SEC is at 16. They’ve added Texas + 1. Is there anyone they could add at this point that brings enough value to raise 16 other member’s yearly payouts? Notre Dame isn’t joining.

Is the next step in realignment breaking away without the dead weight?
Not mentioning any specific schools but there are schools in EVERY conference that don’t carry the weight. At some point there are so many schools in a conference that no one can justify expansion monetarily. If you can add FSU and Clemson but must jettison 2 little brothers from the SEC to make more bank, would they do it or is it impossible based on bylaws? The money is getting so big that upper level expansion may be petering out. Texas and ND were the prizes. We may be down to selective mergers such as PAC and BIG stalwarts and ACC and a few random.

Eventually, with streaming, I believe conferences will be “scheduling alliances” and each school will control their own media rights, but that is just a guess.

DiD...

(08-19-2021 12:04 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  SEC is at 16. They’ve added Texas + 1. Is there anyone they could add at this point that brings enough value to raise 16 other member’s yearly payouts? Notre Dame isn’t joining.

Is the next step in realignment breaking away without the dead weight?
Not mentioning any specific schools but there are schools in EVERY conference that don’t carry the weight. At some point there are so many schools in a conference that no one can justify expansion monetarily. If you can add FSU and Clemson but must jettison 2 little brothers from the SEC to make more bank, would they do it or is it impossible based on bylaws? The money is getting so big that upper level expansion may be petering out. Texas and ND were the prizes. We may be down to selective mergers such as PAC and BIG stalwarts and ACC and a few random.

Eventually, with streaming, I believe conferences will be “scheduling alliances” and each school will control their own media rights, but that is just a guess.

What is "dead weight"? In order for some conference members to be big winners, some must be big losers. The Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals. Conference play is a zero sum game. Every contest must have a winner and a loser. For Ohio State to be what they are, they must have schools like Illinois and Rutgers to lose more often than they win. And Illinois and Rutgers must have OOC opponents they can beat often enough that their records aren't embarrassing to Ohio State.

The ecosystem that is the FBS needs all of the elements it has to thrive and survive. It needs both the P5 and the G5, and the G5 needs FCS opponents for the same reason Illinois needs G5 opponents. Be careful when you start trying to reengineer a thriving ecosystem. You may kill it in the process.

(08-19-2021 12:04 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  SEC is at 16. They’ve added Texas + 1. Is there anyone they could add at this point that brings enough value to raise 16 other member’s yearly payouts? Notre Dame isn’t joining.

Is the next step in realignment breaking away without the dead weight?
Not mentioning any specific schools but there are schools in EVERY conference that don’t carry the weight. At some point there are so many schools in a conference that no one can justify expansion monetarily. If you can add FSU and Clemson but must jettison 2 little brothers from the SEC to make more bank, would they do it or is it impossible based on bylaws? The money is getting so big that upper level expansion may be petering out. Texas and ND were the prizes. We may be down to selective mergers such as PAC and BIG stalwarts and ACC and a few random.

I think we've been up against the law of diminishing returns since at least the conclusion of last realignment cycle.

The ACC grabbing Syracuse/Pitt to 14 and CUSA grabbing ODU/Charlotte to 14 was done without respect to maintaining current per school payout. In the ACC case of course you could argue the plan was to better the payout.

This is why the B1G is hatching a 20 team coast-2-coast, the only configuration that could bring in more money and why the XII may stay at 8 as long as they can get away with it. SBC also has proved the advantage of 10 for a G5 conference.

(08-19-2021 12:04 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  SEC is at 16. They’ve added Texas + 1. Is there anyone they could add at this point that brings enough value to raise 16 other member’s yearly payouts? Notre Dame isn’t joining.

I believe we're likely to see diminishing returns for the SEC even *with* the addition of Texas and Oklahoma. I think their addition is going to be more of a case of 2 + 2 = 3. They won't get the "full value" of TX and OU alone. The SEC surely will reap great value, that "3" is still worth a lot and it's a no-brainer move, but there will IMO be some slippage because they are absorbed in to an already very powerful conference.

