(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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.

We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

(06-09-2013 02:00 PM)Natty Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 12:07 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Also the AAC with U-Conn, Cinci, Temple, Memphis, VCU and Wichita State would be too strong and would pull recruits and attention from the Big East.

I'm really surprised either 1) Aresco hasn't attacked this, or 2) if he has, that we haven't heard anything about it (no rumors even).

That league has a great top four programs (and some potential in UCF, South Florida, SMU, Houston, etc), but for the sake of their RPI (and public perception), adding two recent Final 4 teams to a league that could use some positive press seems like a no-brainer to me.

I know VCU is at least attempting to get in the Big East though, so maybe the AAC is waiting to see what happens with that.

The AAC doesn't seem to care much about basketball. Pretty dumb if you ask me.

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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.

We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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.

We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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.

We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU. They'll also welcome another Catholic school.

While travel for Creighton is better to Wichita, it's worse for everyone else. I don't see the Providence president voting for that.

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:24 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  We've been around this mulberry bush, and a vocal contingent of Marquette fans don't like divisions--they signed up for the Big East, Georgetown and MSG, not a rebranded Midwestern Collegiate league.

But divisions and 18 games doesn't have to mean designated cross-division rivals. You could rotate the cross-division games something like

2014-15 Xavier vs Providence H/H, St Johns H, @Villanova
2015-16 XAvier vs ST Johns H/H, Villanova, @Providence
2016-17 Xavier vs Villanova H/H, PRovidence, @ST Johns

So you'd play every team in the other division four times in three years, twice at home and twice away.

Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU. They'll also welcome another Catholic school.

While travel for Creighton is better to Wichita, it's worse for everyone else. I don't see the Providence president voting for that.

I would agree except you already have Creighton in the league. The question is who do you pair them with?

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

(06-09-2013 06:17 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:26 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Just for those who think the Big East and travel pairs don't matter, I just got the big east volleyball schedule. Oh and BTW to save costs they are having a tournament but only the top 4 of 9 teams are invited.

The league has 9 teams with Providence currently not on the schedule. Every team is paired with games on either a Fri-Sat or on a Sat-Sun.

Current Pairs:
Butler - Xavier
Marquette - DePaul
Seton Hall - St Johns
Georgetown-Villanova

Creighton is out on their own and in need of a close travel pair. This lack of a pair is the biggest problem for Dayton and why VCU/Wichita State make sense. You have to be able to travel and play the next day.

Travel pairs would be
Creighton / Wichita State
Butler / Xavier
DePaul / Marquette
VCU / Georgetown
Seton Hall / Villanova
St Johns / Providence (moves up)

St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU. They'll also welcome another Catholic school.

While travel for Creighton is better to Wichita, it's worse for everyone else. I don't see the Providence president voting for that.

I would agree except you already have Creighton in the league. The question is who do you pair them with?

Good point.

Hopefully the league commissioner will look at what's in the best interests of the league and will make a strong recommendation. He'll have to fight for it because the presidents will vote their self-interest unless he can sway enough of them.

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

BINGO. The first BIG strike is that Wichita is public. The second strike is that it is in Wichita, not a major market. There is no way the presidents take Wichita over SLU IMO and if (big IF) they ever took a public school, VCU would be first because it is also in the east.

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:37 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  St. Louis/Creighton would work as well.

Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

With a pair you only fly into one and bus to the other. In the case of Wichita you fly into and out of Omaha and bus to Wichita. Again less cost.

(06-09-2013 07:13 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

BINGO. The first BIG strike is that Wichita is public. The second strike is that it is in Wichita, not a major market. There is no way the presidents take Wichita over SLU IMO and if (big IF) they ever took a public school, VCU would be first because it is also in the east.

There is no question you have to have an eastern team the question is who is the travel partner with Creighton. The options are Wichita State, St Louis, or Denver. Of those, aside from being public, which won't matter if they invite VCU, then Wichita State is the best choice.

If they bite the bullet and go public with VCU then they should add Wichita State also. Otherwise you go Richmond and St Louis.

BTW, I get you hate Wichita State and would rather see them rot in the MVC, that is just one more reason to invite them. I want to see the hatefest when you two play.

No one seriously thinks that the BE will expand without SLU, do they?

(06-09-2013 07:22 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 05:57 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Sort of but
Omaha - Wichita is 4.5
Omaha - St Louis is 6.5.
Omaha - Denver is 7.5

St. Louis is actually closer to Butler and was their travel pair in the A10. Even then it was a tough trip and teams complained.

