Conference realignment discussion - v. 2015

[trephin]

Wasn't "diluting" what led the C7 to look for a way out of the old BE.

That was more a symptom of what was happening... the basketball schools becoming more and more subject to the whims and desires of the football schools. They reclaimed the ability to captain their own ships.

Of course, there are degrees of "diluting" and JP's whole idea depends on 13 or less schools with the bottom third having exceptional OOC scheduling and win percentages. So it wouldn't apply to the A10 after the 2004-05 season (14+ schools) with the exception of 2013-14 (13 schools).

It would be interesting if JP could demonstrate his idea using the applicable seasons (<14 schools).

I suspect JP is correct but I suspect it's more important to solidify the brand and perception of the Big East by performing well as 10 school conference for several more years at the expense of the additional NCAA bid/payout.

[NovaBall]

So, just our of curiosity, why is everyone opposed to getting more bids & NCAA units by adding two slightly inferior members to the bottom, who absorb conference losses for you and enable your 7th and 8th finishers to go dancing?

Lose the round robin format and lose the conference's intimate appeal.

[Xudash]

Wasn't "diluting" what led the C7 to look for a way out of the old BE.

That was more a symptom of what was happening... the basketball schools becoming more and more subject to the whims and desires of the football schools. They reclaimed the ability to captain their own ships.

Of course, there are degrees of "diluting" and JP's whole idea depends on 13 or less schools with the bottom third having exceptional OOC scheduling and win percentages. So it wouldn't apply to the A10 after the 2004-05 season (14+ schools) with the exception of 2013-14 (13 schools).

It would be interesting if JP could demonstrate his idea using the applicable seasons (<14 schools).

I suspect JP is correct but I suspect it's more important to solidify the brand and perception of the Big East by performing well as 10 school conference for several more years at the expense of the additional NCAA bid/payout.

We're back to this fundamental point.

Perhaps probability favors additional bids/payouts, but those are never guaranteed, whereas any additions cause the denominator to go up absolutely and permanently.

Another point: we sometimes read that Fox may want additions in order to increase content. The operative term here is "may"; we're in a 12 year deal here - I wouldn't hang my hat on that, as anything can happen, or not, moving forward.

A number of us have brand-centric agreements in place as well (e.g. Learfield, Nike, etc.).

Build the BE brand. And move forward.

[Dave]

Don't add bottom feeders! Add top feeders! Build the brand, don't dilute it!

UConn is really the best target "if" we were to expand.

The full round robin schedule could be maintained with 11 teams. Even 12.

[GreatDaneAttorney]

The new CCG rules, if anything, could usher in an era of conference contraction rather than expansion. Many conferences rushed to expand to 12 (or 14 if they feared getting raided, seeking to maintain a floor of 12 teams) to hold a CCG. There's good money in holding a CCG, and it provides great exposure to the football conferences. If the Sun Belt adds a game next year, the Sun Belt CCG will probably be the first time many viewers will have ever watched Sun Belt football.

So with the rule change, it allows conferences to find a more natural "right size". For the MWC, maybe that's 8 teams. San Jose St adds no value to the conference. Pairing down the # of teams, to only those that have the ability and commitment to success in both football and basketball might bring BYU back into the conference. Then, with the right teams, the MWC could actually be taking a serious look at an eventual playoff bid and/or securing additional NCAA tourney bids (this year, the MWC looks like a 1-bid league, in part because of teams like San Jose St dragging down the conference in a huge way).

The AAC could do something similar. I really don't see the value that Tulane or Tulsa bring to that league. Football expenses are getting too large, and small private schools cannot effectively compete at the highest level. Heck, even Miami is having a difficult time competing:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/miam ... olumn.html

I think the future of FBS football is almost exclusively the domain of large, public schools + a handful of private schools that have deep enough pockets and national appeal to stay in the game. Tulane and Tulsa do not fit that mold. They can't generate enough revenue off student fees to compete, they don't have a TV deal large enough to compete, they're too far down the pecking order in their respective (and relatively low-population) states to compete, and the AAC would likely be strong without them.

The MAC likely has no interest in contraction. They're a stable league with a remarkably consistent identity--I think only the Big East has a more consistent identity across its membership. However, the Sun Belt is already talking of shedding Idaho and New Mexico St, and C-USA might be interested in spreading their share of the CFB Playoff money over 12 teams vs 14. By my estimation, 4 of the G5 leagues would benefit from contraction at this point. And if contraction occurs, we'll see huge ripple effects throughout the NCAA.

[GreatDaneAttorney]

I'll build off this contraction idea in a separate post. Increasingly, it's looking like the ACC will not be able to secure its own network. With that in mind, it might make sense for the member schools to reconsider their alignment The ACC has trouble with scheduling (everyone in the ACC hates the current division structure), it has a terrible TV deal (relative to the rest of the P5), and at 14 teams, it feels bloated. Some schools like Wake Forest provide no value to the league. Other schools like Notre Dame might be better off building their own conference with just 8 teams + a CCG, including a national membership and a TV deal with NBC. There are high-value, national properties scattered around, and now that only 8 teams are necessary for a CCG, it might make sense to pair them up.

