Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[muskienick]

Before I begin this post in earnest, let me just say that I love the Big East in its present 10-member configuration.

The Big East was originally born in 1979 because of basketball and was extremely successful over the the first 10-12 years with the concentration always on big-time basketball.
During those early years, there was a mix of private (Providence, St. Johns, Georgetown Seton Hall, BC, and Villanova) and public (Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt) members and there was no Big East Conference football.
The roots of the problems of that first existence of the Big East began with the League's decision in 1991 to go to Conference Football with the addition of Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple to join Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt as an 8-member League. At that point the rift between the BB-only and FB schools began to show faint hints of their existence and grew slowly over the next decade..
Greater problems materialized when the ACC raided the Big east by taking Virginia Tech, Miami, and BC with the Big East replacing them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to fill out the FB Conference and Marquette and DePaul joining as non-FB members.
Through the coming decade, there were further departures, invitations made to a myriad of other schools to join and by 2013 the Original Big East met its demise with a big money payout to the FB survivors and the retention of the name and MSG as the Tourney site for at least a decade by what became dubbed, the Catholic 7 (BB survivors).

Please note that the extremely successful early version of the Conference included both public and private institutions and kept its focus on BASKETBALL. I believe that we should follow that model and continue to focus on BASKETBALL while avoiding the mistakes of the original Big East by eschewing the possibility of trying Big Football, ostensibly by limiting our membership to non-BCS/D-1-level Football schools. If we do that in the event of an expansion some time in the future, we should not limit ourselves to Private schools. By doing so, we risk the possibility of losing out on another UConn (which, at the time of their early membership, didn't play FB at the highest level and had not established itself among the elite in basketball either). On the other hand, if we can find private schools that have a prolonged recent great history of success in basketball, then they should likely be our first choices.

But great basketball programs should be our main focus for this league to be attractive to the TV viewers like Big East Monday Night Basketball was to millions of fans back in the late '70's and '80's.

We should also be mindful, in the event of an expansion, of geographical balance. If we combine Basketball Program Quality with Location (TV Market metro population, and geographical balance), along with Academic quality, of the four schools most often mentioned (University of Dayton, Saint Louis University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wichita State University) it would seem our Conference would be best served by adding VCU (Public; $1.5 B endowment; numerous Doctoral programs in Arts, Science, and the Humanities), Metro population of 1,200,000+ and a total student body of ~31,000) and SLU (Private; $1.02 B endowment ; 32 doctoral programs; 2.8 million population; 13,500+ total student body.)

The other two match up well in basketball excellence over the recent past (with WSU ~ VCU and UD ~ SLU). But the other metrics are mostly in favor of VCU and SLU (endowment, doctoral programs, Metro populations, and total student enrollment).

In short: let's stay at 10 if at all possible; but if we must expand, let's get the best quality schools using truly important criteria as their bases of selection.

[Xudash]

nick,

Great post.

In fact, it made me focus on one thing, in particular: the notion of having to guard against the football aspirations of certain schools. I don't believe we're allowing for enough context around this issue here. On the surface, it is absolutely justifiable to guard against adding football schools that aspire to P5 greatness. No one wants disruption; no one wants the Big East used as a stepping stone towards a better conference situation.

But here's the reality: the music has slowed and it has become clear now that certain schools are most likely going to be boxed out of any ability to move up. We're long past the 90's. We're well past the 00's. Realignment has slowed to a crawl by its own weight and activities to-date. In short, the following question should be removed from the table: "should we pursue a school that may ultimately leave us for a P5 opportunity?" There are no such opportunities for certain schools at this point. If you don't agree with that, then perhaps you'll agree that the next few years will lead to events that will make that a reality - - time elapsing from now that will witness which way the Big12 ultimately goes with expansion, based on its ability to gain access to the playoff system, and based on its ability to expand in a financially viable way should it deem that expansion is necessary to better position it for the playoffs.

One last comment. Three of the four teams you named are midwestern. I just don't see the Big EAST going unbalanced should it expand. I suspect the right eastern team will be identified to go along with a midwestern team should expansion ever occur.

If the Presidents are locked into PRIVATE, then so be it. If not, then VCU represents a wonderful candidate for expansion, should UCONN fail to materialize for any reason. Hell, maybe we go unbalanced by adding them both, sending VCU to a western division.

On that note, I don't see expansion happening for a while. More to the point, I don't see expansion happening until the Big12 finds a way to figure out what it's going to become. That is complicated, because that conference appears to be a hot, unbalanced mess. For decades Texas, OU and Nebraska went along as the powers-that-be in that group. Nebraska moved on, leaving OU to look at UT and all its freakin money through the LHN, which makes it boil in some amount of frustration.

