(06-09-2013 09:39 AM)trephin Wrote: Why would expansion to 12 mean divisions (for basketball)? Divisions were tried and scrapped if memory serves me right in the 90s? There wasn't divisions with 16. Has been any mention of divisions in any reports etc if they expand to 12?
Okay, there don't have to be divisions. But it's standard practice in the industry.
The old Big East was unique in many ways. The fact that it was a hybrid league, made up of both football and non-football schools meant that it had some unique challenges. For a variety of reasons associated with that, the league decided it was best for the league's identity and for competition for all schools to play each other.
There was also an interest on the part of new members to take advantage of one of the league's biggest attractions, which was to get their teams into big East Coast cities regularly, especially NYC. Division play with a 16 team league would have reduced that exposure.
Finally, their marketing plan was to maximize their best match ups, so they tried to get 2 games a year on TV with their most attractive match ups without being restricted by divisional schedules.
The reorganized Big East doesn't have the unique complications of a hybrid. They also don't have the cumbersome scheduling problems of a 16 team league.
A 12 team league with divisions would still mean that everyone would play each other at least once every year and would give them a 16 game schedule. When the league went to an 18 game schedule, there was a hue and cry from the coaches, claiming that 18 league games was too many and restricted their flexibility in OOC scheduling. Now that 18 game schedules have gained more acceptance, they could still go to 17 or 18 if they wanted with divisions by designating 1 or 2 cross division rivals for each team whom they would play home and home.
Divisions offer the benefits of reduced travel and easily identifiable groups for fan interest. It seems like the obvious way to go if they expand to 12 teams