Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[UD FAN]

That's good enough for me- bring Dayton in. Where else do we see this seething anger other than a X fan reacting to anything UD? Will be fun to watch.

I believe you are a Dayton fan. You are making jaxalum's point. You do not have a say in this. And try getting past the idea that it is about anger; you guys have not done anything that warrants your inclusion in the Big East.

Actually they have more going for them than just about any other candidate.

+1

[Know Nothing]

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).

I think you completely miss the point about adding some public schools in your comparison to the Big 10. The Big 10's niche is large public flagship universities that represent their state. Yes it's a niche but its a huge niche from an affinity map standpoint. Rutgers and Maryland add significant population bases that have an affinity for those schools.

The Big East also has a niche but that niche is relatively small, declining in an increasingly secular America, and the Big East is missing the main draw for that niche (Notre Dame). The result is the poor ratings the Big East pulls from Fox. The intimate result of poor ratings will be less exposure on Fox and less exposure means fewer top recruits. The push to add public schools with on court results is not about recent success it's about redefining the brand image of the conference to something that has broader affinity potential. Snobbery doesn't sell. If it did the Ivy League would have a TV contract.

The Big East Presidents can ignore the fans as you put it but it's the fans who create the ratings. Adding SLU only further reinforces the image of the Big East as the Catholic Basketball league. The Presidents certainly have that right but in the end it will come at the expense of their long term product.

The Big East is a Catholic basketball league. I don't know why you see that as a bad thing. Catholic schools have a great sports tradition at both the high school and college level and have large fan bases in major urban cities. The new Big East provides stability and partnership that never existed when we were aligned with public universities. This conference is designed to last into perpetuity, not just until the next round of realignment by the football conference. When the Big East looks to expand(and I agree the conference is in no hurry to do so) they will look to other successful Catholic Universities with great sports traditions to maintain our institutional cohesiveness.

[R Jay]

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).

I think you completely miss the point about adding some public schools in your comparison to the Big 10. The Big 10's niche is large public flagship universities that represent their state. Yes it's a niche but its a huge niche from an affinity map standpoint. Rutgers and Maryland add significant population bases that have an affinity for those schools.

The Big East also has a niche but that niche is relatively small, declining in an increasingly secular America, and the Big East is missing the main draw for that niche (Notre Dame). The result is the poor ratings the Big East pulls from Fox. The intimate result of poor ratings will be less exposure on Fox and less exposure means fewer top recruits. The push to add public schools with on court results is not about recent success it's about redefining the brand image of the conference to something that has broader affinity potential. Snobbery doesn't sell. If it did the Ivy League would have a TV contract.

The Big East Presidents can ignore the fans as you put it but it's the fans who create the ratings. Adding SLU only further reinforces the image of the Big East as the Catholic Basketball league. The Presidents certainly have that right but in the end it will come at the expense of their long term product.

The Big East is a Catholic basketball league. I don't know why you see that as a bad thing. Catholic schools have a great sports tradition at both the high school and college level and have large fan bases in major urban cities. The new Big East provides stability and partnership that never existed when we were aligned with public universities. This conference is designed to last into perpetuity, not just until the next round of realignment by the football conference. When the Big East looks to expand(and I agree the conference is in no hurry to do so) they will look to other successful Catholic Universities with great sports traditions to maintain our institutional cohesiveness.

+1,000,000
There's a reason why public schools were left out of the original 10. That's why they will probably be left out of any expansion. Presidents care more about institutional fit than basketball prowess. They certainly don't care about "snobbery."

[DudeAnon]

People are using Daytons 2 years of success to overrun 30 years of pure mediocrity.

[pki1998]

You thoroughly enjoy being able to stiff arm UD and keep them out of the league.

I love how Dayton fans always say this. There is of course no logic for this statement. First when Marquette, DePaul and the rest of the Great Midwest Conference, left UD hanging as they formed the original conference USA. Xavier actively lobbied for UD to join the A-10. With out Xavier's help, I don't think Dayton gets in because they were absolutely horrid in the Great Midwest. It would be equivielent of the Big East inviting Fordham now. Second there were numerous reports early on that xavier was leading the charge to invite the C7 into the A10 creating a 21 team confernce. Luckily that never happened, but still it showed that X was still willing to be in a confernce with Dayton.

