Why the C7, Why not the C4 or C5?

[Tugg Speedman]

In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

I would argue there are some among the C7 that don't even fit that bill, but Belmont certainly doesn't.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

[Nukem2]

Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

[ChicosBailBonds]

In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

My guess is that it just makes more sense to move in that direction with all 7 like minded schools considering the current affiliation.  We need some mass to do this and going at it with 4 vs 5, or 6 or 7 makes it that much harder.  Also, with 7 you get the automatic bid from the NCAA so that is one hurdle already cleared.  It also tells your other schools that you are trying to convince to come into the league that there is some broader commitment.  I don't mind it, we need some bottom feeders.  Every league has a an equilibrium point where there is a top and a bottom and typically a pliable middle.  In most leagues the top is relatively constant with some aberrations in some years.  We're going to need a few programs like that.

[Tugg Speedman]

Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

[TheButlerDidIt]

Also, with 7 you get the automatic bid from the NCAA so that is one hurdle already cleared.

You'd have to think that MU, Georgetown, SJU, and Nova would be granted a waiver from the NCAA, right?

But as you've said in other posts, it's more than just bball.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

I could be wrong but didn't they need all the votes of the 7 schools to do this?

[honkytonk]

In another thread CBB said the following which I thought was worthy of its own thread.

I agree with this and want to ask why Seton Hall, DePaul and Providence are part of the C7. Or, if it was the C4 or C5 would we be courting these schools?  I think the answer is no.

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

Thoughts?

I think you have lost your mind. Are you in favor of continuing the Big East name? If so, explain to me how dropping SHU and PU will make college basketball fans around the country identify the BE's history with its new make-up. DePaul and MU were added when the conference was serving dessert. You want to drop those two schools and carry the BE name? If you are in favor of discontinuing the BE name, then you have an argument. SHU was warned by the BE in either 2009 or 2010 that it was nearing the minimum investment for its athletic department. The school is not doing well by itself. At least PU has Cooley and has potential. Heck, I like PU's potential more than I like SJU's potential.

[Pakuni]

That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

About 20 years ago, when MU was in the dumps and DePaul was still going pretty strong, some (mostly) Midwestern schools with good basketball traditions got together to form the Great Midwest Conference. DePaul was one of the leaders of that effort, and because of MU's longstanding ties to them, they were kind enough to invite us along at a time when MU was "not competitive" (zero NCAAs in the previous nine seasons, losing records three of the previous four years).
Getting into the Great Midwest helped Marquette get into C-USA which helped Marquette get into the Big East. It set in motion the path to Tom Crean and Dwyane Wade and Buzz Williams and Jae Crowder.
If DePaul had said "screw those guys, they're not competitive now" Marquette could be Detroit Mercy or Loyola today. Instead, DePaul looked out for MU and we have very successful program to enjoy.

So, before you go chasing off DePaul as not worthy of sharing a conference with mighty Marquette, perhaps you should reflect a bit upon history and consider what they did for us a couple of decades ago.

[MuMark]

About 20 years ago, when MU was in the dumps and DePaul was still going pretty strong, some (mostly) Midwestern schools with good basketball traditions got together to form the Great Midwest Conference. DePaul was one of the leaders of that effort, and because of MU's longstanding ties to them, they were kind enough to invite us along at a time when MU was "not competitive" (zero NCAAs in the previous nine seasons, losing records three of the previous four years).
Getting into the Great Midwest helped Marquette get into C-USA which helped Marquette get into the Big East. It set in motion the path to Tom Crean and Dwyane Wade and Buzz Williams and Jae Crowder.
If DePaul had said "screw those guys, they're not competitive now" Marquette could be Detroit Mercy or Loyola today. Instead, DePaul looked out for MU and we have very successful program to enjoy.

So, before you go chasing off DePaul as not worthy of sharing a conference with mighty Marquette, perhaps you should reflect a bit upon history and consider what they did for us a couple of decades ago.

Well said......people have short memories

[tower912]

Because they are the basketball only schools from the Big East.   They have a common bond and a common goal for their programs.    Plus, moving as a bloc gives them more leverage.

[Tommy Brice for Coach]

Well said......people have short memories

+1. It is important to stick with DPU.

[Galway Eagle]

That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.  How long can the new conference afford for them to be this bad?

A 16 team conference can carry two terrible teams, what about a risky new type of basketball only conference, can it afford to carry them?