The Big East is doing very well and can afford to wait and watch.

[falcon]

Before I begin this post in earnest, let me just say that I love the Big East in its present 10-member configuration.

The Big East was originally born in 1979 because of basketball and was extremely successful over the the first 10-12 years with the concentration always on big-time basketball.
During those early years, there was a mix of private (Providence, St. Johns, Georgetown Seton Hall, BC, and Villanova) and public (Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt) members and there was no Big East Conference football.
The roots of the problems of that first existence of the Big East began with the League's decision in 1991 to go to Conference Football with the addition of Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple to join Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt as an 8-member League. At that point the rift between the BB-only and FB schools began to show faint hints of their existence and grew slowly over the next decade..
Greater problems materialized when the ACC raided the Big east by taking Virginia Tech, Miami, and BC with the Big East replacing them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to fill out the FB Conference and Marquette and DePaul joining as non-FB members.
Through the coming decade, there were further departures, invitations made to a myriad of other schools to join and by 2013 the Original Big East met its demise with a big money payout to the FB survivors and the retention of the name and MSG as the Tourney site for at least a decade by what became dubbed, the Catholic 7 (BB survivors).

Good summary of early years. The original Big East had only one state school - UConn. Syracuse is private and Pitt came in after a few years as a concession to keep the football schools - BC and Syracuse. Looking back, conference should have let them go and added two basketball schools.
Please note that the extremely successful early version of the Conference included both public and private institutions and kept its focus on BASKETBALL. I believe that we should follow that model and continue to focus on BASKETBALL while avoiding the mistakes of the original Big East by eschewing the possibility of trying Big Football, ostensibly by limiting our membership to non-BCS/D-1-level Football schools. If we do that in the event of an expansion some time in the future, we should not limit ourselves to Private schools. By doing so, we risk the possibility of losing out on another UConn (which, at the time of their early membership, didn't play FB at the highest level and had not established itself among the elite in basketball either). On the other hand, if we can find private schools that have a prolonged recent great history of success in basketball, then they should likely be our first choices.

But great basketball programs should be our main focus for this league to be attractive to the TV viewers like Big East Monday Night Basketball was to millions of fans back in the late '70's and '80's.

We should also be mindful, in the event of an expansion, of geographical balance. If we combine Basketball Program Quality with Location (TV Market metro population, and geographical balance), along with Academic quality, of the four schools most often mentioned (University of Dayton, Saint Louis University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wichita State University) it would seem our Conference would be best served by adding VCU (Public; $1.5 B endowment; numerous Doctoral programs in Arts, Science, and the Humanities), Metro population of 1,200,000+ and a total student body of ~31,000) and SLU (Private; $1.02 B endowment ; 32 doctoral programs; 2.8 million population; 13,500+ total student body.)

The other two match up well in basketball excellence over the recent past (with WSU ~ VCU and UD ~ SLU). But the other metrics are mostly in favor of VCU and SLU (endowment, doctoral programs, Metro populations, and total student enrollment).

In short: let's stay at 10 if at all possible; but if we must expand, let's get the best quality schools using truly important criteria as their bases of selection.

[BigmanU]

Before I begin this post in earnest, let me just say that I love the Big East in its present 10-member configuration.

The Big East was originally born in 1979 because of basketball and was extremely successful over the the first 10-12 years with the concentration always on big-time basketball.
During those early years, there was a mix of private (Providence, St. Johns, Georgetown Seton Hall, BC, and Villanova) and public (Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt) members and there was no Big East Conference football.
The roots of the problems of that first existence of the Big East began with the League's decision in 1991 to go to Conference Football with the addition of Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple to join Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt as an 8-member League. At that point the rift between the BB-only and FB schools began to show faint hints of their existence and grew slowly over the next decade..
Greater problems materialized when the ACC raided the Big east by taking Virginia Tech, Miami, and BC with the Big East replacing them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to fill out the FB Conference and Marquette and DePaul joining as non-FB members.
Through the coming decade, there were further departures, invitations made to a myriad of other schools to join and by 2013 the Original Big East met its demise with a big money payout to the FB survivors and the retention of the name and MSG as the Tourney site for at least a decade by what became dubbed, the Catholic 7 (BB survivors).

