I know its just one game, and one that could have easily gone the other way, but I really wish SLU was already a Big East team. I know they have a lot of seniors leaving, but I think Crews will keep them at a very competitive level. I love the way they play.
We need to add 2 teams ASAP. The A-10 getting 6 teams in this year only solidified my belief that expansion needs to be a top proriority for Ackerman and team. Hopefully they move faster than they did on the Big East website. I honestly don't care who the other team is, throw a dart at a board and pick one of these teams: VCU, Witchita State, Dayton, St. Joes, Richmond, George Washington. Georgetown and Nova would probably veto St Joes and GW, so I think you need to add SLU and one of the others. It needs to happen ASAP.
The more I think about it, the more I like Wichita State, it gives Creighton another close rival
Georgetown and Nova don't want an all Midwestern conference either so Wichita st would be a stretch.
Part of me wonders if we wouldn't be better served with 2 really east coast teams that we could beat up on so that all those 10-8 records become 12-6, 13-5.
Like Fordham and BU. I will defer to the RPI experts but I wonder perhaps we have too many solid teams. Sometimes I think you need great teams and bad teams.
Is this notion crazy?
Quote from: The Lens on March 21, 2014, 09:18:12 AM
Part of me wonders if we wouldn't be better served with 2 really east coast teams that we could beat up on so that all those 10-8 records become 12-6, 13-5.
Like Fordham and BU. I will defer to the RPI experts but I wonder perhaps we have too many solid teams. Sometimes I think you need great teams and bad teams.
Is this notion crazy?
Not crazy. That's what the A-10 did. Its what the AAC has done. Their bottom halfs ensure they get enough teams with decent records in the tournament.
Fordham and BU are really bad though. Not sure we want to go that low.
Why would we want Fordham and BU? Much better teams like SLU and Dayton would bend over backwards to get into the Big East. There are more than 20 teams I can think about off the top of my head that I would want before those two schools.
We have to do better with outside the conference wins, that is the key IMO. Yes, adding bottom feeders adds to a win total, but lets also not forget only a few years ago 11 of 16 teams made the dance.
It can be done with a fantastic league of great teams up and down the league, even beating up on each other. I look at SJU, GTown and MU especially, the issue wasn't what the did in league so much, its what they didn't do outside of it. GTown had a couple of really good wins, but some horrific losses. MU and SJU nothing of note outside of conference.
If those three teams took care of business, they would have made the tournament, but we didn't.
If you look at the A-10 teams that got in, yes they had some gaudy conference records but they also had some solid out of conference wins that our guys couldn't match.
That's ultimately what it comes down to. Adding more upper echelon teams would be my preference, but we have to get some scalps outside of conference to make the tournament.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 09:29:50 AM
Not crazy. That's what the A-10 did. Its what the AAC has done. Their bottom halfs ensure they get enough teams with decent records in the tournament.
Fordham and BU are really bad though. Not sure we want to go that low.
BU did make the NIT this year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2014, 09:44:06 AM
We have to do better with outside the conference wins, that is the key IMO. Yes, adding bottom feeders adds to a win total, but lets also not forget only a few years ago 11 of 16 teams made the dance.
It can be done with a fantastic league of great teams up and down the league, even beating up on each other. I look at SJU, GTown and MU especially, the issue wasn't what the did in league so much, its what they didn't do outside of it. GTown had a couple of really good wins, but some horrific losses. MU and SJU nothing of note outside of conference.
If those three teams took care of business, they would have made the tournament, but we didn't.
If you look at the A-10 teams that got in, yes they had some gaudy conference records but they also had some solid out of conference wins that our guys couldn't match.
That's ultimately what it comes down to. Adding more upper echelon teams would be my preference, but we have to get some scalps outside of conference to make the tournament.
You need to stop making so much sense.
Quote from: The Lens on March 21, 2014, 09:18:12 AM
Part of me wonders if we wouldn't be better served with 2 really east coast teams that we could beat up on so that all those 10-8 records become 12-6, 13-5.