Given St Louis is still not proven with Crews you have a question there. Also Kansas is clearly a basketball state while St Louis is football and baseball. All this to me makes Wichita State the better near term pick. If we go to 14/16 then St Louis should be in play.

Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

With a pair you only fly into one and bus to the other. In the case of Wichita you fly into and out of Omaha and bus to Wichita. Again less cost.

If I'm an East Coast president, I'm figuring that 12 schools means 2 divisions and that I have a road trip to one or the other of them each year but not both in the same year. So, traveling to them as a pair is not an issue for me. I'm thinking which city is easier and cheaper to travel to as a single road trip. St.Louis wins that issue.

(06-09-2013 07:28 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:13 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

BINGO. The first BIG strike is that Wichita is public. The second strike is that it is in Wichita, not a major market. There is no way the presidents take Wichita over SLU IMO and if (big IF) they ever took a public school, VCU would be first because it is also in the east.

There is no question you have to have an eastern team the question is who is the travel partner with Creighton. The options are Wichita State, St Louis, or Denver. Of those, aside from being public, which won't matter if they invite VCU, then Wichita State is the best choice.

If they bite the bullet and go public with VCU then they should add Wichita State also. Otherwise you go Richmond and St Louis.

BTW, I get you hate Wichita State and would rather see them rot in the MVC, that is just one more reason to invite them. I want to see the hatefest when you two play.

Remember the history. These Catholic school presidents are only months from having fled a marriage with public schools that became increasingly bitter and contentious - a relationship in which they were blamed for every problem except the destruction of the twin towers.

While there is a comfort level with other Catholic schools, it's more than that. It's having learned that leagues flourish, have stability, and last for the long term when the members have a lot in common. That's why institutional fit is paramount for building this league.

VCU is the one school for whom a compelling argument can be made that there is no viable alternative. If the BE adds VCU, I think it makes it less likely, not more likely that they take WSU. One public will be enough - especially when there is a viable alternative.

The original BE was fine when they only had to deal with UConn and they were basketball only. But over time as they added Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, etc., relationships broke down. The original BE schools remember that. I think they are already very cautious on this issue which is why there has been strong interest in Richmond among some members.

(06-09-2013 07:35 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:22 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Thanks for the insight. You understand that area better than I.

If presidents from the East think like I do, they'll think that St. Louis is a better market than Wichita. Missouri is the only instate competition and there is no NBA team in St. Louis. In a state with half the population, WSU has to battle for TV eyeballs with KU and KSU.

Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

With a pair you only fly into one and bus to the other. In the case of Wichita you fly into and out of Omaha and bus to Wichita. Again less cost.

If I'm an East Coast president, I'm figuring that 12 schools means 2 divisions and that I have a road trip to one or the other of them each year but not both in the same year. So, traveling to them as a pair is not an issue for me. I'm thinking which city is easier and cheaper to travel to as a single road trip. St.Louis wins that issue.

They never schedule minor sports that way. If you are on an airplane you are playing two teams per trip. They will get two pair at home and two away. The third will be either home or away. If it unbalanced too bad.

(06-09-2013 07:49 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:28 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:13 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:14 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Those are fair points. The question is do fans in Missouri even care about basketball? The fact a city that size doesn't have an NBA team is problematic. You do know the Kansas fans do. Similar to Butler competing against IU, Notre Dame, Perdue and the Pacers. But basketball is so big in Indiana it's okay

I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

BINGO. The first BIG strike is that Wichita is public. The second strike is that it is in Wichita, not a major market. There is no way the presidents take Wichita over SLU IMO and if (big IF) they ever took a public school, VCU would be first because it is also in the east.

There is no question you have to have an eastern team the question is who is the travel partner with Creighton. The options are Wichita State, St Louis, or Denver. Of those, aside from being public, which won't matter if they invite VCU, then Wichita State is the best choice.

If they bite the bullet and go public with VCU then they should add Wichita State also. Otherwise you go Richmond and St Louis.

BTW, I get you hate Wichita State and would rather see them rot in the MVC, that is just one more reason to invite them. I want to see the hatefest when you two play.

Remember the history. These Catholic school presidents are only months from having fled a marriage with public schools that became increasingly bitter and contentious - a relationship in which they were blamed for every problem except the destruction of the twin towers.

