10 teams in the Big East vs adding more teams.

[Mucrisco]

(I was going to respond to a post in the Big East thread, but I thought this deserved it's own topic.)

"The Big East powers-that-be say they wanted a new league that was basketball-oriented. Prove it by sticking with 10 teams from here on out."

It can still be a bball oriented league with 12 teams----just need to make sure the additions are quality bball oriented and make sense for the conference if they go down that expansion road. I'm not saying they should, just making the point that the number of teams and "bball oriented" aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't really understand that mentality either. I know many if not most feel that a round robin format is how a conference should be. I don't think it's necessary for a few reasons. You can set your team goals and put emphasis on whatever you want. Personally, I feel that Buzz puts the most emphasis on the tournament. We are striving to get farther in the tournament, and win a national championship. That seems to be his benchmark. During Midnight Madness, he made it clear to the fans what his goal was, by telling the fans that Sweet 16's aren't good enough anymore. He could have said something about winning a conference championship.

Does this mean the team doesn't have mini goals on that road? No. I take every game, one at a time. You strive for a conference championship, then a conference tournament title. As an individual, you strive to be the most successful at your role as you can. Does that mean if you get upset early in the tournament, your season is a failure? No, because hopefully you still achieve some goals along the way. But for Buzz and most people, the ultimate goal is the largest prize that there is, which is a national championship.

So, along that road, you want to prepare your team as best as you can. Most want to play the best competition as possible to challenge your team. If you have a ten team conference, and it's you most talented team, but your conference is down, you get stuck playing a round robin schedule against bad teams. In the Midwest Classic, most of the good basketball schools bolted, to from their own league. As a result, our league was incredibly unbalanced. At the top, we had teams that could compete. The other teams really struggled and were lacking talent. There was no middle ground. The top teams were stuck playing those bottom teams twice, due to the new round robin format. These blowouts were not good for any of the teams. It doesn't help a team to have no chance against another and get blown out, and it doesn't do much for the team that is winning. So, our AD's decided to go to a format where you will play certain teams twice, and other teams only once, so you can schedule more out of conference games. Will the conference championship be unbalanced? Probably, but the ultimate goal is the state tournament.

Through adding more teams into the conference that are good programs, you are making sure there are always a group of quality opponents, and ones that can do damage in the tournament. Look at the Big Ten and the ACC. Those are two quality conferences, but they have years where there are only 4 good teams in there conference. Personally, I want to add more teams. Make the schedule unbalanced. That way, if you are a good team, you can ensure that you are always playing good competition. If you are having a down year, your schedule is not as tough, so that you can still have meaningful competitive games, and still have the opportunity to make the tournament by having an above 500 record.

[TheSultan]

Here is what the original author said:

"Keep the round-robin, 18-game schedule in tact and let us have a pure basketball league built on a decad. It's rare, it's beautiful. The Big East powers-that-be say they wanted a new league that was basketball-oriented. Prove it by sticking with 10 teams from here on out."

First, I think there is some odd logic here. Not sure why sticking with 10 teams is more "basketball-oriented" than 12 or 14 teams. As crisco says, as long as you pick the right teams it will be a basketball-oriented league. And all those who are being mentioned are clearly basketball-oriented.

Second, I am not sure what is particularly "beautiful" about a pure round-robin schedule. I think crisco hits on a lot of these points wonderfully in his post so I won't get into that.

And finally, while it is nice to be labelled beautiful and all that, it really isn't the goal of a conference to satisfy the aesthetic interests of sports writers. Among other things, it is about making money. And if the conference is expected to provide content to Fox Sports 1 & 2, and they want more product, the Big East will have to produce it. Next year there will be 90 regular season BE games....12 teams playing 18 games each provides 108 games...14 teams playing 18 games provides 126. This is important.

[Nukem2]

Agree with Crisco and Sultan. Yes, its nice to have a round-robin schedule, but....? I think 12 or 14 teams provides a better critical mass as noted (as long as the additional schools are of quality BB-wise).

[TheSultan]

Oh I just thought of another point...

