I would like to see SLU/VCU because the games were fun and competitive (and we're tied 2-2 with them). Very good basketball team there.

VCU should just go to the AAC, a bunch of similar public schools, it's a good fit for them.

(05-31-2013 03:51 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 07:55 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Competition from the AAC is not the reason to choose VCU for #12, but it adds urgency to acting on it.

I'll be shocked if VCU isn't in one of the two leagues within a year or two.

This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

(05-31-2013 09:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 03:51 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 07:55 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Competition from the AAC is not the reason to choose VCU for #12, but it adds urgency to acting on it.

I'll be shocked if VCU isn't in one of the two leagues within a year or two.

This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 03:51 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 07:55 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Competition from the AAC is not the reason to choose VCU for #12, but it adds urgency to acting on it.

I'll be shocked if VCU isn't in one of the two leagues within a year or two.

This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

(06-09-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 03:51 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 07:55 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Competition from the AAC is not the reason to choose VCU for #12, but it adds urgency to acting on it.

I'll be shocked if VCU isn't in one of the two leagues within a year or two.

This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

The only reports I've seen are that Fox would increase the total contract but the amount per team would stay the same. I think the per team payout would have to be more than it is currently for the presidents to expand.

(06-09-2013 07:32 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 03:51 PM)Natty Wrote:  I'll be shocked if VCU isn't in one of the two leagues within a year or two.

This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

The only reports I've seen are that Fox would increase the total contract but the amount per team would stay the same. I think the per team payout would have to be more than it is currently for the presidents to expand.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I was just answering Xavier Musketeers question about whether Fox will spend more money to expand. The answer according to published reports is: "Yes."

Teams could actually make more money with the TV pay outs simply staying the same. Expansion to 12 would mean 2 divisions. Divisions would mean reduced travel. Reduced travel costs with the same revenue would mean increased profits.

Presidents might also want to consider the non-financial benefits to student athletes resulting from reduced travel. There are factors beyond just money that could make an expanded league more appealing to the presidents.

Finally, there were many reports early on that Fox really preferred 12 teams. If Fox is willing to increase the pay outs to accomplish this, it's equally likely that they would go beyond simply making it revenue neutral to expand. It all depends on how important the increased revenue and new markets are to them and what it would take to get the presidents to agree.

Why would expansion to 12 mean divisions (for basketball)? Divisions were tried and scrapped if memory serves me right in the 90s? There wasn't divisions with 16. Has been any mention of divisions in any reports etc if they expand to 12?

(06-09-2013 09:39 AM)trephin Wrote:  Why would expansion to 12 mean divisions (for basketball)? Divisions were tried and scrapped if memory serves me right in the 90s? There wasn't divisions with 16. Has been any mention of divisions in any reports etc if they expand to 12?

Okay, there don't have to be divisions. But it's standard practice in the industry.

The old Big East was unique in many ways. The fact that it was a hybrid league, made up of both football and non-football schools meant that it had some unique challenges. For a variety of reasons associated with that, the league decided it was best for the league's identity and for competition for all schools to play each other.

There was also an interest on the part of new members to take advantage of one of the league's biggest attractions, which was to get their teams into big East Coast cities regularly, especially NYC. Division play with a 16 team league would have reduced that exposure.

Finally, their marketing plan was to maximize their best match ups, so they tried to get 2 games a year on TV with their most attractive match ups without being restricted by divisional schedules.

The reorganized Big East doesn't have the unique complications of a hybrid. They also don't have the cumbersome scheduling problems of a 16 team league.

A 12 team league with divisions would still mean that everyone would play each other at least once every year and would give them a 16 game schedule. When the league went to an 18 game schedule, there was a hue and cry from the coaches, claiming that 18 league games was too many and restricted their flexibility in OOC scheduling. Now that 18 game schedules have gained more acceptance, they could still go to 17 or 18 if they wanted with divisions by designating 1 or 2 cross division rivals for each team whom they would play home and home.

Divisions offer the benefits of reduced travel and easily identifiable groups for fan interest. It seems like the obvious way to go if they expand to 12 teams

More than one "person in the know" have implied or outright stated the BE wasnt staying at 10. Expanding to 12 could also be beneficial to some of the non revenue sports as well by expanding their membership.
We shall see

(06-09-2013 10:20 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  More than one "person in the know" have implied or outright stated the BE wasnt staying at 10. Expanding to 12 could also be beneficial to some of the non revenue sports as well by expanding their membership.
We shall see

The non-rev spots are going to need to be filled.

