I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

(04-11-2017 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So do you think Georgetown/JT3 would have imploded without the conference realignment? or would with the old league Georgetown gets in the tourney in 14 for sure and then maybe even 16 and things are different with them?

I think, with that situation, JT3 - who I believe to be a very good coach - simply wasn't making enough adjustments that suited not only the talent on his roster, but the talent he was recruiting to play in the Big East. I think, by playing the old teams, perhaps the realization would have set in to get more big bodies (in the vein of Hibbert, Monroe, etc.) to compete with the physicality of the league. I think he was trending towards more explosive guards, while ignoring the big bodies that guys like Providence was isolating and getting.

the other thing is with the ACC..... They would have had only 7 teams make the tourney this year- with Wake being very much questionable(they had huge late wins vs Pittsburgh and Louisville). Losing Louisville and Notre Dame(2 top 5 seeds) would have really hurt. And they would have still had the retirement questions with Coach K and Williams.

(04-11-2017 09:50 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  So do you think Georgetown/JT3 would have imploded without the conference realignment? or would with the old league Georgetown gets in the tourney in 14 for sure and then maybe even 16 and things are different with them?

I think, with that situation, JT3 - who I believe to be a very good coach - simply wasn't making enough adjustments that suited not only the talent on his roster, but the talent he was recruiting to play in the Big East. I think, by playing the old teams, perhaps the realization would have set in to get more big bodies (in the vein of Hibbert, Monroe, etc.) to compete with the physicality of the league. I think he was trending towards more explosive guards, while ignoring the big bodies that guys like Providence was isolating and getting.

in a 16 team league though you had to be so much more diverse. That's the thing that I miss the most with the old Big East. You could see West Virginia one day, then Cincy, then Syracuse with their zone, then Nova. So different.

(04-11-2017 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

Do you mean if the C7 stayed with the football-remaining members, Stever?

Hypothetical Big East Basketball Conference 2013-14
Cincinnati
UConn
DePaul
Georgetown
Houston
Marquette
Memphis
Providence
Seton Hall
SMU
St. Johns
Temple
Tulane
UCF
USF
Villanova

*I left out ECU and Tulsa, since they were not voted in as full members until after the C7 left. Temple was voted in as full member while the C7 was still part of the conference.

This is a 18-member conference, with 9 full-members and 7 non-football members, and two football-only members (ECU and Navy). If the league had needed an additional football member to get to 12, for a conference championship, then I think they look at Army as another football-only. Boise State, San Diego State and TCU all left the Big East, before ever officially joining, before the C7 left - so they are a moot point and are left out.

Now, with the additions of SMU, Houston, UCF, and Tulane, none of those programs made the NCAA Tournament in the prior 20 years of competition. Would the basketball schools have mandated at least one additional non-football school? Most likely. Since Cincinnati covers that market (eliminating Xavier), Creighton, Butler and Saint Louis (who was still under Majerus) would have been the only three realistic options at this time. I think Butler would have been one choice, replacing the Indiana market from Notre Dame - who left for the ACC. Then, I think Creighton and Saint Louis would have battled it out for #18 in the basketball conference, with Saint Louis slightly edging out Creighton due to their prior conference affiliations with Marquette, DePaul, Cincinnati, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, and Houston in Conference USA. That would have gotten the basketball league up to 18 members.

Phew that's a lot of hypotheticals!

(04-11-2017 10:06 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

Do you mean if the C7 stayed with the football-remaining members, Stever?

Hypothetical Big East Basketball Conference 2013-14
Cincinnati
UConn
DePaul
Georgetown
Houston
Marquette
Memphis
Providence
Seton Hall
SMU
St. Johns
Temple
Tulane
UCF
USF
Villanova

*I left out ECU and Tulsa, since they were not voted in as full members until after the C7 left. Temple was voted in as full member while the C7 was still part of the conference.

