Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[notkirkcameron]

Uconn dropping football is completely unrealistic, especially since they just went to a bowl game..

Doesn't everybody go to a bowl game? A bowl game appearance is basically a participation ribbon.

[JPSchmack]

Uconn dropping football is completely unrealistic, especially since they just went to a bowl game..

Doesn't everybody go to a bowl game? A bowl game appearance is basically a participation ribbon.

Only 82 teams!

That'd be like if the NCAA Tournament expanded to 224 teams. ("Do we take RPI 226 Quinnipiac who’s 15-15 with an easier schedule? Or 218 Missouri, who played a tougher schedule but went 8-22?”)

[Masterofreality]

Uconn dropping football is completely unrealistic, especially since they just went to a bowl game..

Doesn't everybody go to a bowl game? A bowl game appearance is basically a participation ribbon.

And if your a school like UCon or SucKS, you probably won't make any money on it.

This from 2009 when the Bore-Cats went to one of the major bowls- The Orange Bowl- and got beat up.

"The football program went to the Orange Bowl last season - its first Bowl Championship Series bowl appearance - but that didn't produce the financial windfall many might have expected. The school essentially broke even.

The internal audit of the Orange Bowl trip has not been completed, but preliminary numbers show UC sold 11,568 tickets, with 1,200 complimentary and 3,432 unsold tickets for which the school was responsible from its allotment of 17,500.

"I was hopeful that we would make money on it, but I was going to feel good about the fact that we broke even," Thomas said. "In the predicament that we are in financially, making additional dollars would have helped significantly. But on the flip side, losing significant dollars would have made our challenges even greater."

And this from it's 2014 Military Bowl appearance:

"Bowls aren't the big money-makers for universities that they're sometimes made out to be. In fact, UC is targeting its bowl budget on the $1.25 million and expects to break even, Koslen said. The expenses to go to a bowl game run up quickly. UC has booked 125 hotel rooms for four nights at $149 a night at the D.C. Renaissance Hotel, Koslen said."

[Xudash]

In this week's ESPN College Hoops podcast Andy Katz has discussion with Bob Huggins and the topic of the Big 12 expansion comes up. In particular, Katz mentions both Cincy and UConn as Big 12 expansion candidates. Huggins pretty much craps all over the idea of the Big 12 expanding as ANY candidate must bring something financial to divide the pie by 12 instead of by 10 make sense. He essentially says neither UConn nor Cincy do that. He likes the league the way it is and completely dismisses the notion that WVU needs a travel partner.

Listen: http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=14508617

I also saw that, but honestly don't buy anything of what Huggy Bear says. In just the first year, there was an article I read (I'll try to find and post) that West Virginia is getting beat up on travel with other sports. Cincy crapped all over him when he was let go, so of course he will not like the idea of Cincinnati going to the Big 12.

I can't believe there are over 130 pages of this; some of it is good read, but people still with the pipe dream of Uconn dropping football is completely unrealistic, especially since they just went to a bowl game..

ohio, in all fairness to UC crapping all over HB, Huggy Bear did barf all over the Lexus SUV they provided him.

[DeltaV]

Hey guys, been a while. Here's a post that you may find refreshing because it has nothing to do with candidates.

I was recently reminded of something I heard about a few years ago and had forgot about until now, and it regards conference makeups. I was always intrigued by the idea (not mine), and I wonder what you think of it.

Regarding the number of teams in a conference. It used to be that the perfect conference size in the days of 16 league games was either 9 or 12 (with divisions). Nine made for a perfect double round robin, and 12 with divisions allowed for some nice divisional rivalries while facing everybody at least once. The biggest drawback to 9 was that somebody had to be idle each weekend (or schedule a non-con game).

These days, 18 conference games and no divisional play seem to be the norm. That makes 10 (which you obviously have now) the number if you want the double round robin. But it makes every other number awkward if you elect unbalanced schedules (with one exception). Do you have protected rivalries? How do you rotate through which teams you play twice every year? It seems that no matter how you do it, you never get balanced schedules.

I know a lot of you advocate for the double round robin, and I appreciate the reasons, from a fan's standpoint, that you would want it. Nothing is as elegant as a double round robin, no doubt. Assume for a minute that that's going away and there's nothing you can do about it.

