bosses of those pundits think since they're the ones that actually have some power. The top executives of ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS certainly matter. The blathering TV and Internet pundits that work for them are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment.

The key to a great conference realignment move isn't striking when a school is hot on-the-field/court. Instead, it's about finding those schools (as opposed to teams) that add to institutional conference strength even if they don't win a single game. THOSE are the valuable schools in conference realignment (which is something that the Big Ten and SEC have understood for many years).

[Hoyas]

You tell me. We add SLU tomorrow. What do you think ESPN, CBS, etc. are going to say about the move? Nothing positive one bit. Nada. Then when they start worse off than even DePaul, it's going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Also, I don't see Fox wanting to add SLU right now at all.

Right now, SLU has a problem in some ways similar to Dayton or VCU. They have got to show that the 3 good years were due to more than just Rick Majerus recruiting. The Big East would be absolute fools for adding SLU at least until they can get back at least into the top 100. They have to show a pulse.

In all seriousness, who cares? The pundits are absolutely irrelevant. The Big East presidents should be building an institutional brand that lasts for decades and goes far beyond basketball, not a short-term fix for NCAA Tournament bids. Those pundits certainly ripped the Big Ten for adding Rutgers... and the bosses of those pundits at ESPN and Fox will be falling all over themselves within the next couple of years to make the Big Ten the richest conference in history by far. The university presidents don't care whatsoever about those pundits and shouldn't (just as the Big Ten ignored the pundits with the Rutgers/Maryland addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the BTN and the SEC ignored the pundits with the Texas A&M/Missouri addition that has turned out to be a complete financial boon with the creation of the SEC Network). The Big Ten and SEC didn't wait around for Rutgers, Maryland, A&M and Mizzou to get perfect on-the-field before adding them (and none of them were when they were added). They had a big picture plan based on *institutional* power and markets that can't be changed by a coaching move or some NCAA Tournament appearances.

Look - I get it. Many fans and their generally financially and academically ignorant sports media counterparts (with a handful of exceptions like Brett McMurphy) don't want to see the big picture - they just want to see entertaining games NOW. It makes sense - all of those pundits don't want to be writing about cable households and TV networks and just wish they could talk about recruiting classes and whether the game that they have to watch next week will be interesting. That's why they're not running conferences and universities, though.

Now, that being said, the Big East should certainly care what the bosses of those pundits think since they're the ones that actually have some power. The top executives of ESPN, Fox Sports and CBS certainly matter. The blathering TV and Internet pundits that work for them are irrelevant with respect to conference realignment.

The key to a great conference realignment move isn't striking when a school is hot on-the-field/court. Instead, it's about finding those schools (as opposed to teams) that add to institutional conference strength even if they don't win a single game. THOSE are the valuable schools in conference realignment (which is something that the Big Ten and SEC have understood for many years).

In a way we should care. If we add SLU, we absolutely would be labeled as a mid-major conference more than we are already. That's a HUGE difference between the F5 and us. Nothing the SEC/Big Ten would do would get them labeled as mid-major.

And ask yourself this question. What would the Fox bosses say right now about us adding SLU? Can they sell 1 game as attractive right now because SLU is in the league? Not a chance. I think that's a huge thing.

You bring up Rutgers/Maryland/Texas A&M/Missouri. Look at those teams when they were added
Missouri 10-3/23-11
Texas A&M 9-4/24-9
Rutgers 9-4/15-16
Maryland 4-8/25-13

Only Maryland football and Rutgers basketball sub .500. All had good things about them at the time of the add. When was the last time a program was added to a major conference that was close to as bad as SLU was this year at the time of the add? I'm not saying SLU has to get back to 25+ wins. They need to get back to being #100 range.

[Jet915]

Only UCONN or Gonzaga move the needle. We shouldn't add unless it's one of those. The president's don't want Gonzaga and UCONN is still hoping for F5 so we minus well wait, we've got 10 years left on our contract. There is no hurry.

[JPSchmack]

Entertaining thread, albeit much of it is a rehash of what has been stated before (with the exception of the out-of-left-field St. Bonnie's fetish).

My observations over the past couple of years on this board (and these are obviously generalizations):

THINGS THAT BIG EAST FANS OVERRATE:
(1) Recent on-the-court results

THINGS THAT BIG EAST FANS UNDERRATE:
(3) The desire to expand overall

THINGS THAT BIG EAST FANS APPROPRIATELY RATE:
(1) Dayton
(2) Richmond
(3) Other expansion candidates besides the ones mentioned above - Notwithstanding some isolated calls like the one for St. Bonnie's in this thread (no, just no), it seems that Big East fans are in alignment with the presidents on other schools not mentioned up to this point. For example, there isn't any interest in Duquesne despite the institutional fit and favorable Pittsburgh market on paper because the on-the-court product has truly been terrible for far too long. The Big East presidents don't care about on-the-court success in the same way that fans do (where they aren't parsing out how schools perform year-to-year, but the presidents do need to see evidence that they aren't completely inept with no chance for competitiveness and/or a complete lack of history.

Overall, or general broad sense, I’d say that’s pretty true of the overrated/underrated categories you listed. The desire to expand is very limited, and you enjoy your exclusivity. But the NEED to expand is tremendously underrated (so much so that you didn’t list it).

Combine the enjoyment of exclusivity and the counter-intuitive way the Zero Sum Game of conference play works, and that’s why you find yourselves in the position you see here. It is counter-intuitive to say “You need another bad team to make the league better.” But you actually DO need another team that’s BAD IN CONFERENCE to receive more NCAA bids.

There are many, many things on the administrative side of college basketball that are counter-intuitive and people refuse to believe/accept; and the vast majority come down to the effect a conference schedule has on everything. Things like:

- A weaker OOC SOS (as a group) actually leads to a higher overall SOS for everyone.
- Adding two weaker programs makes the league “better”
- Adding private schools in big TV markets doesn’t grow your popularity/ratings as much as private schools in remote locations.


I KNOW the idea of Bonaventure is freaking crazy. I don’t expect an invitation for them, ever. However, I continue to argue the “out of left field case” because its frustrating to witness people believe conventional wisdom that isn’t wise at all, when the wisest course of action is counter-intuitive to that conventional wisdom. If you need me to drop Bona as a focus to discuss these concepts in the abstract, fine.