(03-12-2013 08:25 AM)Title Wrote:  I read that again. (Too late last night)

If those are real numbers, there's no reason to extend beyond 10.

actually if we only go to 10, that leaves the A10 awfully viable.

Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

(03-11-2013 10:18 PM)Title Wrote:  There just isn't enough viable programs to get to 14, unless of course that ACC blow-up happens earlier than expected.

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

SLU, for example, is a team of all juniors and seniors who haven't (and aren't) recruiting at a level to sustain the level: they are on the typical great mid major arc. They never have done anything in the past to suggest its repeatable.

It's probably MORE likely than not VCU is Southern Illinois. There's not too many Memphis(es) that pop up, in fact, are they unique in public/sustained ??

The rest of that is just garden variety basketball programs, ranging from OK to below average.

That league is still a much weakened version of its current state.

(03-12-2013 09:14 AM)Title Wrote:  SLU, for example, is a team of all juniors and seniors who haven't (and aren't) recruiting at a level to sustain the level: they are on the typical great mid major arc. They never have done anything in the past to suggest its repeatable.

It's probably MORE likely than not VCU is Southern Illinois. There's not too many Memphis(es) that pop up, in fact, are they unique in public/sustained ??

The rest of that is just garden variety basketball programs, ranging from OK to below average.

That league is still a much weakened version of its current state.

If that's the case about SLU, how in the heck can we want them in the Big East?

We? Do you? I've been clear for 3 months that I want 10 teams.

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Stever, back away from the ledge. We've agreed that Dayton and Saint Louis aren't conference-changing programs. If we stay at 10 and leave DAyton, SLU and VCU (and Richmond) in the A-10 with St Joes and GW and UMass(for now), the A-10 has 12 teams. Maybe they pick up Wichita STate and George MAson. That's still a 3-bid league. 4 in a good year, 2 in a down year. We'll have 4-5 bids out of a 10 team league.

VCU in the A-10 doesn't have the ceiling they'd have in the Big EAst, either.

Worry about the ACC. Worry about the Big Ten. There's no need to worry about hte A-10.

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Trying to wrap my head around your argument. So if the BE(C7) goes to 10 with BU, CU and XU, they would have a $500 million contract and 50% of their teams in the NCAA tournament (which is considered elite based on our earlier discussions in a previous thread), plus up to 3 (XU, PC, SJU) in the NIT.

You also propose above that the A-10 would drop from 16 to 12 (BU, XU, Temple, Charlotte) but pick up Valpo and one other to go to 14 again. This would give the A-10 4 bids (VCU, SLU, LaSalle, Valpo (if they win)) or 28-29% of their teams, plus up to 3 NIT teams, to go with their much smaller television contract.

In basketball, GU would still be a bigger brand than GW. VU would still be a bigger brand than St. Joes or LaSalle. SJU would still be a bigger brand than Fordham. PC would still be a bigger brand than URI. DePaul (even in its current state) would still be a bigger brand than Valpo. The C7 decided (in your scenario) that XU was a bigger brand than UD.

With bigger brands, a huge gap in TV $$$ and exposure and more NCAA $$$ per team (all under your scenario), what is the threat? Help me out here.

Uh where in the article did it say we could go to 14?

I also highly doubt we stay at 10. The rest of the college sports world is growing, we can't be looked at as a small conference.

(03-12-2013 09:30 AM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Trying to wrap my head around your argument. So if the BE(C7) goes to 10 with BU, CU and XU, they would have a $500 million contract and 50% of their teams in the NCAA tournament (which is considered elite based on our earlier discussions in a previous thread), plus up to 3 (XU, PC, SJU) in the NIT.

You also propose above that the A-10 would drop from 16 to 12 (BU, XU, Temple, Charlotte) but pick up Valpo and one other to go to 14 again. This would give the A-10 4 bids (VCU, SLU, LaSalle, Valpo (if they win)) or 28-29% of their teams, plus up to 3 NIT teams, to go with their much smaller television contract.

