(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Going from an all-sports conference to non-comprehensive placement of a school's sports teams, may not necessarily be the magic choice. In a few situations, results have been favorable. In others, results have been mixed or unimpressive.

Even Notre Dame has a substantial tie-in to ACC football. BYU can pull together a rather respectable fb schedule, particularly in the early season. Army structures what they want. Beyond those three, sustaining as a fb independent is quite challenging.

I expect NMSU and UMass seriously want to return to conference fb.

UConn's women have been excellent in AAC bb. UConn men's woes can't all be blamed on AAC membership. Coaching issues existed. Recruitment didn't meet expectations. What the Big East provides are a few more old rivalries that are regional and more convenient.

(07-04-2019 11:07 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Going from an all-sports conference to non-comprehensive placement of a school's sports teams, may not necessarily be the magic choice. In a few situations, results have been favorable. In others, results have been mixed or unimpressive.

Even Notre Dame has a substantial tie-in to ACC football. BYU can pull together a rather respectable fb schedule, particularly in the early season. Army structures what they want. Beyond those three, sustaining as a fb independent is quite challenging.

I expect NMSU and UMass seriously want to return to conference fb.

UConn's women have been excellent in AAC bb. UConn men's woes can't all be blamed on AAC membership. Coaching issues existed. Recruitment didn't meet expectations. What the Big East provides are a few more old rivalries that are regional and more convenient.

OF COURSE NOT

(07-03-2019 01:30 PM)WhoseHouse? Wrote:  No way in hell OU is able to leave the Big 12 without OSU. If UT leaves for another conference they'd likely take Tech with them as a travel partner.

If Texas ever flips blue, there may be more of an opening to force a move east or west leaving schools like Baylor behind. As of now UT and OU still need each other.

I think OU to the B1G and UT to the ACC makes the most sense in the long run, but the biggest hurdles are the baggage that TTech and OSU bring which the PAC 12 can solve.

Just hard to see how the dominoes fall. With the AAC progressively getting weaker the Big 12 gets stronger by default. Plus the Big 12 can decide it wants UC or a Fla pair and it will happen overnight; the AAC has no leverage and will be a victim of its own success. The only hope for the AAC is a PAC16 setup which sets up a coalition between whatever is left from the Big 12 after the ACC and B1G take any leftovers of their liking.

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

(06-25-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:22 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seems like from a $$$ POV it could work. They could get the $4m from the Big East for T1 rights for all but football, go Indy in football for maybe $4m a year from ESPN, and sell the T3 for another million or two.

That beats the Aresco deal, no?

USF will half fill a football stadium before Cincinnati joins the Big East.

Hey, we've already done that.

What do you mean 'we', I say to the biggest Big East proponent/anti AAC guy on the internet?

(07-05-2019 08:19 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

BBO,

I work in the media and some of the folks I'm referring to are sports journalists. They know their stuff. And a decent percentage of them (rightly or wrongly) would contend the Big East is not a "power conference" based on every single metric/definition of the term. They would say it is a "high-major league" with three power programs (Nova, Georgetown and Marquette) and soon to be four (with UConn).

The Pac-12 could be horrendous for the next 10 years but it will still be considered a "power hoops league" by these people. Yep, it's a head-scratcher. I'm with you. But it is what it is.

The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

It's all about perception. There are credible sources who simply don't put Big East hoops on the same tier as the basketball in the so-called Power Five leagues due to budgets, coaching salaries, fan bases, TV deals, etc. This is not about "performance on the court." It's about resources, they argue. I don't necessarily agree with them but, as I've admitted on this board, I'm pro-Big East — so maybe the "homer" in me limits my ability to buy into their argument.

(07-05-2019 09:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:19 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

BBO,

I work in the media and some of the folks I'm referring to are sports journalists. They know their stuff. And a decent percentage of them (rightly or wrongly) would contend the Big East is not a "power conference" based on every single metric/definition of the term. They would say it is a "high-major league" with three power programs (Nova, Georgetown and Marquette) and soon to be four (with UConn).

