Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[Bill Marsh]

Then you have your answer, don't you. No one cares about dated accomplishments. If anyone cared about dated accomplishments, wouldn't UD already be in the Big East?

Xavier's resume does blow Dayton's resume out of the water. It blows it out of the water with respect to the NCAA Tournament as it is presently configured - call it the modern era with at least 64 teams competing in it. Beyond that, it blows UD away in head-to-head competition in that same time frame. And Xavier was primarily responsible for the A10's financial success and exposure during its last 10 years or so in it, while UD bumbled its way to anointing itself pre-season champion about every year on its way to racking up a .500 conference performance.

You don't have a reading comprehension problem based upon what the Marquette fan wrote. You simply have a comprehension problem.

With all due respect I feel like X fans will naturally feel that way because the vast majority of your success has come recently. At MU, Georgetown or Nova I'd guarantee we care tons about our titles, I'm sure Depaul cares tons about the George Mikan final four as well as the Mark Agguire final four. A big selling point of this conference is the tradition (new and old) of these teams. For the kids going to high school now they've been alive for just 4 St Johns NCAA tournament appearances, doesn't mean they won't know that St Johns has a great history.

That being said Dayton fan touting that runner up as the reason they're better than X is like a Loyola Chicago fan saying they're the best team in Illinois because they won the championship. They haven't had remotely the same consistency.

I was not impugning your work. I actually enjoyed the data. And I obviously agree with your last point, because that essentially was the point I was making. Traditions add to the richness of a conference. However, when it comes to the expansion topic, a program's overall tradition has to take a back seat to its recent, sustainable success rate. You noted it yourself: whether it be Loyola or the University of San Francisco or LaSalle, those achievements are in the way too distant past to matter when it comes to how those programs stack up as prospective expansion targets. I don't tend to bring up Xavier's 1958 NIT Championship in this context, as it has no bearing on sustainable success, though, like you, I like that as a component of tradition.

I wrote what I wrote in response to the UD troll. It seems to be universally accepted that recent history is more critical to making decisions regarding expansion, if expansion is to ever take place. It was easy to take the data you presented and look at it for total body of work and then for relevant current sustainable success. The UD fan couldn't "comprehend" how Xavier's track record was so much better than UD's track record. He and his friends can't comprehend how the vast majority of fans don't care about what a program did at a time when television sets were contained in wooden pieces of furniture, three primary network channels existed, and Laugh-In aired on NBC.

The BTG UD troll thinks that it's arbitrary to consider a timeframe when the Tournament was established in essentially its present form. Actually, based on the metric being relevant sustainable current success, I should have gone with "since 2000." A clean enough cut-off with ample time for considering sustainable performance. There is nothing arbitrary about using the modern 64 team format as a means of assessing a track record; the Tournament in essentially its present day form is a meaningful way of taking a look at that, without impugning a program's tradition. For sake of better clarity, it certainly should be the case that using 2000 as a cut-off for evaluating sustainable current performance should be reasonable enough, or just go back 10 years if that makes even more sense. A program's track record has to be long enough and current enough to evaluate its sustainability for expansion purposes. That's the point, and it isn't arbitrary.

UD fans will continue to come here and overstate how their fan base travels, how much national press they think they're getting (they actually seem to think that they're special in this regard; it's pretty funny), how relevant their television market is (it isn't relevant in the scheme of things), that they're now as good as any program in the Big East now that they've been to the NCAA Tournament for TWO years in a row, or how wonderful it is for Dayton to host the PIG games. Whatever. If you enjoy reading all that, then knock yourself out. To their credit, never has a basketball program done so little with so much (especially sweater vests). Ponder that one for a minute, knowing that Archie MILLER will be gone from Dayton, OH in the very not too distant future.

Let's step back again - or try to - and ponder the essence of this realignment discussion when it comes to expanding or not expanding the Big East Conference. Some thoughts, in a kind of waterfall order:

1. Word was that Fox would support a financial package with equal per team money up to 12 teams when the deal was coming together with the C7.