This is a 18-member conference, with 9 full-members and 7 non-football members, and two football-only members (ECU and Navy). If the league had needed an additional football member to get to 12, for a conference championship, then I think they look at Army as another football-only. Boise State, San Diego State and TCU all left the Big East, before ever officially joining, before the C7 left - so they are a moot point and are left out.

Now, with the additions of SMU, Houston, UCF, and Tulane, none of those programs made the NCAA Tournament in the prior 20 years of competition. Would the basketball schools have mandated at least one additional non-football school? Most likely. Since Cincinnati covers that market (eliminating Xavier), Creighton, Butler and Saint Louis (who was still under Majerus) would have been the only three realistic options at this time. I think Butler would have been one choice, replacing the Indiana market from Notre Dame - who left for the ACC. Then, I think Creighton and Saint Louis would have battled it out for #18 in the basketball conference, with Saint Louis slightly edging out Creighton due to their prior conference affiliations with Marquette, DePaul, Cincinnati, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, and Houston in Conference USA. That would have gotten the basketball league up to 18 members.

Phew that's a lot of hypotheticals!

no I was saying if no movement had happened....

but your one is fascinating as well.

I think the big question first off if the basketball hadn't left would Boise and San Diego St had remained(they left about 2 weeks after the C7 left).

So had 9 full members, 4 fb only ones. and 7 bb only ones. It would have been interesting to see if there would have been 2 more bb members. Your point about SLU there would have been very interesting- but remember Majerus passed away 12/1/12 or about 2 weeks before the C7 left. So the exact same questions regarding them in the new Big East would have remained with this scenario.

SMU would have still had Larry Brown.

The 13-14 season would have been really interesting. Would have had Nova, Providence who made tourney from Big East. Would have had Louisville, Cincy, UConn, and Memphis who made tourney from AAC. SMU would have been a lot more possible I think with the help with SOS. Georgetown and St John's would have been a lot more possible as well. So of the I guess 17 teams in conference play that year- would have gotten like at least 6 and as many as 9 making the tourney. Then lose Louisville and Rutgers following year- but picked up Tulsa and Tulane. Would have gotten from Big East Nova, Georgetown, St John's, Providence, then from AAC SMU and Cincy. Then you would have had teams like Tulsa, Temple, and UConn from AAC close. So again at least 6 and as many as 9.

(04-11-2017 10:21 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 10:06 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

Do you mean if the C7 stayed with the football-remaining members, Stever?

Hypothetical Big East Basketball Conference 2013-14
Cincinnati
UConn
DePaul
Georgetown
Houston
Marquette
Memphis
Providence
Seton Hall
SMU
St. Johns
Temple
Tulane
UCF
USF
Villanova

*I left out ECU and Tulsa, since they were not voted in as full members until after the C7 left. Temple was voted in as full member while the C7 was still part of the conference.

This is a 18-member conference, with 9 full-members and 7 non-football members, and two football-only members (ECU and Navy). If the league had needed an additional football member to get to 12, for a conference championship, then I think they look at Army as another football-only. Boise State, San Diego State and TCU all left the Big East, before ever officially joining, before the C7 left - so they are a moot point and are left out.

Now, with the additions of SMU, Houston, UCF, and Tulane, none of those programs made the NCAA Tournament in the prior 20 years of competition. Would the basketball schools have mandated at least one additional non-football school? Most likely. Since Cincinnati covers that market (eliminating Xavier), Creighton, Butler and Saint Louis (who was still under Majerus) would have been the only three realistic options at this time. I think Butler would have been one choice, replacing the Indiana market from Notre Dame - who left for the ACC. Then, I think Creighton and Saint Louis would have battled it out for #18 in the basketball conference, with Saint Louis slightly edging out Creighton due to their prior conference affiliations with Marquette, DePaul, Cincinnati, Memphis, South Florida, Tulane, and Houston in Conference USA. That would have gotten the basketball league up to 18 members.

Phew that's a lot of hypotheticals!

no I was saying if no movement had happened....

but your one is fascinating as well.

I think the big question first off if the basketball hadn't left would Boise and San Diego St had remained(they left about 2 weeks after the C7 left).

So had 9 full members, 4 fb only ones. and 7 bb only ones. It would have been interesting to see if there would have been 2 more bb members. Your point about SLU there would have been very interesting- but remember Majerus passed away 12/1/12 or about 2 weeks before the C7 left. So the exact same questions regarding them in the new Big East would have remained with this scenario.

SMU would have still had Larry Brown.

The 13-14 season would have been really interesting. Would have had Nova, Providence who made tourney from Big East. Would have had Louisville, Cincy, UConn, and Memphis who made tourney from AAC. SMU would have been a lot more possible I think with the help with SOS. Georgetown and St John's would have been a lot more possible as well. So of the I guess 17 teams in conference play that year- would have gotten like at least 6 and as many as 9 making the tourney. Then lose Louisville and Rutgers following year- but picked up Tulsa and Tulane. Would have gotten from Big East Nova, Georgetown, St John's, Providence, then from AAC SMU and Cincy. Then you would have had teams like Tulsa, Temple, and UConn from AAC close. So again at least 6 and as many as 9.

UConn wasn't a "tourney team" that year they were National Champions

(04-10-2017 06:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The thing is and you know it, there are some that have said that the new big east hasn't had any drop off at all whatsoever. And that's a joke.

I don't think anyone's saying that. The late 2000s Big East was the most dominant group in college basketball history, and the current Big East is not that.

Quote:The New Big East is a good conference, a very good conference. But what 2013 was- it was the end of an era. Some folks want to act like this is just a continuation of the old Big East, and that's a joke.

No, it's not a joke. Any more than the early 1990s Big East was a joke compared to the 1984-87 Big East.

Quote:The 2013 Big East is dead. I think you talk to folks that were in the league before the split would say just that.

Quote:As far as stuff like the OOC record vs the other P6 teams. So overrated. I mean take Butler. Their win over Cincy this year was better than ANY OOC win for them outside of the game vs Arizona. Bigger than Vandy, Utah, or Indiana. Labels are so idiotic it's not funny.

Wins vs BCS conferences are a metric. There are other metrics, but looking at the at-large bids the last few years, "record vs BCS schools" is competitive with "top 50 RPI" or "record vs tournament teams" or whatever you want to use as a measuring stick.

Yes, Cinci is better than Vanderbilt or Utah or Indiana. But first-class programs that are not in a BCS conference are growing very rare.

Quote:It's one thing to take pride in the leagues performance. But when folks say stuff like "If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong. " that's just wrong. NOTHING would compare to that.

Stever, you know--or at least should know--that those statements are in relation to predictions at the time that we would sink to the level of the A-10. That the Big East would continue in name, but with no shred of its past glory, like the WAC or like the Southern Conference or the Missouri Valley Conference.

That's what our haters and detractors said would happen, what some of them wanted to happen. That's what we were worried about happening. That didn't happen.

We are not the undisputed No 1 dominant basketball conference. But we are still a power conference in basketball. It's not wrong to beat our chests a little bit about that, and throw it in the face of the people who said we'd be irrelevant without football, that we should join up with the A-10, that our day was done.

(04-11-2017 06:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  That's what our haters and detractors said would happen, what some of them wanted to happen. That's what we were worried about happening. That didn't happen.

We are not the undisputed No 1 dominant basketball conference. But we are still a power conference in basketball. It's not wrong to beat our chests a little bit about that, and throw it in the face of the people who said we'd be irrelevant without football, that we should join up with the A-10, that our day was done.

