(01-20-2013 08:23 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:27 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 04:03 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 03:51 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 03:41 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  This is coming from a guy that supports Wichita State.

10 teams should be what the league starts with. I don't think that will happen, but I think it is the right decision. The Catholic 7 gains NOTHING from adding teams that aren't top-notch perfect fits right now. If they add a team like SLU and they consistently perform at the bottom of the conference and do not bring their market, then the conference cannot vote them out or get rid of them.

Instead, select the hottest names. Personally, the best 3 are Xavier, Butler, and Gonzaga, but I feel that travel considerations all but eliminate Gonzaga. Your next best choice is either VCU or Creighton, but I'd lean VCU because of how hot they are right now.

Then, you wait and see. Moving quickly could doom the conference in the years to come if the correct balance isn't found. In two or three years, you look at which teams have stayed top-notch or become hot names. Maybe SLU goes to the Final Four, or Dayton goes to back-to-back Elite 8s. That is when you add those teams. Not now.

The same applies to any team like a Wichita State that isn't quite in consideration now but might become a hot ticket if they had post-season success. Maybe a Gonzaga Final Four would push them over the hump and make them worthwhile. Eventually, I don't see a problem with 14 teams (maybe more), but right now there are not 7 or even 5 teams that really would impress me if I were making the decision. If I couldn't have Gonzaga, the only teams I really could push for would be Xavier, Butler, Creighton, and VCU.

(12-24-2012 09:29 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  This is for texasflood that keeps harping on it in every thread. Read the article, this is also why Aresco and MWC think BYU could give up indy in near future

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...ution-plan

I would agree if the C-7 were super strong right now. However realistically they are not. They can't afford to be a 3-4 team league and lose momentum. All the teams we have mentioned: Wichita State, VCU,SLU all have better RPI's than the majority of the C7.

Not meant to be rude but how many of the C-7 would be in the discussion if we just said what are the top 12 teams we need in the league. You are going to have laggards the goal is there are not many in your tournament

How many of the prospects would be as good if they had to play in a conference with UConn, Cuse, UofL, ND, Cincy, Pitt and WVU? How many NCAA appearances would the C7 have if they played in the A-10, Horizon or MVC? Stupid analogy.

RPI's especially current RPI's are established long before conference play. While I completely respect all the C7 have done historically and the markets they established if you calculated conference RPI just of the C7 it wouldn't look so good. That is before league play.

Right now much of the C7 is living off past fame. Well earned fame but if they try to skim the cream the league could get exposed next year. That possibility is less likely to happen with the 7 mentioned.

Yeah because you guys totally proved you could handle our schedule by playing in the Horizon league.

You guys can get up for a few games a year but try playing 6 ranked teams in a row, two games a week almost everyone in the top 100. Do that year in and year out on the greatest BBall league ever assembled then we'll see who would be exposed.

As others stated once your in everyone has the same chance. Also the OOC play has not been stellar for many of the A-7 which has nothing to do with league play. Personally I hope you all kick butt as the chances are high we will all be in the same conference.

But having 2-3 teams make the NCAA next year will be a problem. Butler loses Rot and Smith next year and are not a lock. Long term we will be okay with Stevens but the C-7 don't appear to be a guaranteed 3-4 teams next year. If I am wrong please let me know.

I think we are off-track. The original question still remains:

Why should the conference limit itself to reach an arbitrary number of team?

IMHO, I think the question is worth asking. And personally, I don't think the conference should limit itself. If only a single team would be a worthwhile addition, you invite a single team. If nine teams were worth inviting, invite all of them.

I personally don't think SLU or Dayton have enough basketball pedigree to get invited right now. That leaves only Butler, Xavier, Creighton, VCU, and possibly Gonzaga. Those are the only teams I would invite right now, no offense to fans of any other team. The conference cannot afford to bring in more DePauls, because it needs consistent tournament quality teams to make up for the lack of a true blue-blood.

(01-20-2013 09:59 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I think we are off-track. The original question still remains:

Why should the conference limit itself to reach an arbitrary number of team?

IMHO, I think the question is worth asking. And personally, I don't think the conference should limit itself. If only a single team would be a worthwhile addition, you invite a single team. If nine teams were worth inviting, invite all of them.

I personally don't think SLU or Dayton have enough basketball pedigree to get invited right now. That leaves only Butler, Xavier, Creighton, VCU, and possibly Gonzaga. Those are the only teams I would invite right now, no offense to fans of any other team. The conference cannot afford to bring in more DePauls, because it needs consistent tournament quality teams to make up for the lack of a true blue-blood.

