Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
Author Message
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,836
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 991
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #401
RE: Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
(06-29-2015 02:45 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The BE could have very easily had 5 leftovers. The Rutgers/Maryland deal came real late. Even with Rutgers and UL and Boise coming in, we would have lost the BCS/Access spot. It didn't make a lot of sense but it is what it is. Boise, UL, and Cincy would have had multible BCS bids and Uconn had 1.

Personally even if BE had added a couple earlier, I think they still would have lost the spot, but would have been a stronger sale for TV.


As for American adding USM, I don't ever see that happening. They have a great history, but bad location/market, and are one of the smallest budget schools in 1a.

But relationships matter. They have that. And who beats them out? Rice, Marshall, UMass, La Tech, Old Dominion?

If the AAC adds two in this scenario its probably Rice and Marshall, but USM would be close.
06-29-2015 03:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,237
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 363
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #402
RE: Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
(06-29-2015 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  True--but its much like insurance. Yes it would have helped just 3 Big East teams----but nobody knew who those 3 teams would be---could have been any of them at that time.

But it was not insurance without cost. It was "insurance" that could have derailed what they were trying to accomplish. It would be like buying life insurance that required you to run thru a mine field to be covered. That was what I meant. They felt, and it was hard to really argue the point, that adding more teams would water down their product even more and hurt the very teams already in the conference (keeping in mind that westward expansion had not entered the discussion). Whether it would have been true or not no one will know, but it's not as though their though process had no merit.

Quote: That's the way it is in the Big-12, other than Texas and OU---any of them could feasibly be left behind depending on how things fall. Expansion is cheap insurance largely paid by their media contract. By the time you figure entry fee payments---the cost is negligible (they may even make money).

Note they are in a different situation. I was purely referring to the Big East. The Big 12 is dealing from a pool of candidates that on the field wise are mostly considered acceptable, with other elements hindering their invitations. The Big East was almost the opposite, where they had potential members who could have been monetarily a plus (if for no other reason the massive increase in football games going from 8 teams to nine or ten), but were worried about the on the field issues.

(06-29-2015 12:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The problem was the C-7 schools didn't want to water down their basketball product. The were quite a few good candidate for the Big East in the football area, but nobody was good enough on the basketball side of the equation to appeal to the C-7 schools in which the conference would be pushing 18 or 20 schools.

That wasn't really true. The issue was there was not a single team that the eight football teams could agree on, and they did not plan to expand unless a team had unilateral agreement from the football schools. Never happened until TCU and Nova after it was basically too late. In reality the Big East was so stout on the hardwood, a "lesser" bb team or two would have actually helped a couple of the 8 Catholic schools improve. But it never got to that. The three candidates most often mentioned, ECU, Temple, and UCF, each had their own detractors, and could never get all eight teams to come together. There were also some of the football teams who were against expanding the basketball pool, because they still made more money from basketball than football in the Big East in terms of conference payouts. All of them. Villanova was often mentioned and even invited. But it was less because they were everyone's favorite, but more because no one actually opposed them (and regardless of what some exiting members mouthpieces have stated, not a single one voted against Nova's initial invite).
06-29-2015 03:21 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
HuskyU's AAC CSNBBS Farewell Tour
*

Posts: 21,599
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1026
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #403
RE: Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
(06-29-2015 03:21 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(06-29-2015 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  True--but its much like insurance. Yes it would have helped just 3 Big East teams----but nobody knew who those 3 teams would be---could have been any of them at that time.

But it was not insurance without cost. It was "insurance" that could have derailed what they were trying to accomplish. It would be like buying life insurance that required you to run thru a mine field to be covered. That was what I meant. They felt, and it was hard to really argue the point, that adding more teams would water down their product even more and hurt the very teams already in the conference (keeping in mind that westward expansion had not entered the discussion). Whether it would have been true or not no one will know, but it's not as though their though process had no merit.

Quote: That's the way it is in the Big-12, other than Texas and OU---any of them could feasibly be left behind depending on how things fall. Expansion is cheap insurance largely paid by their media contract. By the time you figure entry fee payments---the cost is negligible (they may even make money).

Note they are in a different situation. I was purely referring to the Big East. The Big 12 is dealing from a pool of candidates that on the field wise are mostly considered acceptable, with other elements hindering their invitations. The Big East was almost the opposite, where they had potential members who could have been monetarily a plus (if for no other reason the massive increase in football games going from 8 teams to nine or ten), but were worried about the on the field issues.

(06-29-2015 12:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The problem was the C-7 schools didn't want to water down their basketball product. The were quite a few good candidate for the Big East in the football area, but nobody was good enough on the basketball side of the equation to appeal to the C-7 schools in which the conference would be pushing 18 or 20 schools.

