Dave Woloshin, the Memphis play-by-play guy, interviewed Josh Pastner today, and told Pastner on air that when he interviewed Mike Aresco (yesterday?), Aresco said that it was looking more likely that the Big East plays 18 conference games next season, rather than 20.
Pastner agreed with that idea, and said it gave him more scheduling flexibility.
I didn't hear either broadcast, but I'm going by what other Tiger fans posted elsewhere. Woloshin is notorious for getting things wrong, but I think it would be hard, even for him, to screw that one up.
I don't listen to his show, so maybe another Tiger fan can provide a link to a possible archive of either or both shows. They were yesterday (I think) and today, the 30th and 31st.
Anyway, I know 20 had been talked about for quite a while, coming out of the BE meetings, so thought I'd throw this out there.
Flexibility, home games, and the ability to play high profile non-conferences would be the best reason to stay at 18. TV Money and better mirror matchups would be a reason to go to 20.
I could see some schools like Gerogetown or St. John's wanting to play some thier old rivals that left the Big East in the non-conference season.
There are still so many factors that will determine which way the Big East moves. Team 14 and the TV deal are at the top of the list. Add ECU and you almost have to go 20 conference games with 18 schools. At 17 schools you play to mirror games which is fine if the league understands that rivalry games and big time matchups should be selected. You can't waste your repeat games trying to balance out schedules. Give people Louisville-Memphis, UConn-Georgetown, Cincinnati-Louisville, UConn-St. John's, Villanova-Temple, or any other combination of good teams or rivalry games.
There will be no more basketball schools. Football only from now on. 18 games make sense to me. More marquee match ups in OOC play for tv purposes only helps resurrect the brand.
If it's 17 teams and 18 games, then will it be:
1. Play 14 schools once
2. Play 2 schools twice
??
Or are we going to adopt a schedule where some schools don't play each other in given years?
(10-31-2012 11:47 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote: [ -> ]Flexibility, home games, and the ability to play high profile non-conferences would be the best reason to stay at 18. TV Money and better mirror matchups would be a reason to go to 20.
I could see some schools like Gerogetown or St. John's wanting to play some thier old rivals that left the Big East in the non-conference season.
There are still so many factors that will determine which way the Big East moves. Team 14 and the TV deal are at the top of the list. Add ECU and you almost have to go 20 conference games with 18 schools. At 17 schools you play to mirror games which is fine if the league understands that rivalry games and big time matchups should be selected. You can't waste your repeat games trying to balance out schedules. Give people Louisville-Memphis, UConn-Georgetown, Cincinnati-Louisville, UConn-St. John's, Villanova-Temple, or any other combination of good teams or rivalry games.
I think it might be the other way around...just saying.
(11-01-2012 03:52 AM)UHCougar07 Wrote: [ -> ]There will be no more basketball schools. Football only from now on. 18 games make sense to me. More marquee match ups in OOC play for tv purposes only helps resurrect the brand.
There is a zero percent change that the football teams break away from the basketball teams. If the football teams wanted to break away from the basketball teams they would have signed up for the MountCUSA mess. The basketball IS the Bug East brand. The basketball side is a meat grinder every year, where even the bad teams are tough games. Believe me, you won't need to schedule a lot of hard games out of conference to boost the SOS.
(11-01-2012 07:48 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 03:52 AM)UHCougar07 Wrote: [ -> ]There will be no more basketball schools. Football only from now on. 18 games make sense to me. More marquee match ups in OOC play for tv purposes only helps resurrect the brand.
There is a zero percent change that the football teams break away from the basketball teams. If the football teams wanted to break away from the basketball teams they would have signed up for the MountCUSA mess. The basketball IS the Bug East brand. The basketball side is a meat grinder every year, where even the bad teams are tough games. Believe me, you won't need to schedule a lot of hard games out of conference to boost the SOS.
I think he was trying to say that no more BB schools would be ADDED. For example even if ECU were to join it would be FB only.