I've said since the start of this that the most important aspect to the SEC of bringing in TX and OU isn't the boost the SEC will get on the field or even in their media deals, it is the strategic value of having them NOT go to the B1G, PAC or ACC. Add them to any of those conferences, and suddenly any of them become a much more formidable relative threat to SEC dominance. The B1G would clearly surpass the SEC in terms of power, while the ACC, currently well behind the SEC, would suddenly become basically an equal. Either of those outcomes would have been a huge blow to SEC relative standing. So avoiding that was very important.

That's one reason I also think the SEC should prod TX and OU to settle with the L8 sooner rather than later, even devote some conference money towards it: Until they actually enter the conference, they can still change their minds on a dime, and 2025 is a long way away.

It depends. Could Clemson and Florida State give the SEC that bump? Possibly. I doubt NC State or VT would and I know those are other teams I’ve seen thrown out in the past. At this point I think the SEC has reached the max size it currently needs to be. Let the two newcomers settle in and just stay in contact with Clemson and Florida State. There’s no way ND, B1G universities, or PAC universities are going SEC.

I get why conferences expanded back in the early 2010s and why the SEC is doing it now but these conferences are getting so large they don’t even feel like conferences anymore. SEC should be the SEL (Southeastern League) due to size.

Yes, I do think that there is a law of diminishing returns.

Texas was THE single biggest expansion option out there. It was the case back in 2010 and it was the case today. THEY were the *end game*. Every single other conference realignment option - even Notre Dame, much less FSU and Clemson - isn't worth as much as Texas. When you add them and yet another elite brand (Oklahoma) with no one else coming along as filler (as what would have happened in the Pac-16 proposal), there's simply nothing better than that scenario. The UT/OU additions raise the bar so high for future revenue in the SEC that I honestly don't think any combination outside of some truly wacky conspiracy theorist ideas of them adding Notre Dame and raiding the Big Ten could make them any more money.

To ken_d's point, there do need to be some losers in every league. That's part of why I don't buy a college football Super League occurring (at least in the sense of a full 12-game schedule) since the powers that finish last in that league would no longer continue to be powers. Note that in the soccer context where we saw a Super League attempted earlier this year, the intent there was for those teams to break off from the Champions League as opposed to the country-specific leagues. This meant that the superpowers would continue to play and exert their dominance over local teams in their home country leagues. In essence, Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea still wanted to beat up on the local teams in the English Premier League since winning locally is still key to their brands, but wanted the Europe-wide competition to be only against equivalent superpowers (e.g. F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid). It was a *dual* system that the soccer superpowers were after.

The equivalent in college football would be for the superpowers to continue to play in their home conferences where they can similarly beat up on local teams, but then have an entirely separate postseason where they'd be *guaranteed* to play only other superpowers from other conferences. Ironically, this is sort of what the old pre-BCS bowl system was with bowls choosing schools almost entirely based on brand names.

Now, I do think the difference between the Big Ten/SEC and the other power conferences is that the conference realignment value of those "losers" is generally much higher. To use ken_d's examples, Rutgers and Illinois have been finishing at the bottom of the Big Ten football standings lately, but these aren't tiny schools that aren't bringing the conference any money. To the contrary, they're huge flagship AAU schools that have a massive alumni presence in two of the three largest metro areas in the country (NYC and Chicago) in key recruiting regions for all sports (outside of football, they're arguably the two most important basketball recruiting areas - it's not an accident that the Big Ten has often been the deepest basketball league since adding Rutgers and Maryland) and, when it comes to the money, they are directly the reason why the BTN gets basic cable carriage in those home markets. Ohio State and Michigan aren't getting that NYC and Chicago TV money without Rutgers and Illinois. Frankly, those types of schools are actually perfect for Ohio State and Michigan for the bottom of the league - they can take their major market money for the BTN, give close games for their alums in those major markets, and then take all of their states' best recruits. Rutgers and Illinois then say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?" as they cash their checks in exchange. They're sort of like the New York Jets in the NFL - they're *perfect* as bad teams because they provide a lot of exposure in major markets for the top teams.