Since the expansion that started in the early 90s with Penn State joining the Big Ten, every single conference has gotten larger. The SEC went to 12. The Big 8 merged with the top parts of the SWC, etc. Even conferences that started out small like the Mountain West began to expand and are now just as big. The only major conference that got smaller during this time was the Big 12. And this wasn't really because it *wanted* to get smaller, but because Texas wanted to play hard ball and drove away a number of their key members - and they are weaker as a result.

So while I may not understand *all* of the reasons, getting bigger seems to be important. But obviously this has to be done *smartly* - and not just throwing crap up against a wall, which is what I think the BE was doing before the C7 broke away.

[CaribouJim]

I'm in favor of 12 depending on who you are adding, but no more and keep it one division even if they did go to 14, but I want 12. If, and only if, they can make it next to impossible to bolt because of football, I would take Cinci and UCONN in a New York minute (pun intended). Two quality programs with one shoring up the east coast and who could ensure more fannies in MSG come March and the other providing at least an extra game a year rivalry for the Cinci/Xavier.

[MU88]

Besides adding UC and UConn, which the BE won't do, going to 12 waters down the league. The BE was at 9 for many years, the years when it established itself.

12 gives you a few more doormat games. I am not sure Fox needs that content. What does a SLU-Richmond game do for the league? Or, a Dayton-Providence game?

Further, there are really no viable candidates. The 4 most often mentioned have major warts. SLU is about to come crashing down in 14-15. Their recruiting has been horrible over the past 2 years and Crews has been, more or less, a recruiting bust at his last two stops. Dayton, Richmond and VCU bring small markets. While Dayton has good attendance, Richmond and VCU have relatively low numbers. Dayton was a mess in the Great Midwest. Historically, Richmond has a more successful program than VCU, but even that isn't great. VCU has a nice little run going, much like GMU did a few years ago. But, once Shaka leaves, and he will leave, who is to say they will continue their run of success.

Finally, do I want to miss a home game against Georgetown or St. John's to play SLU, Dayton, Richmond or VCU? No. I think that would suck. In fact, losing a home game for any BE team, even DePaul or Providence, for one of the proposed newbies would suck.

Overall, I don't see the attraction or merits of going to 12.

[TrevorCandelino]

Besides adding UC and UConn, which the BE won't do, going to 12 waters down the league. The BE was at 9 for many years, the years when it established itself.

12 gives you a few more doormat games. I am not sure Fox needs that content. What does a SLU-Richmond game do for the league? Or, a Dayton-Providence game?

Further, there are really no viable candidates. The 4 most often mentioned have major warts. SLU is about to come crashing down in 14-15. Their recruiting has been horrible over the past 2 years and Crews has been, more or less, a recruiting bust at his last two stops. Dayton, Richmond and VCU bring small markets. While Dayton has good attendance, Richmond and VCU have relatively low numbers. Dayton was a mess in the Great Midwest. Historically, Richmond has a more successful program than VCU, but even that isn't great. VCU has a nice little run going, much like GMU did a few years ago. But, once Shaka leaves, and he will leave, who is to say they will continue their run of success.

Finally, do I want to miss a home game against Georgetown or St. John's to play SLU, Dayton, Richmond or VCU? No. I think that would suck. In fact, losing a home game for any BE team, even DePaul or Providence, for one of the proposed newbies would suck.

Overall, I don't see the attraction or merits of going to 12.

This....

Not to mention, a move to 12 teams also likely brings East/West divisions with MU being isolated from the original Big East teams and east coast media markets......

[TheSultan]

From a currently, competitive viewpoint, it is hard to argue with some of your point MU88.

However that really isn't why leagues expand. The BE did indeed stay at nine for competitive reasons, but in the end that was its likely downfall. Taking Penn State and their doormat basketball program, would likely have enabled them to build up a better football conference. Look at the Pac 12 adding Utah and Colorado...or the Big Ten adding Rutgers and Maryland...or the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse. From a competitive standpoint, those are all really bad additions.

You do bring up some good points regarding markets and I am not sure I like the idea of Richmond OR Dayton. I do like St. Louis though.

[MUWhistler]

One of the main things the old BE did was that as MU improved over the last several seasons, the teams they scheduled us for with the home-and-home got better. They knew that high quality matchups did better for tv revenue which was important for the league overall. I want the new BE to expand beyond 10, but hope they take a similar approach.

