notkirkcameron wrote: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.
gosports1 wrote:as long as there is even the slightest chance of UConn joining the ACC, they will not abandon FB.
even if years from now, if its decided you dont need 12 for a conference championship and there is a chance that schools want to go back to smaller leagues that are more geographically compact, UConn will not drop FB
trephin wrote:as BE presidents have been quoted as wanting to minimize disruption to any single conference as much as possible (thus not completely from A10)
trephin wrote:this probably isnt the thread to discuss but after reading notkirkcameron's post on SLU, i would say the demographics sound discouraging although hasn't the only region gaining in population for the last several years been the South? Also, how many available markets are good without on court success?
i've read that SLU draws most of its (general student population) students from the East and that was a main reason why the administration didn't want to return to the MVC. And if the student demographics are wrong, then students from the East were what the school was targeting. So while from a basketball stand point, Majerus might have been right, it might not have been right for the school as a whole. Of course this was under Fr Biondi so perhaps there is a different focus now.
Having Majerus 5 years earlier (and of course not having his untimely passing) and assumed 5 years further along turning things around would have impacted SLU for Big East inclusion. I doubt A10 v MVC would have except perhaps only insofar as BE presidents have been quoted as wanting to minimize disruption to any single conference as much as possible (thus not completely from A10)
Return to Big East basketball message board
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests