(07-04-2013 05:27 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-04-2013 05:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-04-2013 02:06 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Sure every school has a range of sports and as an all sports participant the impact can be different. If Dayton had VCU type success their issues from a travel standpoint might be overlooked but they don't.

But the claim is being made based on nothing more than the location of the 12 members, as if that applies for [b]each and every[/i] minor sports.

The fact is that most of the New Big East's minor sports will have fewer than 12 members. As an FCS football school, Dayton will be more heavily represented in women's subsidized sports and more lightly represented in men's, and it could well be that between Butler and X, Dayton would have a natural travel partner in a number of the New Big East sports where that is a relevant concern.

Well thats the thing, if travel was such a concern then why on earth would they add a school thats farther away and even harder to get to than every other member?

Because Creighton adds 1) More on the basketball side 2) has one of the stronger all around sports programs 3) is the top school academically in the Midwest for its class (Butlers second I believe)

Those things outweigh the travel costs which aren't too bad if you pair them with a travel partner. SLU or WSU.

I have little doubt that st louis is the pick for #11. IMO the appeal to remain at 10 and have round robin schedule was greater than going to 11 with slu while debating on choice # 12

(07-06-2013 09:32 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  I have little doubt that st louis is the pick for #11. IMO the appeal to remain at 10 and have round robin schedule was greater than going to 11 with slu while debating on choice # 12

I don't think there are any absolutes. 5 years ago you would have little doubt that Xavier and Dayton would have come to the Big East. Heck I remember conversation where Butler wasn't even a candidate 3 years ago.

I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly, Sactown is too emotionally invested in minor sports to see the forrest for the trees. The Presidents are picking teams based on BBall status, Institutional Fit and Academics. Those are all they care about, and sometimes when it warrants it Geography (Sorry Gonzaga). Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

(07-06-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

My point exactly. Who is the travel partner in LAX supposed to be for Denver? Marquette?

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly adding Creighton must have increased the payout per school to make them worth it. The extra cost of sending a volleyball team to Omaha is worth the price of what Creighton brings.if the same can be said of at Louis than they will be in they fit in every way. Hpw often would a school need to go out to omaha? They dont need a travel partner.if sxhools want to gwt more bang for their buck, they could explore ooc scheduling. Nebraska, kansas. K-state, okstate etc are all options

(07-06-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly, Sactown is too emotionally invested in minor sports to see the forrest for the trees. The Presidents are picking teams based on BBall status, Institutional Fit and Academics. Those are all they care about, and sometimes when it warrants it Geography (Sorry Gonzaga). Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5. The Big East is/will continue to look for ways to cut costs in non revenue sports. Travel partners let you more aggressively reduce costs whhich is why it will be a consideration along with the items you mention.

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

D1 or something else Lou?

(07-06-2013 11:53 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

My point exactly. Who is the travel partner in LAX supposed to be for Denver? Marquette?

I am not sure they had many options and Denver as a hub might have been a cheaper option from what is available.

(07-06-2013 12:28 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly adding Creighton must have increased the payout per school to make them worth it. The extra cost of sending a volleyball team to Omaha is worth the price of what Creighton brings.if the same can be said of at Louis than they will be in they fit in every way. Hpw often would a school need to go out to omaha? They dont need a travel partner.if sxhools want to gwt more bang for their buck, they could explore ooc scheduling. Nebraska, kansas. K-state, okstate etc are all options

Who is disagreeing with that point? The point is travel partners reduce that cost across sports like women's basketball, women's volleyball, soccer and softball. A team like WSU has the better basketball and the lower costs, SLU has better basketball and lower costs, Dayton doesn't have good enough basketball to overcome the increased costs (assuming some weird fit doesn't exist as mentioned previously). In the case of WSU the basketball is better and the costs are less but that may not overcome institutional fit depending on how much they need the basketball and what the gap looks like going forward.

(07-06-2013 01:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5.

(07-06-2013 01:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  ... Dayton doesn't have good enough basketball to overcome the increased costs ...

The entire motivation for expansion from 10 to 12 would be an increased media payment from FS1 because of their desire for more winter inventory. Obviously sufficient money to cover any extra travel costs would be the floor on the increase in the payment.

(07-06-2013 01:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 01:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5.

(07-06-2013 01:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  ... Dayton doesn't have good enough basketball to overcome the increased costs ...

The entire motivation for expansion from 10 to 12 would be an increased media payment from FS1 because of their desire for more winter inventory. Obviously sufficient money to cover any extra travel costs would be the floor on the increase in the payment.

Which is why St Louis is a no-brainer....

(07-06-2013 01:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly, Sactown is too emotionally invested in minor sports to see the forrest for the trees. The Presidents are picking teams based on BBall status, Institutional Fit and Academics. Those are all they care about, and sometimes when it warrants it Geography (Sorry Gonzaga). Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5. The Big East is/will continue to look for ways to cut costs in non revenue sports. Travel partners let you more aggressively reduce costs whhich is why it will be a consideration along with the items you mention.