I would also toss in that the abundance of posters from a certain conference that were adamant - to the point that it drove a majority of the C7 posters off this board - that said that a "bunch of small time Catholic schools" that didn't understand that "football drove the bus" and couldn't survive without the support of ESPN, wouldn't be relevant moving forward. When the Big East got a better, more lucrative contract, it had to be a mistake, an error, an oversight, because it simply wasn't fair that a collection of football schools, who were entitled to some mythical spot within the perceived P5, were worth less than a bunch of Catholic schools. Let's also not forget the sweeping opinion that the C7 should be forced to "overpay" for leaving and for the branding of the Big East, doing everything possible to diminish our athletic programs and be left to die in college athletics.

There were many that would have wanted nothing more than us to be regulated back down to the A-10, or worse. So yes, when we not only survived realignment, but came out as clear winners, we have earned the right to beat our chests and be prideful - especially against those that fall into the above category.

(04-10-2017 06:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 05:56 PM)hoops22 Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:41 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I'm sorry but to act like the New Big East is like the Old Big East is just wrong. The Old Big East was the best basketball conference quite possibly EVER- when it was a 15/16 team conference. 7 Final 4 teams in 7 teams with 2 champions in there(and really 3 in 8 given UConn won the following year). Tourney record 11 teams 1 year. That Big East did die.

And this Big East has not been as successful or as relevant, or as nationally known, as that Big East was. I know that riles some folks up- but that's reality. Realistically nothing will compare to what the Big East those 7 years did. I mean, the ACC of the last few years doesn't compare to that even- as much as they would want to make it seem.

Right Stever, and it also riles some folks up, like yourself and a couple other notorious AAC fanboys, that you've been unable to write the obituary yet. No one claims the current BE is as strong as the older one. It clearly was the best college basketball league of all time and had left the ACC in the dust. Nobody is making that claim today. Still, for some reason, you like to portray all BE fans as being stuck in 2011, even though you know that's not the case. What we do claim today, is that we've earned our spot and acknowledgement to be part of what is now considered the P6 in basketball. You talk about the past BE receiving 11 bids to the dance. Well that represented 69% of the league, this years 7 bids represented 70%. It may be years before we see any conference match that number again. Just because the league isn't as top heavy as it once was doesn't mean it's not good.

It is a little old how however, that when someone takes pride in the leagues performance, you and others try to beat them down by saying the league isn't as powerful as it once was. It may not be as powerful, but the 7 bids, sold out MSG BET games, and the eye popping OOC record against the other P6 teams, say the league is still pretty darn good, and way ahead of most others. Wouldn't you agree?

The thing is and you know it, there are some that have said that the new big east hasn't had any drop off at all whatsoever. And that's a joke.

The New Big East is a good conference, a very good conference. But what 2013 was- it was the end of an era. Some folks want to act like this is just a continuation of the old Big East, and that's a joke. The 2013 Big East is dead. I think you talk to folks that were in the league before the split would say just that.

As far as stuff like the OOC record vs the other P6 teams. So overrated. I mean take Butler. Their win over Cincy this year was better than ANY OOC win for them outside of the game vs Arizona. Bigger than Vandy, Utah, or Indiana. Labels are so idiotic it's not funny.

It's one thing to take pride in the leagues performance. But when folks say stuff like "If they thought the league would not be as successful, or as relevant, or as nationally known, they were very, very wrong. " that's just wrong. NOTHING would compare to that.

Stever, not to beat things to death with you, but at times you deliberately distort things. For example your post saying some BE fans valued a win over Missouri more than Cincinnati. Show me where anyone said that. Obviously Cincinnati was a good team this year, and it represented a good win for anyone that beat them. Also suggesting BE fans claim the league is as good as it was, is BS. That is not the general consensus and you know it.

And then you say OOC wins are overrated? Sure they are, until the BE has a disappointing record in them, and then you'll consider them to be the primary measuring stick. All you have to do is look at the bids received by each league and the OOC record and the correlation is clear. The better a league did in OOC the more bids they got, the worse they did, the fewer bids they got. Seems like an important statistic to me.