There is a solution for an 18-game schedule with more than 10 teams that is fair. It's to go to thirteen teams. It kinda blew my mind when I first heard of it, but it makes a ton of sense. In such a scenario, scheduling would be like this - you play everybody else at least once, for 12 games. You play six of the teams twice. Then you play the same six teams twice the next year in the opposite location. In years 3 and 4, you do the same thing with the other six teams. Every four years, the cycle restarts. The bottom line is this:

- you play every team at least once every year.
- you play every team at home at least once every other year.
- you play every team six times every four years.
- you play every team at home three times every four years.

The biggest drawback, with the odd number of teams, is the fact that one will have to be idle for each round of games. But right now, you're playing 18 games over 10 weeks anyway, so you're not playing two games each and every week now.

If you did that type of schedule with no protected rivalries, you'd have the fair balanced schedule you get from the round robin while getting the benefits of a bigger conference. If you carefully match up the teams, you should be able to get pretty good balance where nobody draws double games against the whole top half or bottom half of the conference in a given year.

What I'd do is rank the teams by 5-year RPI averages. Then. for example, team #1's double games in years one and two would be against team 2, team 4, team 6, team 8, team 10, and team 12. In years 3 and 4, they would double up against team 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 13. Then, after the four-year cycle is complete, you re-rank everybody and start over. Yes, teams would move up and down over the years some, but it should average out fairly well.

A 13 team conference may never work for some of the football conferences, but if the Big East ever does make the move off of 10, I'd give serious consideration to 13 rather than 12 or 14. It would work beautifully for basketball.

Huh...that actually makes a lot of sense. I kinda like it...if the candidates appear.

[notkirkcameron]

Huh...that actually makes a lot of sense. I kinda like it...if the candidates appear.

Exactly. This board has a challenge coming up with two teams that make sense as expansion candidates. Sometimes we have trouble even coming up with one. Three seems a bridge too far.

That being said this scheduling model is far superior to the 12-team scheduling model that the old Big 12 used to use (Two divisions of 6, play division opponents twice for 10 games, play the other division once; home one season, away the next, for the remaining 6 games).

Set geographic divisions won't fly in this Big East. There's a very clear geographic divide in the conference between the five I-95 teams and the five Midwest teams. The Midwest teams want the big market exposure in NY, Philly, and DC, so halving their East Coast trips isn't desirable and would inevitably make the "Big East West Division". If the Midwest teams aren't going to go East, then the Big East west becomes just a fancier version of the Horizon League or Valley with a biannual trip to Georgetown thrown in.

[pki1998]

"Dayton possesses some regional relevance at best/zero national relevance or footprint. They are an outlier to the Cincinnati market which is already occupied by Xavier, and roughly two hours from Indianapolis (Bulter). The only reason Dayton is brought up in these discussions is because of LACK OF OPTIONS that fit the very specific candidate guidelines in place. No regular season conference or tournament titles and one run in the tourney in the last twenty years plus years. And chances are they would be blocked by Xavier, and possibly Butler as well".

Oh well.... Maybe my fantasy of reading a HLOH thread one day on expansion and receiving support from any single X fan may come true- nah... that's just me thinking silly while I'm getting hyped for the Bengals game tomorrow night... but all good- you guys earned it without doubt. Perhaps the BE will at least schedule us one day?

I'm a Xavier fan and my post on the last page was positive, but realistic on UD. UD is one of the top canidates if the Big East expands. They are howeverer not a perfect canidate. None of the initial three invites went to perfect canidates, so that is not an insult. It's just a fact that very few things in life out 100% good or 100% bad.

[BEX]

Actually, I think X was the perfect candidate. 100% acceptance and the resume to back it up. Who was a better "candidate"? Noooobody.

[UD Flyer Fanatic]

pki1998,

I reread your post and fully agree. Very objective, no complaints. Thank-you. There really are not that many of us (small, private Catholic school with strong BB progams) so I guess I can get defensive. Were looking forward to a rousing game against LaSalle in their HS gym tomorrow. Win and all is good, lose and it's a terrible rpi loss. So I really can relate to what the X posters say here- and I'm thrilled for them because they did earn it. The rest of you no doubt can feel their appreciation of being in a great conference. Hoping some day we will earn it in a similar fashion.... I'd just hope that should that day come, X wouldn't be fearful of losing their status due to nearby competitor who has similarly earned it. And that's something I'm not sure about reading the general X post here. Thanks all for indulging me.

[handdownmandown]

I have nothing against Creighton, just got emotional because of one poster, I'm sorry.

Good job DudeAnon.

Doesn't everyone know by now Gtmo is Creighton's fanbase version of the crazy uncle that everyone would try to hide if they could?