The Pac-12 could be horrendous for the next 10 years but it will still be considered a "power hoops league" by these people. Yep, it's a head-scratcher. I'm with you. But it is what it is.

The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

It's all about perception. There are credible sources who simply don't put Big East hoops on the same tier as the basketball in the so-called Power Five leagues due to budgets, coaching salaries, fan bases, TV deals, etc. This is not about "performance on the court." It's about resources, they argue. I don't necessarily agree with them but, as I've admitted on this board, I'm pro-Big East — so maybe the "homer" in me limits my ability to buy into their argument.

Well, without doubting your friends/contacts, Rothstein, Katz, Goodman, Lunardi, Norlander, Bilas, Seth Davis, Vitale, ESPN, CBS, FOX, and even standing non-Big East coaches have all referred to the Big East as a being a power conference - and that was before the announced addition of UConn.

To your sources, there are currently four BE programs in the top-25 for basketball budgets (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova and St. John's); Georgetown and Marquette are in the top-10 and UConn will be a fifth program (top-20). Coaching salaries are little bit tricky to acquire data for (since few of the schools publicly disclose coaching salaries), but Jay Wright is in the top-10 ($4 million), Ewing is reportedly being paid over $3 million, Cooley just got a new contract extension that puts him over $3 million and Wojo, McDermott, Willard and Anderson are all earning over $2 million (Hurley is earning on average $3 million and Steele/Jordan/Leitao are not reported). Regarding fan bases, the Big East averages over 10k per home game and 18k per conference tournament game; all teams place in large NBA-sized arenas. Finally, when the Big East signed its TV deal, it was paid as the top non-P5 conference in the country for basketball-only - despite not having football; they each are being paid over $4 million annually for content between November and March (in terms of ROI and football expenses, they are being paid like a power conference).

(07-05-2019 09:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:19 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

BBO,

I work in the media and some of the folks I'm referring to are sports journalists. They know their stuff. And a decent percentage of them (rightly or wrongly) would contend the Big East is not a "power conference" based on every single metric/definition of the term. They would say it is a "high-major league" with three power programs (Nova, Georgetown and Marquette) and soon to be four (with UConn).

The Pac-12 could be horrendous for the next 10 years but it will still be considered a "power hoops league" by these people. Yep, it's a head-scratcher. I'm with you. But it is what it is.

The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

It's all about perception. There are credible sources who simply don't put Big East hoops on the same tier as the basketball in the so-called Power Five leagues due to budgets, coaching salaries, fan bases, TV deals, etc. This is not about "performance on the court." It's about resources, they argue. I don't necessarily agree with them but, as I've admitted on this board, I'm pro-Big East — so maybe the "homer" in me limits my ability to buy into their argument.

I completely grasp what you are saying. I would merely point out that journalists are bought into schools with large regional draws with sizeable fan bases because by pandering to those they sell their product, promulgate their names, and draw social media followings. So there is a great deal of self service in having them proclaim the PAC a power conference in hoops, while calling the New Big East a High Major.

I would argue that smaller private schools which are amid high quantities of basketball talent are power schools, as indeed you say they acknowledge, but that the failure to claim that 40% of a conference being represented in the tournament annually means they are a power conference has more to do with not ticking off the PAC followers which should not have even had 2 bids last year, let alone three, and deliberately ticking off those in Big East because pandering to tepid fans sells more papers and ticking off rabid fans sells more papers so their prevailing attitudes on this matter are in line with those that would create their best possible circulation numbers.

As has been historically noted, publicity, whether bad or good, is still publicity and publicity is good for business.

I don't see how you could think it's anything other than a power conference unless you're looking at it strictly from a football perspective. In every other metric, it operates like a power conference. In the minds of these reporters, Xavier wouldn't be a power program, which seems silly to me.

(07-05-2019 12:02 PM)scoscox Wrote:  I don't see how you could think it's anything other than a power conference unless you're looking at it strictly from a football perspective. In every other metric, it operates like a power conference. In the minds of these reporters, Xavier wouldn't be a power program, which seems silly to me.