Depaul only has one more loss than us and is really starting to gel.  Next year they have a top60 recruit (lord knows how long it's been since the last one) an they'll have something like 5 seniors, and all their starters back.  They're probs gonna be competitive this year and good next year.  Also no matter what percent of people at MU are from the chicagoland area Depaul still has more control over it. As far as Hall goes I dont like them at all.  

[chapman]

That is why I said C5, I was more think of the Hall and DePaul.  Yes they both have history, but they are not competitive now.

Since they've been left out of the discussion so far, Seton Hall's BE records since we joined: 9-7, 4-12, 7-11, 7-11, 9-9, 7-11, 8-10.

How is that not competitive?  They haven't been good, but they've only been really bad one year, which came after an NCAA appearance.  Not going to kill a league enough to justify ending all ties that for some are over 30 years old.  Similar in strength to a lot of the middling A-10 teams that have been discussed as potential additions but with a good market and tradition.

[Dawson Rental]

Providence will be good this year now that Dunn and Johnson are on the court ( plus Ledo next year ).

From what I've heard, only if Providence moves up to the NBA.

[Dawson Rental]

Why the C7, Why not the C4 or C5?

Because the seven schools discussed their options together, made a joint decision on what to do, and committed to leaving the conference together. 

In a history of conference realignment defined by schools acting in their sole self interest, cutting any of the C7 schools out of the new conference at this point would be the most ruthless selfish action taken by any school(s) to date.  Would that be a fitting tribute for schools whose mission includes a religious component?

[Aughnanure]

DePaul is the largest Catholic university in the country in the second largest TV market and is Marquette's main ally. They're going nowhere, and they shouldn't.

Providence basically gave birth to the Big East, so just stop - they will always have a place (and again, they should!).

I could listen to Seton Hall, but if you're saying let's replace them with Dayton or St. Louis I'm going to be rolling my eyes.

[Tugg Speedman]

Here is my question again, which has not been addressed ...

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

[Tugg Speedman]

Here is what ESPN's Joe Lundari said

(from this thread)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34955.msg429817#msg429817

The bottom line of all this number-crunching, even if tweaked to the advantage of certain schools or groups of schools, is that the so-called Catholic Seven is a long, long, long way from its Big East glory days. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown can never be good enough to carry their four average-to-below-average (and we're being kind) partners.


------

Lundari argued the new C7 is not very good because of the bottom of the conference, not a lack of good schools at the top.

Is he wrong?  So I ask again, how long can the bottom feeders stay that way in the new conference?

[Tugg Speedman]

Since they've been left out of the discussion so far, Seton Hall's BE records since we joined: 9-7, 4-12, 7-11, 7-11, 9-9, 7-11, 8-10.

How is that not competitive?  They haven't been good, but they've only been really bad one year, which came after an NCAA appearance.  Not going to kill a league enough to justify ending all ties that for some are over 30 years old.  Similar in strength to a lot of the middling A-10 teams that have been discussed as potential additions but with a good market and tradition.

No above .500 seasons in the last six years is not good.  No NCAA in the last six years is not good.

[Pakuni]

Here is what ESPN's Joe Lundari said

(from this thread)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34955.msg429817#msg429817

The bottom line of all this number-crunching, even if tweaked to the advantage of certain schools or groups of schools, is that the so-called Catholic Seven is a long, long, long way from its Big East glory days. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown can never be good enough to carry their four average-to-below-average (and we're being kind) partners.


------

Lundari argued the new C7 is not very good because of the bottom of the conference, not a lack of good schools at the top.

Is he wrong?  So I ask again, how long can the bottom feeders stay that way in the new conference?

Lunardi's numbers aren't really relevant, as they fail to consider the quality programs that are likely to be included in the new conference, i.e. Xavier, Butler, etc.

[JoBo2756]

I could be wrong but didn't they need all the votes of the 7 schools to do this?

Yeah. that pretty much answers the question right there.

[boyonthedock]

none of the catholic 7 are terrible right now.they are all top third teams in the nation, and the only reason some at the bottom are going to have a losing record is because of the monster conference they are in. If you want to talk terrible, we'll talk Penn State, Boston College, Wake Forrest, Nebraska, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, Arizona State, Auburn, South Carolina, and Mississippi state. Even the worst teams in the big east this year are about as good as Northwestern, Arkansas, Florida state, or Oklahoma. Its one of the reasons the big east is so tough, because even the bottom feeders are still good basketball teams with brutal schedules. And having a strong bottom is the key to keeping that rpi up in conference play.