The Big 12, though, is an example of where the "losers" weren't bringing enough to the table. As you can now see in where none of their schools are attractive to the other power conferences, that depth wasn't there. Who brought the largest major media markets (plural) of any value within the Big 12? Texas. Who brought the best recruiting area? Texas. Who had the biggest national brand? Texas. Who had the best academics? Texas. All of that was wrapped into the single school of Texas. (Sure, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech are located in the state of Texas, but they simply don't *bring* the state like the University of Texas itself in the sense that they could deliver a conference network for the Big 12 in the way Rutgers and Illinois do for their states in the Big Ten.) That was always the underlying vulnerability in the Big 12 - Texas and Oklahoma leaving alone could kill that league in terms of power conference status.

Think of it this way: The Big Ten has 11 flagship schools and their 3 non-flagships are all AAU members. (The AAU membership is relevant since it means they're academically on par or better than a flagship.) The new SEC will have 12 flagship schools plus 2 other AAU members. The Pac-12 has 7 flagship schools plus 2 super-elite private AAU members (Stanford and USC). The ACC has only 2 flagship schools, but their non-flagships include 3 AAU members along with a roster of elite privates... plus their two biggest football brands (Florida State and Clemson) don't even fit into either category. It's not an accident that the Big Ten and SEC have long separated themselves: they have a depth of schools that bring entire *states*, not just local markets. The Pac-12 and ACC don't have quite the same depth, but they aren't as many "dead weight" schools as you would think.

The Big 12? They now only have 1 flagship (Kansas) plus one other AAU member (Iowa State). Even with UT and OU, they only had 3 flagship schools total plus 1 other AAU member. When you looked under the hood of the Big 12, it was apparent just how much Texas and Oklahoma were propping up the entire league. So, it's not a surprise that they were exposed even though they had been distributing more money to conference members compared to the Pac-12.

There comes a certain point though, once you’re nearing a strangle hold on the market, that swallowing up the best remaining brands moves you from being the biggest player on the market to the only legitimate player in the market and once you reach that point, you’re making money hand over fist.

Think about where pro football would be if there was an NFL, AFL, and a USFL all out there on the market. The networks, not the leagues, would have the upper hand in negotiations because if the NFL doesn’t like ESPN’s offer, ESPN is going to turn around and sign a deal to broadcast the USFL. The leagues are in a position where they could get frozen out of media deals.

The atmosphere I described is pretty much where college football has been since 1984. Lots of leagues competing for air time and tv dollars.

At some point, and in some ways I think we have already passed that point, the elite schools don't really NEED the obscene amounts of revenue that they generate. Yet they, and their conferences, are always seeking more. Some may see this pursuit of obscene riches to be unseemly (most of them from non-elite alma maters) and may even wonder about what motivates it.

I believe the answer to that is that conference realignment has become a sport unto itself, and media contracts are the way the sport keeps score. To mix metaphors, the SEC's move to acquire UT and OU is checkmate in this game. We can only hope that now college football can do what ecosystems do and seek some kind of equilibrium recognizing who is the grand master and who are the challengers.

Hope, that is, unless we fans aren't ready for the realignment game to be over, having gotten addicted to the lure of imagining even more fanciful chess moves by schools and conferences and looking for a fix. What would forums like this one be without more scenarios to talk about? They are to realignment what fantasy leagues are to the NFL.

We may need to actually get a life. What a dreadful thought.

(08-19-2021 08:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I do think that there is a law of diminishing returns.

Texas was THE single biggest expansion option out there. It was the case back in 2010 and it was the case today. THEY were the *end game*. Every single other conference realignment option - even Notre Dame, much less FSU and Clemson - isn't worth as much as Texas. When you add them and yet another elite brand (Oklahoma) with no one else coming along as filler (as what would have happened in the Pac-16 proposal), there's simply nothing better than that scenario. The UT/OU additions raise the bar so high for future revenue in the SEC that I honestly don't think any combination outside of some truly wacky conspiracy theorist ideas of them adding Notre Dame and raiding the Big Ten could make them any more money.