(11-01-2012 07:48 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ]There is a zero percent change that the football teams break away from the basketball teams. If the football teams wanted to break away from the basketball teams they would have signed up for the MountCUSA mess. The basketball IS the Bug East brand. The basketball side is a meat grinder every year, where even the bad teams are tough games. Believe me, you won't need to schedule a lot of hard games out of conference to boost the SOS.
New Big East = Non-football + all-sports + football-only
All for one and one for all - it's us against the "ESPN 5"
(11-01-2012 07:51 AM)ULdave Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 07:48 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 03:52 AM)UHCougar07 Wrote: [ -> ]There will be no more basketball schools. Football only from now on. 18 games make sense to me. More marquee match ups in OOC play for tv purposes only helps resurrect the brand.
There is a zero percent change that the football teams break away from the basketball teams. If the football teams wanted to break away from the basketball teams they would have signed up for the MountCUSA mess. The basketball IS the Bug East brand. The basketball side is a meat grinder every year, where even the bad teams are tough games. Believe me, you won't need to schedule a lot of hard games out of conference to boost the SOS.
I think he was trying to say that no more BB schools would be ADDED. For example even if ECU were to join it would be FB only.
My apologies.
(11-01-2012 03:52 AM)UHCougar07 Wrote: [ -> ]18 games make sense to me. More marquee match ups in OOC play for tv purposes only helps resurrect the brand.
Disagree as theory almost never works in regards to college scheduling.
Remember the national cry for the 12th regular season college football game per year...and how all the big schools said they would use that extra 12th game to schedule more national non-conf match-ups?
Well, reality was, those programs LIED, as most wanted the extra 12th game per year to add a 7th or even 8th home game per year, as they also changed a rule that where teams could only count 1 Div I-AA win every 4 years for bowl games to now Div I-A teams could now count a Div I-AA win EVERY year for bowl eligibility...and more and more Div I-AA games were added to major programs home schedules.
Big East Basketball teams currently plays 18 conf games...yet many Big East teams have their non-conf schedules littered with terrible/low rated RPI opponents.
Heck, 4 current Big East teams made the Top 10 WORST non-conf schedule line-up for this year! (DePaul, Pitt, Rutgers & Providence)
http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketbal...-schedules
TV Networks would easily prefer more conf games...as they gives them more good games/options to choose from...as even with 20 conf games...there is still plenty of room for some key non-conf match-ups and tournaments to play in.
Only question is...how much will TV networks offer up those 17 extra conf games?
Also, not one Big East Team made this list of toughest non-conf schedules:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...Stories%29
(11-01-2012 08:34 AM)KnightLight Wrote: [ -> ]Also, not one Big East Team made this list of toughest non-conf schedules:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...Stories%29
When it comes to basketball, the Big East has a right to use the same argument that the SEC uses for football: the conference games are so tough, that easier OOC games are justified for balance. Whether you buy that or not, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
(11-01-2012 05:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]If it's 17 teams and 18 games, then will it be:
1. Play 14 schools once
2. Play 2 schools twice
??
Or are we going to adopt a schedule where some schools don't play each other in given years?
I'm sure the 14 once and two twice idea would be what happens. Then the only decision is, do you match up the marquee teams and/or the rivalries on a permanent basis, or do you rotate everybody? Extra marquee/rivalry games bring a little more money, perhaps, but most years, it would also be unfair to make Louisville play Cincy and Memphis twice a season, for example.
(11-01-2012 09:01 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 05:23 AM)CougarRed Wrote: [ -> ]If it's 17 teams and 18 games, then will it be:
1. Play 14 schools once
2. Play 2 schools twice
??
Or are we going to adopt a schedule where some schools don't play each other in given years?
I'm sure the 14 once and two twice idea would be what happens. Then the only decision is, do you match up the marquee teams and/or the rivalries on a permanent basis, or do you rotate everybody? Extra marquee/rivalry games bring a little more money, perhaps, but most years, it would also be unfair to make Louisville play Cincy and Memphis twice a season, for example.
