ESPN big east bball thoughts

[jesmu84]

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=collegebasketballnation&id=41387

Sad to learn basketball wasn't a central taking point. Hell, according to this article, it was barely mentioned!

[The Lens]

And this surprises you?

[MerrittsMustache]

Football drives the bus when it comes to conference realignment. Men's basketball might as well be women's equestrian - it's inconsequential.

[RyanConroy]

I blame Americans for supporting an inferior sport.

[downtown85]

Football drives the bus. Men's basketball might as well be women's equestrian - it's inconsequential.

I think I know what you mean.  You are talking $$$$ right?  However, in terms of school profile, I would say anyone affiliated with schools like North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, and Indiana would strongly disagree with your statement.  

[MerrittsMustache]

I think I know what you mean.  You are talking $$$$ right?  However, in terms of school profile, I would say anyone affiliated with schools like North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, and Indiana would strongly disagree with your statement.  

Just added to my original post.

[muwarrior69]

Why would anyone watch college football when the "two best teams" are picked by a computer and not determined by what is done on the grid iron.

[jesmu84]

I agree about football running the show. however, if you're a group of basketball schools, and it's been pointed out that a bball only conference would be viable and competitive, why not even bring it up? why not discuss it as a possibility?

[MerrittsMustache]

Why would anyone watch college football when the "two best teams" are picked by a computer and not determined by what is done on the grid iron.

Playing devil's advocate...Why would anyone want to watch a college basketball National Championship game matching the ~10th-best team against the ~25th-best team?

[muwarrior69]

Playing devil's advocate...Why would anyone want to watch a college basketball National Championship game matching the ~10th-best team against the ~25th-best team?

At least the "so called 10th and 25th best teams" earned their way to the final by playing the games, not by some coaches/ sports writers' poll and number crunching by a computer. Number 3 in football does not even have that opportunity. I know Chicos and I have had this battle before that the "best team" is not always the National Champ. Any team that survives the tournament in my book is the best team, and I don't think there are too many UConn fans that would disagree with me. We were the best in '77 and no one can take that away. Number 3 in football could argue that they were "the best", but will never know; so why watch.

[Brewtown Andy]

At least the "so called 10th and 25th best teams" earned their way to the final by playing the games, not by some coaches/ sports writers' poll and number crunching by a computer.

Number crunching that even the BCS doesn't actually know how it works.

[downtown85]

Just added to my original post.

Agreed with your amended post.  And dollars seem to be driving the bus of conference realignment.  It's sad really.  The reason I like college sports is the tradition, rivalries, and the limited professionalism.  You might as well start paying college athletes. 

[Abode4life]

It really sucks that we are at the mercy of the football schools.  Basically anytime they want to change we have to go along with it.  We will always be in this same position, and i feel like we lost a great opportunity to form a very good basketball only conference. 

[Warrior1]

There is a very vocal segment of fans here that are very angry that basketball only schools don't break away and make a basketball only conference. They say that it will most likely be a top five basketball conference ext.

But what is the value of the BCS affiliation?

I think most fans don't truly realize just how much being in the BCS means, even though we do not play football. I will use the following story to try and put something tangible with my post.

I use "ScoreMobile" to check the scores on my smartphone. To check the scores of college basketball games the first category it is set to is the "Top 25". Then, if I want to check a conference, it brings up only the BCS conferences, if I wanted to check the Horizon league I need to scroll down past some blank spaces separating the BCS conferences and the cluster of all the other conferences. There is no separating good basketball only conferences with the worst, just a long list that no one outside of fans of a specific conference will ever check. Marquette in a basketball only conference, would join just that long list of "other" conferences.

The BCS alignment is huge. Marquette is talked about on ESPN, BCS conference rankings and all of those other sources because of its BCS affiliation. I think people here are mistakingly thinking that the Big East without football still gets the "BCS privileged" treatment because of how strong in basketball it would be. What is missing is that, for most fans of schools in the BCS, there are no schools outside of the BCS.

People talk about SMU, UCF and Houston as diluting the basketball brand, and this is probably true. What you are missing is the fact that the BigEast's basketball brand is really due to its association with the BCS and football.