It is like what the NFL does, making the #1 division seeds play the #1 division seeds in the following year, while the #4 seeds play the #4 seeds. It creates high quality matchups usually and lets the bottom feeders beat up on each other.

[TheSultan]

This....

Not to mention, a move to 12 teams also likely brings East/West divisions with MU being isolated from the original Big East teams and east coast media markets......


There is no reason to suggest that 12 teams would bring divisions. In fact in basketball there has been a move away from divisions nationwide. The Big Ten doesn't use them...Pac12 doesn't...SEC dropped them...BE never used them...Big 12 went away from using them before they downsized, etc.

[Goose85]

Couple positives about going to 12.

- More content for our TV partner (I think they want 12 and they pay the bills).
- Better chance to sell out the Garden and keep MSG for annual tourney.
- Possible opportunity for more NCAA tourney credits if right teams are added.
- May need more options. Can't depend on most schools being in NCAA tourney every year.
- Need to be a multiple bid league (if Butler is down hopefully VCU/Rich is up / if Xavier is down hopefully SLU is up that year).
- Helps non basketball sports as currently all 10 schools don't compete in every league sponsored sport.

For 12 to work, the next two in need to enhance the league in some way, not just be numbers to get to 12.

Fox and Big East will make sure MU plays G-Town every year twice for ratings purposes.

[ValiantSailor]

I'm not sure that football conferences should be used as a paradigm for our basketball conference. Go back 15-20 years and every conference had a "perfect" round robin BB schedule. Then football mucked it up. We have the opportunity to correct those mistakes.

I'd like to keep the BE at ten, until and if it proves unworkable.

VS

[Litehouse]

Couple positives about going to 12.

- More content for our TV partner (I think they want 12 and they pay the bills).
They may want it, but are they willing to pay more per school to get it?

- Better chance to sell out the Garden and keep MSG for annual tourney.
I agree with this, but we'll have to see if we really need it.

- Possible opportunity for more NCAA tourney credits if right teams are added.
What are those right teams? Dayton and SLU? If they don't make, we'll have to split all of our NCAA credits with them, more mouths to feed.

- May need more options. Can't depend on most schools being in NCAA tourney every year.
I don't see how adding Dayton, SLU, VCU or Richmond helps this. They're just as inconsistent, and we'd still have to split the revenue more ways.

- Need to be a multiple bid league (if Butler is down hopefully VCU/Rich is up / if Xavier is down hopefully SLU is up that year).
We can do that with what we have. If Butler is down, hopefully Creighton is up, if Xavier is down hopefully Providence is up.

- Helps non basketball sports as currently all 10 schools don't compete in every league sponsored sport.
This may be true, but does it really matter? I don't want to make basketball decisions based on womens volleyball.

For 12 to work, the next two in need to enhance the league in some way, not just be numbers to get to 12.
Who is that? I just don't see anyone available (other than Gonzaga) that enhances the league.

Fox and Big East will make sure MU plays G-Town every year twice for ratings purposes.

I think we're better off at 10 for now. Maybe in 10 years, schools like Memphis, Cincy, Temple, or UConn are left out of the new BCS and drop football. Or maybe VCU continues their run and makes the choice obvious.

[Phantom Warrior]

I hate unbalanced schedules.

No reason to go to 12 other than to try to add two markets for t.v. Basketball-wise, I don't see any program worth adding. The league already has two programs that have been struggling in DePaul and Seton Hall.

If four or five years from now SLU is still successful, then consider adding the Billikens, but Rick is the one who built that program up. I doubt it can stay up.

Dayton has been a respectable program, but I doubt the Flyers would boost the league's RPI, which, to me, is the primary criterion for addition.

Richmond? Ugh! VCU? Kind of like SLU, see where it is a few years down the road.

Basketball-wise Gonzaga would be a nice addition, but it's not going to happen unless it's for basketball only. That would be awesome, but we're not in Wonderland, are we Alice?

Stick to 10! Round robin of 18 games. Don't water the league down. Build the image of QUALITY HOOPS! That's the key to the league's success.

[TheSultan]

I'm not sure that football conferences should be used as a paradigm for our basketball conference. Go back 15-20 years and every conference had a "perfect" round robin BB schedule. Then football mucked it up. We have the opportunity to correct those mistakes.