I believe part of the reason that the league started at 10 is to get their teams in every market year 1. At that point, it gives the Big East the option to stay at 10 or expand.

(06-09-2013 10:41 AM)LouPower Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:20 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  More than one "person in the know" have implied or outright stated the BE wasnt staying at 10. Expanding to 12 could also be beneficial to some of the non revenue sports as well by expanding their membership.
We shall see

The non-rev spots are going to need to be filled.

I believe part of the reason that the league started at 10 is to get their teams in every market year 1. At that point, it gives the Big East the option to stay at 10 or expand.

I hadn't thought of that. It's a great point!

(06-09-2013 08:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:32 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 09:01 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  This, with the slight caveat: maybe 3 years.

But it won't be long.

Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

The only reports I've seen are that Fox would increase the total contract but the amount per team would stay the same. I think the per team payout would have to be more than it is currently for the presidents to expand.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I was just answering Xavier Musketeers question about whether Fox will spend more money to expand. The answer according to published reports is: "Yes."

Teams could actually make more money with the TV pay outs simply staying the same. Expansion to 12 would mean 2 divisions. Divisions would mean reduced travel. Reduced travel costs with the same revenue would mean increased profits.

Presidents might also want to consider the non-financial benefits to student athletes resulting from reduced travel. There are factors beyond just money that could make an expanded league more appealing to the presidents.

Finally, there were many reports early on that Fox really preferred 12 teams. If Fox is willing to increase the pay outs to accomplish this, it's equally likely that they would go beyond simply making it revenue neutral to expand. It all depends on how important the increased revenue and new markets are to them and what it would take to get the presidents to agree.

Exactly reduced travel time is good for both profits and for the student athletes who get more study time. But the adds have to have the proven potential to earn at large tourney credits or they do become dilutive to revenue.

To me Wichita State (with Marshall) and VCU (with Smart) meet that criteria and should be add 11/12. Denver, Richmond, Dayton, St Joe's, St Louis all have a little more to prove to show they can consistently compete for at large spots.

Also the AAC with U-Conn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, VCU and Wichita State would be too strong and would pull recruits and attention from the Big East. They not the A-10 are the competitive threat.

(05-31-2013 05:18 PM)LouPower Wrote:  I would like to see SLU/VCU because the games were fun and competitive (and we're tied 2-2 with them). Very good basketball team there.

(06-09-2013 12:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:32 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

The only reports I've seen are that Fox would increase the total contract but the amount per team would stay the same. I think the per team payout would have to be more than it is currently for the presidents to expand.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I was just answering Xavier Musketeers question about whether Fox will spend more money to expand. The answer according to published reports is: "Yes."

Teams could actually make more money with the TV pay outs simply staying the same. Expansion to 12 would mean 2 divisions. Divisions would mean reduced travel. Reduced travel costs with the same revenue would mean increased profits.

Presidents might also want to consider the non-financial benefits to student athletes resulting from reduced travel. There are factors beyond just money that could make an expanded league more appealing to the presidents.

Finally, there were many reports early on that Fox really preferred 12 teams. If Fox is willing to increase the pay outs to accomplish this, it's equally likely that they would go beyond simply making it revenue neutral to expand. It all depends on how important the increased revenue and new markets are to them and what it would take to get the presidents to agree.

Exactly reduced travel time is good for both profits and for the student athletes who get more study time. But the adds have to have the proven potential to earn at large tourney credits or they do become dilutive to revenue.

To me Wichita State (with Marshall) and VCU (with Smart) meet that criteria and should be add 11/12. Denver, Richmond, Dayton, St Joe's, St Louis all have a little more to prove to show they can consistently compete for at large spots.

Also the AAC with U-Conn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, VCU and Wichita State would be too strong and would pull recruits and attention from the Big East. They not the A-10 are the competitive threat.

Agree that VCU & WSU are the strongest programs. VCU is really a no brainer because there really is no one else to round out the lineup in the East.

WSU is a dicier proposition. Not a particularly good market. A small state with lots of competition. Not a great fit with the rest of the league. Outside the footprint.