2. The C7 itself had to determine whether it was going to be 9 or 10, or something else.

3. On comes Xavier, Butler and Creighton and the music stopped. If you look back at it without blinders, that process happened quickly and definitively.

4. Stop right there: ask yourself if you thought that was some kind of "staging" maneuver to digest 10 and take on more later, or if that was it, or it for the foreseeable future.

5. Two years are now under the BE's belt with some fans around here (e.g. Stever) overreacting to Fox numbers and NCAA bids, etc.; and again only 2 years into the mission!

6. What about those 2 years? By any measure, except for deeper Tournament runs, the Big East had a successful year this past season.

7. That being the case, you would think the President's, Fox and MSG are happy and inclined to let the brand continue to build. It doesn't need fixing.

8. That's where they now sit: THEY ARE UNDER NO FORM OF STRESS OF ANY KIND TO EXPAND THE CONFERENCE.

(a) They don't need to do it because they're at risk with their television partner; the TV partner is building, along with BE viewership.

(b) They don't need to do it because they feel the need to ATTEMPT to game the NCAA Units systems, having put 60% of their teams into the Tournament in 2015.

9. They have the luxury of being able to wait: they can let the brand build and see how that develops.

10. They have the luxury of being able to wait to see if changes in the football landscape open presently non-existent material opportunities - if ever needed.

That's what they're doing. It's that simple. Short of perhaps Gonzaga, which we all know presents real geographical challenges, there is not a program out there that is perceived to be impactful enough to warrant consideration for inclusion in the Big East. Brand management does not seem to receive a sufficient amount of consideration around here. The Presidents are in fact managing the brand.

It's simply too soon to adjust the current formula. Adjusting it now with what's available would be perceived to be a dilutive and reactive move, especially coming off a year where the Big East conference:

- Produced a #1 Seed.
- Put 6 teams into the NCAA Tournament (60% of the conference).
- Held a successful BE Tournament.
- Cranked up the #2 RPI Conference in the nation.
- Generated strong attendance numbers.
- Established a strong, positive trend in recruiting results.

Who in their right mind would mess with that now?

Dash, excellent post. Thanks for your thoughts and for all the time it took to write that.

It's a fine line between complacency and preparedness. I agree that this is not the time to expand unless they are prepared to overcome the geography and add Gonzaga.

However, everything is not as rosy as you present. There are reasons for concern. There are challenges. The conference should be working on them.

1. The Fox ratings are poor. That's simply a fact. There should be a plan to address that.

2. Attendance at Big East games dropped this season, both at the tournament and during the regular season. Not a lot. It could just be normal fluctuation, but the fluctuation is in the wrong direction. That again is a fact.

3. The conference had 3 high profile teams in its first 2 years - Villanova both years and Creighton the first year. All 3 disappointed in the tournament and there was no pleasant surprise to compensate for them. That's simply another fact.

The on court play in the tournament is the easiest of the 3 to fix, and will probably be changed in the next few years.

There is no doubt that the Big East is healthy. That is precisely the time to make bold moves because the conference is operating from a position of strength. The BE HQ can continue to monitor the situation for another couple of years, but they must begin to address the challenges after the first 4 years if they continue in the wrong direction. If they wait until the last 4 years of the 12 year contract, it will be too late.

TV revenue is the life blood of any modern program because of the expenses involved in running such a program. Fox will not continue with a contract that is losing money for them after the deal is up. These are not schools with enrollments of 50,000 like the Big Ten, nor do they get the loyalists who follow the state flag ship. They must identify a strategy to market the conference in order to succeed. And they must do so in the next few years.

[JPSchmack]

7. That being the case, you would think the President's, Fox and MSG are happy and inclined to let the brand continue to build. It doesn't need fixing.