While there is a comfort level with other Catholic schools, it's more than that. It's having learned that leagues flourish, have stability, and last for the long term when the members have a lot in common. That's why institutional fit is paramount for building this league.

VCU is the one school for whom a compelling argument can be made that there is no viable alternative. If the BE adds VCU, I think it makes it less likely, not more likely that they take WSU. One public will be enough - especially when there is a viable alternative.

The original BE was fine when they only had to deal with UConn and they were basketball only. But over time as they added Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, etc., relationships broke down. The original BE schools remember that. I think they are already very cautious on this issue which is why there has been strong interest in Richmond among some members.

The problem with the Big East was football priority versus basketball priority. That isn't an issue with any of the schools we are talking about.

Quite frankly Wichita State makes more sense than VCU as I have Richmond in the same market and travel distance. Wichita State is 2 hours closer to Creighton than St Louis.

(06-09-2013 08:01 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:49 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:28 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:13 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 06:31 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I hope they consult with you. WSU is a stronger program. As a basketball fan, I'd rather see them.

Travel is a thorny issue - a lot easier to fly in and out of St. Louis than Wichita. And then there's the Catholic thing in St. Louis' favor. Those are bound to sway some votes.

BINGO. The first BIG strike is that Wichita is public. The second strike is that it is in Wichita, not a major market. There is no way the presidents take Wichita over SLU IMO and if (big IF) they ever took a public school, VCU would be first because it is also in the east.

There is no question you have to have an eastern team the question is who is the travel partner with Creighton. The options are Wichita State, St Louis, or Denver. Of those, aside from being public, which won't matter if they invite VCU, then Wichita State is the best choice.

If they bite the bullet and go public with VCU then they should add Wichita State also. Otherwise you go Richmond and St Louis.

BTW, I get you hate Wichita State and would rather see them rot in the MVC, that is just one more reason to invite them. I want to see the hatefest when you two play.

Remember the history. These Catholic school presidents are only months from having fled a marriage with public schools that became increasingly bitter and contentious - a relationship in which they were blamed for every problem except the destruction of the twin towers.

While there is a comfort level with other Catholic schools, it's more than that. It's having learned that leagues flourish, have stability, and last for the long term when the members have a lot in common. That's why institutional fit is paramount for building this league.

VCU is the one school for whom a compelling argument can be made that there is no viable alternative. If the BE adds VCU, I think it makes it less likely, not more likely that they take WSU. One public will be enough - especially when there is a viable alternative.

The original BE was fine when they only had to deal with UConn and they were basketball only. But over time as they added Pitt, Rutgers, West Virginia, etc., relationships broke down. The original BE schools remember that. I think they are already very cautious on this issue which is why there has been strong interest in Richmond among some members.

The problem with the Big East was football priority versus basketball priority. That isn't an issue with any of the schools we are talking about.

Quite frankly Wichita State makes more sense than VCU as I have Richmond in the same market and travel distance. Wichita State is 2 hours closer to Creighton than St Louis.

Yes, football was the issue. What the Catholic schools took from that was more than just learning a lesson about dealing with football schools. They learned a lesson about institutional fit, about building relationships, and about working with people you can trust. That's why Georgetown pushed so hard for Richmond when VCU is a no brainer in every other way. It was such a big issue that they became deadlocked at 10 members and couldn't move beyond that. I don't think that this is going to be resolved based on an hour or two travel difference between St. Louis and WSU.

Frankly, Wichita State wasn't even part of the Internet conversation before their Final Four run. I doubt that they are even in consideration in the minds of Big East members. I expect they settled on St. Louis months ago. The only remaining question is whether #12 will be Dayton, Richmond, or VCU. If I were a betting man, my money would be on Richmond and St. Louis. Not what I would prefer, but it's not my league.

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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

I'm sorry Melkey, i'm usually with you but in this instance I have to disagree. It is not standard practice in college basketball. No major conference has basketball divisions.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/standings

All of those things you listed as to why the old big east didn't have divisions is still true on why the big east of today will not have divisions. The midwestern schools want to play the east coast schools. Divisions will limit those games.

(06-09-2013 10:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:00 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  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

I'm sorry Melkey, i'm usually with you but in this instance I have to disagree. It is not standard practice in college basketball. No major conference has basketball divisions.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/standings

All of those things you listed as to why the old big east didn't have divisions is still true on why the big east of today will not have divisions. The midwestern schools want to play the east coast schools. Divisions will limit those games.

I stand corrected. I guess I haven't been paying attention. Thanks for the education.