Basically we agree with the only difference between us being an odd number makes no sense, Gonzaga is too far away and I would put Wichita State in the last spot.

The reason for the arbitrary number to start is money.

If the projected TV revenue is divided by 10, teams would get $5 mil per. If it is divided by 11 teams is $4.5 mil per. If it is divided by 12 teams is $4.1 mil per. and it goes down obviously from there. All schools getting involved from the start would endure an enormous cost, and would need as much revenue as possible to stay in the black.

(01-21-2013 11:21 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  The reason for the arbitrary number to start is money.

If the projected TV revenue is divided by 10, teams would get $5 mil per. If it is divided by 11 teams is $4.5 mil per. If it is divided by 12 teams is $4.1 mil per. and it goes down obviously from there. All schools getting involved from the start would endure an enormous cost, and would need as much revenue as possible to stay in the black.

That assumes a fixed pie and that you can maintain the brand as the best non-BCS conference in hoops. If you chose to maximize short term dollars, which is what the big east has always done, then you may fail to strategically position yourself for the long term.

(01-20-2013 09:33 AM)Title Wrote:  Am I the only one that wants 10?

Twelve is too many, but if TV forces it, I guess.

More? Absolutely not

You are not alone. I'm all for stopping at 10 and playing everyone twice.

(01-21-2013 11:41 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 11:21 AM)Downtown Shocker Brown Wrote:  The reason for the arbitrary number to start is money.

If the projected TV revenue is divided by 10, teams would get $5 mil per. If it is divided by 11 teams is $4.5 mil per. If it is divided by 12 teams is $4.1 mil per. and it goes down obviously from there. All schools getting involved from the start would endure an enormous cost, and would need as much revenue as possible to stay in the black.

That assumes a fixed pie and that you can maintain the brand as the best non-BCS conference in hoops. If you chose to maximize short term dollars, which is what the big east has always done, then you may fail to strategically position yourself for the long term.

That is why as the process grows longer with little to no information from the Presidents, that I maintain hope of a 13-14-15 team league where we are apart of it.

Super long shot I know, but we are on the rise with Coach Marshall who is happy in Wichita, turned down a very good NC State job, and will continue to make this program stronger. Creighton is back with Coach McDermott, who has been to Iowa State and found happiness in Omaha. Coach Smart at VCU has turned down many other opportunities as well. Coach Stevens at Butler could have easily jumped ship, but stayed as well. Toss Xavier in that mix, and you have the best of the best of the last 5 years of non-BCS teams. Obviously Wichita State is the low person on that list, but we are a very strong weakest link.

(01-20-2013 10:09 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yes you are and 12 is NOT to many. We'd be one of the smallest conferences out there. You can't sit at ten when the powers are going to fourteen and beyond.

The "powers" are getting FB dollars and have or are getting networks that pay subscription dollars, and use the additional revenue from new markets to cover the additional teams. For the nC7, the cash flow comes from the BB contract and NCAA bids. I am not convinced more is better in our situation compared to the BIG or SEC.

(01-21-2013 12:01 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:09 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yes you are and 12 is NOT to many. We'd be one of the smallest conferences out there. You can't sit at ten when the powers are going to fourteen and beyond.

The "powers" are getting FB dollars and have or are getting networks that pay subscription dollars, and use the additional revenue from new markets to cover the additional teams. For the nC7, the cash flow comes from the BB contract and NCAA bids. I am not convinced more is better in our situation compared to the BIG or SEC.

Less than 12 means a lot less tv inventory. I don't understand why folks want 10 when even our tv partners say they want 12? Why not give programs the chance to grow? Also the more quality teams you leave out means the gap between us and the next best BBall only conference is smaller.

That's real long term issues. Letting the A-10 rebuild with VCU, Dayton and SLU is dangerous. It's all about perception. You want to be a big boy league than you need to look like one.

(01-21-2013 12:43 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:01 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:09 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yes you are and 12 is NOT to many. We'd be one of the smallest conferences out there. You can't sit at ten when the powers are going to fourteen and beyond.

The "powers" are getting FB dollars and have or are getting networks that pay subscription dollars, and use the additional revenue from new markets to cover the additional teams. For the nC7, the cash flow comes from the BB contract and NCAA bids. I am not convinced more is better in our situation compared to the BIG or SEC.

Less than 12 means a lot less tv inventory. I don't understand why folks want 10 when even our tv partners say they want 12? Why not give programs the chance to grow? Also the more quality teams you leave out means the gap between us and the next best BBall only conference is smaller.