8. That's where they now sit: THEY ARE UNDER NO FORM OF STRESS OF ANY KIND TO EXPAND THE CONFERENCE.
(a) They don't need to do it because they're at risk with their television partner; the TV partner is building, along with BE viewership.
(b) They don't need to do it because they feel the need to ATTEMPT to game the NCAA Units systems, having put 60% of their teams into the Tournament in 2015.

9. They have the luxury of being able to wait

That's what they're doing. It's that simple.
It's simply too soon to adjust the current formula. Adjusting it now with what's available would be perceived to be a dilutive and reactive move,

Who in their right mind would mess with that now?

Very simply to address the items in bold: If there’s something that improves the league, long and short term, and adds more NCAA Units, why wouldn’t you just do it even if “You didn’t need to right now” ?

Why turn down Units/money that’s there to be taken?

Short of perhaps Gonzaga, which we all know presents real geographical challenges, there is not a program out there that is perceived to be impactful enough to warrant consideration for inclusion in the Big East.

You’re right in the sense that the Big East doesn’t “need” to add out of weakness.

But the “perception” argument is silly. If you know you are right, but the perception is that you are wrong… you don’t care about the perception, because the perception will be proved wrong.

For example, the A-10 was “perceived” to be weakened so badly that it would be a 1-2 bid league after Temple, Butler and Xavier bolted; While the Big East was perceived to be a five-bid league every year. But those perception was proven wrong when the A-10 got SIX BIDS that first year, and the Big East barely snuck in four bids (Providence winning the BET, Xavier in the First Four).

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who was right about those things before they happened; and could have explained to you why the perceptions were wrong. But I was one of the very few (if not only) who had no problem saying so before hand, and have been right at every turn. (I also don't really care about the perception that I'm a crazy person for suggesting Bona helps you. They do. I'm right, I know it. There may be other schools who help more, and it's an incredible long-shot, but that's not really the point. The point is: Vision + Balls = Success. F perception).


Leaving the hybrid Big East to start a hoops only league, taking Creighton over Saint Louis (during the Billikens’ success under Majerus) are both prime examples of the Big East doing something opposite of perception, knowing they were right, and knowing they’d be proven right over time.

Taking Dayton and St. Bona, not giving a crap about everyone saying “NOW you take Dayton after 5 NCAA wins in two years, A-10 raiders!” and “wait, Bona?” would not be any kind of weakness, any kind of stress to expand, and would be proven down the line as the acts of a thoughtful conference with vision.

Plus, NO ONE is calling you A-10 raiders, greedy, or desperate if you invite Bona. It will be a reaction of “I don’t get it” And then in the next few years when you get 7-8 bids routinely — well, people probably still wouldn’t get it. But you’d be right, and have the additional NCAA cash to prove it.

[JPSchmack]

I see this discussion has come full circle.
We started out with the usual candidates: Gonzaga, VCU, and Dayton and proceeded to shoot holes in them all. Then we survived the onslaught on Dayton fans and the angered Xavier fans responses. And now we have the "never gonna happen" teams starting to show up (in addition to JP's insistence on St. Bonaventure.)
So shut it down, wrap it up, cease and desist, it's all over.

*I know this is going to go another 60 pages in which we go back to the beginning and do this all over, because that's what we do...

Why don't we discuss why each of the criteria for "being a good add" ACTUALLY MATTERS, and why the criteria is the criteria?

So many, many, many people seem to think that "adding the best basketball program makes the league better," which is not true at all.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "however many NCAA bids you had previously, that's how good you are / and how many bids we'd get going forward" which is definitely not true at all, and totally disproven.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "the bigger the market, the more it helps ratings" which is not true at all.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "what you bring to the table" is what matters, when conference affiliation is a two-way street.


Everyone loves to talk about Gonzaga, but the best possible program for the Big East to add isn't Gonzaga; The best program who might actually listen to your invitation is actually BYU. (UConn might be better for you, but wouldn't listen).

BYU probably would not accept because Fox has exclusivity, and joining the Big East would take inventory away from BYU-TV, which is "a mission from God" in their eyes, and not a financial decision.