With that said, here's an outrageous idea for a new conference:
- Notre Dame
- Boston College
- Georgia Tech
- Miami
- BYU
- Army
- Air Force
- Navy

With only 8 teams, the league would play a maximum of 7 conference games + a CCG. This would allow Notre Dame continued schedule flexibility while also affording that flexibility to the rest of the league members. For instance, Air Force/Army/Navy like to play a nationwide schedule that maximizes exposure. Miami has rivals all over the country they can rarely play. BYU wants to continue playing MWC schools while moving into a power conference.

So while I would note this idea is a bit wild, it's a new possibility under the rules. These schools might determine they are better off breaking from their current conferences, shedding the deadweight of those conferences. The result is not a conference that would command huge sums of money or even the ability to create a conference network. However, it would maximize scheduling flexibility for everyone involved, it would be a strong enough league to be able to secure a major bowl agreement, and it would likely create a valuable property for NBC.

If something like this does happen, we could see the emergence of a new tier of football conferences. Some sort of mid-Power conference. And there could be several of these that emerge as schools scramble to find their best position when a conference network is untenable.

[Dave]

With only 8 teams, the league would play a maximum of 7 conference games + a CCG.

There is still a base FBS requirement for a conference to have 10 teams min, right?

[GreatDaneAttorney]

With only 8 teams, the league would play a maximum of 7 conference games + a CCG.

There is still a base FBS requirement for a conference to have 10 teams min, right?

Nope, I think it's actually as low as 7 (the WAC was allowed to operate with 7, and according to some folks on CSNbbs, 7 is now the rule for all leagues). The Big East actually operated with 8 for years.

[GoldenWarrior11]

You don't make your big, luxurious new house better looking by adding garbage in front of it. It doesn't increase the perception of the exterior, it just adds a sore sight to an otherwise pretty home.

No thank you to bottom dwellers or stat stuffers. Why that would ever be seriously considered is beyond me.

[JPSchmack]

Because diluting a product is never a good idea, especially one that is working as well as the BE.

Slightly inferior? Is UD the best team the A10 has to offer? They would get slaughtered in the BE this year.

Also, would not the dilution put downward pressure on seeding relative to where it is today with the 10 members and the round robin?

UD “getting slaughtered” in the Big East is PERFECT for you.

Explain how it dilutes your product to add a UD team that:
went 10-1 OOC (X would become a conference game, obviously)
beat 8 RPI Iowa
beat 23 RPI Monmouth
beat 42 RPI Alabama
beat 62 RPI (and preseason ranked) Vanderbilt
and beat Arkansas for good measure
?

10-1 OOC improves your RPI, SOS, and then if they get slaughtered in the Big East, that means to two extra bids created by expansion go to teams already in the Big East.

A team that Ohio State, Syracuse, Stanford, and Providence couldn’t beat in the NCAA Tournament the last two years finishes 9th to 12th in your league? That’s going to create the perception that your league is stronger than before.

How'd that work out for the A10 for many years and the AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC this year?

Adding "bottom feeders" ruins your league RPI and each team's in the league RPI because playing them drags down your Strength of Schedule. It also stops the wonderful round robin schedule.

Take it from a guy who's school used to be in the A10. Playing mediocre to bad teams may make your final won/loss look more glittery, but if does not help earn extra bids.

Adding BAD TEAMS can harm your RPI. The A-10 isn’t as good as the Big East for two reasons:
#1 - Lack of two national powers at the top, like the Big East has this year with Villanova and Xavier

#2 - The A-10 had two bad teams do their jobs OOC (8-2 Fordham, 9-3 Duquesne), and then had FOUR MORE BAD TEAMS that didn’t (7-5 UMass, 6-7 George Mason, 5-7 Saint Louis, 3-6 LaSalle).


We’re not talking about the Big East adding four programs with terrible OOC results.

The Big East is obviously in the drivers’ seat and can be selective and take a 1, 2, or 3 programs that win OOC games with such regularity historically that they maintain or improve the Big East’s OOC win percentage.

My school’s been a member of the A-10 since Gavitt and Crouthamel blackballed us in the 70s. I’m familiar with exactly how and why the A-10 has gotten every bid it got, and missed every bid it missed.

The OOC schedule model has been a much bigger culprit that “bottom feeders.” It’s not like Fordham and Duquesne we’re kicked out of the A-10 the year we got six bids.

A bottom feeder that schedules right can go 9-3 or 10-2 OOC and help the league. Like DePaul’s done the last few years.

And that’s exactly what you need: Someone to go 9-3 or better OOC and absorb Big East losses and you get two more bids every year.

Here’s the simple thing you all keep overlooking: SOMEONE HAS TO BE THE BOTTOM FEEDERS!
A number of teams are going to lose 11 to 18 Big East games every season.

You’re foolishly hoarding those losses among DePaul, Marquette, Creighton and Seton Hall and costing yourself NCAA bids.