There are two issues here...what is good for the fans and what is good for the conference. These are not necessarily the same thing.

I understand the desire for a nice round robin schedule. And I understand the desire to not add a bunch of mediocre teams to the conference. However the acquisition of schools and markets, and developing additional product, are all very important. Conferences obviously see that adding these assets are important to their long-term health. Of course the conference can't be stupid about it like the BE was. So after they crunch the numbers they very well might see that adding two new schools isn't worth it. But don't think they are going to come to that conclusion because they want to keep the "beauty" of a round-robin schedule.

And it's not just football conferences. The WCC added BYU and will be adding Pacific. The Patriot League is adding Boston University and Loyola. This type of expansion is happening at all levels.

[IWB]

The biggest thing is the NCAA tournament. Anyone that thinks this league, at 10 teams, will get 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney is crazy. This league, as it is, will likely get three. Go to 12 and you can get 5, but a 10 team conference will not get a large number of teams.

Litehouse suggest that, while Fox may want more teams, they would have to pay more per school. Really? Wasn't that already part of the deal? $3.5 mill per school the first year and $3mil per year after that is because of the expected expansion.

Yes, round robin is nice, but when your conference's success will live and die by the ever loving NCAA tourney berth, 12 is better than 10.

[Goose85]

I sure didn't mind unbalanced schedules when that meant we had Lousiville, UConn, Pitt, Syracuse, ND, Cincy, St. John's, Georgetown, Villanova, etc in the same league with us.

This is the new Big East where 10-8 won't likely get it done for a NCAA tourney bid.
I'd think at least 11-7 with wins over ranked teams or 12-6 will be needed to get it done.

One question to consider;

Are teams that play a true round robin schedule at a disadvantage come NCAA time?
If MU and G-Town are really good, and say St. John's has a very good year, that could mean 5 or 6 league losses for say Xavier who could be the next best team, while Purdue only plays Mich St, Ohio State and Wisconsin once each.

I would like to go 12 if the two additional schools provide a new market, improve revenue for the league (FOX / NCAA credits), have a realistic chance to be an NCAA team 3 out of every five years, and participate in the other sports the Big East supports.

[BLT]

If two teams are added to twelve, and 50% of those teams make the NCAA, that one extra team is worth millions in credits. The ROI is too great. More so, FOX will be a national channel, they want more TV coverage for ratings, for their main devoted conference. Too much moola at stake.

More so, expansion helps the non-revenue sports keep travel costs down by forming divisions.

As a fan, I am with a few here as playing only nine teams twice a year gets old. I liked the old BE way with 16 as it added a bit of suspense to the season with scheduling as there was an element of surprise. I didn't think so when it first came out but I came to enjoy it.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

I hate unbalanced schedules.

No reason to go to 12 other than to try to add two markets for t.v. Basketball-wise, I don't see any program worth adding. The league already has two programs that have been struggling in DePaul and Seton Hall.

If four or five years from now SLU is still successful, then consider adding the Billikens, but Rick is the one who built that program up. I doubt it can stay up.

Dayton has been a respectable program, but I doubt the Flyers would boost the league's RPI, which, to me, is the primary criterion for addition.

Richmond? Ugh! VCU? Kind of like SLU, see where it is a few years down the road.

Basketball-wise Gonzaga would be a nice addition, but it's not going to happen unless it's for basketball only. That would be awesome, but we're not in Wonderland, are we Alice?

Stick to 10! Round robin of 18 games. Don't water the league down. Build the image of QUALITY HOOPS! That's the key to the league's success.

Watering down the league and having unbalanced schedules can be completely mutually exclusive of each other...not sure if you were implying they weren't but it came off that way in this post. I get that it doesnt make sense to add just for the sake of adding, but I have zero problem with an unbalanced schedule. Sure some years, certain teams may get a more favorable draw....but if going to 12, and therefore having an unbalanced schedule, means more quality teams and an overall stronger conference than I'm all for it regardless of the unbalanced schedule.

[Phantom Warrior]

I do like balanced schedules as I think you get true league champions if everyone faces the same competition.

But for me the primary issue is the one I concluded with - add teams only if they are likely to raise the league's rpi more often than not. Adding weaker teams actually makes it more difficult to get a bubble team in the tournament as games against those teams dilute a borderline team's rpi.