To ken_d's point, there do need to be some losers in every league. That's part of why I don't buy a college football Super League occurring (at least in the sense of a full 12-game schedule) since the powers that finish last in that league would no longer continue to be powers. Note that in the soccer context where we saw a Super League attempted earlier this year, the intent there was for those teams to break off from the Champions League as opposed to the country-specific leagues. This meant that the superpowers would continue to play and exert their dominance over local teams in their home country leagues. In essence, Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea still wanted to beat up on the local teams in the English Premier League since winning locally is still key to their brands, but wanted the Europe-wide competition to be only against equivalent superpowers (e.g. F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid). It was a *dual* system that the soccer superpowers were after.

The equivalent in college football would be for the superpowers to continue to play in their home conferences where they can similarly beat up on local teams, but then have an entirely separate postseason where they'd be *guaranteed* to play only other superpowers from other conferences. Ironically, this is sort of what the old pre-BCS bowl system was with bowls choosing schools almost entirely based on brand names.

Now, I do think the difference between the Big Ten/SEC and the other power conferences is that the conference realignment value of those "losers" is generally much higher. To use ken_d's examples, Rutgers and Illinois have been finishing at the bottom of the Big Ten football standings lately, but these aren't tiny schools that aren't bringing the conference any money. To the contrary, they're huge flagship AAU schools that have a massive alumni presence in two of the three largest metro areas in the country (NYC and Chicago) in key recruiting regions for all sports (outside of football, they're arguably the two most important basketball recruiting areas - it's not an accident that the Big Ten has often been the deepest basketball league since adding Rutgers and Maryland) and, when it comes to the money, they are directly the reason why the BTN gets basic cable carriage in those home markets. Ohio State and Michigan aren't getting that NYC and Chicago TV money without Rutgers and Illinois. Frankly, those types of schools are actually perfect for Ohio State and Michigan for the bottom of the league - they can take their major market money for the BTN, give close games for their alums in those major markets, and then take all of their states' best recruits. Rutgers and Illinois then say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?" as they cash their checks in exchange. They're sort of like the New York Jets in the NFL - they're *perfect* as bad teams because they provide a lot of exposure in major markets for the top teams.

The Big 12, though, is an example of where the "losers" weren't bringing enough to the table. As you can now see in where none of their schools are attractive to the other power conferences, that depth wasn't there. Who brought the largest major media markets (plural) of any value within the Big 12? Texas. Who brought the best recruiting area? Texas. Who had the biggest national brand? Texas. Who had the best academics? Texas. All of that was wrapped into the single school of Texas. (Sure, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech are located in the state of Texas, but they simply don't *bring* the state like the University of Texas itself in the sense that they could deliver a conference network for the Big 12 in the way Rutgers and Illinois do for their states in the Big Ten.) That was always the underlying vulnerability in the Big 12 - Texas and Oklahoma leaving alone could kill that league in terms of power conference status.

Think of it this way: The Big Ten has 11 flagship schools and their 3 non-flagships are all AAU members. (The AAU membership is relevant since it means they're academically on par or better than a flagship.) The new SEC will have 12 flagship schools plus 2 other AAU members. The Pac-12 has 7 flagship schools plus 2 super-elite private AAU members (Stanford and USC). The ACC has only 2 flagship schools, but their non-flagships include 3 AAU members along with a roster of elite privates... plus their two biggest football brands (Florida State and Clemson) don't even fit into either category. It's not an accident that the Big Ten and SEC have long separated themselves: they have a depth of schools that bring entire *states*, not just local markets. The Pac-12 and ACC don't have quite the same depth, but they aren't as many "dead weight" schools as you would think.

The Big 12? They now only have 1 flagship (Kansas) plus one other AAU member (Iowa State). Even with UT and OU, they only had 3 flagship schools total plus 1 other AAU member. When you looked under the hood of the Big 12, it was apparent just how much Texas and Oklahoma were propping up the entire league. So, it's not a surprise that they were exposed even though they had been distributing more money to conference members compared to the Pac-12.

More than the "flagship," the Big 10 has 14 schools in 11 different states. The SEC currently has 14 schools in 11 different states. The Pac 12 has 12 schools in only 6 states. The ACC has 14 schools in 9 states. The Big 12 has 10 in only 5 states. The Big 10 and SEC aren't double dipping. While FSU would be nice for the SEC, realistically, they probably add more value to the ACC since the SEC already has Florida.

