To SactownDog

[Wizard of Westroads]

wow, someone here hated more than me. I love it.

Wichita (err Wichiturd) St wouldn't even be close to one of the teams added if someone stuck a gun to the Big East's head and forced them to expand.

You're not hated. One of the joys of the board is picking apart your logic that disguises your loyalties. It's like doing the daily crossword puzzle. And nobody disrespects your knowledge or the amount of research you put into your positions that annoy us.

[paulxu]

In 2019 the ACC will go to a 20 game conference schedule.
If the BE were to do that, and preserve a round robin conference schedule, we could do that by adding one more team.
Between now and then, the football guys may do something that frees up one good team. Or maybe a good market team like St Louis will improve their program and have the institutional fit.

This article is a good discussion of the benefits of a smaller (10) team conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /23842465/

[Bill Marsh]

In 2019 the ACC will go to a 20 game conference schedule.
If the BE were to do that, and preserve a round robin conference schedule, we could do that by adding one more team.
Between now and then, the football guys may do something that frees up one good team. Or maybe a good market team like St Louis will improve their program and have the institutional fit.

This article is a good discussion of the benefits of a smaller (10) team conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /23842465/

Thanks for the link. Completely agree with everything in this article. In the old BE, position seemed to become rigidified. It seemed to be impossible to climb out of the bottom once a program fell into the bottom third of the league.

Sactown Dog is putting his finger on a different issue. Ratings. State universities with their big enrollments, alumni bases, and in state fan identity don't have a difficult time attracting even casual fans and therefore achieve the TV ratings that go along with that.

With their relatively smaller enrollments, the BE schools don't have the same automatic fan base. More member states in the conference means more fans taking a casual interest in games not involving their school, which translates to higher TV ratings. No one likes playing the ratings game, but since that's how the programs are partially financed, it's important. This can very well lead to pressure to expand whether the league likes the idea or not.

[Sactowndog]

The situation of the Big East very much parallels the MWC in football which didn't add teams when it should have and relied on a tight group of primarily small market teams.

Except with some major differences.

1. The Big East is bringing in way more television revenue than the MWC and without that huge football expense.
2. The Big East is not relying on a "tight group of primarily small market teams." It's a tight group of primarily large market teams. 8 of 10 Big East teams play in a top 50 market, with Providence just outside at 52. Furthermore, half the teams in the league at in top 10 media markets! Unfortunately most of those top 10 market teams are struggling at the moment, but it leaves massive opportunity for ratings growth.
3. Unlike MWC football, the Big East is recruiting on a level equal to that of that F5. Competing in recruiting allows them to compete on the court. As they do that, they'll start to attract more of the casual viewers and ratings will start to grow.

I get that is your and others premise. It's not unreasonable but so far it has proven to be false. It was hard to get a better match up then Villanova versus Xavier last year. It was also on Fox and yet it was a ratings clunker. Granted it was one year but if it happens again you can be pretty certain your theory of success doesn't hold water. You can't get much better then national champ and a top seed. And yet people still don't want to tune in. Perhaps it's because people tune in to schools where they have some affinity and not just to watch good basketball. And yes I get the east coast city thing is affinity marketing but it appears that's not working most likely to the huge decline in people in the north east and mid west who identify as Catholic.

[DudeAnon]

The situation of the Big East very much parallels the MWC in football which didn't add teams when it should have and relied on a tight group of primarily small market teams.

Except with some major differences.

1. The Big East is bringing in way more television revenue than the MWC and without that huge football expense.
2. The Big East is not relying on a "tight group of primarily small market teams." It's a tight group of primarily large market teams. 8 of 10 Big East teams play in a top 50 market, with Providence just outside at 52. Furthermore, half the teams in the league at in top 10 media markets! Unfortunately most of those top 10 market teams are struggling at the moment, but it leaves massive opportunity for ratings growth.
3. Unlike MWC football, the Big East is recruiting on a level equal to that of that F5. Competing in recruiting allows them to compete on the court. As they do that, they'll start to attract more of the casual viewers and ratings will start to grow.

