Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[xusandy]

Gtmo -- your argument for privacy being the #1 criterion is pretty compelling, but you ignored geography entirely, and that's a pretty significant criterion since it affects travel costs cross all sports. You also ignored impact on the media market footprint too, and that's what drives a lot of the money. Thu,s somehow you wound up with a pair (or double pair) of preferred candidates that ignores the most obvious choice of all - SLU. I'm not an alum, not a fan of the Billikens (whatever the heck a Billiken is), but they check off every box Val and the presidents could possibly have, except 1 - they don't have a top bball program at present. They do however have a fairly active alumni fan base and are presently investing heavily in facilities and basketball. The large St. Louis media market and the obvious geographical benefit of being a stepping stone to Omaha are what lift them to #1 candidate status over every other school you mention. That said, I wouldn't want to add SLU (or anybody else) unless pressured by Fox, or unless SLU really does step up to the plate (mixing sports metaphors there) in basketball over the next few seasons. If it ain't broke, ......

[marquette]

I don't think Temple is a "private" university.

It isn't. It is an independent "state-related" university, which basically means it is state school that is separate from the normal college system. It is subject to FOIA due to the state funding it receives.

[muskienick]

Football Five teams: After next round of FF raids (on the ACC) - In order of likelihood.
Duke, Wake Forest, Notre Dame*, Boston College*.
(non-ACC schools) Vanderbilt, Northwestern, & Stanford.
* both former BE schools. Trust issues would need to be worked.

gtmoBlue, why not include Syracuse in the ACC's list of FF teams to consider for the Big East? It fits all the criteria you list for potential membership to the Big East but, admittedly, would likely have among the larger undergraduate student bodies in the Conference (at 15,000+), but no larger than St. John's or DePaul? The Orange's Football fortunes, like Duke's and Wake's, have not compared favorably to its basketball program for decades.

[Hall2012]

Ridiculous expansion idea of the day:

Invite 10 schools, say: St. Louis, Dayton, St. Joseph's, Richmond, Holy Cross, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne, Iona, Detroit, Sacred Heart (feel free to make any substitutions if you see better fits)

Put these 10 schools in a sister conference- we'll call it the "Little East" for now- and use a promotion/relegation system between the Big East and Little East
-Bottom 2 teams in the Big East get relegated to the Little East the following season
-Little East Regular Season and Tournament Champions get promoted to the Big East the following season
-If the same Little East team wins both championships, the 2nd place regular season finisher gets the 2nd promotion
-If a bottom 2 Big East finisher wins the BET, they stay up and the 8th place team gets relegated instead
-Each Little East School is guaranteed 2 OOC games with Big East opponents

Benefits:
-Keeps excitement at the bottom of the league as teams battle to avoid relegation
-Improves league RPI by annually swapping out bottom teams with successful teams from other league
-Incentivizes Big East schools to strive for consistency to avoid relegation
-Incentivizes other schools to improve programs with dreams of playing the Big East, improving the quality of non-football 5 basketball in general

Why this is a terrible idea:
-Good luck with recruiting in a year when you're being dropped from the BE
-Hope you don't lose too many guys to transfers too
-If this system were in already in place: Butler wouldn't have been in the BE last year (finished 2nd), Creighton wouldn't have been in the BE this year (made NIT), St. John's and DePaul still would have been in the BE this year.

[gtmoBlue]

Ridiculous expansion idea of the day:

Invite 10 schools, say: St. Louis, Dayton, St. Joseph's, Richmond, Holy Cross, St. Bonaventure, Duquesne, Iona, Detroit, Sacred Heart (feel free to make any substitutions if you see better fits)

Put these 10 schools in a sister conference- we'll call it the "Little East" for now- and use a promotion/relegation system between the Big East and Little East
-Bottom 2 teams in the Big East get relegated to the Little East the following season
-Little East Regular Season and Tournament Champions get promoted to the Big East the following season
-If the same Little East team wins both championships, the 2nd place regular season finisher gets the 2nd promotion
-If a bottom 2 Big East finisher wins the BET, they stay up and the 8th place team gets relegated instead
-Each Little East School is guaranteed 2 OOC games with Big East opponents

Benefits:
-Keeps excitement at the bottom of the league as teams battle to avoid relegation
-Improves league RPI by annually swapping out bottom teams with successful teams from other league
-Incentivizes Big East schools to strive for consistency to avoid relegation
-Incentivizes other schools to improve programs with dreams of playing the Big East, improving the quality of non-football 5 basketball in general

Why this is a terrible idea:
-Good luck with recruiting in a year when you're being dropped from the BE
-Hope you don't lose too many guys to transfers too
-If this system were in already in place: Butler wouldn't have been in the BE last year (finished 2nd), Creighton wouldn't have been in the BE this year (made NIT), St. John's and DePaul still would have been in the BE this year.

