MUScoop

Holding a press conference this afternoon, and are expected to announce they are joining the Big East.

Bring on Southern Miss and East Carolina. Get the gang back together!

Ick.

This is actually a great addition. Tulane has long been considered by many experts a sleeping giant in both football and basketball. In fact, projections have suggested that Tulane could be a "Texas like team" within the next seven years. This type of forward thinking will definitely salvage the Big East.

DISCLAIMER: All of the above is false; every single line, opinion and/or alleged fact of it is false.

In retrospect, St. John's, Nova, Providence and Georgetown would have been better off just joining ConfUSA in '05 and saving everyone the trouble.

Big Country Conference:

Maybe Billingsley still has some eligibility remaining.

time for a bball only conference to be put into the works

Did their old barn of a basketball arena get leveled in the hurricane?

Well, it's a university in a big city urban setting that matches the typical Big East school profile.   And they have football.

Quote from: MUfan12 on November 27, 2012, 10:29:13 AM
Holding a press conference this afternoon, and are expected to announce they are joining the Big East.

Bring on Southern Miss and East Carolina. Get the gang back together!

The Blues Brothers Conference

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 27, 2012, 10:43:59 AM
Well, it's a university in a big city urban setting that matches the typical Big East school profile.   And they have football.

Bring on UAB, Charlotte and Buffalo, I guess. Maybe even Florida International.

In order to get Tulane in, they had to change the name of the conference to the Big Easty.

Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 27, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
In retrospect, St. John's, Nova, Providence and Georgetown would have been better off just joining ConfUSA in '05 and saving everyone the trouble.

Ha!

Quote from: starting5 on November 27, 2012, 10:41:00 AM
time for a bball only conference to be put into the works

If Tulane is joining for all sports, then yes, it is time.

No point for MU staying (and the same point can be made for all the basketball-only schools) if the Big East is going to continue to water down the league to maintain a football presence.

Edit: Just read that Tulane is joining for all sports. Time to get serious about the all-basketball conference.

Glass half full --- This is a great road trip.

Glass half empty -- If Im going to N.O., there is less than a 1% chance I actually attend the cupcake game.

Tulane for all sports, East Carolina in football only.

For the love of Moussa Badiene, I can't believe ECU hoops is left to toil in C-USA1

It feels like closing time.    A little desperate and willing to go home with anyone who will have you.  

Quote from: tower912 on November 27, 2012, 11:10:50 AM
It feels like closing time.    A little desperate and willing to go home with anyone who will have you.  

Absolutely agree.  Just imagine when either Louisville or UConn leave. 

Quote from: warriorchick on November 27, 2012, 10:48:42 AM
In order to get Tulane in, they had to change the name of the conference to the Big Easty.

See, there's a positive!

Quote from: tower912 on November 27, 2012, 11:10:50 AM
It feels like closing time.    A little desperate and willing to go home with anyone who will have you.  

More like we are standing over a dead family member who is getting their last rites.

So Temple and Memphis replaced SU and Pitt.

I guess Tulane is the replacement for ND?

ECU is set to announce as a football-only member as well.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 11:15:35 AM
So Temple and Memphis replaced SU and Pitt.

I guess Tulane is the replacement for ND?

ECU is set to announce as a football-only member as well.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Bail, bail!

I hear a toilet flushing.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 11:15:35 AM
So Temple and Memphis replaced SU and Pitt.

I guess Tulane is the replacement for ND?

ECU is set to announce as a football-only member as well.

No, Rutgers.  Non-football playing members are free to leave anytime.

What in the name of Ledaryl Billingsley is going on around here?  This is a joke, right?  Seriously.  Please tell me this is a joke (cause the rest of America thinks it is).

I am sick to my stomach.  

When the big 4 conferences break away from the NCAA and don't allow these teams to compete in their new football tournament.  The big east is gonna look even dumber than they already do now.  Time to get the national bball conference going.  Right now! While we can...

Quote from: Wade for President on November 27, 2012, 11:24:43 AM
What in the name of Ledaryl Billingsley is going on around here?  This is a joke, right?  Seriously.  Please tell me this is a joke (cause the rest of America thinks it is).

I am sick to my stomach.  

Welcome to the new Big East. Same as the old Conference USA. Yippee!

any bball independence will rely on the tv deal. if it's 9 figures there will be no reason way we or any other hoops school could bail. too much money. if for some reason the negotiations dont work out and it still makes noetary sense to leave then we, and the other hoops schools, probably will.

The reenactment of the Titanic sinking that the Big East conference is engaged in is truly fun to watch. Extra credit to the executives who decided to add multiple icebergs rather than just the one.

This is very disappointing.

I would have liked to have seen UMass get added. Over time, the could be a decent bball team. Their football team just announced they are moving from FCS to FBS (which means they cant be any worse than Memphis or Tulane). The BE finally moves back into Boston. 21,000 undergrads. I'm assuming they have plenty of alums in NYC which would help with BET ticket sales.

Well, now when MU signs recruits we know that playing in the top college hoops conference isn't high on their list.

The Big East is now officially a garbage league. C-USA 2.0. A random collection of ill-fitting schools that have little in common—other than the fact no other conference wants them.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 12:01:08 PM
I would have liked to have seen UMass get added. Over time, the could be a decent bball team. Their football team just announced they are moving from FCS to FBS (which means they cant be any worse than Memphis or Tulane). The BE finally moves back into Boston. 21,000 undergrads. I'm assuming they have plenty of alums in NYC which would help with BET ticket sales.

And they play their homegames in Foxboro.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 27, 2012, 12:03:26 PM
And they play their homegames in Foxboro.

Forgot about that. 11,000 fans probably doesnt look very good. Their goal was 20,000 this season. Because of ticket revenue, they experienced a budget shortfall of 700,000. I think a lot of schools would actually be jealous of that shortfall.

Quote from: JTBMU7 on November 27, 2012, 11:38:29 AM
any bball independence will rely on the tv deal. if it's 9 figures there will be no reason way we or any other hoops school could bail. too much money. if for some reason the negotiations dont work out and it still makes noetary sense to leave then we, and the other hoops schools, probably will.

We dont get any TV football revenue. We will earn more money over time in a new bball conference than in this half ass conference.

VOTE TO DISSOLVE!

Only after two of UL, UConn and UC leave. Until then, might as well stick around. Those games are near sell-outs and good for SOS, RPI and exposure.

This is getting to hard to keep track of.  Can someone list all the teams of this walking disaster?

Surely East Carolina and Southern Miss are better.

Tulane? Really?

I haven't followed college football for a while, but have they seriously done anything since Shaun King?

What a crap conference. So disappointing. At least MU had a taste of the big leagues for a few years. It was a nice ride while it lasted.

What is even more depressing is this is the death spiral for the Big East.  If the commissioner is rolling out this garbage all the other sharks see it as desperation and all the "big" teams remaining will bolt.  We need to tie ourselves to Gtown and St Johns and pray.  Because within two years the Big East will be dead as a football conference.

Quote from: Badgerhater on November 27, 2012, 12:11:15 PM
This is getting to hard to keep track of.  Can someone list all the teams of this walking disaster?

2013 (*FB only)
FB: Uconn, Louisville, Cincinnati, Temple, Rutgers, Houston, UCF, USF, SMU, Memphis, Boise*, SDSU*
BB: Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, ND, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, St. Johns.

2014
FB: subtract Rutgers, add Tulane and ECU*  (likely additional subtraction to ACC)
BB: subtract ND

2015
FB: add Navy*

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 12:10:38 PM
Only after two of UL, UConn and UC leave. Until then, might as well stick around. Those games are near sell-outs and good for SOS, RPI and exposure.

Why be the last rat off the ship? The time is now for MU, Georgetown, 'Nova and alike to make their move. Before, you have a league game against Tulane on your schedule.

Let's stop any talk of a major TV contract on the horizon. No network is going to pony up big bucks for this slop...I don't care how desperate they are for content.

Big East. RIP.

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on November 27, 2012, 12:24:25 PM
2015
FB: add Navy*

Some talk bouncing 'round the twittersphere that Navy may go to ACC as well.

When Louisville or UConn leaves, since we are only adding ECU for football, can we expect a basketball only school?  Butler?  Xavier?  Creighton?  With the way it's going, I bet it will be SLU.  I'm starting to warm up to the national basketball conference idea.

It appears the A 10 schools are receiving about $400k each. We are receiving $1.5 million now and the new Big East deal will be $60 mil, tops, which would get us a little over $1 million.  I could negotiate a deal in a basketball only conference that would garner us about $800k, probably more.

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 12:17:57 PM
What a crap conference. So disappointing. At least MU had a taste of the big leagues for a few years. It was a nice ride while it lasted.

Yup.. And they more than hung in there. Maybe they will be back some day. A10 is a better hoops conference than this abomination of a league now.

Let's say a national hoops league comes to fruition. What happens to MU's other sports? The Horizon? The MVC?

Ugh. Welcome to the new reality.

Quote from: MARQ_13 on November 27, 2012, 12:39:57 PM
Yup.. And they more than hung in there. Maybe they will be back some day. A10 is a better hoops conference than this abomination of a league now.