If you don't believe me, 20 out of the top 25 are BCS schools. Don't you see the disparity there? Recruits follow the big time conferences. People argue who is the best conference though ESPN challenges, non BCS schools get the Bracketbuster.

The basketball brand may be diluted, but it is much better to be associated, than not. This is a rare opportunity, one that Marquette may never get back

[jesmu84]

the BigEast's basketball brand is really due to its association with the BCS and football.

I would argue to say the Big East basketball brand is born more of the tradition of the Big East and all the success Big East bball has had in the past. Not due to its tie to football/BCS.

[Warrior1]

I would argue to say the Big East basketball brand is born more of the tradition of the Big East and all the success Big East bball has had in the past. Not due to its tie to football/BCS.

While I would agree, I would argue that without the BCS ties that tradition is meaningless...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Football drives the bus when it comes to conference realignment. Men's basketball might as well be women's equestrian - it's inconsequential.

You are incorrect.

$ is driving the bus. Obviously football is the easiest path to make a lot of it.

But, make no mistake, this is about $... not about football.

After the shake up (over the next few years), conferences are going to keep looking for ways to maximize revenue. Television networks, online media subscriptions, licensing, etc. will all become increasingly important. After the initial windfalls of these super-conferences.

Think about the way pro sports are continually looking for revenue streams. There is never enough. The conferences are going the same way.

With all of this said, at some point, basketball (which can be a revenue producing sport) is going to get the attention of the conferences. They will already have all of the marketing and media structure in place (from football), so the next step is for them to try to gain additional revenue using basketball.

My point: I think MU is "shunned" right now for not having football, but at some point a conference is going to realize that the hoops only schools produce money, and don't really cost anything, and that is where the rubber will meet the road for MU.

[MerrittsMustache]

Before the basketball-only schools would be able to venture out on their own, they'd need to get a big-time TV deal from ESPN. That's what the Big East currently has and leaving that deal would be revenuicide (I just made that word up). Not to mention, they'd be disassociating themselves with Louisville, Cincy, UConn, Rutgers and USF. Who are they going to add that would replace the success, appeal and TV markets of those schools? Dayton, Butler, SLU and Xavier? I don't think so.

UCF and Houston are programs with potential, especially once they move to a marquee conference (SMU will be giving DePaul company in the basement). IMO, the "new" Big East isn't going to be as bad as some people think.

[Norm]

What will happen to the new Big East if they don't keep their automatic qualifier status in 2013? Think the football schools will stick around?

[Warrior1]

What will happen to the new Big East if they don't keep their automatic qualifier status in 2013? Think the football schools will stick around?

I think this is the worse case scenario. As I said in my big post, the BCS affiliation is the single most important thing in college sports. The only way the BigEast stops this is if the BCS kicks them out.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Before the basketball-only schools would be able to venture out on their own, they'd need to get a big-time TV deal from ESPN. That's what the Big East currently has and leaving that deal would be revenuicide (I just made that word up). Not to mention, they'd be disassociating themselves with Louisville, Cincy, UConn, Rutgers and USF. Who are they going to add that would replace the success, appeal and TV markets of those schools? Dayton, Butler, SLU and Xavier? I don't think so.

UCF and Houston are programs with potential, especially once they move to a marquee conference (SMU will be giving DePaul company in the basement). IMO, the "new" Big East isn't going to be as bad as some people think.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the hoops only schools are going to venture out on their own.

What I am saying is that the super conferences, in an attempt to add to their revenue stream, may consider adding 2 or 4 basketball schools that would not receive a dime of FB $, but would add to the overall revenue of the conference in basketball.

I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but if the BIGTEN is still money-hungry in 2 or 3 years, they could add DePaul, and MU, which would add to the total revenue and potential programing for the BIGTEN network. Obviously there are politics involved (UW, UofI, Northwestern), but this is about $$, and if there is $ to be made, they will "get over it".

It's sort of like a fantasy football draft. Everybody says that you shouldn't worry about a kicker or a defense, yet every year, there is a mad-dash on kickers or defenses later in the draft because nobody wants to be left with nothing.

If/when conferences start gobbling up basketball schools because it's "free money", then we will see where MU ends up.