And as usual you resort to insulting those who are actual alum and fans of this league because they don't agree with you. This attitude that you're the smartest person on the boards is tiresome. You have zero idea how this league or these schools think or have acted in the past. You don't know our history and the things we have been through. We are coming out a league where we had to fly to Florida every year since 1991. Where we had to take 6+ hour bus rides to upstate NY. Where we had to fly to Pittsburgh then bus 3 hours to Morgantown. The travel in this league for 9 of the members will be the same or better. Get that through your head before you continue to insult those of us who are actually Big East fans.

(07-06-2013 01:39 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

D1 or something else Lou?

DII for the most part.

(07-06-2013 02:16 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 01:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

Exactly, Sactown is too emotionally invested in minor sports to see the forrest for the trees. The Presidents are picking teams based on BBall status, Institutional Fit and Academics. Those are all they care about, and sometimes when it warrants it Geography (Sorry Gonzaga). Travel partners for minor sports is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY down the list of concerns. Hell, we just brought in Denver for LAX!

As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5. The Big East is/will continue to look for ways to cut costs in non revenue sports. Travel partners let you more aggressively reduce costs whhich is why it will be a consideration along with the items you mention.

And as usual you resort to insulting those who are actual alum and fans of this league because they don't agree with you. This attitude that you're the smartest person on the boards is tiresome. You have zero idea how this league or these schools think or have acted in the past. You don't know our history and the things we have been through. We are coming out a league where we had to fly to Florida every year since 1991. Where we had to take 6+ hour bus rides to upstate NY. Where we had to fly to Pittsburgh then bus 3 hours to Morgantown. The travel in this league for 9 of the members will be the same or better. Get that through your head before you continue to insult those of us who are actually Big East fans.

Actually it's mostly targeted at you specifically when you make statements like being blinded by my love for minor sports when I am talking about finding ways to disinvest in them so more money can be directed at basketball. Don't make idiotic statements and I won't be insulting.

(07-06-2013 02:32 PM)LouPower Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 01:39 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 10:57 AM)LouPower Wrote:  I think some of this is missing the point.

Minor sports are exactly that in this discussion. I played baseball in college, and we had to raise money for our Spring Trip. This is going to be decided by basketball, for basketball.

D1 or something else Lou?

DII for the most part.

Yeah I swam D3. D1 is a different world however. The money needed to compete in basketball and football is exponentially higher and that sends reprecussions through the entire athletic department.

(07-06-2013 03:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Actually it's mostly targeted at you specifically when you make statements like being blinded by my love for minor sports when I am talking about finding ways to disinvest in them so more money can be directed at basketball. Don't make idiotic statements and I won't be insulting.

That analysis assumes constant income. The whole point of the New Big East expanding to 12 is to increase income. The simple answer if the offered increase in income would not cover the increase in costs to the Athletic Departments would be to say "don't do it".

Also, the claim that Dayton would represent a substantially higher increase in total travel costs than Richmond "because Dayton doesn't have a travel partner" requires substantially stronger analysis than anything that you've presented.

(07-06-2013 01:58 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 01:37 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  As usual you show limited understanding of the point. It has nothing to do with investment in minor sports. In fact it is the opposite, every dollar spent on minor sports is a dollar not spent on basketball. The more the Big East schools can reduce costs in non-revenue sports the more dollars they have to spend on basketball items and keep up with the P-5.

(07-06-2013 01:56 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  ... Dayton doesn't have good enough basketball to overcome the increased costs ...

The entire motivation for expansion from 10 to 12 would be an increased media payment from FS1 because of their desire for more winter inventory. Obviously sufficient money to cover any extra travel costs would be the floor on the increase in the payment.

Yes true but the question is which school brings more value above that floor. Currently from a monetary only standpoint, based on information we have a available in ratings, basketball performance and distance, it would appear to be in the west ranked in order:
Wichita State
St Louis
Dayton

Now it could certainly be true the delta won't be enough to overcome the institutional fit issues but pretty much everyone has a price. If SLU were so perfect they would already be in.

(07-06-2013 04:38 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2013 03:25 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Actually it's mostly targeted at you specifically when you make statements like being blinded by my love for minor sports when I am talking about finding ways to disinvest in them so more money can be directed at basketball. Don't make idiotic statements and I won't be insulting.

That analysis assumes constant income. The whole point of the New Big East expanding to 12 is to increase income. The simple answer if the offered increase in income would not cover the increase in costs to the Athletic Departments would be to say "don't do it".

Also, the claim that Dayton would represent a substantially higher increase in total travel costs than Richmond "because Dayton doesn't have a travel partner" requires substantially stronger analysis than anything that you've presented.

How would you travel to either of the schools not already paired from Dayton? It would take an airplane flight either east or west. You may say it doesn't matter but I have watched the changes in non Title IX expenses as Butler has changed conferences. It has been interesting.

When in the Horizon League we traveled to the west coast. Every game was webcast.

When we moved to the A-10 schollie money went up but we lost all webcasts and a fewer percentage of teams participated in end of the year tournament, and we traveled closer in. Now moving to the Big East we've lost the rest day between games on the road, a smaller percentage of teams makes the end of the year tournament and we are going where we a paid to attend.

Each step up in basketball conference has meant more schollie related dollars but less dollars in terms of general expense items not tied to Title IX. Not complaining because basketball pays the bills but it is counter intuitive.

Basically most of the revenue increase gets funneled into basketball and minor sports are asked to keep costs as close to even despite having to fly to some conference partners. Travel partners make that possible.