http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24466354/hirings-and-firings-2014-college-basketball-coaching-changes
Buzz isn't going anywere but here is where you can keep track of the coaching carosuel.
For what it's worth, several names are mentioned with the Auburn job. Buzz isn't one of them. No names mentioned with the South Florida or VT job.
A bunch of guys on that list that had good gigs in former lives but weren't able to make it stick. Some were considered the up and comers in the mid majors and hired as major coaches.
Braun at Cal. Jarvis at GW and St. John's if I recall. Orr at Seton Hall. Herrion at C of C. Heath at Kent State and Arkansas. Buzz Peterson at Tennessee.
http://tbo.com/sports/colleges/usf-bulls/usf-basketball-coaching-search-in-discovery-phase-20140316/
Can't read too much into these articles, but I found it interesting the term 'reported interest from' as the phrase used to describe Buzz's involvement with the story.
While I don't feel Buzz will be leaving, is it possible we're underestimating the effects of realignment and how it affects the Big East in terms of prestige and tradition?
Taking nothing away from Marquette or any team in the current Big East, but I don't see how your conference wouldn't suffer losing the likes of Syracuse, UConn and Louisville let alone the other perennial strong teams in the conference's previous configuration.
I'd venture to say Syracuse/Uconn/Louisville > Marquette/Georgetown/Villanova > Creighton/Xavier/Butler.
We replaced the three best schools from the old conference with three schools with less clout than the three best remaining programs returning to the conference.
Maybe part of the allure of coaching at MU had more to do with them being in the great 16 team league that was the Big East and less to do with the program itself.
I'm speculating of course but that's the only rationale that could possibly explain why Buzz would have 'reported interest in' the USF job, as in he's being proactive now instead of reactive later.
I'll add that while I'm not trying to be all doom and gloom, let's honestly look at next year's Big East schools.
Creighton will be this year's Butler after the loss of McDermott.
Butler is in full rebuild mode after Stevens put together a solid nucleus that has now run it's course.
Marquette is in a transition year with a wide array of potential outcomes.
Providence has made good strides but it's tough to overcome the loss of a player like Cotton.
DePaul has some good young players but they're a year or two away from being a serious threat to competing.
Seton Hall is headed in the right direction and it wouldn't surprise me if they were competing for the league title.
Georgetown has some serious holes to fill with their departures but they should have a good crop of incoming talent.
St. Johns is chalk full of talent but Lavin has never been a good coach so whether they realize their potential is up for grabs.
Xavier has the best legitimate NCAA track record over time of the three BE imports but they have serious holes to fill as well.
Villanova will likely be the best team in the BE next year out of the gate and should return to the NCAAT.
Going into next year, it's easy to see how 5-6 BE teams have no real contention to make the tournament. It's far more likely the conference sees only 2 bids than it does 5 bids. My guess would be 3.
If the Big East is only a 3 bid league next season after getting 4 teams in it's first year following major realignment is it really a stretch to think that some coaches may see this as a conference in decline?
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 01:49:23 AM
If the Big East is only a 3 bid league next season after getting 4 teams in it's first year following major realignment is it really a stretch to think that some coaches may see this as a conference in decline?
The only problem with that is that some of the coaches who may see this as a conference in decline are coaching teams that have "declined." JTIII and Buzz have had rough years. Its not like GU and MU are going gang busters but everyone else around them is tanking - they are contributors to the decline. Its hard to use complain about the league's decline when you're contributing to it.
Quote from: Norm on March 18, 2014, 02:09:41 AM
The only problem with that is that some of the coaches who may see this as a conference in decline are coaching teams that have "declined." JTIII and Buzz have had rough years. Its not like GU and MU are going gang busters but everyone else around them is tanking - they are contributors to the decline. Its hard to use complain about the league's decline when you're contributing to it.
I would mostly agree but JTIII should be under much more scrutiny than Buzz as his team has been the most disappointing NCAAT team the last five seasons. Marquette has had one down year but I'm worried about the future.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 01:30:45 AM
http://tbo.com/sports/colleges/usf-bulls/usf-basketball-coaching-search-in-discovery-phase-20140316/
Can't read too much into these articles, but I found it interesting the term 'reported interest from' as the phrase used to describe Buzz's involvement with the story.