Finally, when you find a BE fan on HLOH with an extreme opinion, you tend to come over here and try to paint the entire fan base with the same broad brush. However you don't do that with other conferences fans. There are some people you can find around here that are as maniacal and deranged as can be, yet you don't suggest their whole fan base is guilty by association. Nor should they be. But the same holds true for BE fans. Most are quite level headed, more so I think, than the majority of other conference fan bases. I wish you'd stop cherry picking one exaggerated claim, and implying it's representative of all BE fans.

I say using a broad label of p6 for OOC wins is overrated. Always have and always will. The individual teams matter for OOC, not what conference those teams are in. It's your ENTIRE OOC that matters, not just vs the P6. Yet Conferences entire OOC record is what's important. Overall OOC record is what's important. not OOC record just vs P6. But Big East fans for some reason just want to use blindly the P6 record- and forget about anything else.

I've NEVER said that OOC is overrated. In fact, I've said more than a lot of others that it is very important.

(04-11-2017 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

we don't know that. if URI had to play Butler and Xavier that could be 2 more loses for them. Resulting in lower seed in A10 tourney and not winning it.

(04-16-2017 10:51 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(04-11-2017 09:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a separate discussion would be where would Creighton, Xavier, and Butler be if the Big East hadn't realigned? The A10 would have had their 2013 lineup with VCU, Butler, Xavier, Dayton, and Rhode Island- all 5 making tourney this year.

Creighton in the MVC is the one that you really would have worried about. Their magical 2013-14 season doesn't happen(McDermott I think turns pro almost for sure).

we don't know that. if URI had to play Butler and Xavier that could be 2 more loses for them. Resulting in lower seed in A10 tourney and not winning it.

but SOS would have been much stronger. A10 would have been positioned very well.

I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

(04-20-2017 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

The round robin is valuable due to the guaranteed home/home for all teams, which is a conference benefit considering all teams have an athletic focus towards men's basketball. It does not need to be protected at all costs, but until a realistic "fit" emerges, the potential advantage of adding programs via expansion is not as valuable as keeping the current collection of teams and the round robin set up.

Having a round robin in college basketball is the ideal conference set up.

Hypothetically, adding a VCU/Dayton would not be worth it to eliminate the round robin - so, if/when expansion occurs, the additions need to outweigh the costs of getting rid of it.

(04-23-2017 01:47 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

The round robin is valuable due to the guaranteed home/home for all teams, which is a conference benefit considering all teams have an athletic focus towards men's basketball. It does not need to be protected at all costs, but until a realistic "fit" emerges, the potential advantage of adding programs via expansion is not as valuable as keeping the current collection of teams and the round robin set up.

Having a round robin in college basketball is the ideal conference set up.

Hypothetically, adding a VCU/Dayton would not be worth it to eliminate the round robin - so, if/when expansion occurs, the additions need to outweigh the costs of getting rid of it.

Having 12 teams and making it where top teams don't have to face the RPI killers twice is a big advantage competitively along with the fact that it helps TV out. Just look at the tv ratings. Sorry but even if the games turn out closer than they should- games like DePaul/Villanova just aren't good.

People say look at the SEC and how 14 doesn't help them. I say look at the Pac 12. Look at USC this year. Got in as the last team in the tourney. They had 4 games with the Washington schools, going 4-0. Had single games with Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Colorado. Going 2-2. If they had the round robin, getting 2 more losses could have been fatal for them. Or look at P12 2016- where they got 7 teams in the tourney because they had a 3 way tie at 9-9 for 6th.

I think the thing that is really funny is how folks who love the RR haven't really seen the bad side of the RR yet. Wait until you see a year like the WCC had in 2016 where 5th place team was 8-10. Or a year where 9-9 gets you in 4th place.