[Abode4life]

Before the basketball-only schools would be able to venture out on their own, they'd need to get a big-time TV deal from ESPN. That's what the Big East currently has and leaving that deal would be revenuicide (I just made that word up). Not to mention, they'd be disassociating themselves with Louisville, Cincy, UConn, Rutgers and USF. Who are they going to add that would replace the success, appeal and TV markets of those schools? Dayton, Butler, SLU and Xavier? I don't think so.

What happens if/when the Big 12/ACC/Big Ten want to expand again? If they come calling to Cincy, Louisville, UCONN, and Rutgers, don't you think those schools will jump.  I would.  And if Bosie St. and SDSU turn out to be good gets for us, and the Pac-12 wants to expand do you not think that they will go with them?  And Houston to the Big 12?  This will only put us in the same situation we were in a couple months ago.  And now with adding SMU and UCF, that makes it more complicated to kick them out. 

True that we would not be able to get a big TV contract if the current bball only members split off.  However, if you declared publicly we are splitting off and are going to form the best basketball conference in the country, and you hound Xavier, Temple, and other potential basketball only adds, they would have to think about joining.  With a conference of Marquette, Nova, G'Town, St. John's, Xavier, Temple, and all the rest, you can't tell me there is not the potential for a great basketball conference.  Then if we produce on the court and provide great basketball, we would absolutely be able to get great money.  We won't get, nor do we need, to match the size of tv contracts that the BCS conferences are getting.  We don't need it because we don't have the same expenditures. 

The thing that pisses me off is in the article someone else posted about the Big East losing their focus on the brand that made them, was when Marinato said forming a basketball only conference wasn't discussed.  How can they not even think about it?  Once again we are being reactionary instead of proactive.  If the bball only schools split off and form their own conference and fail due to performance, that will suck, but at least we would have controlled our own destiny.  Now, when the other big football schools decide they want to change things around, well we will just have to take it. 

[Abode4life]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the hoops only schools are going to venture out on their own.

What I am saying is that the super conferences, in an attempt to add to their revenue stream, may consider adding 2 or 4 basketball schools that would not receive a dime of FB $, but would add to the overall revenue of the conference in basketball.

I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but if the BIGTEN is still money-hungry in 2 or 3 years, they could add DePaul, and MU, which would add to the total revenue and potential programing for the BIGTEN network. Obviously there are politics involved (UW, UofI, Northwestern), but this is about $$, and if there is $ to be made, they will "get over it".

It's sort of like a fantasy football draft. Everybody says that you shouldn't worry about a kicker or a defense, yet every year, there is a mad-dash on kickers or defenses later in the draft because nobody wants to be left with nothing.

If/when conferences start gobbling up basketball schools because it's "free money", then we will see where MU ends up.

Sorry, I was writing my previous post while you posted so i did not see this one.  However I would argue that the BCS schools will first take Louisville, Cincy, Rutgers, UConn, Houston, and the like before they take basketball only.  Those schools have much larger fan bases and at least some, bring better tv markets and offerings than MU and Milwaukee.

[Benny B]

Number crunching that even the BCS doesn't actually know how it works.

That's what Jim Delany wants people to think.  The truth is, the BCS knows exactly how the formulas work... after all, it's difficult to manipulate the computers to keep Boise St & TCU out of a BCS bowl game when you don't know how the formulas work.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Sorry, I was writing my previous post while you posted so i did not see this one.  However I would argue that the BCS schools will first take Louisville, Cincy, Rutgers, UConn, Houston, and the like before they take basketball only.  Those schools have much larger fan bases and at least some, bring better tv markets and offerings than MU and Milwaukee.

You're right. There will be another round of expansion/changes where the last of the decent FB schools are scooped up. Basically, it's almost bar time, and the remaining drunk chicks (schools) are trying to look their best for the major conferences.

In the long run, MU might be more attractive than a school like Villanova because MU can be added to a conference and add $ in hoops without taking anything away from the huge football deals.

To put it in inappropriate terms:

MU is the hook-up who is decent looking and doesn't hassle you, while a school with bad football (Nova, Memphis?, etc) is the type of girl that looks hot at 2am, but doesn't look good the next day and keeps calling you over and over.

One seems like a better idea at the time, but if you really think about it, MU is a better option in the long run.

Just my opinion. I know it's crazy, but 10 years ago, Nebraska to the Big 10 seemed crazy, right?