I'd give that argument serious consideration with regards to Virginia Tech or Auburn, but South Florida? The AAC is Memphis, Connecticut, Cincinnati, SMU, Temple and a lot of basketball crud. Don't see how conference affiliation would help in that regard. Now the ACC and SEC are certainly more powerful and stable than the Big East, so if that sort of thing were important to Buzz, it would be a job in a conference like that (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, SEC) that I would be worried about.
Not saying Buzz wouldn't leave for USF, because I have no idea what the man may be thinking or what his plans are, but I doubt it would be because of conference affiliation.
the real question here...does jerry wainright return to UNC-Wilmington...our team photos would never be the same.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 01:49:23 AM
If the Big East is only a 3 bid league next season after getting 4 teams in it's first year following major realignment is it really a stretch to think that some coaches may see this as a conference in decline?
Add SLU and Gonzaga and we're instantly a 5 bid conference. Maybe 6 if the middle plays a strong schedule and wins.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 01:49:23 AM
Going into next year, it's easy to see how 5-6 BE teams have no real contention to make the tournament. It's far more likely the conference sees only 2 bids than it does 5 bids. My guess would be 3.
If the Big East is only a 3 bid league next season after getting 4 teams in it's first year following major realignment is it really a stretch to think that some coaches may see this as a conference in decline?
It's far to early to speculate but one thing to keep in mind is the Big East will have the top 1 or 2 recruiting class as a conference in the country. If the recruits are coming the quality of play will as well. You very well may turn out to be right but I just don't see enough information/evidence one way or another. This year's draft class will be outstanding so the rest of NCAA basketball may "come down" to the Big East level. Who knows, we'll see.
This year will be the outlier. Going forward, at least in the intermediate and medium term, the Big East will continue to be the top non-football playing conference in the country. If the BCS conferences split off and destroy the NCAA tournament, then all bets are off.
Quote from: WarriorFan on March 18, 2014, 08:10:39 AM
Add SLU and Gonzaga and we're instantly a 5 bid conference. Maybe 6 if the middle plays a strong schedule and wins.
I'm going to stick to my early instincts and say I'd rather take SLU and Wichita State, and be a perennial 6-bid conference.
Remember, most teams are still on multi-year OOC contracts, i.e. many of the OOC games throughout the conference this year were committed to when the Big East was still 16 teams... going forward, the conference - as a whole - has made a commitment to improving the OOC matchups... so the middle 6 are going to be playing a stronger schedule regardless because the entire conference will be playing a stronger schedule.
Gonzaga will be a defacto member to the extent that you'll likely see at least one or two OOC matchups between the Zags and the Big East every year on some semblance of a rotation.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 18, 2014, 06:59:42 AM
I'd give that argument serious consideration with regards to Virginia Tech or Auburn, but South Florida? The AAC is Memphis, Connecticut, Cincinnati, SMU, Temple and a lot of basketball crud. Don't see how conference affiliation would help in that regard. Now the ACC and SEC are certainly more powerful and stable than the Big East, so if that sort of thing were important to Buzz, it would be a job in a conference like that (Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, SEC) that I would be worried about.
Not saying Buzz wouldn't leave for USF, because I have no idea what the man may be thinking or what his plans are, but I doubt it would be because of conference affiliation.
+1
Also, the AAC is not safe from realignment. The BCS conferences will eventually want to expand again. The Big 12/ACC have grant of rights. The PAC 12 is geographicall insulated. And the Big 10/SEC are at the top of the food chain. That leaves the AAC as the ripest harvest for these bigger conferences. The likes of UCONN, Memphis, and Cincy will be gobbled up one day.
And while the SEC is safe from realignment, it's not like the schools are much better there. You get to play Florida and Kentucky but after that? They were a three bid league despite having 14 teams. The BEast has more prestige.
The only remote threat here is Virginia Tech. And that place is a mess.
Meanwhile, we are insulated from realignment. We are at the top of the food chain of the basketball only schools. No one will leave us unless the BEast kicks them out.