(04-24-2017 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 01:47 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

The round robin is valuable due to the guaranteed home/home for all teams, which is a conference benefit considering all teams have an athletic focus towards men's basketball. It does not need to be protected at all costs, but until a realistic "fit" emerges, the potential advantage of adding programs via expansion is not as valuable as keeping the current collection of teams and the round robin set up.

Having a round robin in college basketball is the ideal conference set up.

Hypothetically, adding a VCU/Dayton would not be worth it to eliminate the round robin - so, if/when expansion occurs, the additions need to outweigh the costs of getting rid of it.

Having 12 teams and making it where top teams don't have to face the RPI killers twice is a big advantage competitively along with the fact that it helps TV out. Just look at the tv ratings. Sorry but even if the games turn out closer than they should- games like DePaul/Villanova just aren't good.

People say look at the SEC and how 14 doesn't help them. I say look at the Pac 12. Look at USC this year. Got in as the last team in the tourney. They had 4 games with the Washington schools, going 4-0. Had single games with Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Colorado. Going 2-2. If they had the round robin, getting 2 more losses could have been fatal for them. Or look at P12 2016- where they got 7 teams in the tourney because they had a 3 way tie at 9-9 for 6th.

I think the thing that is really funny is how folks who love the RR haven't really seen the bad side of the RR yet. Wait until you see a year like the WCC had in 2016 where 5th place team was 8-10. Or a year where 9-9 gets you in 4th place.

So close games are still not good because the top teams should not play bottom teams? Got it.

This isn't a round-robin debate as much as it is there being no quality programs worthy of being added to our current membership. VCU is a public. Saint Louis is at a low point in basketball. Dayton just lost Archie and is too close to Cincinnati. Any new addition would be added to the 8-12 spots in the conference. That's not improving the quality of the league, nor the value. Until a candidate emerges, we can sit tight at 10 members.

The fact is that the Big East has not had a single season where having ten members hurt their programs or their chances of placing teams in the tournament. The Big East is not the WCC. Reputation, prestige and on the court results do matter.

The thing is, you don't know what Dayton, VCU or St. Louis would become if they had the money, status, and exposure that BE membership would give them. As good as Xavier, Butler and Creighton already were, they clearly stepped it up a notch once they joined the league. You can't discount what it might mean to those other teams if they upgraded from the A10.

Also, concerning VCU, I don't care a bit about the whole public/private thing. I think they would be a great add for a number of reasons, and hope they get the invite one day.

(04-24-2017 01:31 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 01:47 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

The round robin is valuable due to the guaranteed home/home for all teams, which is a conference benefit considering all teams have an athletic focus towards men's basketball. It does not need to be protected at all costs, but until a realistic "fit" emerges, the potential advantage of adding programs via expansion is not as valuable as keeping the current collection of teams and the round robin set up.

Having a round robin in college basketball is the ideal conference set up.

Hypothetically, adding a VCU/Dayton would not be worth it to eliminate the round robin - so, if/when expansion occurs, the additions need to outweigh the costs of getting rid of it.

Having 12 teams and making it where top teams don't have to face the RPI killers twice is a big advantage competitively along with the fact that it helps TV out. Just look at the tv ratings. Sorry but even if the games turn out closer than they should- games like DePaul/Villanova just aren't good.

People say look at the SEC and how 14 doesn't help them. I say look at the Pac 12. Look at USC this year. Got in as the last team in the tourney. They had 4 games with the Washington schools, going 4-0. Had single games with Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Colorado. Going 2-2. If they had the round robin, getting 2 more losses could have been fatal for them. Or look at P12 2016- where they got 7 teams in the tourney because they had a 3 way tie at 9-9 for 6th.

I think the thing that is really funny is how folks who love the RR haven't really seen the bad side of the RR yet. Wait until you see a year like the WCC had in 2016 where 5th place team was 8-10. Or a year where 9-9 gets you in 4th place.

Any new addition would be added to the 8-12 spots in the conference.

Isn't that what OBE fans thought was going to be the case with Butler, Creighton, and Xavier?