It's not...but getting close

Is it too late to pull the plug on lacrosse? Its a money loser and I think it would be better to move that money into bball operations to offset lost revenue (ticket revenue, credits) once defections are settled and credits slowly expire.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 12:55:53 PM
Is it too late to pull the plug on lacrosse? Its a money loser and I think it would be better to move that money into bball operations to offset lost revenue (ticket revenue, credits) once defections are settled and credits slowly expire.

Increase enrollment by 25, and you almost double our TV rights revenue.

Quote from: Knight Commission on November 27, 2012, 01:10:21 PM
Increase enrollment by 25, and you almost double our TV rights revenue.

There are variable costs associated with adding students. The extra revenue is basically straight profit from one tv contract to the next.

Tulane's last bowl game: 2002; last NCAA trip 1995; this year's home football actual attendance vs. SMU 2,119.

Sounds like a worthy addition.

Can someone explain how the new members have to be approved?  I think right now (or at least I hope) that only Uconn, Louisville, Cinci, Temple, Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and St. Johns can vote to allow new members.  I assume there has to be a decent percentage to get new members in, if not a unanimous vote.  Does this mean MU and all the other bball schools voted to allow Tulane and ECU in?

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 12:02:12 PM
Well, now when MU signs recruits we know that playing in the top college hoops conference isn't high on their list.

The Big East is now officially a garbage league. C-USA 2.0. A random collection of ill-fitting schools that have little in common—other than the fact no other conference wants them.

Maybe we can call it the Misfit Toys League.

Quote from: Abode4life on November 27, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
Can someone explain how the new members have to be approved?  I think right now (or at least I hope) that only Uconn, Louisville, Cinci, Temple, Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and St. Johns can vote to allow new members.  I assume there has to be a decent percentage to get new members in, if not a unanimous vote.  Does this mean MU and all the other bball schools voted to allow Tulane and ECU in?

I want to know this as well. If our leadership (Larry Williams?) is voting to rebuild CUSA at the expense of our relevance as a program then those people need to be relieved of their duties.

Quote from: Abode4life on November 27, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
Can someone explain how the new members have to be approved?  I think right now (or at least I hope) that only Uconn, Louisville, Cinci, Temple, Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and St. Johns can vote to allow new members.  I assume there has to be a decent percentage to get new members in, if not a unanimous vote.  Does this mean MU and all the other bball schools voted to allow Tulane and ECU in?

I'm not even sure Temple has full voting rights. Even if they did, that's 12 votes. Do they just need a majority? It's 5 votes with all the football members, incl Temple right now, so they'd need just 2?

God damn you ACC, just assassinate this conference now and finish the job you started!

Quote from: Wade for President on November 27, 2012, 01:28:50 PM
Tulane's last bowl game: 2002; last NCAA trip 1995; this year's home football actual attendance vs. SMU 2,119.

Sounds like a worthy addition.

How did you find that number since the box score list paid crowds. I know it's a correct number because I've flipped the channel when Tulane is on Fox College Sports.

Quote from: Aughnanure on November 27, 2012, 01:45:10 PM
I'm not even sure Temple has full voting rights. Even if they did, that's 12 votes. Do they just need a majority? It's 5 votes with all the football members, incl Temple right now, so they'd need just 2?

God damn you ACC, just assassinate this conference now and finish the job you started!

However, let's not forget....if the ACC didn't grab BC and VT, MU never would have tasted the Big East.

Might as well put the conference out of its misery.

Quote from: chuncken on November 27, 2012, 01:39:39 PM
I want to know this as well. If our leadership (Larry Williams?) is voting to rebuild CUSA at the expense of our relevance as a program then those people need to be relieved of their duties.

Agree.  I hope, would assume schools that haven't even been admitted can't vote in new members.  So which schools are voting for these additions?  And why are they voting now when either the UConn or Louisville vote will be nullified in a couple days anyway when they get their ACC invite?  I would believe it's Pilarz and not Larry that has the say; either way if the MU vote was a Yes we have an idiot on our hands.

Quote from: Aughnanure on November 27, 2012, 01:45:10 PM
God damn you ACC, just assassinate this conference now and finish the job you started!

Yes.  I'm hoping the ACC and Big 12 get a move on.  We need to follow some coattails into one of those or more likely get the basketball conference going.  For the longest time when people said MU needs to be "proactive" I said it was lunacy because there was nothing that could have been done then that wouldn't be an available option at a later date.  Now I think we've reached the point where we need to be ready to act.

Quote from: Abode4life on November 27, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
Can someone explain how the new members have to be approved?  I think right now (or at least I hope) that only Uconn, Louisville, Cinci, Temple, Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, and St. Johns can vote to allow new members.  I assume there has to be a decent percentage to get new members in, if not a unanimous vote.  Does this mean MU and all the other bball schools voted to allow Tulane and ECU in?

Scroll down this PDF to section 4.02 New Members and read the conference bylaws ... at least as they were last year. Perhaps someone with more legal training can translate better, but it appears that the football members could add new members as "a football action" without the support of the non-football programs. Of course, I could be reading that wrong.

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2011/11/04/bigeast_v_wvu_110411.pdf

We have our work cut out for ourselves. Leaders lead when times are tough. We'll see what we are made of over next weeks.

Could we be voting in teams just so that teams have to pay a bailout to leave? I would imagine that the football schools have legal ground to leave if they were down to six teams and couldn't form a conference?


Also, the topic of dying during a game made me come across this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_who_died_during_their_careers
Some pretty insane deaths in there: electrocution, lost at sea, Russian Roulette, walking off cliff, fell out of dorm (multiple), fell of a truck......... and those are only ones in the last 10 years bee sting, baseball in-game collision, and locker room explosions were some others

But unless other hoops schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St Johns are willing to move, what can MU do? It's hard to get a TV contract for a one-team league.

MU can't go it alone. Unfortunately, MU's future is tied to other schools.

It's all about re-adjusting expectations. MU no longer plays in the top hoops conference in America. We, as alums and fans, need to accept this. We may also need to get used to smaller crowds, less media attention, and fewer top recruits.  

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
But unless other hoops schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St Johns are willing to move, what can MU do? It's hard to get a TV contract for a one-team league.

MU can't go it alone. Unfortunately, MU's future is tied to other schools.

It's all about re-adjusting expectations. MU no longer plays in the top hoops conference in America. We, as alums and fans, need to accept this. We may also need to get used to smaller crowds, less media attention, and fewer top recruits.  

May as well just make bball a club sport and be done with it.

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
But unless other hoops schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St Johns are willing to move, what can MU do? It's hard to get a TV contract for a one-team league.

MU can't go it alone. Unfortunately, MU's future is tied to other schools.

It's all about re-adjusting expectations. MU no longer plays in the top hoops conference in America. We, as alums and fans, need to accept this. We may also need to get used to smaller crowds, less media attention, and fewer top recruits.  

Oh Boy!  Can't wait to adjust my expectations!  Very excited!

I wonder what this means to Mr. Strong and to Buzz.

Quote from: ATWizJr on November 27, 2012, 02:09:33 PM
I wonder what this means to Mr. Strong and to Buzz.

It means Goodbye.

Quote from: mr.MUskie on November 27, 2012, 02:12:40 PM
It means Goodbye.

I think it does, eventually.

Quote from: ATWizJr on November 27, 2012, 02:08:04 PM
Oh Boy!  Can't wait to adjust my expectations!  Very excited!

I know, it sucks. But I'm simply being realistic. For about eight years, MU got to sit at the adult's table in the dining room. Now, it's back to the kiddie table in the kitchen.

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
But unless other hoops schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St Johns are willing to move, what can MU do? It's hard to get a TV contract for a one-team league.

MU can't go it alone. Unfortunately, MU's future is tied to other schools.

Very true, but they (the only good news here) are in the same situation as MU. Do you think GT or Nova fans are happy that Tulane is joining the conference?

Unless MU re-aligns with someone better, we will once again be a mid-term stop-gap (3-6 years) for a really awesome coach. I can see Buzz being here a long time in the Big East or something high-profile like that. But now? If we are in CUSA or something? Nope. He'll be gone, top-flight recruits will be gone, and any new coach will be gone w/in 3-6 years that's really worth his salt.

We can all once again bank on having a new coach every 3-5 years who is 32-35 years old, an "up and comer" and will be called on every year.

Then again...how is this different than currently?

"It's all about re-adjusting expectations. MU no longer plays in the top hoops conference in America. We, as alums and fans, need to accept this. We may also need to get used to smaller crowds, less media attention, and fewer top recruits. "


So we are becoming SLU without Larry having to do a thing, damn...

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
I know, it sucks. But I'm simply being realistic. For about eight years, MU got to sit at the adult's table in the dining room. Now, it's back to the kiddie table in the kitchen.

I agree, it does suck.  And, as an MU fan for 50+ years, I'm not interested in taking a step back.

Quote from: mr.MUskie on November 27, 2012, 02:12:40 PM
It means Goodbye.

Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
But unless other hoops schools like Villanova, Georgetown, and St Johns are willing to move, what can MU do? It's hard to get a TV contract for a one-team league.

MU can't go it alone. Unfortunately, MU's future is tied to other schools.

It's all about re-adjusting expectations. MU no longer plays in the top hoops conference in America. We, as alums and fans, need to accept this. We may also need to get used to smaller crowds, less media attention, and fewer top recruits.  