Ahh yes, the Euro amateur soccer setup. It is a novel and effective system, but way too sophisticated for the average USA sports fan. Plus it is european...meaning it gets a negative 8 rating automatically.

Didn't know Temple was a Charter organization (quasi-public) and also did not know that S'cuse was private (a private school that cheats? Wow, that is news.) Just switch out Temple for S'cuse.

[JPSchmack]

Well, since you've now come onto this board, which you do as nothing more than a guest, at best, and refer to a comparison of the Big East to the A10 as stupid, when it is you who are advocating for the inclusion of certain A10 teams in the Big East, I'll take that as an opening to be firm with you as well.

You’re missing the point, and it’s a similar point consistent in a number of your issues:

While “nothing is guaranteed” it’s simply a safe bet that programs like Villanova, Georgetown, Xavier, Butler, Creighton, Marquette, DePaul, St. John’s, Providence & Seton Hall are going to maintain a level of performance similar to their historical average level of performance. That’s why you’re YOU in the first place. Likewise, other programs will continue on their paths of their historical averages. With some fluctuation up/down, good/bad depending on coaching hires, facility upgrades, scandal, conference affiliation changes, etc.

The thing is, most people would INCLUDE the frequency of NCAA bids as “Level of Performance” along a historical average. And that’s something a lot of you are looking at for potential members.


The two major points to this are:

- Conference configuration has a heavy influence on how many programs can get bids.
>> I.E. - New Conference of 10 teams that have made the NCAA Tournament each of the last 20 years, they cannot all go to the dance. It would take a ridiculous statistical anomaly within conference play to have 10 at-large candidates in a 10-team league, unless everyone is 8-10 to 10-8. But that’s like, about 2 to the 90th power in terms of “odds happening

This is a fundamental fact of conference play and the entire basis for my belief that ANY expansion benefits you. (It’s also the thing I’ve been right on with in a decades worth of “general predictions” like when everyone said the A-10 was a one-bid league with Xavier & Temple: “the remaining teams won’t be fighting for fifth place; our second & third place teams will still be 14-4 or 13-5… if everyone maintains their OOC win percentage as a group, the A-10 will remain a 3-4 bid league.”)


- It’s that OOC win percentage that’s key through out. The reason the A-10 can still be a 3-6 bid league even despite losing an incredible basketball program like Xavier is because while we lost Xavier’s .770 OOC win pct, we brought in schools like VCU, Davidson, GMU and combined the three of them add up to what Xavier, Temple & Charlotte historically did for us.

Whether you have 10 teams going 90-90 or 12 teams going 108-108, the Big East is always going to perform about the same in conference. The names might change: Seton Hall this year instead of Creighton like in year one. But generally, your standings will look similar if you cover up the names.

And the Big East is probably going to keep performing about the same OOC. And OOC can be manipulated. If you add two teams who beat inferior OOC competition at a consistent clip — even if they lack marquee wins - like a St. Bonaventure or Belmont, who are .757 against teams outside the BCS/Big East, your OOC win percentage remains the same. Meaning the ONLY DIFFERENCE between now and future is simply: There’s more of you total, more of you over 8-10 in conference play and therefore more of you on the at-large board.

First and foremost, the Big East is operating very successfully as a ten team conference right now. There is no appetite on the part of the Presidents to change it. Were they to consider expansion, especially given Val's comments about a number of boxes that would have to be checked in order to pull the trigger on that, they probably would be looking out over a landscape that includes no mid-majors as candidates. It would not make sense to DILUTE a major conference with mid-major teams.Whether you like it or not, at the national level, the narrative on the A10 is that it is not a major conference, and none of its teams are viewed as being major programs. Could certain A10 teams be added and help game bids? Perhaps, but, there are no guaranties, as I discuss below, and why go that direction anyway? Is that a sufficient explanation of the dilution issue for you?

Just saying “dilute” over and over again doesn’t make it an explanation. See my last paragraph above. Zero would change, except it would be “New Guy” in 11th place, and your 7-8-9-10 teams would be 2-3 games better.

And “things are fine now, there’s no need to make them better” remains a stupid philosophy for anything. Why go in the direction of making things better? Because it’s better.