Now let's consider membership in the Big East. If the C7 called up X and said we want to add Butler, Dayton and X. Do you really think X would have been able to stop Dayton's inclusion? How would that have worked? If Xavier said something stupid like if you add UD we won't join. Don't you think the C7 would have called their bluff? I am sure they would have added Dayton and Butler, then gone up to Xavier and join us of you can stay in the A-10 and we will take Crieghton. Xavier would obviously have still joined.

I am sure there were leginate discussions about SLU and UD joining. You could have made an arguement for either or both teams if the conference had decided to start with 12 teams. The biggest problem for both SLU and UD was their was no obvious choices on the east coast, and I do not believe anyone of the schools want more midwest teams than east coast teams. If either UD or SLU was in Boston, Buffalo, Albany, Richmond or baltimore. We would have been at twelves teams from the start.

[RDriesenUD]

People are using Daytons 2 years of success to overrun 30 years of pure mediocrity.

You are using one bad period to overrun decades of success. Dayton is 351-180 since 1999-2000 for a 66.10% winning percentage. They have been to the NCAA 6 times and the NIT 6 times.

No doubt, they weren't great (and sometimes really bad) in the late eighties and nineties. If you could take out the nineties, and I know you can't , they are 1,112-568 for a 66.19% winning percentage since 1949-1950. I am guessing most universities have had a bad stretch.

Also, they haven't been as good as I would like in conference, but they also haven't been terrible. Overall, they are 181-141 in the A10. Not great(not good enough), but not bad.

The point is they haven't been as bad as some of you are trying to act like. They haven't just been good the last 2 years and terrible the previous 28.

[Ball Turret Gunner]

I find it humorous that X fans insist that they have somehow elevated UD's program by allegedly opening conference doors for them. UD has the fan support, money, facilities, etc to come back from a down period by themselves. UD was a basketball power when X was in the dumps. It's been cyclical with both programs. UD is doing just fine without association with X. We've been there. All that a "stiff arm" does is give UD a little more sunlight to strengthen the program faster right now. It succeeds on it's own merits.

[BEwannabe]

You thoroughly enjoy being able to stiff arm UD and keep them out of the league.

I love how Dayton fans always say this. There is of course no logic for this statement. First when Marquette, DePaul and the rest of the Great Midwest Conference, left UD hanging as they formed the original conference USA. Xavier actively lobbied for UD to join the A-10. With out Xavier's help, I don't think Dayton gets in because they were absolutely horrid in the Great Midwest. It would be equivielent of the Big East inviting Fordham now. Second there were numerous reports early on that xavier was leading the charge to invite the C7 into the A10 creating a 21 team confernce. Luckily that never happened, but still it showed that X was still willing to be in a confernce with Dayton.

Now let's consider membership in the Big East. If the C7 called up X and said we want to add Butler, Dayton and X. Do you really think X would have been able to stop Dayton's inclusion? How would that have worked? If Xavier said something stupid like if you add UD we won't join. Don't you think the C7 would have called their bluff? I am sure they would have added Dayton and Butler, then gone up to Xavier and join us of you can stay in the A-10 and we will take Crieghton. Xavier would obviously have still joined.

I am sure there were leginate discussions about SLU and UD joining. You could have made an arguement for either or both teams if the conference had decided to start with 12 teams. The biggest problem for both SLU and UD was their was no obvious choices on the east coast, and I do not believe anyone of the schools want more midwest teams than east coast teams. If either UD or SLU was in Boston, Buffalo, Albany, Richmond or baltimore. We would have been at twelves teams from the start.

only 1 problem with your post, JP isn't a UD fan.

[muskienick]

The Big East is a Catholic basketball league. I don't know why you see that as a bad thing. Catholic schools have a great sports tradition at both the high school and college level and have large fan bases in major urban cities. The new Big East provides stability and partnership that never existed when we were aligned with public universities. This conference is designed to last into perpetuity, not just until the next round of realignment by the football conference. When the Big East looks to expand(and I agree the conference is in no hurry to do so) they will look to other successful Catholic Universities with great sports traditions to maintain our institutional cohesiveness.