I do think the 16 team Big East problem could be an issue for the SEC. Imagine that East division with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Kerntucky. It could be too strong in football. In the Big East strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became cellar dwellers. Cellar dwellers like USF and Rutgers got even worse. Providence, Seton Hall and Georgetown all took a downturn. There were just too many powers in the Big East.

In the SEC, the bottom quarter could find bowl games rare, dimming fan support. The 3rd quarter, all but A&M having won division titles-Missouri, South Carolina, Arkansas and Texas A&M could sink into cellar dwellers. A strong program like Tennessee might not recover. Time will tell.

(08-19-2021 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  More than the "flagship," the Big 10 has 14 schools in 11 different states. The SEC currently has 14 schools in 11 different states. The Pac 12 has 12 schools in only 6 states. The ACC has 14 schools in 9 states. The Big 12 has 10 in only 5 states. The Big 10 and SEC aren't double dipping. While FSU would be nice for the SEC, realistically, they probably add more value to the ACC since the SEC already has Florida.

Has more to do with market penetration via flagship and elite programs than member-to-state ratio. The SEC absolutely shares the major Florida markets with the ACC and will definitely improve Florida market penetration with FSU.

Likewise, the ACC would improve immensely if it added Georgia and Florida, even though that would double dip and hurt the member-to-state ratio.

California is HUGE - you need more than USC to corner the enormous SoCal and Bay Area markets. (Though, I do agree that Oregon and Washington and the California schools would deliver the Northwest market - OSU and Wazzu are legacy inclusions and essentially leaches).

Texas is also huge, but Texas and A&M plus Oklahoma, LSU, and Arkansas all deliver market penetration to the point that the SEC will overshadow all others in the DFW, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin college football markets.

When you add at the "winners" end of the conference, you further decimate the "losers" end of your conference.

Wouldn't a balanced approach add from both ends to protect the balance of the conference? A functioning conference is more complicated than the revenue of a few top schools. The ACC is a good example of a poorly functioning conference - as was the Big XII. It is only producing two top football programs. A functioning conference requires enough fodder for the big boys to eat well.

From that aspect, Kansas is perfect for the SEC. It's a great fit for reasons other than money: flagship, AAU, contiguous geography. That helps balance the lower end of football while elevating basketball. The problem is a second pick to come with them but you could make a similar case for Iowa State. That footprint would be unassailable.

(08-19-2021 11:56 AM)Claw Wrote:  When you add at the "winners" end of the conference, you further decimate the "losers" end of your conference.

Wouldn't a balanced approach add from both ends to protect the balance of the conference? A functioning conference is more complicated than the revenue of a few top schools. The ACC is a good example of a poorly functioning conference - as was the Big XII. It is only producing two top football programs. A functioning conference requires enough fodder for the big boys to eat well.

From that aspect, Kansas is perfect for the SEC. It's a great fit for reasons other than money: flagship, AAU, contiguous geography. That helps balance the lower end of football while elevating basketball. The problem is a second pick to come with them but you could make a similar case for Iowa State. That footprint would be unassailable.

I agree on Kansas' value to the SEC. I would balance them out with an eastern add like North Carolina, but I don't think you could pry them loose with a crowbar. Imagine having KU, UNC and UK in the same conference. The bluest of the bluebloods under one roof.

(08-19-2021 08:21 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  ... and why the XII may stay at 8 as long as they can get away with it. ...

Nah, just because there are diminishing returns at some points doesn't mean there's diminishing returns across all scales ... the R8 is in the increasing returns range, at least up to 10.

(08-19-2021 11:56 AM)Claw Wrote:  When you add at the "winners" end of the conference, you further decimate the "losers" end of your conference.

Wouldn't a balanced approach add from both ends to protect the balance of the conference? A functioning conference is more complicated than the revenue of a few top schools. The ACC is a good example of a poorly functioning conference - as was the Big XII. It is only producing two top football programs. A functioning conference requires enough fodder for the big boys to eat well.

From that aspect, Kansas is perfect for the SEC. It's a great fit for reasons other than money: flagship, AAU, contiguous geography. That helps balance the lower end of football while elevating basketball. The problem is a second pick to come with them but you could make a similar case for Iowa State. That footprint would be unassailable.