Quote from: tower912 on March 18, 2014, 08:40:57 AM
This year will be the outlier. Going forward, at least in the intermediate and medium term, the Big East will continue to be the top non-football playing conference in the country. If the BCS conferences split off and destroy the NCAA tournament, then all bets are off.
I still fail to see how the BCS conferences are going to enhance their athletic programs (overall, not just in football) by splitting off. Every BCS team is dependent upon non-BCS schools in all sports, including football. Do you think OSU or Michigan is going to want a non-conference football schedule that includes games against the Pac-12, Big-12, SEC and ACC? How would you like to be Wisconsin and have Alabama out of the gate, followed by Florida State, Stanford and Oklahoma?
Then you have basketball -- there is no way that the BCS conferences are going to collectively walk away from over $100M in
proven (read: real, known, and contractually guaranteed) tournament money on mere speculation that they'll be able to recreate their own tournament with proportionate prestige.
And don't overlook the political & legal fallout... if the BCS seeks to exclude the rest of D-I from football and basketball, D.C. is going to be flooded with anti-trust lawsuits, class-actions, congressional hearings and the spontaneous combustion of any server tethered to the change.org domain.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 18, 2014, 08:58:25 AM
Meanwhile, we are insulated from realignment. We are at the top of the food chain of the basketball only schools. No one will leave us unless the BEast kicks them out.
I'm perfectly fine with being the polar bear. We'll happily concede the "king of the beasts" title to the lions of the BCS, but we're definitely the kings of our own domain, we can put up one hell of a fight in an individual match-up, and they're exponentially more scared of encroaching on our turf than we are of encroaching on theirs.
Let me summarize this thread ... Buzz is going to leave because his thinks the NBE sucks?
In the history of the NCAA has a coach ever left his school because of how he perceives his conference, rather than how he perceives his team? Crean left because Shumpert made him believe their was a recruiting ceiling here, nothing about the conference. Brad Stevens took a better job, he jump to a storied NBA franchise.
I think this is complete BS. If Buzz leaves its because he perceives a deficiency at MU that does not exist at his next job. Or he takes what he beleives is clearly a better job. That decision will never involve the perception of the conference.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 09:18:06 AM
Let me summarize this thread ... Buzz is going to leave because his thinks the NBE sucks?
In the history of the NCAA has a coach ever left his school because of how he perceives his conference, rather than how he perceives his team? Crean left because Shumpert made him believe their was a recruiting ceiling here, nothing about the conference. Brad Stevens took a better job, he jump to a storied NBA franchise.
I think this is complete BS. If Buzz leaves its because he perceives a deficiency at MU that does not exist at his next job. Or he takes what he beleives is clearly a better job. That decision will never involve the perception of the conference.
Agreed 100%. If you're a basketball coach, and you want the perpetual guarantee of resources and attention that only a basketball school can provide, the Big East is your Valhalla.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 09:18:06 AM
Let me summarize this thread ... Buzz is going to leave because his thinks the NBE sucks?
In the history of the NCAA has a coach ever left his school because of how he perceives his conference, rather than how he perceives his team? Crean left because Shumpert made him believe their was a recruiting ceiling here, nothing about the conference. Brad Stevens took a better job, he jump to a storied NBA franchise.
I think this is complete BS. If Buzz leaves its because he perceives a deficiency at MU that does not exist at his next job. Or he takes what he beleives is clearly a better job. That decision will never involve the perception of the conference.
You don't have to look more than a couple years into the past to see this doesn't hold water. Just look at what some current BE coaches along with former BE coaches now coaching former BE teams in both the ACC and AAC have said about the importance of playing in the BE at the time. The conference you play in has big time ramifications that absolutely impact the viability of a program.
Had the Big East upon it's original formation not had their initial splash (multiple championships, 3 in the final 4,etc) and continued success would it ever have been considered a power conference? Of course not.
Did Marquette's stature in the college basketball landscape not greatly improve when they joined the Big East? You're lying to yourself if you think it didn't.
This conference as it is currently configured has to be viewed for what it is now, not what some other schools made it in the past.
And stop building straw man arguments. Nobody said Buzz was leaving in this discussion at all. I specifically said I didn't think he's leaving.
You've mastered hyperbole quite well.