[R Jay]

I see this discussion has come full circle.
We started out with the usual candidates: Gonzaga, VCU, and Dayton and proceeded to shoot holes in them all. Then we survived the onslaught on Dayton fans and the angered Xavier fans responses. And now we have the "never gonna happen" teams starting to show up (in addition to JP's insistence on St. Bonaventure.)
So shut it down, wrap it up, cease and desist, it's all over.

*I know this is going to go another 60 pages in which we go back to the beginning and do this all over, because that's what we do...

Why don't we discuss why each of the criteria for "being a good add" ACTUALLY MATTERS, and why the criteria is the criteria?

So many, many, many people seem to think that "adding the best basketball program makes the league better," which is not true at all.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "however many NCAA bids you had previously, that's how good you are / and how many bids we'd get going forward" which is definitely not true at all, and totally disproven.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "the bigger the market, the more it helps ratings" which is not true at all.
So many, many, many people seem to think that "what you bring to the table" is what matters, when conference affiliation is a two-way street.


Everyone loves to talk about Gonzaga, but the best possible program for the Big East to add isn't Gonzaga; The best program who might actually listen to your invitation is actually BYU. (UConn might be better for you, but wouldn't listen).

BYU probably would not accept because Fox has exclusivity, and joining the Big East would take inventory away from BYU-TV, which is "a mission from God" in their eyes, and not a financial decision.

Because that's what the presidents will do in the real world.

[JPSchmack]

Because that's what the presidents will do in the real world.

In the mean time, the Big East fans enjoy their fantasy land where they don't understand how the real world actually operates?

Kinda makes for a boring summer, doesn't it?

[R Jay]

Because that's what the presidents will do in the real world.

In the mean time, the Big East fans enjoy their fantasy land where they don't understand how the real world actually operates?

Kinda makes for a boring summer, doesn't it?

I think you're the one that's in fantasy land...

Look, your love for the Bonnies is admirable, it really is. But St. Bonaventure isn't getting an offer anytime soon. Even Dayton isn't getting an offer anytime soon.

And for the record, this summer is going to be quite exciting with recruiting.

[MUBoxer]

I agree that it's a "What have you done for me lately?" world, I was talking specifically with regard to comments about Dayton's historical accomplishments. What anyone chooses to look up is not what a program has accomplished "lately". If they choose to use cumulative NCAA tournament appearances, then they are acting out of ignorance. In the context of this conversation, NCAA tournament appearances were introduced as proof that Dayton was never a consistent winner. Nothing could be further from the truth about a program that is top 50 all time in wins.

Fact is that the "blue bloods" were not choosing the NCAA over the NIT. Kentucky went to the NIT 3 times in the 1940's. Utah is on the public record as preferring the NIT in the 1940s because it was the more prestigious tournament. They won an NCAA title as a consolation prize after losing in an NIT that was won by St. John's in 1943. They persisted and finally got their NIT championship in 1947. Schools had the option of choosing either or both tournaments up through 1950. A number did just that.

Schools in conferences tended to play in the NCAA tournament because they were the ones who founded that tournament in reaction to the start up of the NIT. Independents, of whom there were many back then, tended to prefer the NIT because there were very few spots for them in the NCAA tournament. Some of your blue bloods like Duke and UCLA weren't even "blue bloods" before the 1960's. Indiana and North Carolina had some success but were far from perennial threats. Kansas achieved the success they did largely because they played every year in the notoriously weak Midwest region.

I agree with you that the NCAA didn't achieve the prominence that we ascribe to it today until the 1960's, but I'd bring the date beyond the Cincinnati titles to 1965 when the NIT title still mattered. For most of the 1950s, the NIT was loaded with ranked teams and the 2 tournaments couldn't be distinguished based on the number of quality teams.

Whatever point we take it to, we're talking about a third or more of the tournament era in which the NIT mattered. So, back to the original point, which is that ?Dayton can't be denigrated as a historically mediocre program based on NCAA tournament appearances. Not when they were almost annually a ranked team in the '50s and '60s, went almost annually to one of the 2 tournaments, went to 3 NIT finals, winning one, and went to one NCAA finals.