Like Fordham and BU. I will defer to the RPI experts but I wonder perhaps we have too many solid teams. Sometimes I think you need great teams and bad teams.
Is this notion crazy?
Yes.
Add Richmond and Dayton and beat up on them. Don't dilute the conference by adding those two horrid programs (Fordham and BU).
I said this in a different post... We should add Harvard
I would love to have a team in Boston though, Holy Cross should step it up ;)
I believe the Big East needs to do to the A10 what the ACC did to the Big East. That is take enough of their good teams to severly weaken them and ensure you are top dog from a bball perspective. In this case we aren't fighting for overall best bball conference but we can take a big lead over other non football conferences. I still think it makes sense to have a 14-16 team league. A true round robin format is over rated and out dated. We need to focus on getting as many good bball schools as possible. I'd definitely add St. Louis, VCU, and Dayton. I'd strongly consider UMass for another east coast team in a new market. That would get us to 14 with an even balance between east coast and midwest teams. I have no idea if Witchita St is set up for ongoing success but if they are I would consider adding them and another east coast team to get to 16 teams with a good geographical balance.
Quote from: LAMUfan on March 21, 2014, 10:00:53 AM
I said this in a different post... We should add Harvard
I would love to have a team in Boston though, Holy Cross should step it up ;)
Nitpicking, but Holy Cross is in Worcester
Funny how an upset in the tournament changes so much in a year. I was on here a year ago going against those saying Dayton would bring the conference down. And now they beat OSU and suddenly they are everyone's top choice to add with SLU.
Definitely agree they need to add and add quick before the conference falls in line as a top mid-major conference.
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on March 21, 2014, 10:06:33 AM
Funny how an upset in the tournament changes so much in a year. I was on here a year ago going against those saying Dayton would bring the conference down. And now they beat OSU and suddenly they are everyone's top choice to add with SLU.
Definitely agree they need to add and add quick before the conference falls in line as a top mid-major conference.
Not my top choice. I'd rather have VCU. But we need someone ASAP.
Quote from: Farley36 on March 21, 2014, 10:03:24 AM
I believe the Big East needs to do to the A10 what the ACC did to the Big East. That is take enough of their good teams to severly weaken them and ensure you are top dog from a bball perspective. In this case we aren't fighting for overall best bball conference but we can take a big lead over other non football conferences. I still think it makes sense to have a 14-16 team league. A true round robin format is over rated and out dated. We need to focus on getting as many good bball schools as possible. I'd definitely add St. Louis, VCU, and Dayton. I'd strongly consider UMass for another east coast team in a new market. That would get us to 14 with an even balance between east coast and midwest teams. I have no idea if Witchita St is set up for ongoing success but if they are I would consider adding them and another east coast team to get to 16 teams with a good geographical balance.
I agree. I like your 4 teams...SLU, Dayton, VCU and UMass.
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on March 21, 2014, 10:06:33 AM
Definitely agree they need to add and add quick before the conference falls in line as a top mid-major conference.
Why is everybody so worried about this. I for one have no worry about the conference. Lets not forget we still have us Nova, GTown and X. That and Ed Cooley is doing work on the recruiting trail and Seton Hall next year is going to look the best they have in years.
Quote from: GoldenEagle2002 on March 21, 2014, 10:07:42 AM
I agree. I like your 4 teams...SLU, Dayton, VCU and UMass.
UMass has FBS Football. We don't want to go there.
SLU, Dayton, VCU, Wichita State. If Wichita State isn't possible, then Richmond.
We need to invite four at one time. This way they will all know that if they decide to stay back in the A-10 they will be the only ones left.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 08:55:16 AM
I know its just one game, and one that could have easily gone the other way, but I really wish SLU was already a Big East team. I know they have a lot of seniors leaving, but I think Crews will keep them at a very competitive level. I love the way they play.
Yes!!