I think a 10-team league can realistically get four or five teams in the tournament per year. Expanding to 12 teams does not necessarily increase that number to five or six.

I don't see any candidates out there that I would love to have join the conference.

[warriorfan4life]

The biggest thing is the NCAA tournament. Anyone that thinks this league, at 10 teams, will get 5-6 teams in the NCAA tourney is crazy. This league, as it is, will likely get three. Go to 12 and you can get 5, but a 10 team conference will not get a large number of teams.

Litehouse suggest that, while Fox may want more teams, they would have to pay more per school. Really? Wasn't that already part of the deal? $3.5 mill per school the first year and $3mil per year after that is because of the expected expansion.

Yes, round robin is nice, but when your conference's success will live and die by the ever loving NCAA tourney berth, 12 is better than 10.

I am not crazy and I think this league would average five bids per year at ten teams. Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Butler, and Xavier have been regular NCAA teams and the St. John's and Providence programs are on the up swing. I am unsure of Creighton post Doug McDermott, and even with McDermott next year, but they seem to realize to challenge the conference of the new league and have made coaching and recruiting moves to prepare for this new venture. DePaul and Seton Hall may be doormats, which actually would be healthy for league in a sense. However, they also have many of the criteria of being sleeping giants and one/both of them could eventually stumble into returning to a strong position. The old Big East, back at 9 teams, regularly put 5-6 teams in. No reason why the new Big East cannot do that as well.

[unclejohn]

I don't know that that is true. I remember the old Great Midwest days. The conference had six or seven teams depending on the year, and I believe placed at least three in the tournament every year. In addition, it typically put another couple in the NIT when the NIT was better than it is today. I recall the last year before the beginning of C-USA, which was mostly a merger of the GMC and the Metro. The GMC put Cincinnati, Memphis, and Saint Louis in the NCAA and Marquette and DePaul in the NIT. Meanwhile, the Metro, which had about seven or eight teams, put Louisville and a couple others in the NCAA and a couple more in the NIT. I do not know that things would work out the same way today, but I think there is more good teams in the Big East next year than there were in the GMC. I do not see that adding two more schools necessarily improves that.

[Phantom Warrior]

Adding two schools that end up having an rpi above 100 could actually hurt the chances of adding another team or two in the tourney.

First, if those teams do not have success against teams from other conferences during the non-conference portion of the season that wold hurt the league's ranking relative to the other major conferences.

Second, playing those two teams in league play can also harm the rpi of both the stronger teams in the conference and the bubble teams.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but adding two additional teams could make it more difficult to get five teams in the Big Dance.

[WindyCityGoldenEagle]

Adding two schools that end up having an rpi above 100 could actually hurt the chances of adding another team or two in the tourney.

First, if those teams do not have success against teams from other conferences during the non-conference portion of the season that wold hurt the league's ranking relative to the other major conferences.

Second, playing those two teams in league play can also harm the rpi of both the stronger teams in the conference and the bubble teams.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but adding two additional teams could make it more difficult to get five teams in the Big Dance.

Agreed.

At what point does this thread turn into the "who is worthy of being added and not worthy of being added?" (which seemed to happen in every thread when the c7 announced their separation) :)

[ValiantSailor]

It may seem counter-intuitive, but adding two additional teams could make it more difficult to get five teams in the Big Dance.

Not counter-intuitive at all. If we add the wrong teams, we'll be viewed as a mid-major, fighting for bids among the A10, Mountain West, and C-USA.

We must prove we belong among the high-major football conferences, before we even consider adding more teams. That will take at least two years, maybe longer. Once we've established our creds, then we can pick additional teams, if needed,

VS

[TheSultan]

Adding two schools that end up having an rpi above 100 could actually hurt the chances of adding another team or two in the tourney.

First, if those teams do not have success against teams from other conferences during the non-conference portion of the season that wold hurt the league's ranking relative to the other major conferences.

Second, playing those two teams in league play can also harm the rpi of both the stronger teams in the conference and the bubble teams.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but adding two additional teams could make it more difficult to get five teams in the Big Dance.



Agreed...but that is why I say that expansion has to be done smartly. Not simply adding teams for the sake of adding them.