Marquette - the investment is there
Georgetown - founding BE member with storied history
SJU - TBD. Lavin is a decent hire and I think they will be the new "Team Bubble Team" for awhile
Prov - Cooley seems pretty good. Their recruits are high risk, high reward types (Ledo). Upside is bubble, I think.
Nova - Wright has been down recently, but the programs history is great.
SHU - Not a fan. The university is struggling. They were warned by the BE a few years ago with regard to their investment in athletics. They need to step up.
Houston - Meh. Not a buyer.
SMU - Will Larry Brown still be coaching when next year's freshmen are seniors? No chance. He'll be 106 by then.
Memphis - solid top 25 team
DePaul - potential. That word is getting old.
USF - pretty much a football school but could build to become a perennial bubble team.
UCF - I THINK the resources are there for them to take a step up
Temple - Can Temple and Nova co-exist? Both programs recruit Philly heavily. It might be a case of one or the other in any given year.
Tulane - barf


Im expecting UL, UC and UConn to leave.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

Thanks for saying this before I could, Pakuni.

Shouldn't we at least see where the ledge ends up being before climbing on it for that last fatal leap?

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

those days are gone. our best chances to remain relevant are to start a BB only conference or beg one of the power conferences to take us w/o football.

Madtown

Maybe LW and BOT are doing something by not doing anything. On the surface it does not appear that we are taking aggressive path on where we end up. I am not jumping to conclusions yet because I want to see how things fall out. That said, we have not seen or heard much that would give me a great deal of confidence that we remain in a great basketball conference.

Quote from: Groin_pull on November 27, 2012, 02:15:53 PM
I know, it sucks. But I'm simply being realistic. For about eight years, MU got to sit at the adult's table in the dining room. Now, it's back to the kiddie table in the kitchen.

I don't understand all the doom and gloom. They are enough basketball-only schools that play at a high caliber to put together a strong 12 team conference. Will it be the old Big East, no, but it can be a conference that has quality teams that receives (4-6) NCAA bids a year. The key IMO is to finally make the break with the football schools.

So Buzz will be gone and our team will consist of 3.8 GPA traditionals from Appleton Xavier and Loyola Academy who think Carpenter Hall is the nuts. Hiroshima, Part II.

Quote from: Goose on November 27, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
Madtown

Maybe LW and BOT are doing something by not doing anything. On the surface it does not appear that we are taking aggressive path on where we end up. I am not jumping to conclusions yet because I want to see how things fall out. That said, we have not seen or heard much that would give me a great deal of confidence that we remain in a great basketball conference.

When did you hear about Rutgers and Maryland leaving for the Big 10?
Pitt and Syracuse leaving for the ACC?
Tulane and ECU heading to the Big East?
All less then 48 before the official announcement, right? And in most cases, less than 24 hours.
Don't assume that just because you and your vast array of sources don't know anything "on the surface" that nothing is happening.

Though it's good to see that we're finally finding a way to pin this on LW and Pilarz.

The basketball only conference wouldn't be a huge step back if MU can get creative with non-con scheduling. Unfortunately, it's looking like less and less of a possibility. Although, If/when uconn, ul, cincy leave then we will know our chances of splitting from those god forsaken programs that we were all happy to part with years ago. The basketball schools have to wait till that happens first to do anything. If they leave and the basketball schools don't split then I would worry. I still believe that Buzz could recruit at the highest level in a basketball only league.

On the surface it does not appear that we are taking aggressive path on where we end up.


Does any one have any knowledge or expect to have any knowledge of what MU or Larry is doing?  Likely not until the steps are taken - quite precarious to balance staying in the Big East while potentially trying to form a new conference with financial ramifications at stake.

But that wont stop the message board crowds from demanding MU does something proactive now and inform all of us of it...

Quote from: Goose on November 27, 2012, 02:24:45 PM
Madtown

Maybe LW and BOT are doing something by not doing anything. On the surface it does not appear that we are taking aggressive path on where we end up. I am not jumping to conclusions yet because I want to see how things fall out. That said, we have not seen or heard much that would give me a great deal of confidence that we remain in a great basketball conference.

Pakuni

I agree that much can be going on behind the scenes. However, I highly doubt the other schools leaving happening overnight. Those deals and buyouts took time to be decided. Find it troubling that no one on here or anyone I know have had any info to share on this topic. Hopefully a ton is being done behind the scenes and everyone involved is being more tight lipped than ever. That is why I am not ready to give up hope. I do think the possibility that we are sitting on our hands at least can be discussed.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.

Who was the coach at Louisville and Memphis? Were those players there because of the affiliation w/the conference, or was it because of the coach and his legendary status? If so, how does MU get to that point? I'm not sure Buzz is that guy, nor do I think he'll stay to become that guy.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM


Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.

Without a once in a lifetime prop 48 (who we couldn't take now), the best MU could do in Conference USA was 8-8 and the NIT. Buzz has the program in great shape and we could sustain excellence if he stays. If not, a significant decline is likely - hell, nearly inevitable.

Quote from: MARQ_13 on November 27, 2012, 02:30:38 PM
The basketball only conference wouldn't be a huge step back if MU can get creative with non-con scheduling.

Totally agree. The problem, though, is the loss of leverage we have to sign 1 and 1 games with high majors. There certainly will be programs that want 1 and 1's but they wont be the top tier teams. Those programs would want 2:1. We lose revenue that way...and probably earn more losses. Its a tight-rope walk.

Side note - I'm not giving up hope and I think a hoops-only power conference the likes of which are being touted here does sound great.

Just right now...I'm still not seeing it happening. I'm seeing us holding our jock while the music stops playing and everyone else has found a chair.

Quote from: honkytonk on November 27, 2012, 02:44:41 PM
Totally agree. The problem, though, is the loss of leverage we have to sign 1 and 1 games with high majors. There certainly will be programs that want 1 and 1's but they wont be the top tier teams. Those programs would want 2:1. We lose revenue that way...and probably earn more losses. Its a tight-rope walk.

Non Conf scheduling takes a back-seat if you have a really quality conference. For years MU has gone on and survived by playing UW home every-other-year and usually one semi-decent BCS program at home. The rest is filler or off-campus tournaments. Get a good conference first...then worry about filling an additional 6-8 games a year. You did it before, I'm sure you can do it again.

You do realize we played UMBC last night, right?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 27, 2012, 02:44:33 PM
Without a once in a lifetime prop 48 (who we couldn't take now), the best MU could do in Conference USA was 8-8 and the NIT. Buzz has the program in great shape and we could sustain excellence if he stays. If not, a significant decline is likely - hell, nearly inevitable.

So,  the 95-96 and 96-97 teams that did considerably better than 8-8 in C-USA and went to the tournament didn't really exist?
The "MU will die if Buzz leaves" thing is nonsense and has been demonstrated already. MU has lost good coaches before and gone on to continued success. Should the school remain committed to it and make good decisions, MU will continue to have success if/when Buzz leaves.
Chicken Little-ism run amok today.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

Exactly.

Consider - for a moment - a 13-team conference consisting of GTown, Nova, MU, SJU, Temple, DePaul, Butler, Xavier, Creighton & Wichita State (and probably SHU, Providence, maybe Davidson?)

Coverage in 4 of the 10 largest TV markets in the country
Total coverage of 21,750,000 TV households
Total enrollment 175,000 students
Average endowment of $350M, total endowment of $4.6B
Combined 259 NCAA tournament bids (average of 20 bids/school)

Interestingly... MU would have the fourth highest endowment in that group --- behind GTown, DePaul, and Davidson (mmmm.... tobacco money).


Something tells me MU is going to be juuuuuust fine.

Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on November 27, 2012, 02:46:28 PM
Side note - I'm not giving up hope and I think a hoops-only power conference the likes of which are being touted here does sound great.

Just right now...I'm still not seeing it happening. I'm seeing us holding our jock while the music stops playing and everyone else has found a chair.

Honestly, if something was happening, I doubt anyone would know. But, I do share your concern. My fear is that MU and the other bb schools will sit quietly as long as Cincy, UL and UConn remain in the conference.

The problem with that is those schools will bolt in one second, if they get another conference offer. You can't place your future in hands of such unreliable partners.

Quote from: ATWizJr on November 27, 2012, 02:24:14 PM
 those days are gone. our best chances to remain relevant are to start a BB only conference or beg one of the power conferences to take us w/o football.

Gotta be this one.  Big Ten is out, UW will never let it happen.  ACC is out, they will go w Gtown and STJ before MU.    Let's go hat in hand to the Big 12 and offer them them Cobeen's finest virgins.   Would make Buzz's recruiting of Texas that much easier.  

It is what it is:

1)  MU is a medium-sized private university without a football team.
2)  The Big East is no longer a premiere Basketball league.
3)  MU options are severely limited by the above to call their own shots to be in the optimal position for MU.

So what will MU do in response:
1)  Sit tight in a weakened Big East
2)  Join a new basketball-only league
3)  Jump to a lesser conference (A-10)
4)  Eventually get invited to a major conference as a basketball only school


Who knows?  But what can we do about it?  I am shocked at the folks that think MU would just sit around and make no plans.

In the end it will likely be a lesser conference than the Big East the past few years.

1)  Will it impact Buzz?  who knows?  
2)  Will it be less exciting? -  somehow the fans of Butler and Gonzaga had had a lot of thrills lately (more so than MU in the Big East).
3)  Will the whining about it ever stop?  unlikely...

Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on November 27, 2012, 02:48:45 PM
Non Conf scheduling takes a back-seat if you have a really quality conference. For years MU has gone on and survived by playing UW home every-other-year and usually one semi-decent BCS program at home. The rest is filler or off-campus tournaments. Get a good conference first...then worry about filling an additional 6-8 games a year. You did it before, I'm sure you can do it again.

You do realize we played UMBC last night, right?

Yes, I knw very well we played UMBC last night. And that is a luxury right now because the conference schedule is a 'cure-all' formula. No Pitt, WVU, Syr, ND (and prob UConn, UC and UL). UMBC prob wouldnt be on the schedule then. We would have to schedule a grade higher. Looking at KenPom, a program like Tulane (#132) would be WAY better. Oh wait....

Quote from: Benny B on November 27, 2012, 02:54:54 PM
Exactly.

Consider - for a moment - a 13-team conference consisting of GTown, Nova, MU, SJU, Temple, DePaul, Butler, Xavier, Creighton & Wichita State (and probably SHU, Providence, maybe Davidson?)

Coverage in 4 of the 10 largest TV markets in the country
Total coverage of 21,750,000 TV households
Total enrollment 175,000 students
Average endowment of $350M, total endowment of $4.6B
Combined 259 NCAA tournament bids (average of 20 bids/school)

Interestingly... MU would have the fourth highest endowment in that group --- behind GTown, DePaul, and Davidson (mmmm.... tobacco money).


Something tells me MU is going to be juuuuuust fine.

This article was started...I believe...based on how awful the Big East NOW has become. I don't think all of comments here are based on that fictitious super-conf you are talking about. If that happened, I think people would be satisfied/happy. What they don't like - myself included - is what we have before us.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

+1,000

Quote from: madtownwarrior on November 27, 2012, 02:59:03 PM

2)  Will it be less exciting? -  somehow the fans of Butler and Gonzaga had had a lot of thrills lately (more so than MU in the Big East).
3)  Will the whining about it ever stop?  unlikely...

If Gonzaga or Butler fans went from having a taste of the likes of UWM and Portland year after year, and were then treated to a feasting of say, USC, Cal, Arizona and/or Indiana, MSU and Illinois, do you think they'd want to go back to the prior?

You've been to the BC. Compare the BC in the BEast to the BC vs. CUSA save one, two games a year. No comparison. If MU had a 12,000 seat arena, it wouldn't matter cuz it'd always be loud/fun. But that's a post/story for another time.

Quote from: MUunderpants on November 27, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Gotta be this one.  Big Ten is out, UW will never let it happen.  ACC is out, they will go w Gtown and STJ before MU.    Let's go hat in hand to the Big 12 and offer them them Cobeen's finest virgins.   Would make Buzz's recruiting of Texas that much easier.  

For me this is not a viable option.  If we go "hat in hand" to a football only conference, we will be taken advantage of and only given the scraps of whats left over.  If we aren't in a BCS league with at least a few other bball schools, in the long run, bball only would be better because eventually when another bigger fish comes calling or a school needs to leave, MU would be the first one kicked out.

Way too much unknown to make up my mind on what is going on. Trying to find a sliver lining and struggling to find one. A lesser conference is kiss of death to he program to a large degree. When I hear about Butler or Gonzaga it makes me cringe. I have no interest in having their programs for the long haul. They have done well and I respect that, but I want to play prime time. The Butler's of the world are feel good stories and good for them. I want us playing in elite games and games that matter.

Hoping for the best here. Curious if anyone has a feel if and when something happens publicly in our conferenc situation.

Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on November 27, 2012, 03:12:40 PM
This article was started...I believe...based on how awful the Big East NOW has become. I don't think all of comments here are based on that fictitious super-conf you are talking about. If that happened, I think people would be satisfied/happy. What they don't like - myself included - is what we have before us.

Well, that depends. A Big East that still features the likes of Louisville, Cincy, UConn, Nova, Georgetown, Memphis, MU, wouldn't be ideal, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Certainly not bad enough to elicit responses like "May as well just make bball a club sport and be done with it."

I think the gloomiest among us are assuming that UConn, Louisville and Cincy will bolt at the earliest opportunity, and that's probably true. But at this point, that's just as fictitious as the hoops-centric conference we've been talking about around here for two years.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:20:01 PM
Good God people, chill out.

Marquette made the Final Four and landed great players as a member of C-USA.
As did Lousiville and Memphis.
Butler went to two Final Fours as a member of the Horizon League.
Gonzaga has been a consistent top 20 team as a member of the WCC.
Same with Xavier in the A-10.

Joining a hoops-centric league with the like of G'town, St. John's, DePaul, Nova, Temple, etc., (and maybe the best of the A-10) is far from ideal and definitely a step back, but it's not the ruination of Marquette basketball.

I'm glad you're living in a 90s state of mind.

No surprise, Cincy trying to get into the ACC:

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/8683593/cincinnati-bearcats-making-strong-push-join-acc-source

Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 27, 2012, 10:38:03 AM
Big Country Conference:

Maybe Billingsley still has some eligibility remaining.

LeDarryl Sucks
LeDarryl Sucks

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 27, 2012, 03:21:39 PM
I'm glad you're living in a 90s state of mind.

Your futile attempt at being clever might have worked if any of the examples I cited had come from the 90s.

Quote from: MUunderpants on November 27, 2012, 02:58:06 PM
Gotta be this one.  Big Ten is out, UW will never let it happen.  ACC is out, they will go w Gtown and STJ before MU.    Let's go hat in hand to the Big 12 and offer them them Cobeen's finest virgins.   Would make Buzz's recruiting of Texas that much easier.  

If we're relying on the attractiveness of MU's coeds, we're in serious trouble.

Patriot League, here we come.

If Cincy has leaked their desire for ACC  maybe we need to leak our desires. If we are doing things behind the scenes it will be the best kept secret ever.

Is anybody really surprised that this is happening?  Does anybody really believe that the giant BCS football state schools and their big budget conferences want us or any of our brothers.  Heck, they don't want Louisville.

Some 30 years ago the BEast came into existence for the sole purpose of dominating college basketball amongst a group of schools where football was at best an afterthough.  And some historically great teams were born.  I for one have longed for the stability of a return to that original model.  And I'll trust there are plenty of smart people at any number of private universities (including LW and Fr. P) working to make that a reality once again.

I'll wait for the announcement and be excited when it comes down.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
So,  the 95-96 and 96-97 teams that did considerably better than 8-8 in C-USA and went to the tournament didn't really exist?
The "MU will die if Buzz leaves" thing is nonsense and has been demonstrated already. MU has lost good coaches before and gone on to continued success. Should the school remain committed to it and make good decisions, MU will continue to have success if/when Buzz leaves.
Chicken Little-ism run amok today.

Marquette in Conference USA without D Wade from 95-96 (conference's inception): 8 years, 2 NCAA appearances (first 2 years, 0 in the last 6), one win (over Monmouth College).
To the extent you consider that success, Marquette will still have it post Big East/post Buzz. but it won't be anything like we have now.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 03:29:56 PM
Your futile attempt at being clever might have worked if any of the examples I cited had come from the 90s.

My entire point is going to fall on deaf ears anyway, I don't really feel like expanding since I will be called crazy. :)

I realize how stupid this post sounds, so save it.

jsglow is on the right track though. 

You all think we matter to the big 5.  We don't.

Quote from: jsglow on November 27, 2012, 03:35:41 PM
Is anybody really surprised that this is happening?  Does anybody really believe that the giant BCS football state schools and their big budget conferences want us or any of our brothers.  Heck, they don't want Louisville.

Some 30 years ago the BEast came into existence for the sole purpose of dominating college basketball amongst a group of schools where football was at best an afterthough.  And some historically great teams were born.  I for one have longed for the stability of a return to that original model.  And I'll trust there are plenty of smart people at any number of private universities (including LW and Fr. P) working to make that a reality once again.

I'll wait for the announcement and be excited when it comes down.

Well said.

Quote from: Bocephys on November 27, 2012, 03:44:14 PM
Well said.

When colleges start getting sued over football-induced cuncussions the tied will turn. Basketball will rule and the Catholic Conference will shine. (wishful thinking).

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on November 27, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
My entire point is going to fall on deaf ears anyway, I don't really feel like expanding since I will be called crazy. :)

I realize how stupid this post sounds, so save it.

jsglow is on the right track though. 

You all think we matter to the big 5.  We don't.

Strawman alert.
Who said "we matter to the big 5?"

There are a bunch of babies who post here. Good lord. MU will be fine. It may have to endure a year or two in a shitty Big East, which would still be the 5th or 6th best conference in the land. Big deal.

MU has a strong enough athletics program that when all the dust settles, they will have a home in either the Big 12, Big 10 or ACC. And all the dust will settle. By 2016 or so there will be five power conferences that each have 18-20 hoops teams.  

Quote from: jsglow on November 27, 2012, 03:35:41 PM
Is anybody really surprised that this is happening?  Does anybody really believe that the giant BCS football state schools and their big budget conferences want us or any of our brothers.  Heck, they don't want Louisville.

Some 30 years ago the BEast came into existence for the sole purpose of dominating college basketball amongst a group of schools where football was at best an afterthough.  And some historically great teams were born.  I for one have longed for the stability of a return to that original model.  And I'll trust there are plenty of smart people at any number of private universities (including LW and Fr. P) working to make that a reality once again.

I'll wait for the announcement and be excited when it comes down.