[chapman]

No above .500 seasons in the last six years is not good.  No NCAA in the last six years is not good.

But they are competitive.  Moreso than St. John's has been, and far better than DePaul and Providence.

[honkytonk]

So I guess the ultimate question is this:

The regular season conference champion will expect to receive an NCAA tournament seed of......????????

Im guessing a 2 seed is best case scenario. I wouldnt be surprised if a 3 seed is more along the lines of the average.

The ACC will dominate. The SEC will get a #1 seed. The BIG will get a #1 seed. The Big 12 will LIKELY get a #1 (Kansas...and at times, Texas or OU). Can we get people on the selection committee? Will we be looked upon as a mid major and have no one in the Selection Sunday room? Will the chairs be dominated by the football playing schools? THAT worries me.

[Aughnanure]

Here is my question again, which has not been addressed ...

Now that we broke off, how long can afford to let these schools continue to be bottom feeders?  If they cannot get competitive soon (not good, just competitive), do we cut them loose?

If every team is 9-9 this conference sucks. Guess what guys? There WILL BE BOTTOM FEEDERS if we want to have legit nationally-hyped successful title contending teams. If we go 14-4, someone more than likely has to go 4-14.

That being said, I don't think anyone will be as much of a bottom feeders as they were in the former BE. That league suffocated programs, and didn't allow them to get above water to regain their footing to go forward. This new setup will provide those schools with so much more breathing room then they're used to.

[MerrittsMustache]

I could be wrong but didn't they need all the votes of the 7 schools to do this?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[honkytonk]

If every team is 9-9 this conference sucks. Guess what guys? There WILL BE BOTTOM FEEDERS if we want to have legit nationally-hyped successful title contending teams. If we go 14-4, someone more than likely has to go 4-14.

That being said, I don't think anyone will be as much of a bottom feeders as they were in the former BE. That league suffocated programs, and didn't allow them to get above water to regain their footing to go forward. This new setup will provide those schools with so much more breathing room then they're used to.

Exactly. And if your scenario comes to fruition...and today's bottom feeders can come up for air...then we hav to take that good with the bad - the bad being that the conference champion will be highly unlikely to receive a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament.

[Dawson Rental]

Here is what ESPN's Joe Lundari said

(from this thread)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=34955.msg429817#msg429817

The bottom line of all this number-crunching, even if tweaked to the advantage of certain schools or groups of schools, is that the so-called Catholic Seven is a long, long, long way from its Big East glory days. Villanova, Marquette and Georgetown can never be good enough to carry their four average-to-below-average (and we're being kind) partners.


------

Lundari argued the new C7 is not very good because of the bottom of the conference, not a lack of good schools at the top.

Is he wrong?  So I ask again, how long can the bottom feeders stay that way in the new conference?

As soon as I read this, I got a picture in my mind of you getting bitch slapped by Shirley Temple.

"That's not very nice Mr. AnotherMU82."  She says with her hands on her hips.

[LauxForThree]

First off, I appreciate the DePaul love.  Some of you guys do remember what transpired in the early 90's, and yes, even though DePaul isn't in great shape now the financial commitment is there.

As for why the C7, simple.... Two things.  You need the C7 to retain an automatic bid for the new conference and 7 votes to dissolve the old one.

[chren21]

About 20 years ago, when MU was in the dumps and DePaul was still going pretty strong, some (mostly) Midwestern schools with good basketball traditions got together to form the Great Midwest Conference. DePaul was one of the leaders of that effort, and because of MU's longstanding ties to them, they were kind enough to invite us along at a time when MU was "not competitive" (zero NCAAs in the previous nine seasons, losing records three of the previous four years).
Getting into the Great Midwest helped Marquette get into C-USA which helped Marquette get into the Big East. It set in motion the path to Tom Crean and Dwyane Wade and Buzz Williams and Jae Crowder.
If DePaul had said "screw those guys, they're not competitive now" Marquette could be Detroit Mercy or Loyola today. Instead, DePaul looked out for MU and we have very successful program to enjoy.

So, before you go chasing off DePaul as not worthy of sharing a conference with mighty Marquette, perhaps you should reflect a bit upon history and consider what they did for us a couple of decades ago.