Yes it is ignorance, however, think back to watching the national title game this year how many times did they mention Wisconsin having been there in like 1941? It was a decent amount. Sure the tournament was barely anything back then but all the same now days if you want national perception it's about NCAA tournament history whether that's right or wrong. Because hearing during a Marquette vs Nova game "these teams have combined for 68 tournament appearances" is a heck of a lot better than hearing "Dayton may not have many appearances but I remember those old Don Donoher teams and they could've been in the tournament" It's lines that people hear like that first one that remind people that some of these programs are actually pretty darn elite.

Kentucky may have gone there 3 times but they went NCAA tournaments in the 40s, 7 in the 50s and 6 in the 60s. The top programs that have continued to be top programs were in the NCAA a heck of a lot more than the NIT. Also notice all of your NIT examples are from the 40s we're talking the early 60s late 50s of Dayton being good. But I won't deny it was a great tournament.

One thing though, even if you go from 1965 onward that gave Dayton loads of time to get NCAA appearances... what's their excuse for those years? 15 in 50 years translates to 3 every 10 years meaning they're a program that needs to wait for their one good class of freshmen to be seniors and occasionally juniors then they do a classic rebuild and wait again. Nothing wrong with it it's just not great it's just "ok"

[Xudash]

Dash, excellent post. Thanks for your thoughts and for all the time it took to write that.

It's a fine line between complacency and preparedness. I agree that this is not the time to expand unless they are prepared to overcome the geography and add Gonzaga.

However, everything is not as rosy as you present. There are reasons for concern. There are challenges. The conference should be working on them.

1. The Fox ratings are poor. That's simply a fact. There should be a plan to address that.

2. Attendance at Big East games dropped this season, both at the tournament and during the regular season. Not a lot. It could just be normal fluctuation, but the fluctuation is in the wrong direction. That again is a fact.

3. The conference had 3 high profile teams in its first 2 years - Villanova both years and Creighton the first year. All 3 disappointed in the tournament and there was no pleasant surprise to compensate for them. That's simply another fact.

The on court play in the tournament is the easiest of the 3 to fix, and will probably be changed in the next few years.

There is no doubt that the Big East is healthy. That is precisely the time to make bold moves because the conference is operating from a position of strength. The BE HQ can continue to monitor the situation for another couple of years, but they must begin to address the challenges after the first 4 years if they continue in the wrong direction. If they wait until the last 4 years of the 12 year contract, it will be too late.

TV revenue is the life blood of any modern program because of the expenses involved in running such a program. Fox will not continue with a contract that is losing money for them after the deal is up. These are not schools with enrollments of 50,000 like the Big Ten, nor do they get the loyalists who follow the state flag ship. They must identify a strategy to market the conference in order to succeed. And they must do so in the next few years.

Bill,

I generally agree with everything you wrote and I am not blinded in any way, shape or form about the idea of expansion should expansion become necessary. If it becomes necessary, then by all means bring it on. Regarding which programs should be considered for expansion presently, no comment right now, because, IMO, such candidates aren't obvious at this point given what the Big East wants to achieve long-term. Again, additions must be impactful and accretive from here, otherwise why pursue small bumps in television viewership now and ONLY the potential for an extra NCAA Unit here or there now (but with more mouths to feed should we add programs to attempt to game that).

I agree with your vision for bold moves.

I agree with the strategic tactic of moving from a position of strength. However, and perhaps this is shades of gray, I'm not sure how concerned the President's are at this point. Again, we're only two years into this gig. Nobody in their right mind should push a panic button at this point, especially with what essentially is a deep pockets broadcast partner start-up. Val Ackerman and her colleagues in NY are working on the marketing plan. I believe the Presidents are focused on building the brand through the 10 schools that comprise the conference, knowing that this mix of private, less than humongous student body group of schools must find a way to become sufficiently appealing to some number of casual viewers.