I get that is your and others premise. It's not unreasonable but so far it has proven to be false. It was hard to get a better match up then Villanova versus Xavier last year. It was also on Fox and yet it was a ratings clunker. Granted it was one year but if it happens again you can be pretty certain your theory of success doesn't hold water. You can't get much better then national champ and a top seed. And yet people still don't want to tune in. Perhaps it's because people tune in to schools where they have some affinity and not just to watch good basketball. And yes I get the east coast city thing is affinity marketing but it appears that's not working most likely to the huge decline in people in the north east and mid west who identify as Catholic.

Um, Nova vs Xavier on FS1 drew 500,000. https://painttouches.com/2016/02/26/nov ... n-for-fs1/

Read that article and inform yourself please. The best thing for the Big East is to continue getting ranked and if we ever did expand it would be to add teams which are regularly ranked.

[Sactowndog]

In 2019 the ACC will go to a 20 game conference schedule.
If the BE were to do that, and preserve a round robin conference schedule, we could do that by adding one more team.
Between now and then, the football guys may do something that frees up one good team. Or maybe a good market team like St Louis will improve their program and have the institutional fit.

This article is a good discussion of the benefits of a smaller (10) team conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /23842465/

Thanks for the post. The premise of the article is with bigger conferences you play more teams that could care less about basketball and drag down the league with fewer chances at a quality win. I don't think that applies with Wichita State and VCU. Both would raise the current league KenPom ratings. Current ratings:
1) Villanova
17) Butler
18) Xavier
19) Wichita State
21) Creighton
34) Marquette
43) VCU
47) Seton Hall
56) Providence
58) Georgetown
111) St Johns
191) DePaul

If Wichita State and VCU were St John's and DePaul your point would be valid relative to the article. But if they were part of the league this year you would actually have 1 less bad RPI game because you would only play St. John's or DePaul once.

[Sactowndog]

Except with some major differences.

1. The Big East is bringing in way more television revenue than the MWC and without that huge football expense.
2. The Big East is not relying on a "tight group of primarily small market teams." It's a tight group of primarily large market teams. 8 of 10 Big East teams play in a top 50 market, with Providence just outside at 52. Furthermore, half the teams in the league at in top 10 media markets! Unfortunately most of those top 10 market teams are struggling at the moment, but it leaves massive opportunity for ratings growth.
3. Unlike MWC football, the Big East is recruiting on a level equal to that of that F5. Competing in recruiting allows them to compete on the court. As they do that, they'll start to attract more of the casual viewers and ratings will start to grow.

I get that is your and others premise. It's not unreasonable but so far it has proven to be false. It was hard to get a better match up then Villanova versus Xavier last year. It was also on Fox and yet it was a ratings clunker. Granted it was one year but if it happens again you can be pretty certain your theory of success doesn't hold water. You can't get much better then national champ and a top seed. And yet people still don't want to tune in. Perhaps it's because people tune in to schools where they have some affinity and not just to watch good basketball. And yes I get the east coast city thing is affinity marketing but it appears that's not working most likely to the huge decline in people in the north east and mid west who identify as Catholic.

Um, Nova vs Xavier on FS1 drew 500,000. https://painttouches.com/2016/02/26/nov ... n-for-fs1/

Read that article and inform yourself please. The best thing for the Big East is to continue getting ranked and if we ever did expand it would be to add teams which are regularly ranked.

I will say a couple things:

1) VCU and Wichita State are regularly ranked. By every basketball measure over the past 15 years they would outperform much of the current league. Both currently have higher KenPom ratings then half our current league. So their addition is a plus by far to the current basketball strength. Not to mention both can claim final four appearances in the last 15 years and few of our current schools can claim that fact.

In terms of informing myself, I'm comparing ratings on OTA that eliminate FS1 biases. So your comment about Villanova getting a .2 is hardly a counterpoint.

[Sactowndog]

In 2019 the ACC will go to a 20 game conference schedule.
If the BE were to do that, and preserve a round robin conference schedule, we could do that by adding one more team.
Between now and then, the football guys may do something that frees up one good team. Or maybe a good market team like St Louis will improve their program and have the institutional fit.

This article is a good discussion of the benefits of a smaller (10) team conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /23842465/

Thanks for the link. Completely agree with everything in this article. In the old BE, position seemed to become rigidified. It seemed to be impossible to climb out of the bottom once a program fell into the bottom third of the league.