FWIW - The Mike Francesca of WFAN comment about Rutgers leaving "was now it's time for the Big East to go back to the beginning and do what it does best and be a top basketball conference."

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on November 27, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
There are a bunch of babies who post here. Good lord. MU will be fine. It may have to endure a year or two in a crapty Big East, which would still be the 5th or 6th best conference in the land. Big deal.

MU has a strong enough athletics program that when all the dust settles, they will have a home in either the Big 12, Big 10 or ACC. And all the dust will settle. By 2016 or so there will be five power conferences that each have 18-20 hoops teams.  

I agree we'll be fine, but I don't think we'll ever see Marquette in the Big 12, B1G or ACC.

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on November 27, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
There are a bunch of babies who post here. Good lord. MU will be fine. It may have to endure a year or two in a crapty Big East, which would still be the 5th or 6th best conference in the land. Big deal.

MU has a strong enough athletics program that when all the dust settles, they will have a home in either the Big 12, Big 10 or ACC. And all the dust will settle. By 2016 or so there will be five power conferences that each have 18-20 hoops teams.  

And to paraphrase LW from the Marquette Circles in NYC, "as long as we make sure all of our athletic programs are top notch and solid, Marquette be relevant and we'll end up in a good place."

Quote from: JamilJaeJamailJrJuan on November 27, 2012, 03:59:00 PM
There are a bunch of babies who post here. Good lord. MU will be fine. It may have to endure a year or two in a crapty Big East, which would still be the 5th or 6th best conference in the land. Big deal.

MU has a strong enough athletics program that when all the dust settles, they will have a home in either the Big 12, Big 10 or ACC. And all the dust will settle. By 2016 or so there will be five power conferences that each have 18-20 hoops teams.  

I don't know if we'll be in a major conference, but it's not impossible.  I don't know that the Big Ten will bother with that route anytime soon.  But the ACC and Big 12 will.  It might take a few years, but they will.  As far as why they "bother", for the same reason Microsoft and Pfizer buy little five person companies – if you can add something that boosts your product and gives you a competitive edge, go for it.  Only a few current and historically good hoops schools with favorable academics and who bring no baggage will be candidates.  If it doesn't happen, we'll have the next best thing, and there will be room for it.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 03:58:18 PM
Strawman alert.
Who said "we matter to the big 5?"

What strawman?  The prevailing opinions of the people who are saying we will be okay assume that we matter to the big five conferences.

I'm merely saying that we don't.

When all the pieces are in place don't think for a second that those 5 conferences won't create something as a group for themselves that we all get to watch in March.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 27, 2012, 03:39:19 PM
Marquette in Conference USA without D Wade from 95-96 (conference's inception): 8 years, 2 NCAA appearances (first 2 years, 0 in the last 6), one win (over Monmouth College).
To the extent you consider that success, Marquette will still have it post Big East/post Buzz. but it won't be anything like we have now.

Moving the goal posts, I see.
You said MU never did better than 8-8 and an NIT in CUSA w/out Wade. Not true.

And, for the love of God, can we stop playing the "without Wade" game? It's stupid and make-believe. Crean did land Wade. Get over it.
Do you think Duke fans sit around saying "Without Johnny Dawkins?"

Quote from: Pakuni on November 27, 2012, 04:18:24 PM
And, for the love of God, can we stop playing the "without Wade" game? It's stupid and make-believe. Crean did land Wade. Get over it.
Do you think Duke fans sit around saying "Without Johnny Dawkins?"

This.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 27, 2012, 02:28:53 PM
So Buzz will be gone and our team will consist of 3.8 GPA traditionals from Appleton Xavier and Loyola Academy who think Carpenter Hall is the nuts. Hiroshima, Part II.

Hey!  Take it easy on my other alma mater, Loyola!   :'(

Quote from: Goose on November 27, 2012, 03:32:17 PM
If Cincy has leaked their desire for ACC  maybe we need to leak our desires. If we are doing things behind the scenes it will be the best kept secret ever.

I'm sure that LW has the Domers telling the rest of the ACC, "Hey we've got this really cute friend up in Milwaukee."

Quote from: Knight Commission on November 27, 2012, 03:50:35 PM
When colleges start getting sued over football-induced cuncussions the tied will turn. Basketball will rule and the Catholic Conference will shine. (wishful thinking).

Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

Holy crap. That idea that football at all levels is going to cease to exist at some point in the future is laughable. Might as well erase Green Bay off the map. What shall we do with all the pro, college and high school stadiums that will be empty?

Concussions have always been around but are only getting attention now. If concussions get in the way of a multi-billion dollar industry, dont you think more medical research will figure it out?

Aaron Rodgers had concussion problems a few years ago. He was refitted with a new helmet and, despite leading the league in sacks, hasnt had one since. Throw a couple hundred million into concussion research and its a non-story some day. Afterall, municipalities, states and the federal government kind of like all of the tax dollars they receive from football (property, income, and sales tax). If health becomes an obstacle, it will be overcome.

Quote from: JDuquaine on November 27, 2012, 05:25:12 PM
Maybe you shouldn't use social media anymore if you can't understand sarcasm.....  How do you dress yourself in the morning?

Sorry, mind reading is not one of my talents.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 27, 2012, 03:39:19 PM
Marquette in Conference USA without D Wade from 95-96 (conference's inception): 8 years, 2 NCAA appearances (first 2 years, 0 in the last 6), one win (over Monmouth College).
To the extent you consider that success, Marquette will still have it post Big East/post Buzz. but it won't be anything like we have now.

We have a lot more going for us now then we did then.  A real basketball facility, large budget (yes, it will recede, but still be larger than what it was), etc.


Some are forgetting that there have been monster programs that have come from crappy conferences.  Memphis, UNLV, Gonzaga in basketball, Boise State in football.

Let's see where things shake out.  If MU is still committed to basketball, a lot of good things can happen and MU can do very well.  It's easier in a solid conference, but there are examples of schools doing extremely well without being tied to a top conference....if that is even what happens which we don't know yet.

Quote from: Benny B on November 27, 2012, 04:38:33 PM
Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

There is so much power and money associated with college football that I don't think you will see this happen.  There are some states like Nebraska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc, where college football is so important they will get it figured out.  Too many powerful people are not going to let scenario 1 or 2 happen.  It's a dangerous sport, there will be requirements of participants to knowlingly except the risks, maybe insurance policies and such will be allowed en masse, but the sport is not going away or allowed to be stripped in any meaningful fashion.  In my opinion.

Agree. Way too much money involved. However, I do expect fewer participants over the years. More and more parents are steering their sons away from football. So yes, the talent level in college and the NFL will drop, but not enough to kill the beast.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on November 27, 2012, 06:59:48 PM
There is so much power and money associated with college football that I don't think you will see this happen.  There are some states like Nebraska, Florida, Alabama, Texas, etc, where college football is so important they will get it figured out.  Too many powerful people are not going to let scenario 1 or 2 happen.  It's a dangerous sport, there will be requirements of participants to knowlingly except the risks, maybe insurance policies and such will be allowed en masse, but the sport is not going away or allowed to be stripped in any meaningful fashion.  In my opinion.

Too much money and power is a double-edged sword... Find me a plaintiff's attorney who wouldn't hunt that whale.

Quote from: Benny B on November 27, 2012, 07:45:57 PM
Too much money and power is a double-edged sword... Find me a plaintiff's attorney who wouldn't hunt that whale.

I can find you a plaintiff's attorney to tell you a swap meet is dangerous or feeding fish can be harmful to your health.  Plenty of those folks around.  

History buffs might recall that there was pressure to end football at the turn of the century because of the brutality involved, until Teddy Roosevelt stepped in and saved it.  Many rule changes were made, as you hinted could be coming next.  I would not be surprised if that isn't the case, but I don't think they will strip it down so much as to lose the draw to the game from a player or spectator point of view. 


http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football


"In life, as in a football game," he wrote, "the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard!" In 1903, the president told an audience, "I believe in rough games and in rough, manly sports. I do not feel any particular sympathy for the person who gets battered about a good deal so long as it is not fatal."
--Teddy Roosevelt

I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

Apparently the Big East was turned down by BYU and Air Force. That can't bode well for keeping Boise State and SDSU on board. Is the Big East being turned down by western schools now?

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball....e r-fish----byu

Quote from: JTBMU7 on November 27, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

SLU is already part of the A10.

Temple has football and will be leaving next year for the Big East. Charlotte starts playing football and leaves next year for CUSA.

So its really a 14 team league. 

What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

Quote from: JTBMU7 on November 27, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
I think the hoops schools from the big east should approach the A10 about membership. They have a tourney in Brooklyn, multiple NCAA tournament programs, and could easily expand. Right now they have 16, add MU, GTown, St Johns, PC, Dpaul, SHU and Nova, then look for one more (SLU?) and have a true hoops conf. Scheduleng would be nuts but everyone will have 20 teams at some point. I think that could fetch some decent cash just on inventory of games alone. Not to memtion none of those schools have a viable football program that could threaten to leave anytime soon. Wishful thinking but this would be the best case IMHO at this point.

That might be an ok move for some of the bball only schools but MU, G'town, and Nova (although they are trending downwards) deserve better. MU has proven they belong on the big stage and you cant say the same about SHU, Providence, Depaul, and St. Johns. A-10 is a wannabe conference. Definition of a MID-MAJOR. Do they some have decent programs? Yes, but they are littered with crummy programs too.