There are only 5 power conferences.

They call it the Power Five (P5).

(07-05-2019 12:03 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 12:02 PM)scoscox Wrote:  I don't see how you could think it's anything other than a power conference unless you're looking at it strictly from a football perspective. In every other metric, it operates like a power conference. In the minds of these reporters, Xavier wouldn't be a power program, which seems silly to me.

There are only 5 power conferences.

They call it the Power Five (P5).

Except, Bill's friends apparently consider half of the Big East to be power programs in basketball.

(07-05-2019 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:19 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

BBO,

I work in the media and some of the folks I'm referring to are sports journalists. They know their stuff. And a decent percentage of them (rightly or wrongly) would contend the Big East is not a "power conference" based on every single metric/definition of the term. They would say it is a "high-major league" with three power programs (Nova, Georgetown and Marquette) and soon to be four (with UConn).

The Pac-12 could be horrendous for the next 10 years but it will still be considered a "power hoops league" by these people. Yep, it's a head-scratcher. I'm with you. But it is what it is.

The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

It's all about perception. There are credible sources who simply don't put Big East hoops on the same tier as the basketball in the so-called Power Five leagues due to budgets, coaching salaries, fan bases, TV deals, etc. This is not about "performance on the court." It's about resources, they argue. I don't necessarily agree with them but, as I've admitted on this board, I'm pro-Big East — so maybe the "homer" in me limits my ability to buy into their argument.

I completely grasp what you are saying. I would merely point out that journalists are bought into schools with large regional draws with sizeable fan bases because by pandering to those they sell their product, promulgate their names, and draw social media followings. So there is a great deal of self service in having them proclaim the PAC a power conference in hoops, while calling the New Big East a High Major.

I would argue that smaller private schools which are amid high quantities of basketball talent are power schools, as indeed you say they acknowledge, but that the failure to claim that 40% of a conference being represented in the tournament annually means they are a power conference has more to do with not ticking off the PAC followers which should not have even had 2 bids last year, let alone three, and deliberately ticking off those in Big East because pandering to tepid fans sells more papers and ticking off rabid fans sells more papers so their prevailing attitudes on this matter are in line with those that would create their best possible circulation numbers.

As has been historically noted, publicity, whether bad or good, is still publicity and publicity is good for business.

Agree fully with all this. Well put, JRsec

(07-05-2019 12:02 PM)scoscox Wrote:  I don't see how you could think it's anything other than a power conference unless you're looking at it strictly from a football perspective. In every other metric, it operates like a power conference. In the minds of these reporters, Xavier wouldn't be a power program, which seems silly to me.

Agree fully. I consider Xavier a power program and the Big East a power hoops conference.

(07-05-2019 11:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I completely grasp what you are saying. I would merely point out that journalists are bought into schools with large regional draws with sizeable fan bases because by pandering to those they sell their product, promulgate their names, and draw social media followings. So there is a great deal of self service in having them proclaim the PAC a power conference in hoops, while calling the New Big East a High Major.

I would argue that smaller private schools which are amid high quantities of basketball talent are power schools, as indeed you say they acknowledge, but that the failure to claim that 40% of a conference being represented in the tournament annually means they are a power conference has more to do with not ticking off the PAC followers which should not have even had 2 bids last year, let alone three, and deliberately ticking off those in Big East because pandering to tepid fans sells more papers and ticking off rabid fans sells more papers so their prevailing attitudes on this matter are in line with those that would create their best possible circulation numbers.

As has been historically noted, publicity, whether bad or good, is still publicity and publicity is good for business.

This is a good point

(07-05-2019 11:31 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 09:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 08:19 AM)TheBasketBallOpinion Wrote:  

(07-04-2019 09:46 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-03-2019 08:18 PM)BcatMatt13 Wrote:  Just curious, has the drop in quality and results of Georgetown and Marquette’s basketball programs been because of coaching situations or because the Big East’s status decline after the last round of realignment?