You are viewing this like everyone other conference in the country: Who had to raid lower levels for their best programs to COMPENSATE FOR LOSSES. You aren’t expanding to replace a lost Xavier, or a lost Pitt/Utah/Temple/Creighton/VCU/BYU. You don’t have a team that’s good at football, but is straight up terrible at basketball (like the SEC has plenty of).

You also don’t have a program that has any business losing double-digit games per year… but they have to. Because someone’s has to. Multiple teams have to.

You’re looking at conference expansion like you’re “everyone else” when you shouldn’t, because you’re not. Don’t look at it as “Why do we need to?” or “What’s wrong with what we’ve got?”

Look at it as “What’s best for the 10 of you?” and “How do we get as many of our 10 programs into the NCAA every year?”


Obviously, a 20-team league where you’re all in the top half is unrealistic — because there’s no enough candidates that consistently win OOC to maintain your current OOC win pct (which is what dictates SOS from conference games, and therefore, RPI); and because there’s a chance some of the new adds would finish ahead of some of you, meaning finishing 20th would be terrible.


But there IS a line. A line where “If our new members simply win at XXX percent OOC, there’s more of the original 10 in the NCAA discussion.” And that line is about 3 teams which combine for a .720 OOC mark.

Secondly, you love baseball doubleheaders? Good for you. I could care less about them, and I certainly believe it's stupid to compare a baseball doubleheader to a round robin format for basketball. Most of us here love the round robin format. It IS hard. There are no nights off in the Big East. That's good, as that gets those of us who are equipped to make the post-season ready for it.

It’s an apt comparison because: It’s fun for fans, but really hard to win and there’s a far better financial option for you.

Thirdly, we appear to be making a lot of money while only having to spread that over 10 teams, and we don't need additional fanbases to make the Big East Tournament more successful. It's already successful.

Money is good. Demand for tickets is good. NCAA bids are good. More that what you have is better.

I posted the performance of all the conferences in the Tournament, highlighting the Big East and the A10 for the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS reason that the Big East is doing something very well - AS-IS. The A10, not so much. The same A10 that appears to attempt to follow your "plan" of having some patsies in place in order to game bids.

It’s sweet you think they follow my brilliant thinking. But the truth is: they’re stuck with a lot of what they got, and they’ve had those schools long before I got the internet.

But there’s a fundamental flaw in your thinking: The Top 10 of the Atlantic 10 and the Top 10 of the Big East are NOT the same. The existence of the Bottom Four isn’t the only difference. Your Top 10 are better. — A common comment for me is “Why do you spend so much time thinking about what makes the BIG EAST better, and not focus on the Atlantic 10, where your loyalties actually lie?” and the answer is: You have opportunity, the A-10 doesn’t. Even if we could realistically kick out five members and replace them with three more consistent programs, doing so could trigger legal action against us so it’s a non-starter. Not to mention sacrificing the name, brand and TV contracts.

The Big East on the other hand, was a blank slate and hasn’t passed the diminishing returns on expansion. You have potential & possibility. IF you realize it’s about the ratios of NCAA caliber programs to rebuilding or bad programs. A 8-to-2 ratio of NCAA to rebuilding programs doesn’t make the Big East better than a conference that’s 2-to-1… 2-to-1 ACTUALLY BETTER than 4-to-1 for getting max bids.

And that brings me to…

We're doing the smartest thing we could possibly do: were holding at ten teams and growing the brand of the conference from that base. If it were so smart to game bids as you suggest, why aren't the Presidents pursuing it now? I believe you have stated that you think Val Ackerman is stupid. Do you truly believe she's stupid? Do you believe the Presidents of our ten universities are stupid?

I have news for you: we don't believe they're stupid.

I don’t think they are generally stupid people. I think they probably have to be pretty bright to get the positions they have. But I also don’t think any of them have put the time, thought and energy into examining “Ideal construction for college athletics conference to maximize success.” I doubt a college president has time for that. Which is why college presidents are the rubber stamps to the process.

I think Val Ackerman has expressed some very stupid thoughts on basketball administration (namely: “shrink the Women’s Tournament because the mediocre BCS teams can’t upset the BCS 4 to 7 seeds.” That’s dumb. There’s no upsets because they traditionally take ONLY teams that we know can’t beat the top third of the BCS conferences… because they’re “second third of a BCS conference teams” that proved all year long they’re not as good), and continues to repeat conventional wisdom that most people except without examining whether or not it’s true.

Val Ackerman likely assumes the conventional wisdom BECAUSE she was hired AFTER the Big East announced it’s 10 member lineup. It’s HIGHLY LIKELY that the Big East has never fully examined what the ideal configuration is because there was so much to do in such a short period of time, and when Ackerman took the job, she assumed the 10 members were a result of a thorough examination.