OTOH, there are viable alternatives in the Midwest. Especially St. Louis. Great market. Proven supportive fan base. Program on the upswing. Great fit. Within the footprint. I agree that WSU is the stronger program, but I don't think the BE will make that move. I'm okay with it whichever way they go with it.

Although I agree that it would be a great move, I wouldn't worry about the AAC snapping up WSU. They're too focused on football and so far have shown little imagination. They may be interested in VCU because it makes a lot of sense to bring them in as a complement to Navy football for basketball & Olympic sporsts and to maintain interest in the league in the same general region. So, yes, I'd jump on them ASAP.

The 4 strongest Bball only programs out there right now (things change) are Gonzaga, VCU, Wichita State and St. Louis. Gonzaga is too far away. St. Louis has some questions whether Jim Crews can maintain the momentum that Majerus started. VCU and Wichita State are public schools. It will be interesting to see what the conference does, if anything.

If the conference adds a school not from the list above, I think we'd be adding a program that will finish consistently in the bottom half of the league standings. Not sure if that is adding any value.

(06-09-2013 12:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Also the AAC with U-Conn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, VCU and Wichita State would be too strong and would pull recruits and attention from the Big East.

I'm really surprised either 1) Aresco hasn't attacked this, or 2) if he has, that we haven't heard anything about it (no rumors even).

That league has a great top four programs (and some potential in UCF, South Florida, SMU, Houston, etc), but for the sake of their RPI (and public perception), adding two recent Final 4 teams to a league that could use some positive press seems like a no-brainer to me.

I know VCU is at least attempting to get in the Big East though, so maybe the AAC is waiting to see what happens with that.

(06-09-2013 12:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:07 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:32 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:32 PM)Xavier Musketeers Wrote:  Fox holds all the cards. This deal doesn't happen without the huge cash outlay. Still all about the money, as is everything in realignment. So is Fox going to throw in another 100 million to expand? Do you really think the other players at the table are going to stake the newbies? Please take 20 percent of our pot to get in the game! Noooooooooo. Will stay at 10 until Fox is comfortable and opens up the checkbook again.

It's been widely reported in the media that Fox will in fact add more money if the league expands to 12. No one will lose TV revenue in a 12 team league and they may in fact increase their pay out with the right additions.

The only reports I've seen are that Fox would increase the total contract but the amount per team would stay the same. I think the per team payout would have to be more than it is currently for the presidents to expand.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I was just answering Xavier Musketeers question about whether Fox will spend more money to expand. The answer according to published reports is: "Yes."

Teams could actually make more money with the TV pay outs simply staying the same. Expansion to 12 would mean 2 divisions. Divisions would mean reduced travel. Reduced travel costs with the same revenue would mean increased profits.

Presidents might also want to consider the non-financial benefits to student athletes resulting from reduced travel. There are factors beyond just money that could make an expanded league more appealing to the presidents.

Finally, there were many reports early on that Fox really preferred 12 teams. If Fox is willing to increase the pay outs to accomplish this, it's equally likely that they would go beyond simply making it revenue neutral to expand. It all depends on how important the increased revenue and new markets are to them and what it would take to get the presidents to agree.

Exactly reduced travel time is good for both profits and for the student athletes who get more study time. But the adds have to have the proven potential to earn at large tourney credits or they do become dilutive to revenue.

To me Wichita State (with Marshall) and VCU (with Smart) meet that criteria and should be add 11/12. Denver, Richmond, Dayton, St Joe's, St Louis all have a little more to prove to show they can consistently compete for at large spots.

Also the AAC with U-Conn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, VCU and Wichita State would be too strong and would pull recruits and attention from the Big East. They not the A-10 are the competitive threat.

It's foolish and short sided IMO to take teams based on their head coach...

The more I read debates on who should get 11/12, the more convinced I become that it won't happen, and the Big East will stay at 10.

I guess I've kind of gotten inundated with this sentence:

"Saint Louis will be fine in the A-10".

If anyone believed that, why would anyone care about a Big East invite? Obviously, some people don't think that.

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Now that 18 game schedules have gained more acceptance, they could still go to 17 or 18 if they wanted with divisions by designating 1 or 2 cross division rivals for each team whom they would play home and home.

We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.