Timing otherwise? Consider this: if the Big East has some of these issues, imagine how a poor cousin like the A10 is positioned. Terrible television. Real deadwood at its bottom. Frankly, too many teams. And its program mix has changed rather extensively. They don't have our money. They don't have our MSG deal. And what if the Fox ratings begin trending up over time? I mean, we are allowed to consider the possibility of success around here, or so I imagine. Either way, we're talking about TEN - 10 - remaining years on these strategic agreements. You noted that we're dead if they wait to take action until the final 3rd chunk of the deal. I'm sorry, but I can't be that precise. As an example, what if UCONN is still relevant and actually becomes available then? Again, that's a long way out and pursuing options with 48 months still to go on a deal could be more than enough time to avoid a crash landing. On the other hand, with it more likely being the case that the Big East is going to outperform these other non-P5 conferences, I imagine we'll have the pick of which ever programs we want should we want to pull that trigger when we decide to pull it. Would any of those schools say no to $4.2 million per year for 3 or 4 years, assuming a Fox true-up at that point? Each Big East member makes as much television revenue in a year as what it takes an A10 member about a decade to make, as an example. As I think even you've noted, they'll be there if and when we want them.

The President's have at least a few years to see if Val's marketing strategy and the conference's overall performance takes them in a direction that is to their liking, which is to suggest Fox's liking. Fox will continue to build on its strategy. Concerns after two years? Fine. Fundamentally change right now after two years? Um, no. Anytime soon? I doubt it, but that's why we all get a ringside seat and get to watch it from here. From what I've been told, this is where we sit.

I suspect some C7 fans wish for the old days. I suspect some C7 fans like what they see so far and are beginning to warm up to what is now the Big East. I know, as a Xavier fan, I am beyond ecstatic to have Xavier be a member in the Big East. I like our chances as a conference, because we have some very sharp people serving in the NYC conference offices and enough of them serving as Presidents and AD's. There is a lot going on in the world of collegiate athletics. We're well positioned to make this thing successful if we give it time and give it a chance.

[JPSchmack]

I think you're the one that's in fantasy land...

Look, your love for the Bonnies is admirable, it really is. But St. Bonaventure isn't getting an offer anytime soon. Even Dayton isn't getting an offer anytime soon.

And for the record, this summer is going to be quite exciting with recruiting.

Quite the contrary. I'm a realist. I understand exactly why Bonaventure would be a tremendous long-shot and why everyone and their mother would say "Bona? That's crazy!" Which is why I'd like to discuss (in the Conference Realignment Thread, the only thread on this site I've posted in) why the factors that make everyone and their mother think it's crazy are misunderstood; then perhaps it will seem far less crazy.

In a way, it's much like the recruiting piece (which interests me very little, considering all those recruiting ranking services will adjust players ratings based on WHERE THEY SIGN, as if Steph Curry somehow lost talent by signing with Davidson).

Yes, great recruiting classes are an indicator of teams most likely to be successful. But success is not limited to recruiting rankings, and frequently, what people look for in recruiting rankings do not accurately reflect who helps your specific team the most. Who your team is, and where a guy fits matters more. West Virginia, for example, has no use for the typical, 7-0, post-up center; even if he's the #1 recruit in the country. He doesn't fit the system.

And this is what I'm telling you guys about Bonaventure.
Erik Copes was the #7 center by the ratings; much like Saint Louis is a highly rated expansion candidate based on what you all think is important. But like Copes hasn't helped Mason do anything but finish at the bottom of the A-10, Saint Louis doesn't do as much as for you as the rating would indicate. They aren't that good in conference, out of conference, or on TV in a big market.

But Bonaventure is like an unheralded recruit who doesn't look like anything special (say, the #121 center in 2010) but when you get down to what's really good about someone, instead of what indicates someone might be good, they can perform like that #121 center, who was Matt Stainbrook.

[xsteve1]

Dayton fans can dream. I'll give them that.