Sactown Dog is putting his finger on a different issue. Ratings. State universities with their big enrollments, alumni bases, and in state fan identity don't have a difficult time attracting even casual fans and therefore achieve the TV ratings that go along with that.

With their relatively smaller enrollments, the BE schools don't have the same automatic fan base. More member states in the conference means more fans taking a casual interest in games not involving their school, which translates to higher TV ratings. No one likes playing the ratings game, but since that's how the programs are partially financed, it's important. This can very well lead to pressure to expand whether the league likes the idea or not.

I also agree with the road robin part and insuring you have regular competition and intense rivalries. There is a benefit to playing every school which you lose. To counter that loss it's important to maintain a distinctly Midwest and Eastern half to the conference. Let my explain why:

1) rivalries and interest are increased by proximity and you don't want to lose that. The eastern schools (Providence, Georgetown, Villanova, St John, Seton Hall, and VCU must battle it out for the eastern division crown. Similarly the mid west schools ( Butler, Xavier, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton, Wichita State) must battle it out for the mid west crown. The regional teams must always play home and home and the leagues must maintain their regional identity. Those divisional games make the eastern city thing more valuable because you are playing for the eastern division crown.

2) Under this set-up the Villanova-Xavier game takes on more meaning because now it represents the best of eastern basketball versus the best of midwestern basketball. The league becomes a clear proxy for which region has better basketball. Adding a clear mid-west versus east flavor adds interest and draw to the league. Cross divisional games become not only a contest between schools but between regions with which people can identify. This board also becomes more interesting because you get more cross regional us versus them banter. Ratings is about setting up clear us versus them battles and drawing people in who identify with us. BTW, can't talk midwestern basketball without including Kansas!!

[Sactowndog]

In 2019 the ACC will go to a 20 game conference schedule.
If the BE were to do that, and preserve a round robin conference schedule, we could do that by adding one more team.
Between now and then, the football guys may do something that frees up one good team. Or maybe a good market team like St Louis will improve their program and have the institutional fit.

This article is a good discussion of the benefits of a smaller (10) team conference.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc ... /23842465/

Thanks for the post. The premise of the article is with bigger conferences you play more teams that could care less about basketball and drag down the league with fewer chances at a quality win. I don't think that applies with Wichita State and VCU. Both would raise the current league KenPom ratings. Current ratings:
1) Villanova
17) Butler
18) Xavier
19) Wichita State
21) Creighton
34) Marquette
43) VCU
47) Seton Hall
56) Providence
58) Georgetown
111) St Johns
191) DePaul

If Wichita State and VCU were St John's and DePaul your point would be valid relative to the article. But if they were part of the league this year you would actually have 1 less bad RPI game because you would only play St. John's or DePaul once.

BTW if this were our league right now the battles between Butler/Xavier and Creighton/Wichita State would be intense. Looking at the ratings their would also be lots of talk of how much east coast basketball sucks compared to Midwest basketball and if it weren't for the Midwest carrying this league it would be garbage. Lots of good us versus them story lines to draw fan interest here.

[Sactowndog]

wow, someone here hated more than me. I love it.

Wichita (err Wichiturd) St wouldn't even be close to one of the teams added if someone stuck a gun to the Big East's head and forced them to expand.

You're not hated. One of the joys of the board is picking apart your logic that disguises your loyalties. It's like doing the daily crossword puzzle. And nobody disrespects your knowledge or the amount of research you put into your positions that annoy us.

Fair enough. Let's be straight forward on my loyalties. My likely future son in law could well be a Butler basketball coach in 10-15 years. I want a strong program and league that has the TV dollars to be successful. TV revenue is a major chunk of each schools budget. The league, like it or not, simply has to draw better ratings or the TV revenue won't be there in 10-15 years when he's ready to coach.

This league lacks any compelling us versus them storylines to drive ratings other than the east coast city thing and even that's diluted with no clear east coast title for which to play. In my world you now have three clear compelling us versus them storylines:
Regional dominance: east city thing clearly shown by the division champ
Midwest versus east: the divisional make up clearly positions Midwest versus eastern hoops
Private Catholic versus public: while still heavily catholic the league has some balance to appeal more broadly