After 200,000 posts here on why it would be a mistake to add SLU, and we even short-handed the end of our program "becoming SLU," we are now wishing SLU was in the BE all along!!!
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 08:55:16 AM
I know its just one game, and one that could have easily gone the other way, but I really wish SLU was already a Big East team. I know they have a lot of seniors leaving, but I think Crews will keep them at a very competitive level. I love the way they play.
We need to add 2 teams ASAP. The A-10 getting 6 teams in this year only solidified my belief that expansion needs to be a top proriority for Ackerman and team. Hopefully they move faster than they did on the Big East website. I honestly don't care who the other team is, throw a dart at a board and pick one of these teams: VCU, Witchita State, Dayton, St. Joes, Richmond, George Washington. Georgetown and Nova would probably veto St Joes and GW, so I think you need to add SLU and one of the others. It needs to happen ASAP.
The more I think about it, the more I like Wichita State, it gives Creighton another close rival
Add VCU (only if Smart stays) and St. Joes.
Quote from: The Lens on March 21, 2014, 09:18:12 AM
Part of me wonders if we wouldn't be better served with 2 really east coast teams that we could beat up on so that all those 10-8 records become 12-6, 13-5.
Like Fordham and BU. I will defer to the RPI experts but I wonder perhaps we have too many solid teams. Sometimes I think you need great teams and bad teams.
Is this notion crazy?
St' Johns and Seton Hall will veto Fordham
Providence will Veto BU. (Prov thinks its in the Boston TV market ... Like X thinks Dayton is in the Cincy market and would veto Cincy for the same reason)
Have to find TV markets not covered by the BE for expansion.
------
If you think I'm overplaying this TV market consideration, would you be OK adding UWM and/or UWGB to the BE? They are the same level as most of the teams mentioned here.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 21, 2014, 10:15:00 AM
St' Johns and Seton Hall will veto Fordham
Providence will Veto BU. (Prov thinks its in the Boston TV market ... Like X thinks Dayton is in the Cincy market and would veto Cincy for the same reason)
Have to find TV markets not covered by the BE for expansion.
------
If you think I'm overplaying this TV market consideration, would you be OK adding UWM and/or UWGB to the BE? They are the same level as most of the teams mentioned here.
I think you are right. Dayton, SLU, VCU, Wichita
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 10:03:59 AM
Nitpicking, but Holy Cross is in Worcester
and Harvard is in Cambridge :P
No love for North Dakota State?
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 10:15:40 AM
I think you are right. Dayton, SLU, VCU, Wichita
With 10 teams in the BE, we get 10% of the revenue.
With 14 teams in the BE, we get 7.14% of the revenue.
That's OK if the four teams will increase revenues by 40%. The four above will not do it.
Add them and MU makes millions less. College Bball is first and foremost a business.
Why do we need new teams ASAP? I'd prefer to stick with 10 as long as possible. If our existing teams would have taken care of business this year we could have had 7 teams in the tournament. Win more big OOC games, schedule less crappy buy games, and don't lose to DePaul, Butler and Seton Hall.
Big 10 added bottom feeders Penn St and Nebraska without being hurt and have another one on the way next year in Rutgers. They seem ok in spite of it.
I tend to like 10 as well, but we can't sit and just assume that Gtown, MU and Villanova will just carry the conference forever if the others don't draw recruits to the league. That is what makes me want to add teams now before it's too late. Would like to keep us up there after the Big 10, ACC and SEC. 2 would be good, but I would go no more than 14.
Forgot about UMass and football...can't add them. SLU and Dayton for sure and then maybe VCU and someone. Too bad St. Joe's would get vetoed. From a culture standpoint, I'd hate to lose too much of the Catholic culture by just throwing GMason or Geo Wash in with Butler and VCU.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 21, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
Big 10 added bottom feeders Penn St and Nebraska without being hurt and have another one on the way next year in Rutgers. They seem ok in spite of it.