In basketball, GU would still be a bigger brand than GW. VU would still be a bigger brand than St. Joes or LaSalle. SJU would still be a bigger brand than Fordham. PC would still be a bigger brand than URI. DePaul (even in its current state) would still be a bigger brand than Valpo. The C7 decided (in your scenario) that XU was a bigger brand than UD.

With bigger brands, a huge gap in TV $$$ and exposure and more NCAA $$$ per team (all under your scenario), what is the threat? Help me out here.

UMass would likely have gotten in this year in the new setup. Valpo probably not- but Detroit would have been much more of a factor.

Also with how things would have played out- Villanova would be in a LOT different position. Losing wins vs Syracuse and Louisville would have really hurt them a lot. They probably would have gone into this weekend squarely on the bubble. So that would have been 4/10 for us quite likely. And then you have Butler- with the way they got punked by VCU- how would they have fared playing Georgetown, Marquette, and others?

Meanwhile in the A10, you have SLU, VCU who are safely in regardless of course. La Salle went 1-3 vs the departed teams- so I think they would be safe most likely. UMass went 1-3 as well- so they become much more possible. So 4 there. Then quite possibly a Detroit or another school make it giving them 5.

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

(03-12-2013 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

Notre Dame to the ACC next season is about to be announced.

And when an A-10/MVC joins a conference with G-Town, Nova and Marquette instead of Duquesne, Fordham, GW and Rhode Island.. (or Evansville, Bradley and Drake), their recruiting is going to get better. (Their fans will be fired up and buy more tickets, they'll have more TV revenue; they'll be able to make significant improvements to the program; recruits will want to play in the league more, etc, etc, etc).

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

As to Frank's point- totally agree. I mean, I guess A10 could get Detroit (maybe with a connecting Cleveland St if necessary)- but that would be about as far west as they could go. With Dayton and especially SLU- it puts a LOT more tempting schools in play for the A10.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 08:56 AM)Title Wrote:  Viable as opposed to whom?

That contract may as well be the Grand Canyon dividing the conference and those below.

If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

As to Frank's point- totally agree. I mean, I guess A10 could get Detroit (maybe with a connecting Cleveland St if necessary)- but that would be about as far west as they could go. With Dayton and especially SLU- it puts a LOT more tempting schools in play for the A10.

Well it could have been part of the agreement if they could get out right away and get the name. The Aresco league got to keep 100 mil, we get an extra 100 mil on the deal. It's basically Fox paying for our exit and the name.

(03-12-2013 10:20 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  If the A10 still has VCU, Dayton, St Louis, La Salle, St Joe's, etc.- and they pick up 1-2 others (Detroit, Valpo become much more interesting)- they are a much stronger threat to us. You are just WAY too focused on the TV money. I'm talking about perception. This year would be 5-4 in NCAA spots with the A10 not taking anyone yet.

Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

As to Frank's point- totally agree. I mean, I guess A10 could get Detroit (maybe with a connecting Cleveland St if necessary)- but that would be about as far west as they could go. With Dayton and especially SLU- it puts a LOT more tempting schools in play for the A10.

Well it could have been part of the agreement if they could get out right away and get the name. The Aresco league got to keep 100 mil, we get an extra 100 mil on the deal. It's basically Fox paying for our exit and the name.

Right and I get that 100%.

But makes no sense for them to say we'll give you 500m for 10 teams for 12 years or 600m for 12 teams for 12 years. Would have thought that Fox would have wanted to entice us to go up to 12. Now from a money standpoint, there is no incentive to go to 12 quite frankly.

The obvious reason being 11 and 12 do not incrementally scale the value proposition of the league to Fox. Effectively, they are saying with the offer, that there is a gap after 10 (something we knew)

stever20
You originally had 5 BE (C7+) teams in and 4 A-10 teams in, and are now changing the variables to make a new argument, ignoring the branding and television money issues I brought up. But I'll play, assuming that you conceded all of the arguments you failed to address. New topic.