Could the SEC pry away Nebraska from the B1G?

Nebraska - flagship, contiguous, high expectations and resources - proven 70-80K fans capability even during mediocre seasons. Delivers high-level in-conference Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry. SEC affiliation and Texas recruiting could bring them back, but very solid addition, even if they're a perennial mid-pack team.

Kansas - flagship, contiguous, AAU delivers the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, balances lower end of football with Blue Blood basketball.

SEC dominates college football from Southeast to Texas and through the Plains.

SEC
Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M
LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss St., Alabama, Auburn
Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida

9-game 5x4 schedule pairs most in the conference at least three times in six years (though would need some accommodation for Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia rivalry games).

There will always be ways for a conference, including the SEC, to create value.

If football prowess and media revenue are needed, then FSU (definitely) and Clemson (closer to break-even) are still above the average SEC programs. Both programs are cultural and operational matches. The programs bring a lot more value to the ACC and have a better opportunity to enhance their brands by remaining in the ACC…but money could be too enticing.

If demographics or basketball become a strategic priority, then UNC (definitely) and Duke (closer to break-even) would both add overall value. Both schools are willing to spend on athletics and have been very successful in building their brands. Unlike football-based expansion, enhancing demographics and basketball requires longer term thinking. Since these schools have built and are the core of the conference, it would take more than just money for them to consider leaving.

(08-19-2021 11:56 AM)Claw Wrote:  When you add at the "winners" end of the conference, you further decimate the "losers" end of your conference.

Wouldn't a balanced approach add from both ends to protect the balance of the conference? ...

That's one of the reasons for only requiring nine power conference games ... the universal FCS buy game and for some schools two Go5 buy games are essential cushioning ... and cushioning that is going to be whittled away if, as has been suggested several times on this board, the SEC goes to 9 conference games.

Also, on a side note, even if my blitz ELO hovers around 800 (though it might break 900 if I stop making the mistake of playing when I'm tired), Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC is not "checkmate". If it was checkmate, the other conferences would be getting ready to stop playing in 2025 (if not 2023). Y'all need a new analogy that means gaining a big structural advantage in an ongoing game. Like, with Oklahoma and Texas, the SEC has just put Hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place, or something like that.

But back to the main discussion, one thing this discussion suggests is that the CFP12 is only going to postpone the impetus to a breakaway ... because when College Basketball is yielding a balanced share of it's media value to the conferences, then that opens up the door to adding "basketball schools" which mostly provide wins to other schools in the conference during Football Season and then exact their revenge during basketball season.

(08-19-2021 12:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 11:56 AM)Claw Wrote:  When you add at the "winners" end of the conference, you further decimate the "losers" end of your conference.

Wouldn't a balanced approach add from both ends to protect the balance of the conference? A functioning conference is more complicated than the revenue of a few top schools. The ACC is a good example of a poorly functioning conference - as was the Big XII. It is only producing two top football programs. A functioning conference requires enough fodder for the big boys to eat well.

From that aspect, Kansas is perfect for the SEC. It's a great fit for reasons other than money: flagship, AAU, contiguous geography. That helps balance the lower end of football while elevating basketball. The problem is a second pick to come with them but you could make a similar case for Iowa State. That footprint would be unassailable.

I agree on Kansas' value to the SEC. I would balance them out with an eastern add like North Carolina, but I don't think you could pry them loose with a crowbar. Imagine having KU, UNC and UK in the same conference. The bluest of the bluebloods under one roof.

No way Kansas goes to the SEC

(08-19-2021 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  I do think the 16 team Big East problem could be an issue for the SEC. Imagine that East division with Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, South Carolina, Vanderbilt and Kerntucky. It could be too strong in football. In the Big East strong programs like DePaul and St. John's became cellar dwellers. Cellar dwellers like USF and Rutgers got even worse. Providence, Seton Hall and Georgetown all took a downturn. There were just too many powers in the Big East.

Georgetown was actually strong in the 15 team Big East configuration (2005-2013): seven NCAA's, three regular season titles, 2007 Final Four.