Well that's because in spite of those teams they already have a deep conference of top teams. Not to mention consistent upper tier schools like Mich St., Ohio St. and Michigan.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 21, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
Big 10 added bottom feeders Penn St and Nebraska without being hurt and have another one on the way next year in Rutgers. They seem ok in spite of it.
First Penn State was added 15 year ago when the economics was vastly different than today.
Now they are adding Rutgers (NYC TV market) and Maryland (Washington DC TV market) because they have a different business model than everyone else. The B1G has its own network and they want to pressure cable operators in NYC and DC to carry the BTN. They get 60 cents a month per subscriber. If Rutgers can get 20 million NYC cable subscribers to pay 60 cents a month, Rutgers becomes the most important member of the B1G.
Follow the money, not the records this year as they don't matter.
Added ...Rutgers has 59,000 students, one of the largest schools by enrollment in the country. So every four years they produce 59,000 alumni, tens of thousands of which live in the NYC area. So NYC cable operators are getting hundreds of thousands of requests/demands for the BTN so these alumni can watch Rutgers starting next year. If cable operators add the BTN, Rutgers could be responsible for bringing in several million a month for the BIG members.
This is how conference expansion works, not analyzing wins and losses.
We're making about $4M/year right now from FS1. Unless another team can add more than $4M in revenue to the conference on their own, they're just another mouth to feed.
Quote from: Litehouse on March 21, 2014, 10:34:28 AM
We're making about $4M/year right now from FS1. Unless another team can add more than $4M in revenue to the conference on their own, they're just another mouth to feed.
Here is how will conference expansion works.
Fox Sports (FS) will identify TV markets they are not in, tell the BE to add a team so FS can pressure cable operators in that market to carry FS1 and FS2.
So, if FS is not in St. Louis, or FS is not a basic channel but a premium sports channel, they become a top BE target, for this reason and this reason alone. To get into that market or on the basic tier in that market.
Think alone these lines for expansion.
VCU, SLU or any teams that can bring lots of Fans to MSG. I'd like to keep the ACC out!
I'd only agree to that if FS1 pays us an extra $4M/year to take on the extra team.
Quote from: Litehouse on March 21, 2014, 10:45:48 AM
I'd only agree to that if FS1 pays us an extra $4M/year to take on the extra team.
''
That's not how it works. When you sign a deal with a TV carrier, they call the shots.
I'm sure many in the B1G were not sure about Rutgers, but their economics could make them a more powerful member of the B1G than Wisconsin in just a few years (when Rutgers wants more B1G teams in the east and Madison does not, Rutgers money will win the argument.)
No more than 12.
I think SLU and VCU are the most likely candidates.
I think if the conference could navigate the geography, Gonzaga would be their first choice. BYU and St. Mary's wouldn't be far behind.
I think the BEast would take the following schools if they would drop their awful football programs: Memphis, UConn, Wake Forest, Temple, Boston College
I think Wichita State is an interesting choice. I wish they were in a better TV market
I think UMass is interesting. Their football is terrible and parked in the MAC, their sports are already split between conferences. If no one is calling UConn, then no one will call UMass
I would much rather have St. Joe's than Dayton....Hell I'd rather have most teams than Dayton. Let's not pretend Dayton is some sleeping giant. They have 5 NCAA appearances in the past 24 years.
money is a huge part, no doubt.
But you are thinking short term. Eventually, our TV contract will be up. We will have to renegotiate. We bring a lot more to the table with 12-14 teams, especially if we are getting 6-7 bids every year, instead of 4.
If we are a 4-5 bid league every year, we are essentially the A-10. Our prestige will wither. We will become a mid major. And we won't be getting that kind of money from FS1 for very long.
We need to expand while we are ahead.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 21, 2014, 10:25:18 AM
Big 10 added bottom feeders Penn St and Nebraska without being hurt and have another one on the way next year in Rutgers. They seem ok in spite of it.