Pearl to Auburn. Probably means Buzz to ESPN to replace him. ESPN has a great team with young and veteran talent, nationally televised every game, and deep pockets of owner Walt Disney. He'll do anything for a winner. Buzz is good as gone.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
I still fail to see how the BCS conferences are going to enhance their athletic programs (overall, not just in football) by splitting off. Every BCS team is dependent upon non-BCS schools in all sports, including football. Do you think OSU or Michigan is going to want a non-conference football schedule that includes games against the Pac-12, Big-12, SEC and ACC? How would you like to be Wisconsin and have Alabama out of the gate, followed by Florida State, Stanford and Oklahoma?
I think you're thinking too narrowly. FBS + FCS. 158 total schools. Gives you 90%+ of the money-earning basketball program, splits off 200 D1 basketball programs, most of which are money sucking, low-majors. Still gives the likes of OSU and Michigan a tremendous number of options for their non-conference without resorting to Alabama or Wisconsin out of the gate.
But even barring that option, there would be nothing to stop the new association from permitting its members from schedling a certain number of games against NCAA members.
After all, the NCAA doesn't bar teams from scheduling D2 or D3 opponents. Few of them do this from a practical perspective, but nothing would stop an Ohio State or Michigan from scheduling a lower-power team from outside its association.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
Then you have basketball -- there is no way that the BCS conferences are going to collectively walk away from over $100M in proven (read: real, known, and contractually guaranteed) tournament money on mere speculation that they'll be able to recreate their own tournament with proportionate prestige.
An tournament that features Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Indiana, Duke, etc. is going to suffer prestige and lack for a television contract when compared to one where the likes of Villanova and St. Louis represent the cream of the crop? Hardly.
Plus, I doubt that the CBS money is contractually guarnteed in the event that UK, KU, UNC, ULCA, IU, Duke, etc all leave. I'm guessing there is a change of conditions clause that would unwind that contract pretty fast.
Plus, the new association could always invite participants from the old NCAA.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
And don't overlook the political & legal fallout... if the BCS seeks to exclude the rest of D-I from football and basketball, D.C. is going to be flooded with anti-trust lawsuits, class-actions, congressional hearings and the spontaneous combustion of any server tethered to the change.org domain.
If FBS+FCS leave the NCAA and form a 158 team all-sport association they aren't keeping anyone out. If anything, they are providing their members a viable alternative to the NCAA, where all teams would be welcome to stay.
They will simply set up a minimum requirement to have a football team with 85 scholarships, and probably some minimum stadium size requirement. But that's no different than what the NCAA does or individual conferences do today.
If the DePauls and Marquettes and Xaviers of the world want to participate, all they have to do is start a football program and play in a 30,000 seat stadium.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 09:59:45 AM
This conference as it is currently configured has to be viewed for what it is now, not what some other schools made it in the past.
Correct. It is a 10 team conference with 7 or 8 schools that have the
ability to make the NCAA each year (DePaul and Seton Hall have to prove themselves). The schools pay coaches as much as any schools in the country and it has a lucrative TV contract with a major sports network that shows virtually ever game on national TV.
Conclusion, it is a major power conference.
This is the correct way to do it.
The incorrect way is to look at everyone roster for next year, assume everyone will suck (i.e., Butler) and conclude it is the next coming of the Horizon league, like this thread did at the top.
Quote from: Benny B on March 18, 2014, 09:15:33 AM
if the BCS seeks to exclude the rest of D-I from football and basketball, D.C. is going to be flooded with anti-trust lawsuits, class-actions, congressional hearings and the spontaneous combustion of any server tethered to the change.org domain.
Absolutely love this line, you get a gold star for the day :)
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
I think you're thinking too narrowly. FBS + FCS. 158 total schools. Gives you 90%+ of the money-earning basketball program, splits off 200 D1 basketball programs, most of which are money sucking, low-majors. Still gives the likes of OSU and Michigan a tremendous number of options for their non-conference without resorting to Alabama or Wisconsin out of the gate.
But even barring that option, there would be nothing to stop the new association from permitting its members from schedling a certain number of games against NCAA members.
After all, the NCAA doesn't bar teams from scheduling D2 or D3 opponents. Few of them do this from a practical perspective, but nothing would stop an Ohio State or Michigan from scheduling a lower-power team from outside its association.