The reasons (and they are hugely important ones) why I think the Big East should not be pigeon-holed as a "Catholic basketball league" are as follows:
1. We already have one non-Catholic school in the Conference (Butler).
2. Assuming you meant to say "Private" rather than "Catholic," I don't want the Conference pigeon-holed to that description either. By doing so, The Big East would severely limit itself, in the event it desires to expand, by eliminating the possibility of including superior basketball institutions who otherwise meet the criteria (i.e. reasonably within the current footprint of the Conference and have no aspirations to pursue a P5 football program).

The Old Big East was a wonderful Conference for the C7 --- perhaps the best and most exciting of them all. It was only when some of the finer football members got cherry-picked by what have now become the Power-5 Conferences that things changed for the worse. At that point, the football dregs that remained in the Big East got desperate and began to turn the Conference into C-USA 2.0. Only the two UC's remained of the stellar group of FB schools that were members of the Big East for any significant length of time. Gone were Louisville, Syracuse, West Virginia, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Virginia Tech (among others) to the ACC, Big 12, and Big 10. It is true that he C-7 selected 3 Private institutions to fill out the new Big East to 10. But there were at least three other characteristics that were important in selecting Butler, Creighton, and Xavier:

They all had excellent histories of success in getting to the NCAA Tourney and in finishing at or near the top of their respective leagues
They all were located in reasonably large metropolitan areas, easily reached by air
They all put the major sports emphasis on their Men's and Women's basketball programs

When key FB schools left the Big East only to be replaced by far worse FB schools with mostly equally bad basketball programs, the C-7 schools knew they must make the split. They did not split from PUBLIC institutions per se. They split from schools who aspired to be in a "Big Six" FB league.

Therefore, if the C-7 and its 3 newer partners ever decide to expand, they should not fear to include public institutions among their list of candidates as long as they do not aspire to the BCS (or P5) level of football. Please note that the Old Big East didn't break up because Public institutions were members. It broke up because big football ruined the landscape for the Big East!

If UD is selected as a member because it wins out overall with all factors taken into consideration, then so be it. I will welcome them into the fold. But I believe it would be to the lasting detriment of the Conference if it sacrificed basketball excellence in favor of Private over Public or Convenience over Geography (i.e. Gonzaga).

[muskienick]

You thoroughly enjoy being able to stiff arm UD and keep them out of the league.

I love how Dayton fans always say this. There is of course no logic for this statement. First when Marquette, DePaul and the rest of the Great Midwest Conference, left UD hanging as they formed the original conference USA. Xavier actively lobbied for UD to join the A-10. With out Xavier's help, I don't think Dayton gets in because they were absolutely horrid in the Great Midwest. It would be equivielent of the Big East inviting Fordham now. Second there were numerous reports early on that xavier was leading the charge to invite the C7 into the A10 creating a 21 team confernce. Luckily that never happened, but still it showed that X was still willing to be in a confernce with Dayton.

Now let's consider membership in the Big East. If the C7 called up X and said we want to add Butler, Dayton and X. Do you really think X would have been able to stop Dayton's inclusion? How would that have worked? If Xavier said something stupid like if you add UD we won't join. Don't you think the C7 would have called their bluff? I am sure they would have added Dayton and Butler, then gone up to Xavier and join us of you can stay in the A-10 and we will take Crieghton. Xavier would obviously have still joined.

I am sure there were leginate discussions about SLU and UD joining. You could have made an arguement for either or both teams if the conference had decided to start with 12 teams. The biggest problem for both SLU and UD was their was no obvious choices on the east coast, and I do not believe anyone of the schools want more midwest teams than east coast teams. If either UD or SLU was in Boston, Buffalo, Albany, Richmond or baltimore. We would have been at twelves teams from the start.

only 1 problem with your post, JP isn't a UD fan.

I believe there were far more things wrong with the post than just one. First and foremost, Xavier has already twice been a member of a Conference with Dayton and I believe both schools have enjoyed those competitions. Why would X have balked at a third such arrangement. I further dispute the assumption that the Big East would be at 12 members now had either UD or SLU been located on the eastern seaboard somewhere. Neither of those schools had the on-court resumes that would have matched up with those of Butler, Creighton, and Xavier at the time.