That wasn't really true. The issue was there was not a single team that the eight football teams could agree on, and they did not plan to expand unless a team had unilateral agreement from the football schools. Never happened until TCU and Nova after it was basically too late. In reality the Big East was so stout on the hardwood, a "lesser" bb team or two would have actually helped a couple of the 8 Catholic schools improve. But it never got to that. The three candidates most often mentioned, ECU, Temple, and UCF, each had their own detractors, and could never get all eight teams to come together. There were also some of the football teams who were against expanding the basketball pool, because they still made more money from basketball than football in the Big East in terms of conference payouts. All of them. Villanova was often mentioned and even invited. But it was less because they were everyone's favorite, but more because no one actually opposed them (and regardless of what some exiting members mouthpieces have stated, not a single one voted against Nova's initial invite).

This is incredibly spot on.
06-29-2015 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,810
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 177
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #404
RE: Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  
(06-29-2015 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. ...

The invites to the Big East went out, and were accepted, in November, 2003. Looking back over the previous 5 seasons, the 5 remaining Big East teams averaged a MRatings Composite of 59.2 (excluding UConn who was still building up), with five top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

The three added averaged 56.9 (including South Florida who was trending up) and collectively had two top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

Available teams that averaged in the top 50 include Southern Miss (41.8), TCU (41.6), Marshall (34.4), Colorado St (36.8), Air Force (49.4), BYU (49.4), and Boise St (45). Add in East Carolina (54.6) who had good attendance and a top 30 finish, and you now have 16 very solid teams for a football only conference.

With hindsight, part of the goal would be having at least 14 teams to avoid having to reactively add two teams for a conference championship game when the raids would come. Further, South Florida had a great run initially, but have flamed out. So, they would have to go as well. All-sports invitees would include LVille and Cincy, also avoiding South Florida basketball. That would leave something like the following:

East: UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, ECU, Louisville
West: BYU, Air Force, CSU, TCU, Boise St, Cincy, Southern Miss

Average Ranking of the non-chosen additions: 45.5
Number of top 30 rankings: 8 (including every team)
Number of top 15 rankings: 3 (TCU, Southern Miss, Air Force)

Average ranking of new Big East (excluding UConn): 51.9

Looking back, this would have been a really awesome conference. You would always have a quality BCS bowl participant, and TV would have loved it. Keeping the football separate from all sports would have kept Big East basketball happy, and reduced expenses for everyone. The ACC would have to pay much, much more to pry teams away, and it would have eliminated competition from all the smaller conferences.


Memphis would have made it into the Big East for their basketball.
06-30-2015 03:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawkeyeCoug Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 450
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: BYU
Location: Virginia
Post: #405
RE: Oklahoma/ big 12 expansion
(06-30-2015 03:16 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  The invites to the Big East went out, and were accepted, in November, 2003. Looking back over the previous 5 seasons, the 5 remaining Big East teams averaged a MRatings Composite of 59.2 (excluding UConn who was still building up), with five top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

The three added averaged 56.9 (including South Florida who was trending up) and collectively had two top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

Available teams that averaged in the top 50 include Southern Miss (41.8), TCU (41.6), Marshall (34.4), Colorado St (36.8), Air Force (49.4), BYU (49.4), and Boise St (45). Add in East Carolina (54.6) who had good attendance and a top 30 finish, and you now have 16 very solid teams for a football only conference.

With hindsight, part of the goal would be having at least 14 teams to avoid having to reactively add two teams for a conference championship game when the raids would come. Further, South Florida had a great run initially, but have flamed out. So, they would have to go as well. All-sports invitees would include LVille and Cincy, also avoiding South Florida basketball. That would leave something like the following:

East: UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, ECU, Louisville
West: BYU, Air Force, CSU, TCU, Boise St, Cincy, Southern Miss

Average Ranking of the non-chosen additions: 45.5
Number of top 30 rankings: 8 (including every team)
Number of top 15 rankings: 3 (TCU, Southern Miss, Air Force)

Average ranking of new Big East (excluding UConn): 51.9

Looking back, this would have been a really awesome conference. You would always have a quality BCS bowl participant, and TV would have loved it. Keeping the football separate from all sports would have kept Big East basketball happy, and reduced expenses for everyone. The ACC would have to pay much, much more to pry teams away, and it would have eliminated competition from all the smaller conferences.


Memphis would have made it into the Big East for their basketball.

I think you are right that Memphis would have been a great fit for the Big East, especially in basketball. My post was more about whether football teams added to the Big East would have helped or been dead weight. I think the composite rankings (thanks Massey for compiling) show pretty clearly that the level of football would have really been enhanced with the additions.

I did run the numbers on Memphis too, but deleted the spreadsheet as I didn't think I would use it again. 01-wingedeagle

If I had picked different years it would have resulted in different teams, but felt that the 5 previous seasons to the actual invite were a good indication that there were quality teams out there.

Really like the ratings composite as a rather non-biased way of more accurately rating teams. Until someone convinces me of something better (perhaps some kind of advanced analytics), I will continue using it as my ground truth.
06-30-2015 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.