An tournament that features Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Indiana, Duke, etc. is going to suffer prestige and lack for a television contract when compared to one where the likes of Villanova and St. Louis represent the cream of the crop? Hardly.
Plus, I doubt that the CBS money is contractually guarnteed in the event that UK, KU, UNC, ULCA, IU, Duke, etc all leave. I'm guessing there is a change of conditions clause that would unwind that contract pretty fast.
Plus, the new association could always invite participants from the old NCAA.
If FBS+FCS leave the NCAA and form a 158 team all-sport association they aren't keeping anyone out. If anything, they are providing their members a viable alternative to the NCAA, where all teams would be welcome to stay.
They will simply set up a minimum requirement to have a football team with 85 scholarships, and probably some minimum stadium size requirement. But that's no different than what the NCAA does or individual conferences do today.
If the DePauls and Marquettes and Xaviers of the world want to participate, all they have to do is start a football program and play in a 30,000 seat stadium.
You really can't discount the legal and political ramifications of such a move. Hell Georgetown alone has bestowed half of DC with a degree or another....you don't think that network puts up a fight in the halls of congress over something like this?
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 10:39:15 AM
Correct. It is a 10 team conference with 7 or 8 schools that have the ability to make the NCAA each year (DePaul and Seton Hall have to prove themselves). The schools pay coaches as much as any schools in the country and it has a lucrative TV contract with a major sports network that shows virtually ever game on national TV.
Conclusion, it is a major power conference.
This is the correct way to do it.
The incorrect way is to look at everyone roster for next year, assume everyone will suck (i.e., Butler) and conclude it is the next coming of the Horizon league, like this thread did at the top.
When did I conclude this conference was the next coming of the Horizon league? Oh, right, more hyperbole.
I did say the Big East is more likely to be a two bid league next season than a five bid league next season. I personally think it gets three teams in. I hardly suggested everyone will suck, but I see very few NCAAT teams next season.
Hopefully I'm wrong but even though I think the seven basketball only programs did the best possible thing they could I just don't see this working for the better long term. Look who our expansion teams were. Butler just got through their perfect storm of success, Creighton is wrapping it up this season. Only Xavier has legitimate NCAAT experience and success over a significant span of time.
We picked two mid major programs at the tail end of their peak of short term success and a lone quality basketball only school. Sorry if I'm nold 100% sold on this working out well for the conference.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 11:02:14 AM
When did I conclude this conference was the next coming of the Horizon league? Oh, right, more hyperbole.
I did say the Big East is more likely to be a two bid league next season than a five bid league next season. I personally think it gets three teams in. I hardly suggested everyone will suck, but I see very few NCAAT teams next season.
Hopefully I'm wrong but even though I think the seven basketball only programs did the best possible thing they could I just don't see this working for the better long term. Look who our expansion teams were. Butler just got through their perfect storm of success, Creighton is wrapping it up this season. Only Xavier has legitimate NCAAT experience and success over a significant span of time.
We picked two mid major programs at the tail end of their peak of short term success and a lone quality basketball only school. Sorry if I'm nold 100% sold on this working out well for the conference.
Since 1997 Butler has been to the tourney 11 times and Creighton 9 times since 1999. They have had more than enough current success to think they can sustain being a quality member of the BE. It's not like they caught lightning in a bottle for a couple years. They have proven to be quality programs over the years.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 18, 2014, 11:02:14 AM
When did I conclude this conference was the next coming of the Horizon league? Oh, right, more hyperbole.
I did say the Big East is more likely to be a two bid league next season than a five bid league next season. I personally think it gets three teams in. I hardly suggested everyone will suck, but I see very few NCAAT teams next season.
You accuse me of hyperbole than then say its a 2 bid league. You can't even name the players on our roster next year, let alone any other team.
Try this
5 bid league ... Nova, X, Prov, MU and GT are looking good for bids next year.
MU can't get one? See 13-17 (5-13) Nova two years ago. Many of the same players on this year's 2 seed team were on that team.
So, wait until you can name the rosters before you start with incorrect conference assessments.