This is right on.  Well written.  Hopefully eveyone does not grow a huge head so quickly.  We are so lucky to have Buzz and all it takes is a quick few events and we will be worse than DePaul in no time.

[The Equalizer]

First off, I appreciate the DePaul love.  Some of you guys do remember what transpired in the early 90's, and yes, even though DePaul isn't in great shape now the financial commitment is there.

As for why the C7, simple.... Two things.  You need the C7 to retain an automatic bid for the new conference and 7 votes to dissolve the old one.

The conference isn't being disolved. The C7 are simply leaving--apparently there's a rule that says if 7 teams leave as a group there's no exit fee.

The only thing holding them togehter is that if a new conference is formed, it takes all of them to recieve an automatic bid. 

[LauxForThree]

The conference isn't being disolved. The C7 are simply leaving--apparently there's a rule that says if 7 teams leave as a group there's no exit fee.

The only thing holding them togehter is that if a new conference is formed, it takes all of them to recieve an automatic bid. 

While you may be right on this one, I don't recall seeing that particular provision in the Big East by-laws regarding the mass exodus and no exit fee.  What is clearly stated though is if there is a 2/3rd vote (and with the C7 it is a reality), the league can dissolve itself and divide the assets.  So with that particular 'nuclear option' the C7 have, they can use that as leverage in negotiating the exit date and division of assets (name, MSG contract etc.)

So yes, DePaul and the other lower performing programs are needed by MU and GU to strike the best deal and stick together.

[bilsu]

I think the greatest risk in all of this is that the C7 does not stick together.

[Pakuni]

While you may be right on this one, I don't recall seeing that particular provision in the Big East by-laws regarding the mass exodus and no exit fee.  What is clearly stated though is if there is a 2/3rd vote (and with the C7 it is a reality), the league can dissolve itself and divide the assets.  So with that particular 'nuclear option' the C7 have, they can use that as leverage in negotiating the exit date and division of assets (name, MSG contract etc.)

So yes, DePaul and the other lower performing programs are needed by MU and GU to strike the best deal and stick together.

Agreed. Dissolving is for this situation what decertifying is to labor talks. The powers that be in what's left of the BE probably wouldn't want that free-for-all.

[The Equalizer]

While you may be right on this one, I don't recall seeing that particular provision in the Big East by-laws regarding the mass exodus and no exit fee. 

I haven't seen it, but it has been widely reported in the media.

What is clearly stated though is if there is a 2/3rd vote (and with the C7 it is a reality), the league can dissolve itself and divide the assets.  So with that particular 'nuclear option' the C7 have, they can use that as leverage in negotiating the exit date and division of assets (name, MSG contract etc.)

Its too late for this leverage.  Per the bylaws, once teams provide notice of intent to leave, they no longer have a vote. The C7 provided notice to the league they intend to leave last week.

http://www.bigeast.org/tabid/435/article/240210/Statement-From-Commissioner-Mike-Aresco-And-BIG-EAST-Presidents.aspx

That's why you see stories now of the Big East looking to *sell* the name to the new conference--its not a negotiating chip as part of an effort to prevent dissolution:
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4420

The same source inicates the bylaws state how to divvy up the pot of prior departure fees and NCAA units:
http://ajerseyguy.com/?p=4451

Frankly, if I were ACC comissioner John Swofford right now, I offer Georgetown free membership.  You replace Maryland in the DC market, you strenghten your own conference, you give ND another basketball-only partner, and you significantly devalue a potential compeititor (the now C6) who don't have an auto bid and lose one of their top media draws.

[LauxForThree]

Thats an interesting angle you suggest regarding GU and the ACC, but right now, the ACC is worried about strengthening the football brand moreso than making ND basketball happy.  Just my opinion tho.

[Tugg Speedman]

Thats an interesting angle you suggest regarding GU and the ACC, but right now, the ACC is worried about strengthening the football brand moreso than making ND basketball happy.  Just my opinion tho.

The problem is GU adds no revenue to the existing ACC.  The existing TV contract does not get reworked because GU is added.  And it gives one more school to split existing revenues so everyone gets millions less.

This is why GU is not in the ACC now, and probably will not get invited soon.

If anything, it might make more sense for the ACC to invite the entire C7 (plus Butler and X) and form a super conference.  Then then can take all those schools and work a better basketball deal.