If one took the time to start from scratch, ignore everything you’ve been trained to believe, and start with a white piece of paper for “What’s the best possible configuration to max NCAA bids, NCAA wins, financial success, using everyone without FBS football as a candidate” the end result would probably be a lot closer to what I’m suggesting that what you have now.

And of course, once again, I’m not just here lobbying because my alma mater happens to be the perfect candidate for you. I’m lobbying because I HAVE examined the behavior of conference configuration, found conventional wisdom to be backwards, and I enjoy debate and trying to make people see that light.

[Bill Marsh]

Well said. Well written.

A couple of minor points.

1. I'm not passionate about UConn. I'm passionate about the BE and don't want to see the conference wasting it's time waiting for a reunion with UConn which will never happen. You might notice that the NY Times article cites nothing factual in its suggestion for UConn to the BE. It's just something that makes sense to the writer. It doesn't to the university.

2. UConn will substantially increase its funding of athletics with private money, which I've mentioned several times. That will not seek additional money from tuition or from the taxpayers. They are well aware of the financial realities and have a plan to move forward. Private money has been the funding source for the rise to prominence of many big time college programs before them.

3. I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm trying to share with you and others information which I have access to. Obviously you're not interested, so I won't beat a dead horse. My guess is that the conference office has access to the same info that I do.

Thanks for the exchange. I truly respect your POV. We'll see how things work out in time.

Thanks Bill, I totally respect your perspective as well. As a Big East guy thru & thru I do long for the days of having a true New England rival for PC in the Big East. By far, UConn is the Friars biggest (old or new) Big East rival. Even though we still play BC every year, it's obviously not the same. Hopefully PC and UConn can come to terms with a non-conference playing agreement, whether it's a home-and-home or a neutral game at Mohegan Sun. Although I like where we're at as a conference, I do hate that football destroyed UConn in terms of a basketball school. Anyway, we'll see what happens and appreciate your insight. Go Big East.

P.S. I would be interested in the information you have access to; I'm intrigued.

Nothing beyond what I've already posted. I'll restate it a little bit differently.

UConn was once the same as the other 5 New England state universities. Founded as an agricultural college, it was a cow college that was clearly 2nd or 3rd tier in the region behind the Ivies and the other major private universities in New England. In the 1990's, with it "UConn 2000" made a declaration that it was no longer satisfied with being the cheap state school alternative to the Ivies. It's vision for itself me for my president. They've hired since then has been to become a premier public research university on the model of the Big Ten, UVA, UNC, etc.

The mistake that expansion posters make about the future of UConn athletics is to base their analysis on what's best for UConn athletics. It won't be the so,e basis for decisions about the future. Decisions will be add based on how UConn athletics fits in as a piece of the larger puzzle to advance the cause of UConn as a premier research university. They are determined to emulate the other big time public universities by putting together a package that will facilitate associations with those kinds of universities Ina variety of ways. Big time college athletics, including football, is just one of those ways to do that.

They have made progress in this area. They are already regarded as the top public university in New England academically. Admissions are way up and they have become increasingly more selective. In the last 10-15 years, they have begun to be included on lists of "Public Ivies". They have developed a major public/private partnership with multi-millions of investment dollars as a research center for the human genome project, a field which will generate major scientific breakthroughs in the 21st century.

This is a long term effort and they know that initiatives like this undergo occasional set backs. But they are committed to seeing it through. They want to be major league in every way, not just in basketball and not just in sports.

The knowledge that I have of the program is that this is the view of the insiders who determine university policy and who are the decision makers at the university. They simply do not see a move to the Big East as a step that would further what they are committed to accomplishing. The only way I could see them even considering it would be as a temporary move in the same way that BYU has temporarily moved their sports to the WCAC while they evaluate their options. But the Big East is not the WCAC. This is where the compatibility is not just about UConn. I simply do not see The Big East allowing itself to be used by UConn the way that the WCAC has allowed itself to be used you BYU. Nor should it.

[gosports1]

maybe I misunderstood, but if the privates are some how left out of the p5 under some new realignment, wouldn't it be more likely for them to form a new conference than to join the BE?
I don't know who would be on the outs but some combo of the following IMO would appeal more to them

Duke
wake
BC
Cuse
Northwestern
Vandy
would be the core and they grow from there. Just throwing out names: TCU,Baylor,Tualne, UConn, Temple, Cincy, Memphis Rice?

[adoraz]

Duke? Why not? I'd say Kentucky and Arizona would be pretty likely to join too.

[anXUfan]

Is Golden State not available?