Please note that the extremely successful early version of the Conference included both public and private institutions and kept its focus on BASKETBALL. I believe that we should follow that model and continue to focus on BASKETBALL while avoiding the mistakes of the original Big East by eschewing the possibility of trying Big Football, ostensibly by limiting our membership to non-BCS/D-1-level Football schools. If we do that in the event of an expansion some time in the future, we should not limit ourselves to Private schools. By doing so, we risk the possibility of losing out on another UConn (which, at the time of their early membership, didn't play FB at the highest level and had not established itself among the elite in basketball either). On the other hand, if we can find private schools that have a prolonged recent great history of success in basketball, then they should likely be our first choices.

But great basketball programs should be our main focus for this league to be attractive to the TV viewers like Big East Monday Night Basketball was to millions of fans back in the late '70's and '80's.

We should also be mindful, in the event of an expansion, of geographical balance. If we combine Basketball Program Quality with Location (TV Market metro population, and geographical balance), along with Academic quality, of the four schools most often mentioned (University of Dayton, Saint Louis University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wichita State University) it would seem our Conference would be best served by adding VCU (Public; $1.5 B endowment; numerous Doctoral programs in Arts, Science, and the Humanities), Metro population of 1,200,000+ and a total student body of ~31,000) and SLU (Private; $1.02 B endowment ; 32 doctoral programs; 2.8 million population; 13,500+ total student body.)

The other two match up well in basketball excellence over the recent past (with WSU ~ VCU and UD ~ SLU). But the other metrics are mostly in favor of VCU and SLU (endowment, doctoral programs, Metro populations, and total student enrollment).

In short: let's stay at 10 if at all possible; but if we must expand, let's get the best quality schools using truly important criteria as their bases of selection.

Well thought out post. One thing I noticed, Syracuse is actually a private University.

Not a response to you. Just my personal thoughts:
The conference is doing great at ten. Round robin and soon I believe we will consistently get 7 in the NCAA's. 6 will probably be the floor. Why dilute the product unless another school way down the line makes it a no brainer. We are nowhere near that point.

[stever20]

Before I begin this post in earnest, let me just say that I love the Big East in its present 10-member configuration.

The Big East was originally born in 1979 because of basketball and was extremely successful over the the first 10-12 years with the concentration always on big-time basketball.
During those early years, there was a mix of private (Providence, St. Johns, Georgetown Seton Hall, BC, and Villanova) and public (Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt) members and there was no Big East Conference football.
The roots of the problems of that first existence of the Big East began with the League's decision in 1991 to go to Conference Football with the addition of Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple to join Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt as an 8-member League. At that point the rift between the BB-only and FB schools began to show faint hints of their existence and grew slowly over the next decade..
Greater problems materialized when the ACC raided the Big east by taking Virginia Tech, Miami, and BC with the Big East replacing them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to fill out the FB Conference and Marquette and DePaul joining as non-FB members.
Through the coming decade, there were further departures, invitations made to a myriad of other schools to join and by 2013 the Original Big East met its demise with a big money payout to the FB survivors and the retention of the name and MSG as the Tourney site for at least a decade by what became dubbed, the Catholic 7 (BB survivors).

Please note that the extremely successful early version of the Conference included both public and private institutions and kept its focus on BASKETBALL. I believe that we should follow that model and continue to focus on BASKETBALL while avoiding the mistakes of the original Big East by eschewing the possibility of trying Big Football, ostensibly by limiting our membership to non-BCS/D-1-level Football schools. If we do that in the event of an expansion some time in the future, we should not limit ourselves to Private schools. By doing so, we risk the possibility of losing out on another UConn (which, at the time of their early membership, didn't play FB at the highest level and had not established itself among the elite in basketball either). On the other hand, if we can find private schools that have a prolonged recent great history of success in basketball, then they should likely be our first choices.

But great basketball programs should be our main focus for this league to be attractive to the TV viewers like Big East Monday Night Basketball was to millions of fans back in the late '70's and '80's.

We should also be mindful, in the event of an expansion, of geographical balance. If we combine Basketball Program Quality with Location (TV Market metro population, and geographical balance), along with Academic quality, of the four schools most often mentioned (University of Dayton, Saint Louis University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wichita State University) it would seem our Conference would be best served by adding VCU (Public; $1.5 B endowment; numerous Doctoral programs in Arts, Science, and the Humanities), Metro population of 1,200,000+ and a total student body of ~31,000) and SLU (Private; $1.02 B endowment ; 32 doctoral programs; 2.8 million population; 13,500+ total student body.)