That's real long term issues. Letting the A-10 rebuild with VCU, Dayton and SLU is dangerous. It's all about perception. You want to be a big boy league than you need to look like one.

In quantity the difference is 18 games, or 2 per week assuming a 9 week conference season. In terms of quality, is making sure there is a Georgetown-Dayton game and 2 Dayton-SLU games better than having a second GU-VU or GU-MU game?

The Big XII is a big boy league with 10. They may go to 12, but they are going to stick with 10 until either 1) they need to go past 10 by force; or 2) numbers 11 and 12 show themselves. I don't think #11 and #12 have distinguished themselves for the C7 as of yet, so I like the Big XII model. If Dayton and SLU distinguish themselves in the A-10 over the next few seasons, then call them up. I don't advocate jumping to 12 right now.

(01-21-2013 04:17 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:43 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:01 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:09 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yes you are and 12 is NOT to many. We'd be one of the smallest conferences out there. You can't sit at ten when the powers are going to fourteen and beyond.

The "powers" are getting FB dollars and have or are getting networks that pay subscription dollars, and use the additional revenue from new markets to cover the additional teams. For the nC7, the cash flow comes from the BB contract and NCAA bids. I am not convinced more is better in our situation compared to the BIG or SEC.

Less than 12 means a lot less tv inventory. I don't understand why folks want 10 when even our tv partners say they want 12? Why not give programs the chance to grow? Also the more quality teams you leave out means the gap between us and the next best BBall only conference is smaller.

That's real long term issues. Letting the A-10 rebuild with VCU, Dayton and SLU is dangerous. It's all about perception. You want to be a big boy league than you need to look like one.

In quantity the difference is 18 games, or 2 per week assuming a 9 week conference season. In terms of quality, is making sure there is a Georgetown-Dayton game and 2 Dayton-SLU games better than having a second GU-VU or GU-MU game?

The Big XII is a big boy league with 10. They may go to 12, but they are going to stick with 10 until either 1) they need to go past 10 by force; or 2) numbers 11 and 12 show themselves. I don't think #11 and #12 have distinguished themselves for the C7 as of yet, so I like the Big XII model. If Dayton and SLU distinguish themselves in the A-10 over the next few seasons, then call them up. I don't advocate jumping to 12 right now.

I'm starting to waver on 12 vs 10. The same quality league would expect 4 bids with 12 teams or 3 bids with 10 teams in a rough year. But a 3-bid league is easier to dismiss as "mid-major" than a 4-bid league, even though it doesn't make much sense. Now if one of those 3 goes to the Final Four, it really doesn't matter.

Then again the MWC and MVC and A-10 have had 4-bid years without shaking the mid-major tag.

I would take 2 Georgetown-Marquette games over a GT-MU game and a GT-Dayton game. I think TV could be convinced. Fewer teams would not get the same money, but I don't think the per-school money would go down.

I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

(01-21-2013 04:17 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:43 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:01 PM)MUAvalanche Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:09 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yes you are and 12 is NOT to many. We'd be one of the smallest conferences out there. You can't sit at ten when the powers are going to fourteen and beyond.

The "powers" are getting FB dollars and have or are getting networks that pay subscription dollars, and use the additional revenue from new markets to cover the additional teams. For the nC7, the cash flow comes from the BB contract and NCAA bids. I am not convinced more is better in our situation compared to the BIG or SEC.

Less than 12 means a lot less tv inventory. I don't understand why folks want 10 when even our tv partners say they want 12? Why not give programs the chance to grow? Also the more quality teams you leave out means the gap between us and the next best BBall only conference is smaller.

That's real long term issues. Letting the A-10 rebuild with VCU, Dayton and SLU is dangerous. It's all about perception. You want to be a big boy league than you need to look like one.

In quantity the difference is 18 games, or 2 per week assuming a 9 week conference season. In terms of quality, is making sure there is a Georgetown-Dayton game and 2 Dayton-SLU games better than having a second GU-VU or GU-MU game?

The Big XII is a big boy league with 10. They may go to 12, but they are going to stick with 10 until either 1) they need to go past 10 by force; or 2) numbers 11 and 12 show themselves. I don't think #11 and #12 have distinguished themselves for the C7 as of yet, so I like the Big XII model. If Dayton and SLU distinguish themselves in the A-10 over the next few seasons, then call them up. I don't advocate jumping to 12 right now.