Nebraska is in the NCAA tournament. Not sure they are a bottom feeder anymore. Besides, they added Nebraska and PSU for football reasons, basketball is a distant 2nd not even on the radar screen.
For an all basketball conference, we should be adding as many high quality teams as possible because this is our money sport, our flagship brand and perception is key. You want quantity of quality programs, especially for years like this year when most of the perceived quality teams did not produce. Just as the Big Ten added Nebraska and PSU to bolster football, their flagship sport. Rutgers and Maryland were added for one reason...BIG TEN NETWORK negotiations. The way the contracts work with that network, every provider in the country has to pay a higher rate per subscriber in the states that the schools exist, including overlapping DMAs.
So by adding Rutgers, it means anyone that carries Big Ten gets to write a fatter check to Big Ten because the state of New Jersey, the NY DMA, the Washington D.C DMA, and the state of Maryland are now at that higher rate. Big populations, lots more $$$.
The Big East would be wise to get STRONGER top to bottom, not diluting the conference with some patsies. If MU, G'Town, SJU performed like they were supposed to, this discussion isn't happening. The three teams collectively shat the bed this year vs the expectations. It is that simple. Expand with schools and markets that make sense. St. Louis is a good sized market...on the list. Dayton, not a good sized market, but a decent program. VCU, etc...same eye needs to be looked at. Adding Fordham, even though it gets you NY, does nothing in terms of the contractual dollars for FS1 and they have no following. Duquense, same deal. Its a non starter in my view and a terrible mistake from a television perspective and basketball conference approach.
Bleu, I respectfully disagree.
SLU, VCU, Dayton, etc., will be there as long as we want them.
I say that we wait until Maryland settles its exit fee lawsuit and holdout for someone better than Dayton et al. Once that lawsuit is settled, that is surely likely to shake things up.
The AAC will break up, perhaps Notre Dame wants out of the ACC deal. Maybe Temple or Memphis will abandon football (BU did it). Maybe we could get Wake. Maybe I'm delusional.
In any case, adding teams just for the sake of adding them is a hasty decision.
Quote from: The Lens on March 21, 2014, 09:18:12 AM
Part of me wonders if we wouldn't be better served with 2 really east coast teams that we could beat up on so that all those 10-8 records become 12-6, 13-5.
Like Fordham and BU. I will defer to the RPI experts but I wonder perhaps we have too many solid teams. Sometimes I think you need great teams and bad teams.
Is this notion crazy?
I think SLU is too good to pass up as one of the adds but agree, especially after with the hype around MSG last week that we need to do everything to solidify the east coast presence. Adding teams from the middle of Virginia and in the sticks of Ohio won't do that.
I'm really coming around to BU. Private school, sizable enrollment, sizable endowment, sizable market. Get some help in record inflating at the start, but perhaps some potential as well - if they're even respectable, the rivalry potential with Providence, Georgetown, and St. John's is more likely than SLU or Dayton could muster up with their best teams because of the geography. And for trips to road games, Boston beats every other candidate. Maybe Providence doesn't like the close proximity, but from what was leaked last year, if you get GU and MU set up on it, there isn't much room for other opinions.
I clearly was not considering TV DMAs which I realize is the most important factor. I am just curious as to if beating up on a few teams could help. Due to conf affiliation, even DePaul's RPI was 151 so it's not like we're adding a 300+ team.
Look, I'm not saying it's the answer but I am intrigued at looking at it. I understand the need to also win on the non-conf.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 11:42:19 AM
money is a huge part, no doubt.
But you are thinking short term. Eventually, our TV contract will be up. We will have to renegotiate. We bring a lot more to the table with 12-14 teams, especially if we are getting 6-7 bids every year, instead of 4.
If we are a 4-5 bid league every year, we are essentially the A-10. Our prestige will wither. We will become a mid major. And we won't be getting that kind of money from FS1 for very long.
We need to expand while we are ahead.