Your scenario is the most realistic option though, and it sucks. Not the fact that we are in the A-10 but the fact that we are no longer connected to any of the Big East schools. You watch, after a few years they will quietly slip out the back door to the ACC and leave us with Depaul in the A-10.

That's why I think that this basketball conference started by the Big East schools isn't happening right now. Gtown, Nova, and maybe St. Johns all have aspirations for the ACC, so why lock into a long term deal and take the time to start a whole new conference when the ACC is still a real possibility.

So, I agree that this is definitely a possibility for MU but I disagree that no programs would be a threat to leave and that this is the best case scenario at this point. Best case still remains that the hoops schools keep the big east name, tourney at msg, and add two or three more good programs. I think we will know if this is a legit possibility very soon.

Crean won't have let all this sheet go down if he was still at MU.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 28, 2012, 05:01:54 AM
Crean won't have let all this sheet go down if he was still at MU.

That just made my morning.  Thanks, 4ever.

Quote from: Benny B on November 27, 2012, 04:38:33 PM
Spelling errors aside, you are certainly on to something.  I am forecasting a major (8- to 9- figure) lawsuit involving a high-profile university (or universities) within the next 5 years... something that could go all the way to the SCOTUS.  When that happens and before the dust clears, the result will be one of the following:

1) There will be a mass exodus amongst colleges and universities away from the sport of football (mostly DIII, DII, & FCS, but some FBS "non-football" schools, e.g. Duke, Indiana, etc., will go as well).

2) Material changes in the rules (for safety reasons) will water down the collegiate-version of the sport, at which point the top talent coming out of HS will opt for the new "farm system" or D-league that the NFL will have to setup.

Eventually, college football - in its current form - will go away, but the end result may not even be within sight for another 15-20 years, and I'm not sure that college basketball can afford - or is even willing - to sit around and wait for its renaissance after football is dead.

A good article about how this all went down 100 years ago when football was deemed too unsafe (killing 18 people in one year unsafe).  The attempt to save football changed the game completely (forward passes), and the committee to come up with new, safer rules became the NCAA.  Perhaps history repeating itself in some ways.  We may see some changes in the coming years, but Football will be fine.  Nobody's going to abandon a sport when it's to the point that it could be repackaged it into a completely different game and people would complain but continue to eat it up.   

http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football

Quote from: Benny B on November 28, 2012, 08:58:15 AM
That just made my morning.  Thanks, 4ever.

The simple things in life

Quote from: chapman on November 28, 2012, 09:01:32 AM

A good article about how this all went down 100 years ago when football was deemed too unsafe (killing 18 people in one year unsafe).  The attempt to save football changed the game completely (forward passes), and the committee to come up with new, safer rules became the NCAA.  Perhaps history repeating itself in some ways.  We may see some changes in the coming years, but Football will be fine.  Nobody's going to abandon a sport when it's to the point that it could be repackaged it into a completely different game and people would complain but continue to eat it up.   

http://www.history.com/news/how-teddy-roosevelt-saved-football

The flaw in such logic is twofold: 1) you're assuming that what people find attractive about football today is similar to what people found attractive about football 100 years ago, and 2) our society is much more litigious today than it was even 20 (let alone 100) years ago.  Rule changes may have made the sport "safer" decades ago, but the game has evolved to the point where player safety is again being overlooked in favor of exciting, bone-crushing hits to the head.

Take NASCAR for instance;they add all these safety features to the cars, yet drivers are still putting their lives at risk every time they start the engine.  For the sake of argument, let's say that the only way to make the sport (I use that term loosely) safe is to make the drivers go no faster than 75 MPH.  You think if they did that, the millions of NASCAR fans would still pour their money, time, and lives into the sport at the same clip?  Of course not, but that doesn't mean NASCAR goes away... it simply exists on a much different plane (a much less profitable one) than it does today.

I don't think it's a secret that the most effective way to make football "safe" involves eliminating contact above the shoulders, chop blocks, and blindside hits.  "But Benny, those are already penalized/fine-able offenses."  Exactly... but yet, they still happen, and further, during almost every game at that.  And the leagues, colleges, administrators, owners and fans all tolerate it.  Why?  Because that's exactly what people want to see.  So the keepers of the game willingly allow the dangerous activity to occur behind the curtain of yellow flags and fines... which is fine for the professionals who are are being compensated and mostly aware of the risks.  College athletes - who typically have a more invulnerable attitude than professionals do - take the same risks, but the money goes right to the "promoter"

In other words, the business model of college football can be summarized as follows: individuals and institutions profiting directly and indirectly from putting people's health and lives at risk.  The only reason college football hasn't gone down yet is because nobody has been willing to take on the beast... but you better believe that there are at least a few dozen lawyers (gray-haired attorneys, not law school grads) across the country who are gathering evidence, data, testimony, hospital bills, etc. in preparation for when that day comes.  I don't know what the triggering event is going to be, but when the floodgates open, major changes will have to be made to the game , not just the rules.

Quote from: Benny B on November 28, 2012, 09:38:52 AM
The flaw in such logic is twofold: 1) you're assuming that what people find attractive about football today is similar to what people found attractive about football 100 years ago, and 2) our society is much more litigious today than it was even 20 (let alone 100) years ago.  Rule changes may have made the sport "safer" decades ago, but the game has evolved to the point where player safety is again being overlooked in favor of exciting, bone-crushing hits to the head.

Take NASCAR for instance;they add all these safety features to the cars, yet drivers are still putting their lives at risk every time they start the engine.  For the sake of argument, let's say that the only way to make the sport (I use that term loosely) safe is to make the drivers go no faster than 75 MPH.  You think if they did that, the millions of NASCAR fans would still pour their money, time, and lives into the sport at the same clip?  Of course not, but that doesn't mean NASCAR goes away... it simply exists on a much different plane (a much less profitable one) than it does today.

I don't think it's a secret that the most effective way to make football "safe" involves eliminating contact above the shoulders, chop blocks, and blindside hits.  "But Benny, those are already penalized/fine-able offenses."  Exactly... but yet, they still happen, and further, during almost every game at that.  And the leagues, colleges, administrators, owners and fans all tolerate it.  Why?  Because that's exactly what people want to see.  So the keepers of the game willingly allow the dangerous activity to occur behind the curtain of yellow flags and fines... which is fine for the professionals who are are being compensated and mostly aware of the risks.  College athletes - who typically have a more invulnerable attitude than professionals do - take the same risks, but the money goes right to the "promoter"

In other words, the business model of college football can be summarized as follows: individuals and institutions profiting directly and indirectly from putting people's health and lives at risk.  The only reason college football hasn't gone down yet is because nobody has been willing to take on the beast... but you better believe that there are at least a few dozen lawyers (gray-haired attorneys, not law school grads) across the country who are gathering evidence, data, testimony, hospital bills, etc. in preparation for when that day comes.  I don't know what the triggering event is going to be, but when the floodgates open, major changes will have to be made to the game , not just the rules.

And you haven't even broached the subject of the people whose health and lives are being put at risk are not being compensated beyond what a trust of Universities got together and decided they should receive.  All the money coming in will definitely have an impact there, IMHO.  That will have serious implications for the bottom line at football playing schools.

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 27, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 11:32:44 AM
Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

Of course they would.  Just like Marquette would turn down an ACC invite now based on principle because the ACC raided the Big East.

Quote from: LittleMurs on November 28, 2012, 11:35:42 AM
Of course they would.  Just like Marquette would turn down an ACC invite now based on principle because the ACC raided the Big East.

Of course.
And, tired and wounded by years of rejection, the Big 10 would never welcome Notre Dame as a full member. Ever.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 11:32:44 AM
Not sure whether you're being obtuse or rhetorical, but the reason those schools would welcome MU, DePaul, Nova, G'Town, etc., is the same reason the Big 10 welcomes Rutgers and Maryland ..... $$$$.

You don't honestly believe Dayton or St. Louis or Xavier is going to turn down the potential for additional revenue today because they're still butthurt over something that happened 20 years ago, do you?

The reason Big Ten the Big Ten welcomes Maryland and Rutgers is to gain more households in new markets for their Big Ten Network.

I don't think thats even close to what might happen with the A10.

What others are proposing via an expanded A10 is different becuase it is simply adding more teams to increase the value of the overall television contract--ignoring the fact that it will then have to be split with the teams added.

For example, If 14 A10 teams generate $14 million/year, and adding 7 more teams can generate $21 million/year, yes, the conference has generated more $$$$, but each team still gets its $1 million. 

And to get to that, the current A10 teams have to dilute theire appearances on television--after all, there is no additional supply of Saturday afternoons during the basektball season.  So their "game of the week" now must feature 21 teams over the season instead of 14.
 
Now, if you're going to argue that the Big East teams are worth more--say $2 million each, then the argument is reversed--why would the Big East teams want to join a league where their contributions are diluted 33% just to be part of the A10?   We could generate $14 million among the 7 teams alone, but the payout would be $1.33 million when combined with the A10.  Why not just form a smaller 7-team league (a la the GMC), which would enable old-style home-and-home against every team plus a ton of flexiblity for real revenue-generating non-conference games, plus keep $2 million/team?