So now Butler, with wins over Marquette (meaning it could compete with MU and GU), Indiana (#1 seed) and Gonzaga (#1 seed), and a split with XU would be a threat to not compete in the new conference because of one loss? I'll choose to disagree.

Villanova would lose victories over Louisville and Syracuse (keeping high RPI wins over GU and MU), causing them to miss the NCAAs. They were only 4-3 against the C-7. Actually, the C-7 had the following records against each other:

GU 6-2
MU 6-2
PC 5-3
VU 4-3
SJU 3-5
SHU 2-6
DU 1-6

Oh my God!!! PC might make it to the tournament instead of VU. Or maybe VU gets RPI a home win over BU (21 RPI) instead of SU (17 RPI). Or maybe PC gets a home win over GU or MU (since PC played both on the road). Or maybe both make it. The variables are endless.

And if the A-10 has a good year and gets 5 in, good for them. Here's a little history for you. In 2004, CUSA had a footprint that extended into ACC, SEC, BIG and BigXII territory. That year, CUSA had 6 teams make the NCAA's. CUSA also had 4 teams make the NCAAs in each of 2003 and 2005, including 2 final four teams in that group. But none of the Big 6 conferences were "scared" of CUSA. CUSA was not going to steal the thunder of any of those conferences no matter how well CUSA did. The A-10 is not a threat or a rival to the BE(C7+). GW can go to a final four. Its still not Georgetown. And if someone clearly identifies themselves as a "must have" school, then the BE(C7+) can simply take them to go to 12, just like UofL, UC and MU were taken from CUSA.

(03-12-2013 10:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:20 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:53 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:48 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Well, I agree with you for the most part here in the sense that I see more risk with a smaller 10-team league having a bad year (which will eventually happen no matter who is added, as we have seen with the former Pac-10 even with schools that have tons of more resources compared to the C7) compared to the possibility of dilution with the 12-team league. I'm not someone that believes in expansion for the sake of expansion, but the other A-10 candidates (IMHO) bring more to the table as a whole than what they would take away.

Plus, to the extent that conference realignment is like the game of Risk, there's also secondary value to cutting off the Midwestern arm of the A-10 completely. Leaving Dayton and/or SLU makes it more tempting for the A-10 to explore raiding generally stronger basketball schools from the MVC, whereas leaving no one in the Midwest means that the A-10 will likely retreat to being a very regionalized conference that will backfill from the Colonial (or maybe try for Davidson). It might not be a primary consideration for the Big East, but it's a factor when taking the longview of expansion. As long as the primary competing non-FBS leagues in the new Big East footprint (A-10, MVC and, to a lesser extent, the Horizon) have to stay as 3 separate marginalized regional conferences as opposed to one taking the cream of the crop from the other two, there really can't be a hint of any viable challenge to the Big East on that front. That's what makes the potential losses of SLU and Dayton disproportionately harmful to the A-10 - they can't even entertain the thought of going for, say, Wichita State on the western end and taking the other best programs in between geographically without at least one of SLU or Dayton still there.

Didn't the article say that the contract would basically be the same per team if they wen't to 10 or 12? 500 for 10 teams for 12 years or 600 for 12 teams for 12 years? If thats the case i don't see why you don't go to 12.

I think that's what it said. In some ways makes ZERO sense for Fox to do that.

As to Frank's point- totally agree. I mean, I guess A10 could get Detroit (maybe with a connecting Cleveland St if necessary)- but that would be about as far west as they could go. With Dayton and especially SLU- it puts a LOT more tempting schools in play for the A10.

Well it could have been part of the agreement if they could get out right away and get the name. The Aresco league got to keep 100 mil, we get an extra 100 mil on the deal. It's basically Fox paying for our exit and the name.

Right and I get that 100%.

But makes no sense for them to say we'll give you 500m for 10 teams for 12 years or 600m for 12 teams for 12 years. Would have thought that Fox would have wanted to entice us to go up to 12. Now from a money standpoint, there is no incentive to go to 12 quite frankly.

Maybe Fox isn't as pushy about membership as you thought?