I was just about to type this but you beat me to it! I agree, anyone who is focused just on the short term revenue implications is missing the long term picture. Part of that picture is also that a strong A10 is bad for the Big East. You're kidding yourself if you think the Big East hasn't already taken a prestige hit with the A10 getting 6 teams in versus our 4.
Quote from: The Lens on March 21, 2014, 12:32:28 PM
I clearly was not considering TV DMAs which I realize is the most important factor. I am just curious as to if beating up on a few teams could help. Due to conf affiliation, even DePaul's RPI was 151 so it's not like we're adding a 300+ team.
Look, I'm not saying it's the answer but I am intrigued at looking at it. I understand the need to also win on the non-conf.
Totally get it, and it is worth exploring. However, my view is that over history the stronger the conference, the better overall for the conference. Add strong teams is the way to go. It might not help MU at times, but that's our problem. More strong teams, better reputation for the conference, easier on recruiting, more post season success, etc, etc.
At the very least, I could see a scenario where you add a strong and an average team, but I would never advocate adding two teams just to inflate records. We get into Tulane territory there. My bigger concern is adding someone that appears good now, but can they sustain it? How committed is SLU, Dayton, VCU, Richmond, or dare I say Gonzaga.
Just for discussion since we're talking expansion. Layed out by my Nielsen Market size. Pieced together over some slow days. Some random thoughts.
And I was looking at a map to see the league footprint.
I agree with a lot of what ChicosBB is saying. He has a media background and understands DMA. (fyi, I worked in TV for 30 years)
He raised this question: "My bigger concern is adding someone that appears good now, but can they sustain it? How committed is SLU, Dayton, VCU, Richmond, or dare I say Gonzaga."
SLU has some big money donors and have shown over a number of years a desire to take things to another level. If you have been to Dayton you'll understand the ownership the community has to the Flyers. They put butts in the seats, in a 13,000 plus arena. That makes for good TV. VCU has done things right even before Shaka Smith. They share the market with Richmond, a school with modest success. What Richmond has is wealthy alums. Will they pony up to get in the BE and can they capture VCUs thunder? With money could a program like Siena make a move? Albany is a decent market and it's a decent drive to NYC for the conference tournament.
My thought is money spent well or the right coach can elevate any program. Past examples include UNLV, Wichita State, GW, VCU and George Mason. It takes a sustaining effort. I think the new Big East should lose biases about schools sharing a market or being close to an existing market. That would open up DC and Philadelphia in particular. I just don't see a good candidate in NYC unless CCNY gets back into big time sports.
The no brainer additions are clearly St. Louis and Dayton. UMass, St. Joesph's, Siena, VCU and Richmond need to be in the discussion because of potential cable TV appeal. I sure wish I could see a way to crack the Boston market.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 21, 2014, 01:42:36 PM
Just for discussion since we're talking expansion. Layed out by my Nielsen Market size. Pieced together over some slow days. Some random thoughts.
And I was looking at a map to see the league footprint.
Neat. Did Val hire you as a consultant? ;)
Quote from: TheTulsaWarrior on March 21, 2014, 03:04:55 PM
I sure wish I could see a way to crack the Boston market.
http://www.bostonmarket.com/locations
I'm all about going bold with BU. Big for a private school, big endowment, and Boston.
Quote from: TheTulsaWarrior on March 21, 2014, 03:04:55 PM
The no brainer additions are clearly St. Louis and Dayton. UMass, St. Joesph's, Siena, VCU and Richmond need to be in the discussion because of potential cable TV appeal. I sure wish I could see a way to crack the Boston market.
I mentioned UMass here last year, I would take them over BU. SLU is probably top of my list, add an east coast school at the same time to throw a bone to the east coast schools. I think St. Joe's is a non-starter because of Nova. Siena, just doesn't seem right to me. VCU or Richmond (one of the two) and Dayton would be my 13 and 14 if we went that big.