McDermott has a career 164-142 (54%) record without Dougie. Let's see what he can do without him and without gaming the system. I am not convinced. Creighton does have a strong following, a nice arena, and plenty of money, but I am not sure (a) how good McDermott is as a coach, (b) how long McDermott wants to stay, and (c) recruiting, do quality players really want to play for Creighton?
Butler is interesting because it doesn't seem like their recruiting has matched their success. Their tournament resume over the last decade is remarkable and while they have received commitments from better recruits, it is not to the level you would expect given their success. Not sure what to make of their coach either. Stevens leaving was a greater loss than many thought.
IMO these two schools will make or break the conference going forward. Marquette, Georgetown, Xavier and Villanova should be fairly consistent going forward. DePaul played better at the end of the season, but going forward? I do like the way Providence, St. Johns and Seton Hall are trending, but time will tell. Butler and Creighton are key for the future of the NBE.
Quote from: mu03eng on March 18, 2014, 10:49:42 AM
You really can't discount the legal and political ramifications of such a move. Hell Georgetown alone has bestowed half of DC with a degree or another....you don't think that network puts up a fight in the halls of congress over something like this?
I think the "Georgetown network" is pragmatic enough to understand that Georgetown can't dictate to any other school which athletic association they must belong to, or what minimum terms that association chooses to establish for its members.
After all, Georgetown is already a member of two such organizations (The NCAA and the Big East) which have set up similar arrangements setting up minimum membership requirements.
And once again, nobody would be keeping Georgetown out of any new association. They'd have only established a reasonable floor for membership ("We're a football based association, and all members must support a minimally viable football program").
I don't think any reasonable argument could be made that Congress should establish the NCAA as a monopoly that any football or basketball playing school must belong to by law.
I think you can assume that teams like Xavier, Butler and Creighton will get a slight bump in recruiting by playing in the Big East relative to the MVC or A-10 (or the Horizon). Agree that Xavier is best positioned for long term success and I think they will be in the mix just about every year, as Marquette should. Providence is clearly trending well as is St. John's. Villanova and Georgetown will always be strong. Seton Hall has some work to do but I like where they are headed under Willard much more than that idiot Bobby Gonzalez. I think we will be roughly the same or slightly better next year and will be a bubble team.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
I think you're thinking too narrowly. FBS + FCS. 158 total schools. Gives you 90%+ of the money-earning basketball program, splits off 200 D1 basketball programs, most of which are money sucking, low-majors. Still gives the likes of OSU and Michigan a tremendous number of options for their non-conference without resorting to Alabama or Wisconsin out of the gate.
Right there... that defeats the primary purpose of the "split," which is not to separate football from non-football, but to enhance revenue for the BCS schools. If you're taking along the dead weight, you're not doing what you set out to accomplish in the first place.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
But even barring that option, there would be nothing to stop the new association from permitting its members from schedling a certain number of games against NCAA members.
After all, the NCAA doesn't bar teams from scheduling D2 or D3 opponents. Few of them do this from a practical perspective, but nothing would stop an Ohio State or Michigan from scheduling a lower-power team from outside its association.
We're no longer talking about divisions of the NCAA "crossing over"... we're talking about two separate and distinct athletic organizations if the BCS splits. NCAA can't hold sanctioned competitions against non-member institutions outside the limited scope of exhibitions, and the BCS would have to be complete morons to "count" the results of cross-over games in their own standings when the NCAA teams consider them exhibitions.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
An tournament that features Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, UCLA, Indiana, Duke, etc. is going to suffer prestige and lack for a television contract when compared to one where the likes of Villanova and St. Louis represent the cream of the crop? Hardly.
NCAA has been trying to trademark "Cinderella" for decades. They keep failing, but they keep trying. Why? Because "Cinderella story lines" are the cornerstone of the mystique that has built the tourney into what it is today. Villanova in 1985. Butler in 2009-2010. Fla Gulf Coast last year. It's underdog stories like that which have contributed to the NCAA Tournament brand much more so than any Final Four involving UNC, Duke, UCLA and UK potentially ever could.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
Plus, I doubt that the CBS money is contractually guarnteed in the event that UK, KU, UNC, ULCA, IU, Duke, etc all leave. I'm guessing there is a change of conditions clause that would unwind that contract pretty fast.