The other two match up well in basketball excellence over the recent past (with WSU ~ VCU and UD ~ SLU). But the other metrics are mostly in favor of VCU and SLU (endowment, doctoral programs, Metro populations, and total student enrollment).

In short: let's stay at 10 if at all possible; but if we must expand, let's get the best quality schools using truly important criteria as their bases of selection.

Well thought out post. One thing I noticed, Syracuse is actually a private University.

Not a response to you. Just my personal thoughts:
The conference is doing great at ten. Round robin and soon I believe we will consistently get 7 in the NCAA's. 6 will probably be the floor. Why dilute the product unless another school way down the line makes it a no brainer. We are nowhere near that point.

Getting 7 in the NCAA's is extremely difficult with 10 teams. You pretty much have to get 8 wins in conference to have a shot- and generally speaking- that doesn't happen. A lot of 10 team leagues- look just like Big East last year where 7th place team is 6-12. I don't think you can ever say 6 will probably be the floor, because you can have years with the round robin like 2 years ago where you have 10-8 or 9-9 teams in those slots- and there, it's really team dependent. St John's was 10-8 and missed, and Marquette 9-9 missed. Xavier was 10-8 and was in PIG, and PC was in only because they won the conference tournament. Like this year- if Marquette is 9-9- no matter what place they are, they are going to be right on the bubble because their OOC schedule isn't all that great.

Also, quite frankly, I'd rather have 6 with the seeds we got last year, than 7 with 2 PIG/last bye teams in.

[BigmanU]

Before I begin this post in earnest, let me just say that I love the Big East in its present 10-member configuration.

The Big East was originally born in 1979 because of basketball and was extremely successful over the the first 10-12 years with the concentration always on big-time basketball.
During those early years, there was a mix of private (Providence, St. Johns, Georgetown Seton Hall, BC, and Villanova) and public (Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt) members and there was no Big East Conference football.
The roots of the problems of that first existence of the Big East began with the League's decision in 1991 to go to Conference Football with the addition of Miami, Rutgers, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, and Temple to join Syracuse, UConn, and Pitt as an 8-member League. At that point the rift between the BB-only and FB schools began to show faint hints of their existence and grew slowly over the next decade..
Greater problems materialized when the ACC raided the Big east by taking Virginia Tech, Miami, and BC with the Big East replacing them with Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida to fill out the FB Conference and Marquette and DePaul joining as non-FB members.
Through the coming decade, there were further departures, invitations made to a myriad of other schools to join and by 2013 the Original Big East met its demise with a big money payout to the FB survivors and the retention of the name and MSG as the Tourney site for at least a decade by what became dubbed, the Catholic 7 (BB survivors).

Please note that the extremely successful early version of the Conference included both public and private institutions and kept its focus on BASKETBALL. I believe that we should follow that model and continue to focus on BASKETBALL while avoiding the mistakes of the original Big East by eschewing the possibility of trying Big Football, ostensibly by limiting our membership to non-BCS/D-1-level Football schools. If we do that in the event of an expansion some time in the future, we should not limit ourselves to Private schools. By doing so, we risk the possibility of losing out on another UConn (which, at the time of their early membership, didn't play FB at the highest level and had not established itself among the elite in basketball either). On the other hand, if we can find private schools that have a prolonged recent great history of success in basketball, then they should likely be our first choices.

But great basketball programs should be our main focus for this league to be attractive to the TV viewers like Big East Monday Night Basketball was to millions of fans back in the late '70's and '80's.

We should also be mindful, in the event of an expansion, of geographical balance. If we combine Basketball Program Quality with Location (TV Market metro population, and geographical balance), along with Academic quality, of the four schools most often mentioned (University of Dayton, Saint Louis University, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Wichita State University) it would seem our Conference would be best served by adding VCU (Public; $1.5 B endowment; numerous Doctoral programs in Arts, Science, and the Humanities), Metro population of 1,200,000+ and a total student body of ~31,000) and SLU (Private; $1.02 B endowment ; 32 doctoral programs; 2.8 million population; 13,500+ total student body.)

The other two match up well in basketball excellence over the recent past (with WSU ~ VCU and UD ~ SLU). But the other metrics are mostly in favor of VCU and SLU (endowment, doctoral programs, Metro populations, and total student enrollment).

In short: let's stay at 10 if at all possible; but if we must expand, let's get the best quality schools using truly important criteria as their bases of selection.

Well thought out post. One thing I noticed, Syracuse is actually a private University.