I'm a large believer of preserving rivalries as opposed to trying to project what's going to be the hot TV matchup of the year. Programs go up and down, but legit rivalries (particularly ones based on geography) should stand the test of time. It becomes even more important to have some geographic anchors when you have such a large conference. SMU should always play Houston twice. The 3 NYC/NJ area teams should always play each other twice. DePaul should always play Marquette twice. Louisville, Memphis and Cincinnati should always play each other twice. Villanova should always play Temple twice. These are the types of games that make a conference feel like an actual conference as opposed to a mishmashed scheduling arrangement.
I agree UM-UL-UC should play each other twice, but you have to admit, that gives a lot of other teams an advantage in the conference standings. Let's say Marquette plays DePaul twice every year. That almost always ensures Marquette will gain a game in the standings on at least 2 of 3 of UM-UL-UC.
Not that it's the end of the world, but I'm not sure the coaches would agree with you, Frank. I love it. Pastner wouldn't.
(11-01-2012 09:25 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I agree UM-UL-UC should play each other twice, but you have to admit, that gives a lot of other teams an advantage in the conference standings. Let's say Marquette plays DePaul twice every year. That almost always ensures Marquette will gain a game in the standings on at least 2 of 3 of UM-UL-UC.
Not that it's the end of the world, but I'm not sure the coaches would agree with you, Frank. I love it. Pastner wouldn't.
Of course the coaches would disagree! That's why they have continuously proven to be among the worst sources for conference realignment talk despite being close to the action on paper. All they care about are (1) recruiting territories and (2) the easiest path to the postseason. They are incapable of looking at anything at a higher level beyond their own job security.
(11-01-2012 09:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:25 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I agree UM-UL-UC should play each other twice, but you have to admit, that gives a lot of other teams an advantage in the conference standings. Let's say Marquette plays DePaul twice every year. That almost always ensures Marquette will gain a game in the standings on at least 2 of 3 of UM-UL-UC.
Not that it's the end of the world, but I'm not sure the coaches would agree with you, Frank. I love it. Pastner wouldn't.
Of course the coaches would disagree! That's why they have continuously proven to be among the worst sources for conference realignment talk despite being close to the action on paper. All they care about are (1) recruiting territories and (2) the easiest path to the postseason. They are incapable of looking at anything at a higher level beyond their own job security.
Right. I'm just saying that your rivalry idea is fine, and I agree with it, but if that IS the idea from Aresco, it will meet resistance from some, or a lot, of places, b/c some of the ADs (and presidents, if it ever got that high) will go along with the opposition.
I also see some schools wanting a second game with some of the perennial top teams, rather than letting a few other schools dominate the extra games with them.
Not saying the rivalry thing won't happen, just saying it could go to a regular rotation, too. After all, everybody is playing everybody once each year, already.
(11-01-2012 09:43 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:25 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I agree UM-UL-UC should play each other twice, but you have to admit, that gives a lot of other teams an advantage in the conference standings. Let's say Marquette plays DePaul twice every year. That almost always ensures Marquette will gain a game in the standings on at least 2 of 3 of UM-UL-UC.
Not that it's the end of the world, but I'm not sure the coaches would agree with you, Frank. I love it. Pastner wouldn't.
Of course the coaches would disagree! That's why they have continuously proven to be among the worst sources for conference realignment talk despite being close to the action on paper. All they care about are (1) recruiting territories and (2) the easiest path to the postseason. They are incapable of looking at anything at a higher level beyond their own job security.
Right. I'm just saying that your rivalry idea is fine, and I agree with it, but if that IS the idea from Aresco, it will meet resistance from some, or a lot, of places, b/c some of the ADs (and presidents, if it ever got that high) will go along with the opposition.
I also see some schools wanting a second game with some of the perennial top teams, rather than letting a few other schools dominate the extra games with them.
Not saying the rivalry thing won't happen, just saying it could go to a regular rotation, too. After all, everybody is playing everybody once each year, already.
Not necessarily. A home & home series between Memphis, Louisville and Cincinnati would mean virtually guaranteed sellouts for all three schools. That's 6 major TV games on top of that.
Then you got marquee match-ups like Georgetown and Villanova and Nova and Temple to add to the TV lineup. Or local close by rivals such as St Johns and Rutgers and Seton Hall.