You can't compare us to the Big XII. They are getting paid for 12 teams while sitting at 10. That's their incentive to not jump. Also it's not just the 9 conference games each but also the OOC games, conference challenge and extra length to the conference tournament.

The Big XII also has a BBall blue blood and a college athletics powerhouse. We have neither of those in this league.

Also why ignore Fox? If they want 12 why fight that? I haven't heard one good argument why we should go to 10. You want to see how good they do in the A-10? Well give them an increase in funds and see how they do with us. If they do well we prosper, if they don't we don't hurt ourselves beating each other up in a true round robin.

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

No. I'm not going to make these decisions based on regular season wins and losses in one year. It's about consistent strength over time, not about one or two good years, when "good" is defined as making the tournament.

I think the answer to all of this is in this discussion. I want NO ONE that requires a presentation. It should be plainly obvious. There's no reason to rush into over expansion. If it takes 3-4 years to get to "full size" so be it. Year 5-Year 20: everyone is better of for having more patience & control than a 16 year old in the back seat of his car with his first girlfriend.

(01-21-2013 10:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

No. I'm not going to make these decisions based on regular season wins and losses in one year. It's about consistent strength over time, not about one or two good years, when "good" is defined as making the tournament.

The point as you probably know already is the C-7 need the best teams possible as the first four are existing C-7 teams who don't have impressive resumes.

If the league prioritizes anything other than current basketball strength we face significant risk of being dismissed as nothing more than another mid-major. We can't afford to be conservative.

School A, B, and D would not finish in the top 3 of the A-10 or MVC.

I tend to agree that adding three (Butler, VCU, and Xavier) is a good idea for the short term. Maybe five years down the road look into further expansion, and how much more money you can get.

I think it's very important to get two of the best current coaches - Brad Steven (36) and Shaka Smart (35). Both are very happy where they are, passing up a flood of offers, and signing long term deals.

(01-20-2013 04:11 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  and pick from the following based on continued success (including the postseason):

Gonzaga
SLU
Dayton
Wichita State
St. Bonaventure
St. Joseph's
George Mason

I heart you.

(01-21-2013 10:54 PM)Title Wrote:  I think the answer to all of this is in this discussion. I want NO ONE that requires a presentation. It should be plainly obvious. There's no reason to rush into over expansion. If it takes 3-4 years to get to "full size" so be it. Year 5-Year 20: everyone is better of for having more patience & control than a 16 year old in the back seat of his car with his first girlfriend.

I totally agree. Be patient. Select high quality teams. Wait for another high quality team to present itself.

If the conference can wait another 3-4 years before settling itself in (and it should be pretty much immune to the greater realignment after it finalizes its shape), it will be in a much better shape long-term.

(01-21-2013 10:29 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:31 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I'm worried about "another DePaul." Teams that, historically, have been bubble teams playing A-10 or MVC competition, not being able to make the step up in competition. If you've been an NIT team consistently, you're upgrading your resources and visibility, but also your level of competition. Sometimes the conference shift is a big boost, like with Cincinnati's football program. Sometimes it's not, like with Cincinnati's basketball program, or DePaul's.

If you have recent Final Four banners, or the rafters are full of recent Sweet Sixteen banners, then you can make up that gap with better recruiting--recent success AND big league conference tag. If making the tournament is a big accomplishment for your program, I'm very leery.

Well lets look at schools, rank the schools you would want to share the conference with:

School A:
Losses: UMass, Penn State, Boston College, Brown
Wins: Miss St, Rhode Island

School B:
Losses: Temple, La Salle, Alabama, Columbia
Wins: St Joes, Purdue, Vanderbuilt

School C
Loses: Washington, LSU
Wins: Rhode Island, Wake Forest

School D:
Loses: Loyola, Gardner Webb, Wichita State, Western Kentucky
Wins: Auburn, Az State

School E:
Loses: Santa Clara, Washington, Kansas
Wins: Texas A&M, Loyola Marymount, New Mexico

School F:
Loses: Wichita State, Missouri, Duke
Wins: Memphis, ODU, Alabama

School G:
Loses: Illinois State, USC, Colorado, Weber State
Wins: Boston College, Auburn, Alabama

School H:
Wins: Tulsa, Cal, Nebraska, St Joes, Wisconsin, Az State
Loses: Boise State

School I:
Wins: VCU, DePaul, Tulsa, Air Force
Loses: Tulsa

Dude, using only this year is ridiculous to decide who you want to form a 20+ conference relationship with. That's all I'm saying. I promise.