That may be, but the money is not guaranteed wherever it is they go and whatever it is they do. But whatever the contract turns out to be, it's certain to be less than what it is now.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
Plus, the new association could always invite participants from the old NCAA.
See above. Again, this is all about revenue enhancement, i.e. maximizing the income and minimizing the number of shares. If you start inviting NCAA participants to fill out your field, you're going to have to split a lesser amount of money than you had before the split the same number of ways you had to before the split.
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 18, 2014, 10:31:39 AM
If FBS+FCS leave the NCAA and form a 158 team all-sport association they aren't keeping anyone out. If anything, they are providing their members a viable alternative to the NCAA, where all teams would be welcome to stay.
They will simply set up a minimum requirement to have a football team with 85 scholarships, and probably some minimum stadium size requirement. But that's no different than what the NCAA does or individual conferences do today.
If the DePauls and Marquettes and Xaviers of the world want to participate, all they have to do is start a football program and play in a 30,000 seat stadium.
Organizations that establish arbitrary thresholds and obstacles to participation the likes of what you're outlining above are like crack to a plaintiff's attorney. And since you're talking about a consortium made up primarily of large, public institutions keeping out the smaller public and private institutions, you're going to be in a world of hurt politically if you try to uphold something like that.
Remember that the NCAA television contract for hoops is with the NCAA. If schools breakaway from the NCAA, that money is not going to follow to the other schools. Now, if the schools leave does that mean the contract gets torn up? Interesting question.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 11:19:20 AM
You accuse me of hyperbole than then say its a 2 bid league. You can't even name the players on our roster next year, let alone any other team.
Try this
5 bid league ... Nova, X, Prov, MU and GT are looking good for bids next year.
MU can't get one? See 13-17 (5-13) Nova two years ago. Many of the same players on this year's 2 seed team were on that team.
So, wait until you can name the rosters before you start with incorrect conference assessments.
Off the top of my head the roster will consist of Derrick Wilson, Anderson, Mayo, Taylor, Burton, Johnson, Dawson, Fisher, Duane Wilson, Pierce, Hill and someone I'm forgetting.
The Big East would have been a two bid team this season but two things happened.
1. Xavier beat Marquette in the BET and snuck in as one of the last two at large teams.
2. Providence won the BET or they would have been left out.
Just because you wish it wasn't true doesn't mean it's inaccurate. This conference as it stands now doesn't have the horses to be a consistent 5 bid league.
Now don't you have some roster memorization to attend to?
Who is leaving? JJJ, STj? Who is coming? Anthony Lee, Male k Harris. Who get hurts and misses next season?
Answer those questions and your outlook changes.
That's what you don't know times 10 teams that makes your 2 bid forecasts useless.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 07:08:20 PM
Who is leaving? JJJ, STj? Who is coming? Anthony Lee, Male k Harris. Who get hurts and misses next season?
Answer those questions and your outlook changes.
That's what you don't know times 10 teams that makes your 2 bid forecasts useless.
Keep pretending. The league needed a disappointing Marquette loss (for us fans) at the hands of Xavier and an unlikely Providence championship to avoid a 2 bid league this year.
And my official forecast is they get three teams in next season. Were you out with the flu when they covered reading comprehension in grade school?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 18, 2014, 01:04:47 AM
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24466354/hirings-and-firings-2014-college-basketball-coaching-changes
Back to something at least semi-related to this link / the original thread. Any ideas for good potential assistants?
Tom Herrion intrigues me - Pitt was some serious success when he was on Dixon's staff, Buzz could possibly have had enough connection with him to place Mbao at Marshall upon getting that job.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 18, 2014, 09:18:06 AM
Let me summarize this thread ... Buzz is going to leave because his thinks the NBE sucks?
In the history of the NCAA has a coach ever left his school because of how he perceives his conference, rather than how he perceives his team? Crean left because Shumpert made him believe their was a recruiting ceiling here, nothing about the conference. Brad Stevens took a better job, he jump to a storied NBA franchise.
I think this is complete BS. If Buzz leaves its because he perceives a deficiency at MU that does not exist at his next job. Or he takes what he beleives is clearly a better job. That decision will never involve the perception of the conference.
Care to rethink this post?