And I would disagree with your statement that the BE hasn't had a season where 10 teams hasn't hurt the conference.
2013-14 season- St John's went 1-5 vs Villanova, Creighton, and Xavier- 0-3 on the road. If the league had 12 teams and instead of playing just 1 of those 3 road games, they had another game that they won, with how close they were- probably in the tourney.
2015-16 season- Marquette- went 1-5 vs Villanova, Butler, and Xavier- also 0-3 on the road. Same thing with them.

Definitely St John's as they were 1 of the 1st teams out of the tourney. Marquette in 2015-16 was probably 2 wins away.

(04-25-2017 08:17 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 01:31 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 10:54 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-23-2017 01:47 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(04-20-2017 10:56 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I just love idiots who think the RR is so ******* precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

The round robin is valuable due to the guaranteed home/home for all teams, which is a conference benefit considering all teams have an athletic focus towards men's basketball. It does not need to be protected at all costs, but until a realistic "fit" emerges, the potential advantage of adding programs via expansion is not as valuable as keeping the current collection of teams and the round robin set up.

Having a round robin in college basketball is the ideal conference set up.

Hypothetically, adding a VCU/Dayton would not be worth it to eliminate the round robin - so, if/when expansion occurs, the additions need to outweigh the costs of getting rid of it.

Having 12 teams and making it where top teams don't have to face the RPI killers twice is a big advantage competitively along with the fact that it helps TV out. Just look at the tv ratings. Sorry but even if the games turn out closer than they should- games like DePaul/Villanova just aren't good.

People say look at the SEC and how 14 doesn't help them. I say look at the Pac 12. Look at USC this year. Got in as the last team in the tourney. They had 4 games with the Washington schools, going 4-0. Had single games with Cal, Stanford, Utah, and Colorado. Going 2-2. If they had the round robin, getting 2 more losses could have been fatal for them. Or look at P12 2016- where they got 7 teams in the tourney because they had a 3 way tie at 9-9 for 6th.

I think the thing that is really funny is how folks who love the RR haven't really seen the bad side of the RR yet. Wait until you see a year like the WCC had in 2016 where 5th place team was 8-10. Or a year where 9-9 gets you in 4th place.

Any new addition would be added to the 8-12 spots in the conference.

Isn't that what OBE fans thought was going to be the case with Butler, Creighton, and Xavier?

And I would disagree with your statement that the BE hasn't had a season where 10 teams hasn't hurt the conference.
2013-14 season- St John's went 1-5 vs Villanova, Creighton, and Xavier- 0-3 on the road. If the league had 12 teams and instead of playing just 1 of those 3 road games, they had another game that they won, with how close they were- probably in the tourney.
2015-16 season- Marquette- went 1-5 vs Villanova, Butler, and Xavier- also 0-3 on the road. Same thing with them.

Definitely St John's as they were 1 of the 1st teams out of the tourney. Marquette in 2015-16 was probably 2 wins away.

There's a lot of assumptions with that hypothesis, Stever. You're assuming had the league had more teams, that at least one of those three road games would be a win for either/both St. Johns and Marquette. I don't think Marquette deserved to be in the tournament in 15-16. We scheduled poorly OOC and didn't win enough games in conference to be legitimately considered.

While I will concede that I have no idea if adding two additional schools will either help or hurt the conference, I will definitely defend the argument that our current membership and set-up has not hurt us either. The ratio of number of teams into the tournament is one of the best for all conferences. That is undeniable. You can point to hypotheticals where the Big East could have been hurt had certain games occurred differently, but they did not. You cannot change history and you cannot change reality.

Adding teams to the Big East right now, in far advance of negotiation of our next contract, would be unwise. Once we approach our renegotiation phase, then we can seriously look at adding programs. But right now - at a time when Dayton, VCU, and Saint Louis all have hired new coaches in the past 12 months - would not be a proper investment on behalf of the conference.