Where your analogy falls apart is that there is no national interest in basketball games as there is in Football.  The Big Ten wants the NYC market because they think there will be reasonably strong demand for Wisconsin/Michigan or Penn State/Nebraska--but they need a local team to get clearance.

Nobody can credibly claim there is Chicago- or Milwaukee-based interest for a Dayton/Xavier or Richmond/VCU.  So the valuation is based solely on what the local team can bring--there's no synergistic elevation of ratings simply by the A10 going from 14 teams to 21.  its solely proportional based on the local interest in the teams added.

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 28, 2012, 12:43:24 PM
The reason Big Ten the Big Ten welcomes Maryland and Rutgers is to gain more households in new markets for their Big Ten Network.

I don't think thats even close to what might happen with the A10.

What others are proposing via an expanded A10 is different becuase it is simply adding more teams to increase the value of the overall television contract--ignoring the fact that it will then have to be split with the teams added.

For example, If 14 A10 teams generate $14 million/year, and adding 7 more teams can generate $21 million/year, yes, the conference has generated more $$$$, but each team still gets its $1 million. 

And to get to that, the current A10 teams have to dilute theire appearances on television--after all, there is no additional supply of Saturday afternoons during the basektball season.  So their "game of the week" now must feature 21 teams over the season instead of 14.
 
Now, if you're going to argue that the Big East teams are worth more--say $2 million each, then the argument is reversed--why would the Big East teams want to join a league where their contributions are diluted 33% just to be part of the A10?   We could generate $14 million among the 7 teams alone, but the payout would be $1.33 million when combined with the A10.  Why not just form a smaller 7-team league (a la the GMC), which would enable old-style home-and-home against every team plus a ton of flexiblity for real revenue-generating non-conference games, plus keep $2 million/team?

Where your analogy falls apart is that there is no national interest in basketball games as there is in Football.  The Big Ten wants the NYC market because they think there will be reasonably strong demand for Wisconsin/Michigan or Penn State/Nebraska--but they need a local team to get clearance.

Nobody can credibly claim there is Chicago- or Milwaukee-based interest for a Dayton/Xavier or Richmond/VCU.  So the valuation is based solely on what the local team can bring--there's no synergistic elevation of ratings simply by the A10 going from 14 teams to 21.  its solely proportional based on the local interest in the teams added.

Too many poor speculations and assumptions here to cover them all, but there are several worth pointing out:

- You falsely argue that adding the likes of G'town, Villanova, Marquette and St. John's would "dilute" A-10 television appearances. The reality is, the addition of those teams would make for a more attractive television package and, therefore, more television appearances for everyone. The notion that there's only a "game of the week" to be divvied up among all programs is silly. A minimum of 75 Big East games are on national TV this year. i'm pretty certain the season doesn't last 75 weeks.
And with the CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network both eager for programming, there will be no shortage of television opportunities in the future ... especially for a league that will have at least 11 programs in the nation's top 25 markets.

- A seven-team conference won't be worth anything close to $2 million a team because it's too small/not exposed to enough viewers. Networks want to be in as many markets as possible, one of the major drivers of the current expansion craze. If "old-style" scheduling and non-conference flexibility mattered one iota to anyone, or produced any real revenues, conferences wouldn't be sitting at 14 teams and growing.

The bottom line here is you seem to admit that adding hoops only Big East teams would make the A-10 TV contract more valuable, and the only downside is supposed loss of games on TV by individual members because there's apparently only one weekly appearance to be had for the entire conference. My guess is a) that loss of appearances doesn't happen as more and more games will be televised every year and b) most programs, especially the lower-tier ones, would sacrifice an appearance or two - as unlikely as that would be  - for the benefit the likes of G'Town, MU, St. John's, etc. would bring.

Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 01:24:58 PM


Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

(http://t.qkme.me/35vpak.jpg)

Quote from: Benny B on November 28, 2012, 01:43:21 PM
(http://t.qkme.me/35vpak.jpg)

Benny B no swiping.
Benny B no swiping.
Benny B no swiping.

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 27, 2012, 10:51:18 PM
SLU is already part of the A10.

Temple has football and will be leaving next year for the Big East. Charlotte starts playing football and leaves next year for CUSA.

So its really a 14 team league. 

What I find hard to understand is why a bunch of teams we couldn't wait to get away from (Xavier & Butler from the MCC, Dayton from the GMC, St. Louis from CUSA) and another bunch we never wanted anything to do with (the rest of the A10) will now welcome us with open arms because our own conference strategy has turned to crap.   

Perhaps we should come up with a new nickname--the Prodigal Sons.

Because MU brings a ton to the table. There's no place for pride or hurt feelings. Adding MU would be huge for the A-10.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 01:24:58 PM
Too many poor speculations and assumptions here to cover them all, but there are several worth pointing out:

- You falsely argue that adding the likes of G'town, Villanova, Marquette and St. John's would "dilute" A-10 television appearances. The reality is, the addition of those teams would make for a more attractive television package and, therefore, more television appearances for everyone. The notion that there's only a "game of the week" to be divvied up among all programs is silly. A minimum of 75 Big East games are on national TV this year. i'm pretty certain the season doesn't last 75 weeks.
And with the CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network both eager for programming, there will be no shortage of television opportunities in the future ... especially for a league that will have at least 11 programs in the nation's top 25 markets.

- A seven-team conference won't be worth anything close to $2 million a team because it's too small/not exposed to enough viewers. Networks want to be in as many markets as possible, one of the major drivers of the current expansion craze. If "old-style" scheduling and non-conference flexibility mattered one iota to anyone, or produced any real revenues, conferences wouldn't be sitting at 14 teams and growing.

The bottom line here is you seem to admit that adding hoops only Big East teams would make the A-10 TV contract more valuable, and the only downside is supposed loss of games on TV by individual members because there's apparently only one weekly appearance to be had for the entire conference. My guess is a) that loss of appearances doesn't happen as more and more games will be televised every year and b) most programs, especially the lower-tier ones, would sacrifice an appearance or two - as unlikely as that would be  - for the benefit the likes of G'Town, MU, St. John's, etc. would bring.

Ultimately, though, expanding the A-10 to 21 is less than ideal. The best option remains swiping their better programs.

You make just as many poor speculations and assumptions.

--First, you falsely imply that that all airtime is created equal.  Not all of those 75 national games give a team equal exposure--the Big Monday game on ESPN is far more valuable from an exposure standpoint than a midnight apperance on ESPN-U.  We have only so many monday night games--more teams means less exposure per team.

--If the networks are so desperate to fill time, why do we only have 75 games nationally?  There's a pratical limit and we've reached that in the Big East--75 games amounts to only 5 games/team.  

--The number of teams has nothing to do with the size of the televsion contract or value per team--its a factor of the size of the market, popularity and then a sum of the parts.   If you could magically create more revenue just by having more teams and more markets, then we wouldn't see a handful of teams moving leagues--we'd see entire conferences merge.  For example, an ACC/Pac10 would give you coast-to-coast coverage, multiple top 10 markets, etc.  The fact of the matter is that a 7 team league of the Basketball-only big east teams would immedeately be more valuable on a per-team basis than probably all but 7 or 8 leagues.

--Biggest reason of all you ignore--the value of the conference tournaments.  Each league's conference tournament is independently valuable--possibly worth as much or more than all regular season games combined. One conference=only one tournament.  Two conferences would have two money-making tournaments.

The bottom line is that there is no evidence to suggest that a combined Big East/A10 would be any more valualbe on a per-team basis than two separate leagues.  

BTW, here is the new Big East map...

https://mobile.twitter.com/NOTSportsCenter/status/273787655228100611/photo/1

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 28, 2012, 02:12:12 PM
You make just as many poor speculations and assumptions.

--First, you falsely imply that that all airtime is created equal.  Not all of those 75 national games give a team equal exposure--the Big Monday game on ESPN is far more valuable from an exposure standpoint than a midnight apperance on ESPN-U.  We have only so many monday night games--more teams means less exposure per team.

You're moving the goalposts. You went from total appearances to some nebulous and subjective concept of "exposure."
But that being the case, don't you think a conference involving the likes of MU, St. John's, Georgetown, etc., is far more likely to get television appearances in those quality time slots than, say, a Richmond vs. St. Bonaventure contest?
Or, I'll put it to you this way, which is more likely to land Richmond a game in prime time, a contest against Georgetown or one against LaSalle? Xavier-Fordham probably isn't going to wow many TV producers. Xavier-Marquette, though, is an attractive tilt.
Actually, you don't even need to speculate here.
ESPN networks are showing exactly three A-10 conference matchups in prime time all season. Three.
NBC Sports is showing one.
CBS Sports Networks, the least viewed of the three A-10 partners, is showing about 16.
20 prime time games all season, 80 percent of them on the smallest network with which the A-10 partners.
You don't think that improves with Big East members? you don't think LaSalle's got a better chance at a prime time game playing Villanova instead of Duquesne?

QuoteIf the networks are so desperate to fill time, why do we only have 75 games nationally?  There's a pratical limit and we've reached that in the Big East--75 games amounts to only 5 games/team.  

Because the BE is exclusive to ESPN.
The A-10 actually will have more games broadcast nationally (103) because they have deals with three networks.