Not a response to you. Just my personal thoughts:
The conference is doing great at ten. Round robin and soon I believe we will consistently get 7 in the NCAA's. 6 will probably be the floor. Why dilute the product unless another school way down the line makes it a no brainer. We are nowhere near that point.

Getting 7 in the NCAA's is extremely difficult with 10 teams. You pretty much have to get 8 wins in conference to have a shot- and generally speaking- that doesn't happen. A lot of 10 team leagues- look just like Big East last year where 7th place team is 6-12. I don't think you can ever say 6 will probably be the floor, because you can have years with the round robin like 2 years ago where you have 10-8 or 9-9 teams in those slots- and there, it's really team dependent. St John's was 10-8 and missed, and Marquette 9-9 missed. Xavier was 10-8 and was in PIG, and PC was in only because they won the conference tournament. Like this year- if Marquette is 9-9- no matter what place they are, they are going to be right on the bubble because their OOC schedule isn't all that great.

Also, quite frankly, I'd rather have 6 with the seeds we got last year, than 7 with 2 PIG/last bye teams in.

I hear what your saying but as long as you take care of out of conference, non of that matters. If the league as a whole takes care of out of conference like last year. 2 years ago was a down year in OOC and it showed during selection time. I wouldn't be shocked if we don't see another year like that in the next 10 years, if at all. I do agree with 6 higher seeds however but if you're the 7th school getting in, what do they care.

[stever20]

1 thing about the OOC like this year- with all the youth the conference has- and all the tough games early- the OOC in a year like this could be pretty painful. Given the committee's focus saying that all games matter- that could come back to hurt this year.

Also, no matter what, it's the individual teams at 5,6,7 that matter. If you are in that 8-10 or 9-9 in conference play- your own OOC schedule is going to determine your fate. What helped Xavier so much last year besides making the title game was the OOC win over Cincy along with the solid wins over SF Austin and Murray St. If they had on the schedule instead of those 3 teams cupcakes, they would have been sweating bullets come selection Sunday.

[AACguy]

The problem with the Big 12 is that it is run by Texas, and the problem with Texas is that Texas will always do what is in the best interest for Texas. As long as Texas continues to get major revenue via the Longhorn Network, they don't care about adding more revenue to the Big 12, their members, or ensuring a spot for the league in the CFP. They really missed the boat in adding Louisville and Cincinnati when they added West Virginia in 2012. It would have given them a solid eastern wing, 12 members and a more stable conference moving forward.

If Cincinnati/Memphis/UCF/USF all manage to snag a life raft off the AAC (like to the Big 12), then I truly believe that UConn calls the Big East in desperation for non-football membership. A conference, in football or basketball, composed of East Carolina, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU (toxic at this point) and Temple would be a doomsday scenario. There's just no positive spin to it. The severance package that UConn/Cincinnati/USF all got will also run out soon. ESPN doesn't appear to need the inventory either, which doesn't bode well for their TV package.

Even if the AAC considers adding non-football schools (to balance the Navy membership), it is nothing different than the old Big East treading water for so many years to stay afloat as a conference. It doesn't stop the water from sinking the boat. Wichita State and VCU, when they have off-basketball seasons, would bring nothing to the conference (nothing in TV markets, nothing in school academic prestige).

The thing is, there's absolutely NO scenario where all 4 of those you mention would leave the AAC. It's very possible only Cincy does. That's the problem with all these AAC raid scenarios- they just aren't realistic. And without all of them leaving, UConn won't be needing to jump ship. Also there's the matter of new exit fees. Plus, the NCAA units- remember UConn has 25 units still to collect from their title 2 years ago.

About ESPN and their inventory- ESPN absolutely needs it. ACC is looking to get their own network, and Big Ten very possibly won't have as many games on. What is ESPN airing if not the AAC? Sun Belt? MAC?

VCU's market is up to #56 now. It's just behind Providence and Buffalo.

I don't think we've seen the end of realignment and I do believe the AAC will be impacted again. Like someone said over on our board the AAC needs to have multiple contingency plans in place right now so we can react quickly when it all goes down. Here are a couple of links if you are interested or want to chime in:

http://www.aacmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6
http://www.aacmessageboard.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45

[DudeAnon]

I don't know the dynamics of what makes a conference good or bad. But we have only been together for 2 years and it seems like all programs are trending up for the most part. Why not just stick it out for a while and see how it turns out?

[Burrito]

Just stay at 10. None of the names that keep coming up are game changers. I like the round robin. Reading DavidST's ideas for expansion on the other board just make me want to bang my head against a wall. so stupid.