Georgetown has fallen a bit for various reasons. DFW Hoya makes good points.

As I posted a few days ago, most of the folks whom I talk to and who know college sports very well — I live in a rather large city with lots of Big Ten, Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC fans — don’t consider the Big East a true “power basketball conference” in every metric. They would say the league has three “power programs”: Georgetown, Marquette and Villanova. UConn will be the fourth. And they contend that four of 11 programs do not constitute a “power college basketball league” overall. They respect the Big East (and the American, for that matter) but they do not consider either of those conferences power hoops conferences as defined by every sense of the word “power.” And these are very knowledgeable and fair-minded college sports fans.

The Big East without West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame, Boston College and Pittsburgh has hurt Georgetown, if anything because the current BE is nowhere near as prestigious as the previous version. There is no doubt about that. But Georgetown has the potential to be nationally relevant again. It remains a power program in every respect and can bounce back.

Good thing these fans don't make the decisions. Big East is a power conference even with DePaul stinking it up.

Also, if that's the criteria that they are using the PAC-12 isn't a power either. League is garbage.

EDIT: Forgot to mention this thread is stupid for every obvious reason.

BBO,

I work in the media and some of the folks I'm referring to are sports journalists. They know their stuff. And a decent percentage of them (rightly or wrongly) would contend the Big East is not a "power conference" based on every single metric/definition of the term. They would say it is a "high-major league" with three power programs (Nova, Georgetown and Marquette) and soon to be four (with UConn).

The Pac-12 could be horrendous for the next 10 years but it will still be considered a "power hoops league" by these people. Yep, it's a head-scratcher. I'm with you. But it is what it is.

The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

It's all about perception. There are credible sources who simply don't put Big East hoops on the same tier as the basketball in the so-called Power Five leagues due to budgets, coaching salaries, fan bases, TV deals, etc. This is not about "performance on the court." It's about resources, they argue. I don't necessarily agree with them but, as I've admitted on this board, I'm pro-Big East — so maybe the "homer" in me limits my ability to buy into their argument.

Well, without doubting your friends/contacts, Rothstein, Katz, Goodman, Lunardi, Norlander, Bilas, Seth Davis, Vitale, ESPN, CBS, FOX, and even standing non-Big East coaches have all referred to the Big East as a being a power conference - and that was before the announced addition of UConn.

To your sources, there are currently four BE programs in the top-25 for basketball budgets (Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova and St. John's); Georgetown and Marquette are in the top-10 and UConn will be a fifth program (top-20). Coaching salaries are little bit tricky to acquire data for (since few of the schools publicly disclose coaching salaries), but Jay Wright is in the top-10 ($4 million), Ewing is reportedly being paid over $3 million, Cooley just got a new contract extension that puts him over $3 million and Wojo, McDermott, Willard and Anderson are all earning over $2 million (Hurley is earning on average $3 million and Steele/Jordan/Leitao are not reported). Regarding fan bases, the Big East averages over 10k per home game and 18k per conference tournament game; all teams place in large NBA-sized arenas. Finally, when the Big East signed its TV deal, it was paid as the top non-P5 conference in the country for basketball-only - despite not having football; they each are being paid over $4 million annually for content between November and March (in terms of ROI and football expenses, they are being paid like a power conference).

All strong points and I agree fully. As I noted in at least two previous posts regarding this topic, I consider the Big East a power league in men's hoops. Clearly, others do, too. And you provide a strong list, GW11.

But that's not the point. This is: There is a percentage of people who know their stuff and who do not consider the Big East a power league in the same way they do the Power 5. I disagree — as I consider the BE a power conference. Similarly, some of these folks do not label Gonzaga a power program. I disagree — as I feel it is. There are even some who consider the American a power league in basketball (baffling but I guess because the league sponsors football). I follow two AAC programs and want the league to do well. But I don't consider it a "power league" in either hoops or football.