Quote--The number of teams has nothing to do with the size of the televsion contract or value per team--its a factor of the size of the market, popularity and then a sum of the parts.   If you could magically create more revenue just by having more teams and more markets, then we wouldn't see a handful of teams moving leagues--we'd see entire conferences merge.  For example, an ACC/Pac10 would give you coast-to-coast coverage, multiple top 10 markets, etc.  The fact of the matter is that a 7 team league of the Basketball-only big east teams would immedeately be more valuable on a per-team basis than probably all but 7 or 8 leagues.

So I'm clear here, you're arguing the number of markets involved "has nothing to do with the size of the television contract?"
Not sure how to argue with someone who thinks a television network would see the seven-team league just as valuable as one that also includes Cincy, Indy, Pittsburgh, Dayton, etc.

Quote--Biggest reason of all you ignore--the value of the conference tournaments.  Each league's conference tournament is independently valuable--possibly worth as much or more than all regular season games combined. One conference=only one tournament.  Two conferences would have two money-making tournaments.

Ignoring a subject you never raised? OK.
First, no, conference tournaments are not worth more than all regular season games combined.
Second, conference tournaments are not independently valuable, at least not in the TV sense. The value, as with the rest of the package, is derived entirely by the participants and the markets they attract. The Horizon League and MEAC tournaments are not worth more than the Big East tournament simply because they're two money-making events to one.
Secondly, the value of a tournament is going to be determined by the value of its participants, not merely the fact it's happening.
If two tournaments are always worth more than one, will the Big 10 soon be holding separate Legends and Leaders tourneys?

QuoteThe bottom line is that there is no evidence to suggest that a combined Big East/A10 would be any more valualbe on a per-team basis than two separate leagues.  

True, there is no evidence for the exact value of a hypothetical entity. You've mastered the obvious.
But there is plenty to indicate that television networks want larger conferences with more exposure in larger markets, and that's exactly what a combined BE/A-10 would provide. Nobody can say with certainty what the end result would be until it actually happens, but if what we're seeing elsewhere is any indication, it's pretty certain the revenues would not shrink.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
You're moving the goalposts. You went from total appearances to some nebulous and subjective concept of "exposure."

No.  I'm making the point that there are a limited number of weeks in a season, and if you have more teams appearing in the same number of games, each team gets less exposure.

You tried to make the case that all games are alike, but you recall the bellyaching on this board when we had to play a day game on MLK day last year instead of prime time.  Just wait until we're bumped from Primetime so St. Boneventure can get their annual evening game. 

Sorry, but not all timeslots are created equal.  That was my point.  If you want to claim we can always find airtime elsewhere, that's a different argument. 

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
But that being the case, don't you think a conference involving the likes of MU, St. John's, Georgetown, etc., is far more likely to get television appearances in those quality time slots than, say, a Richmond vs. St. Bonaventure contest?

Well which is it?  Should we stick with the other BE teams alone, or should we try to get in a conference that includes Richmond and St. Boneventure.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
Or, I'll put it to you this way, which is more likely to land Richmond a game in prime time, a contest against Georgetown or one against LaSalle? Xavier-Fordham probably isn't going to wow many TV producers. Xavier-Marquette, though, is an attractive tilt.

Well, you just made the case as to why Fordam and LaSalle will oppose expansion!

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
Actually, you don't even need to speculate here.
ESPN networks are showing exactly three A-10 conference matchups in prime time all season. Three.
NBC Sports is showing one.
CBS Sports Networks, the least viewed of the three A-10 partners, is showing about 16.
20 prime time games all season, 80 percent of them on the smallest network with which the A-10 partners.
You don't think that improves with Big East members? you don't think LaSalle's got a better chance at a prime time game playing Villanova instead of Duquesne?

If the Big East teams are so attractive, why would a network want to be forced to take Duquesne and LaSalle in order to get MU and GU? 

You effectively make the case for a 7-team league.  Networks would rather show MU, GU and Villanova more frequently--not MU, GU and Villanova on off weeks, interspersed with the random Fordam, St. Boneventure or George Washington game. 

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
So I'm clear here, you're arguing the number of markets involved "has nothing to do with the size of the television contract?"
Not sure how to argue with someone who thinks a television network would see the seven-team league just as valuable as one that also includes Cincy, Indy, Pittsburgh, Dayton, etc.

Not sure if you're being obtuse here, or you really don't grasp the point.

Think about it per team--not as a whole.    The 14 teams of the A10 might make more TV money combined, but when you split it 14 ways it would generate less per team.  The 7 BE teams might make less overall, but more per team.

Put them all together in a single 21 team league, and the A10 teams lose exposure and the Big East teams lose potential TV dollars.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
First, no, conference tournaments are not worth more than all regular season games combined.
Second, conference tournaments are not independently valuable, at least not in the TV sense. The value, as with the rest of the package, is derived entirely by the participants and the markets they attract. The Horizon League and MEAC tournaments are not worth more than the Big East tournament simply because they're two money-making events to one.

The nets show more MEAC and Horizon tournament games than regular season games.  In those cases, they're only interested in the tourney--they begrudgingly give the league 4 regular season games in order to get the tournament.  Yes, theres some value, but the networks want those tournaments.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
Secondly, the value of a tournament is going to be determined by the value of its participants, not merely the fact it's happening.

You tell me which is more valuable to a network:

One Xavier/Georgetown game with an NCAA bid on the line?

A Championship Doubleheader, with the A10 championship between Xavier/Butler, followed by
the BigEastBasketball championship game between Marquette/Georgetown game?

I'm guessing theres more money to be made with the latter.

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
If two tournaments are always worth more than one, will the Big 10 soon be holding separate Legends and Leaders tourneys?

If one tournament is worth more than two, will the Big Ten soon be merging with the Big 12?

Quote from: Pakuni on November 28, 2012, 03:22:02 PM
But there is plenty to indicate that television networks want larger conferences with more exposure in larger markets, and that's exactly what a combined BE/A-10 would provide. Nobody can say with certainty what the end result would be until it actually happens, but if what we're seeing elsewhere is any indication, it's pretty certain the revenues would not shrink.

Outside of the Big Ten (who operates their own cable network) there is no evidence the networks actually want bigger conferences with more exposure.  If they did, CUSA as the prototype would have been a huge success. 

No, it was the league and teams themselves that wanted to grow--first because you need 12 teams for a football championship game and second as teams scramble to get into a stable situation for their football team. 

Don't confuse football with basketball. There is no national regular season basketball audience--except maybe for teams like UK or Duke or Indiana. The nets show the games becaue a) they have to to get the rights to the tourneys and b) they have nothing better to show in January and February.   

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Q9BcC1jAkJw/Taw2DbRJ2fI/AAAAAAAAAtU/nTIHPzy7a3U/s1600/grumpy+old+men.png)

Quote from: The Equalizer on November 28, 2012, 05:20:18 PM
No.  I'm making the point that there are a limited number of weeks in a season, and if you have more teams appearing in the same number of games, each team gets less exposure.

You tried to make the case that all games are alike, but you recall the bellyaching on this board when we had to play a day game on MLK day last year instead of prime time.  Just wait until we're bumped from Primetime so St. Boneventure can get their annual evening game. 

Sorry, but not all timeslots are created equal.  That was my point.  If you want to claim we can always find airtime elsewhere, that's a different argument. 

Well which is it?  Should we stick with the other BE teams alone, or should we try to get in a conference that includes Richmond and St. Boneventure.

Well, you just made the case as to why Fordam and LaSalle will oppose expansion!

If the Big East teams are so attractive, why would a network want to be forced to take Duquesne and LaSalle in order to get MU and GU? 

You effectively make the case for a 7-team league.  Networks would rather show MU, GU and Villanova more frequently--not MU, GU and Villanova on off weeks, interspersed with the random Fordam, St. Boneventure or George Washington game. 

Not sure if you're being obtuse here, or you really don't grasp the point.

Think about it per team--not as a whole.    The 14 teams of the A10 might make more TV money combined, but when you split it 14 ways it would generate less per team.  The 7 BE teams might make less overall, but more per team.

Put them all together in a single 21 team league, and the A10 teams lose exposure and the Big East teams lose potential TV dollars.

The nets show more MEAC and Horizon tournament games than regular season games.  In those cases, they're only interested in the tourney--they begrudgingly give the league 4 regular season games in order to get the tournament.  Yes, theres some value, but the networks want those tournaments.

You tell me which is more valuable to a network:

One Xavier/Georgetown game with an NCAA bid on the line?

A Championship Doubleheader, with the A10 championship between Xavier/Butler, followed by
the BigEastBasketball championship game between Marquette/Georgetown game?

I'm guessing theres more money to be made with the latter.

If one tournament is worth more than two, will the Big Ten soon be merging with the Big 12?


Outside of the Big Ten (who operates their own cable network) there is no evidence the networks actually want bigger conferences with more exposure.  If they did, CUSA as the prototype would have been a huge success. 

No, it was the league and teams themselves that wanted to grow--first because you need 12 teams for a football championship game and second as teams scramble to get into a stable situation for their football team. 

Don't confuse football with basketball. There is no national regular season basketball audience--except maybe for teams like UK or Duke or Indiana. The nets show the games becaue a) they have to to get the rights to the tourneys and b) they have nothing better to show in January and February.   

Heck, I'm surprised I have enough characters left to write this after quoting that.

Quote from: Benny B on November 28, 2012, 08:17:18 PM
Heck, I'm surprised I have enough characters left to write this after quoting that.

Just another manifesto that no one will read from 84/Equalizer.  Wow.