And don't sell DePaul short just because they have struggled since entering the Big East. You take away Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, and now ND and and replace them with Houston, SMU, and UCF and all of a sudden DePaul sees a light at the end of the tunnel. Chicago is a hotbed for basketball talent and all DePaul needs is a reason to convince those kids to stay home. Not to mention the plans to move DePaul closer to the university in the city.
(11-01-2012 10:32 AM)TennTiger Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:43 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:34 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (11-01-2012 09:25 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I agree UM-UL-UC should play each other twice, but you have to admit, that gives a lot of other teams an advantage in the conference standings. Let's say Marquette plays DePaul twice every year. That almost always ensures Marquette will gain a game in the standings on at least 2 of 3 of UM-UL-UC.
Not that it's the end of the world, but I'm not sure the coaches would agree with you, Frank. I love it. Pastner wouldn't.
Of course the coaches would disagree! That's why they have continuously proven to be among the worst sources for conference realignment talk despite being close to the action on paper. All they care about are (1) recruiting territories and (2) the easiest path to the postseason. They are incapable of looking at anything at a higher level beyond their own job security.
Right. I'm just saying that your rivalry idea is fine, and I agree with it, but if that IS the idea from Aresco, it will meet resistance from some, or a lot, of places, b/c some of the ADs (and presidents, if it ever got that high) will go along with the opposition.
I also see some schools wanting a second game with some of the perennial top teams, rather than letting a few other schools dominate the extra games with them.
Not saying the rivalry thing won't happen, just saying it could go to a regular rotation, too. After all, everybody is playing everybody once each year, already.
Not necessarily. A home & home series between Memphis, Louisville and Cincinnati would mean virtually guaranteed sellouts for all three schools. That's 6 major TV games on top of that.
Then you got marquee match-ups like Georgetown and Villanova and Nova and Temple to add to the TV lineup. Or local close by rivals such as St Johns and Rutgers and Seton Hall.
And don't sell DePaul short just because they have struggled since entering the Big East. You take away Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, and now ND and and replace them with Houston, SMU, and UCF and all of a sudden DePaul sees a light at the end of the tunnel. Chicago is a hotbed for basketball talent and all DePaul needs is a reason to convince those kids to stay home. Not to mention the plans to move DePaul closer to the university in the city.
I agree about the marquee games. I'm just saying that playing extra games with the same opponents every year will disadvantage those teams that have to play the perennial great teams in the Big East, so there could possibly be enough opposition to derail that. Just depends on how much opposition is truly there. I already know that Pastner is against it.
(11-01-2012 11:15 AM)TripleA Wrote: [ -> ]I agree about the marquee games. I'm just saying that playing extra games with the same opponents every year will disadvantage those teams that have to play the perennial great teams in the Big East, so there could possibly be enough opposition to derail that. Just depends on how much opposition is truly there. I already know that Pastner is against it.
The way that the Big East schedules twice-per-year opponents rights now is heavily dictated by ESPN and CBS for TV purposes, so the teams that are projected to be at the top in a given year have been playing the other top teams more often as of now, anyway. Having some permanent rivals might actually smooth that out compared to the current practices.
A compromise might be to have each school have one permanent rival that you always play twice and then the other twice-in-a-year opponent would rotate. The only thing is that an odd number of members prevents everyone having only one permanent rival, so a way to resolve that is to have one cluster of 3 schools (presumably Louisville/Cincinnati/Memphis or St. John's/Rutgers/Seton Hall) all be permanent twice-per-year rivals with each other while the rest of the league has one permanent rival. Thinking as I'm typing, that actually might work better since virtually everyone has one distinct logical permanent rival (e.g. DePaul-Marquette, USF-UCF, Houston-SMU, Villanova-Temple, etc.) while adding a second one would be forcing some unnatural rivalries outside of the clusters of 3 that I noted above.
(11-01-2012 10:32 AM)TennTiger Wrote: [ -> ]And don't sell DePaul short just because they have struggled since entering the Big East.
DePaul has had good basketball before and certainly can again - just like Memphis in football.