There will never be a consensus when it comes to those basketball leagues, Group of 5 schools and individual programs that are not in the Power 5. You and I agree that the Big East is a power conference. I know people who likely are every bit as fair-minded and knowledgeable about this subject as you and I — and who disagree with us.

Conversely, everybody I have talked over the years considers, for example, the Atlantic Coast Conference a power hoops league in every respect.

So there is a perception factor at play when we are talking about a program or a league not a part of the Power Five. That is what I poorly failed to note in an earlier post about the slight decline of Georgetown hoops over the years. The previous Big East was "power all the way." No doubt. The new Big East is perceived by some as to be inferior to that previous iteration and, as such, those folks feel it has created some challenges for the 10 members of the current league.

There is no "right or wrong" here. It is very subjective.

As noted, I live in a city in a state that is basically surrounded by Big Ten, SEC and ACC territory. The diversity of fans (and their opinions) is significant. I talk to folks as I enjoy getting various views. This communication — now going on 50 years — has helped me get a feel for college sports (and how universities interact with their respective communities).

I've enjoyed posting so far (I'm new to the board). You do a strong job overall with your posts, GW11 and, combined with other posters offering interesting info ... I'm hopeful that will motivate me to continue to keep posting.

thx

(07-05-2019 01:15 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-05-2019 12:02 PM)scoscox Wrote:  I don't see how you could think it's anything other than a power conference unless you're looking at it strictly from a football perspective. In every other metric, it operates like a power conference. In the minds of these reporters, Xavier wouldn't be a power program, which seems silly to me.

Agree fully. I consider Xavier a power program and the Big East a power hoops conference.

If Cavier is a power program Cincinnati is a power.

(07-05-2019 08:50 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:22 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 08:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Seems like from a $$$ POV it could work. They could get the $4m from the Big East for T1 rights for all but football, go Indy in football for maybe $4m a year from ESPN, and sell the T3 for another million or two.

That beats the Aresco deal, no?

USF will half fill a football stadium before Cincinnati joins the Big East.

Hey, we've already done that.

What do you mean 'we', I say to the biggest Big East proponent/anti AAC guy on the internet?

WTF? I was responding to someone who said USF had never filled half a stadium, had nothing to do with the AAC or Big East.

But you missed that, because you aren't a real Bull. You are actually an Aresco/AAC fan, and that is why you conflate USF with the AAC. But USF is not the AAC, the AAC is merely where we happen to be spending time while we strive for something much better.

Truth is, we cannot survive in the long run with the kind of big-time football program we want to be in the AAC. If God were to say "USF will never leave the AAC" then we would have to drop down to FCS or something, as we cannot sustain the current program, with $20m in student fees, on peanut AAC money. The only reason we are doing it now is in hope of joining a Power league. Current students are paying those fees as an investment towards the day when they aren't needed anymore. It's kind of like 30 years ago when students like myself paid extra fees to build the new (at the time) Marshall Center, so students in the future could have a great center of campus activity. We all contribute and pay it forward. So long run, the AAC and USF have incompatible interests.

I am a real Bulls fan because I always put USF first, and have zero issue with criticizing the AAC when it deserves it. You put the AAC first, and thus think someone isn't a real USF supporter if they disparage the AAC.

(07-05-2019 09:20 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The future BE needs six (and preferably seven) of its programs to elevate to "power program status" so as to be viewed as a "power hoops league." All the league's programs are "major" so this collective elevation can be done.

I don't doubt that you are aware of media sources and the like that do not regard the Big East as a "power hoops league" on par with the P5 leagues. But IMO, they are a distinct minority. My sense is that the clear majority, the consensus, of the "college basketball community" broadly defined does regard the Big East as a Power hoops league.

And IMO, there is evidence for that in stuff like the willingness of P5 leagues to do scheduling arrangements with the Big East, the willingness of Madison Square Garden to prioritize the Big East over the ACC and B1G in tournament scheduling, and the respect the Big East has been shown by the NCAA selection committee. In all outward appearances, the Big East seems to get the same respect as we would expect a P league to get.

USF can fill a stadium