For now, I would look at UMass and SLU.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 21, 2014, 03:14:13 PM
I mentioned UMass here last year, I would take them over BU. SLU is probably top of my list, add an east coast school at the same time to throw a bone to the east coast schools. I think St. Joe's is a non-starter because of Nova. Siena, just doesn't seem right to me. VCU or Richmond (one of the two) and Dayton would be my 13 and 14 if we went that big.
For now, I would look at UMass and SLU.
UMass has FBS football
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 03:22:12 PM
UMass has FBS football
Yup. My boss is a UMass guy (actually a Tufts and NYU guy, but he cheers for UMass). They play in the MAC for football and do not seem to be a threat to go big time in that sport, they don't have the aspirations to do so. I would not have any issue taking them in for fear of looking at a bigger prize down the road for football.
Quote from: ElDonBDon on March 21, 2014, 12:21:20 PM
Bleu, I respectfully disagree.
SLU, VCU, Dayton, etc., will be there as long as we want them.
I say that we wait until Maryland settles its exit fee lawsuit and holdout for someone better than Dayton et al. Once that lawsuit is settled, that is surely likely to shake things up.
The AAC will break up, perhaps Notre Dame wants out of the ACC deal. Maybe Temple or Memphis will abandon football (BU did it). Maybe we could get Wake. Maybe I'm delusional.
In any case, adding teams just for the sake of adding them is a hasty decision.
Money, money money!! When are you guys going to learn?
Wake gets $20 million/year in the ACC. Any Wake AD that suggests they drop football and go to the BE for $4 million a year won't just be fired, he will be brought up on charges. Be more worried the ACC relents and, like they did with ND, they take non-football members and Georgetown and Nova bolt for the ACC. That is more likely (but still very unlikely).
Temple/ Memphis etc make more money on sh!tty football teams than decent basketball teams. They will never drop football. More likely to drop basketball first.
My point is you have to think about money, forget wins and losses, they don't matter as they go up and down from year to year. Money is the constant that drives everything.
Quote from: Bleuteaux on March 21, 2014, 11:42:19 AM
money is a huge part, no doubt.
But you are thinking short term. Eventually, our TV contract will be up. We will have to renegotiate. We bring a lot more to the table with 12-14 teams, especially if we are getting 6-7 bids every year, instead of 4.
If we are a 4-5 bid league every year, we are essentially the A-10. Our prestige will wither. We will become a mid major. And we won't be getting that kind of money from FS1 for very long.
We need to expand while we are ahead.
BE signed a 12 year contract with Fox Sports paying them $500 million. This is year one. 11 more years to go.
Again expanding means diluting existing money. Expand and if the new member brings nothing to the table, we make less money.
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 21, 2014, 03:49:09 PM
BE signed a 12 year contract with Fox Sports paying them $500 million. This is year one. 11 more years to go.
Again expanding means diluting existing money. Expand and if the new member brings nothing to the table, we make less money.
But the contract the BE signed said if the expanded they would add an equal amount per added team year. Wasn't this discussed on thi sboard?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 21, 2014, 03:51:30 PM
But the contract the BE signed said if the expanded they would add an equal amount per added team year. Wasn't this discussed on thi sboard?
Yes, which mean FS picks the expansion teams, not us. FS will base it on TV market and their penetration in that market. About 17th on the list is wins losses and futures recruits (which is what we base the decision on).
Quote from: Heisenberg on March 21, 2014, 03:58:41 PM
Yes, which mean FS picks the expansion teams, not us. FS will base it on TV market and their penetration in that market. About 17th on the list is wins losses and futures recruits (which is what we base the decision on).
They'll get a say, they won't be the final arbiter. I will poke around about what the true deal is. I suspect there is nothing or very little in black and white, and much more on the business implication side of things.
Don't understand the sudden interest in UMass. This is their first tournament appearance since 1998, their last win that wasn't vacated by the NCAA was in 1995...and they're about to get bounced by an 11 seed.
I'd take any of SLU, Dayton, Wichita State, VCU or Richmond over them in a heartbeat.