Kolek planning to go pro
Adding a 12th team and eliminating the possibility of the round robin schedule wouldn't impact scheduling much and probably wouldn't have much of an impact of SOS either. But it could grow the presence of the league into new areas, which has a number of benefits. I think a lot of the talk about who could be added comes off as a little snobby now that we're full cemented as a power conference contender too. Before MU joined the Big East, I'm sure fans of established programs like Georgetown and UConn questioned whether we would improve the caliber of their conference. And now look where we are. I know I was a little worried about the league when we had to rely on the additions of Creighton and Butler, former mid-major darlings. And now these are teams that are regularly competing in the top half of the league.Things change over time, and given the right scenario, I'm sure there are plenty of current mid-majors that could thrive in the Big East. Maybe 11 will be fine permanently. But there are realistic options to add more schools.
Some push back:In 2018 (where Nova and X were both #1s), every other program had a seed #8 or lower; hardly promising to get to the second weekend (which is what the league's new goal should be: more teams deeper with regularity).In 2017, where the BE had seven bids (again, very impressive), Nova was a #1, but we only had one other top-4 seed (Butler); Creighton was a #6 (upset by Rhode Island), and the rest were #8 seeds or lower (again low probability of getting out of first weekend).In 2016, we had two #2's and a #6, as well as two #9's. We can definitely improve upon the seeds, not bids, that the Big East is currently getting. I guess the "problem" is that it becomes most difficult in a round robin where you consistently have strong teams playing each other, especially in a year that lacks a true bottom. How does the ACC regularly get multiple teams to the Sweet 16 every year? Not only do they get the bids, but they get the high seeds as well (#1-#4). Do higher seeds guarantee a deeper run? Of course not, but it definitely increases the odds.The only way to increase the seeds would be to go past 11 and (most likely) eliminate the round robin. The Big East is committed to the RR for the foreseeable future, no doubt. I guess it will just be interesting to see the data once UConn is in tow, and what adjustments (if any) there is to the league's postseason success.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
No. You can increase the seeds by playing a stronger non-con schedule. Not only by playing more top teams, but by playing less sub-200 teams.Don't f*ck with the round robin schedule.
Exactly. Without a bunch of bottom-feeders, it is going to be more challenging for the BE than it is for the ACC (et al) to earn multiple protected seeds (i.e. #1-4) in any given year. The reason is simple: there aren't enough marbles to go around....Benny's MarblesHearkening back to a much earlier post of mine, consider that each season starts with every team having a finite number of marbles... these marbles represent the collective metrics the selection committee uses to determine the Field of 68. Because of this, there is a level of bias involved, and so some teams (i.e. Duke, UNC, UK, KU, etc.) will start out the season with a few more marbles on average while most of the low-majors start out with a few less than average. Nevertheless, the winning team takes a number of the losing team's marbles depending on the quality of the win, and at the end of the season, the 36 teams with the most marbles on Selection Sunday get an at-large bid. The #1 takeaway here is that by the time conference play rolls around, apart from a "bracket-buster" type game, marbles are only changing hands only within the respective conferences. So even if half your conference might otherwise be March-worthy, if your conference goes into January with half the marbles of the other conferences, there's just not going to be enough marbles to go around to get your deserving half in.This is where the bottom-feeders come in... even a Nebraska or a Northwestern is going to bring some marbles into the conference, but will subsequently give all of them up to their conference mates before the season is over. The Big East figured this out in 2005 by adding the basketball-only schools.The Big East is widely lauded as the best basketball conference top-to-bottom, but it's a double-edge sword. While the quality of basketball is going to be better on a nightly basis from January to early March, it also means that the marbles - even though there are more of them this year - are more likely to be spread more evenly among the teams than they are in the ACC, B?G, etc.
UConn has apparently signed a football broadcast deal with SNY and CBS Sports. If that brings them any value whatsoever, this was likely beneficial for them. As I said earlier, it is much easier to be a football independent now than it was 10 years ago.
UConn's four-year deal with CBSSN reportedly will pay the Huskies more than $1M total. And they don't have to produce the games.CBS Sports Network will televise four home games during the 2020 season and all home games through the 2023 season. This will help filled the gap that CBSSN lost in the 12 or so AAC games that gets moved to ESPN Plus.
UConn spent $9+ million on travel alone in 2019 ($7+ million in 2018). You'd have to imagine that gets cut down considerably too. Years from now, many will be wondering why UConn didn't do this (move to the Big East) sooner.
It depends on who they can schedule. I wonder if AAC teams will refuse to schedule them, as some BE teams did when BC, Miami and Va Tech left.
Supposedly they will be playing Memphis & Cincinnati in MBB.The football team has a future game scheduled with UCF.
AAC still has plenty of solid programs without UConn. The conference's biggest problem is they are very weak after you get past the likes of Wichita, Houston and Memphis.
'Very weak' after three programs does not equal 'plenty of solid programs' in an eleven-member conference. Six or seven would be plenty, IMHO.
Fluffy is wrong about most things. But very similar to Chicos, he has to argue with everyone and pretend to be a know it all, all the while coming across as a complete dumbass.
The problem for the AAC, both in its foundation and in present forms, is that it lacks "power-level" programs in football and men's basketball, and routinely has "anchors" in both sports. It always has strong middle-to-high level programs, but their accomplishments and recognitions get dragged down both of these weaknesses. Unfortunately for the AAC, neither is really fixable long-term, so they are doing what they currently are: marketing/branding as a P6 in hopes that it "covers up" its inadequacies in hopes that it is accepted as a peer (as a P conference).UConn Basketball leaving the AAC, despite what AAC fans proclaim, was and is a huge blow to the perception of the league. Yes, they still have programs like Houston, Cincinnati, Memphis and Wichita State (which are high-level programs), but they also still have ECU, Tulane, USF, UCF and SMU, all of which are historically weaker basketball programs and have little-to-postseason success (which was a major focal point on why the C7 did not want to associate with those programs in basketball). Their bottom has just as many programs as their top does; add in other programs like Tulsa and/or Temple who go through re-builds, and it is clear that it is a 3-bid league annually. The P6 basketball conferences each have national championship-level programs to anchor it annually. The ACC has UNC/Duke/Virginia; the Big 12 has Kansas; the PAC has UCLA/Arizona; we have Villanova/UConn (again). The last time an AAC program won a national championship was over 50 years ago. UConn leaving definitely knocked them down the ladder, so to speak.