Can the Non football Schools put pressure on remaning football schools?

[Pakuni]

This is definitely one time I wish CBB was still around.

Say we formed a 12-team basketball only conference. Marquette, Georgetown, Villanova, Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, St John's, Xavier, Dayton, VCU, Butler, and St Louis. You can probably mix and match 2-3 of those teams, but I'd guess that at least 75% of those would be on any list, and no one else would make any measureable difference.

Anyway...take those 12 and offer up a 16-18 game schedule and first rights on non-con games. First, who would be interested? NBC Sports reportedly isn't interested in Big East basketball because the NHL covers their programming. Would ESPN bite? CBS or Fox Sports? And would any give full national coverage? Also, what would we get per team? I definitely don't think it'd equal our current take. Right now we get a bit over $2M per year, and rumor has it we could be in for a $4M payday with a new contract. So what would a basketball-only league get? $2M? $1.5? My fear is under $1M, and lucky to get true national coverage.

Actually, according to this MU only gets $1.5 million a year from Big East rights currently.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19145336/having-gambled-on-better-media-pot-big-east-facing-deal-of-its-lifetime

The conference last year rejected a $130 million/year contract which, under the existing revenue split, would have meant at most $2.43 million to MU. But it's wishful thinking to believe the Big East is going to get a deal now equal to the one it turned down a year ago.

[brewcity77]

I really think a basketball only league would at best get $500K per team. Honestly, that is probably generous. And I can't see a legit national package. Like it or not, football coupled with 8+ bids per year is why we get what we get now. Take away the Big East and we become a lot less relevant.

[bilsu]

I really think a basketball only league would at best get $500K per team. Honestly, that is probably generous. And I can't see a legit national package. Like it or not, football coupled with 8+ bids per year is why we get what we get now. Take away the Big East and we become a lot less relevant.

I wonder what the A-10 gets? They might not even have a package.

[The Equalizer]

$$$$$.
A new, better conference isn't likely to have any effect - good or bad - on Xavier's ability to sell out its games, appear on television (except more national games, possibly) and get to the tourney.
It should, however, mean more television revenue and more NCAA share revenue.

I don't think you're quite right on the economics. First, the A10's NCAA payout distribution is different than the Big East. The Big East shares everything, the A10 returns 75% to the team that earns the credits.  Xavier will continue to get a significat payout from the A10 for its recent Elite Eight and Sweet 16 runs.
Source: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sports/college/vcu-butler-have-much-to-gain-in-a-10-1/nPSWf/

Even if you assume the proposed new league matches that policy (something, I suspect, would be supported by MU, VU and Georgetown, but strongly opposed by DePaul, St. Johns, Providence and Seton Hall), Xavier STILL loses everything they've earned over the past five years.  And because they're probably no longer finishing in 1st place five out of six years, they probably don't make as many deep runs, thus earning less new NCAA credits.

Also, keep in mind that the proposed new conference won't bring Big East-earned credits to a new conference. MU's NCAA credits for their Sweet 16s? Stays with the BE. Villanova and Georogetown's credits for their Final Four runs?  Gone.  Share of UConn's national championship run? Gone. So there's no pool of NCAA money to lure Xavier.  Maybe in the future, but as of right now, nothing--and will take a minimum of five years to ramp up.

Also, the A10 has a $1 million exit fee, which would have to be factored in.
Source: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=568240&pid=7851191

So I don't think you're right on $$$$$ being a factor motivating Xavier to move.  

Assuming Xavier can live with the reduced NCAA payout, the new league still may not give them any additional national television appearances, either  MU, Georgetown, and Villanova (not to mention other big market programs like DePaul, Seton Hall and St. Johns) might be more attractive to the network holding the rights.  Xavier might see a slightly larger television share, but at the cost of reduced visibility.

And based on the comments about the size of the Big East television contract, Xavier may be better off taking a share of a limited A10 contract, and then pitching the rest of their games on their own.

[M@RQUETTEW@RRIORS]

I don't think you're quite right on the economics. First, the A10's NCAA payout distribution is different than the Big East. The Big East shares everything, the A10 returns 75% to the team that earns the credits.  Xavier will continue to get a significat payout from the A10 for its recent Elite Eight and Sweet 16 runs.
Source: http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/sports/college/vcu-butler-have-much-to-gain-in-a-10-1/nPSWf/

Even if you assume the proposed new league matches that policy (something, I suspect, would be supported by MU, VU and Georgetown, but strongly opposed by DePaul, St. Johns, Providence and Seton Hall), Xavier STILL loses everything they've earned over the past five years.  And because they're probably no longer finishing in 1st place five out of six years, they probably don't make as many deep runs, thus earning less new NCAA credits.Also, keep in mind that the proposed new conference won't bring Big East-earned credits to a new conference. MU's NCAA credits for their Sweet 16s? Stays with the BE. Villanova and Georogetown's credits for their Final Four runs?  Gone.  Share of UConn's national championship run? Gone. So there's no pool of NCAA money to lure Xavier.  Maybe in the future, but as of right now, nothing--and will take a minimum of five years to ramp up.

Also, the A10 has a $1 million exit fee, which would have to be factored in.
Source: http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=568240&pid=7851191

So I don't think you're right on $$$$$ being a factor motivating Xavier to move.  

Assuming Xavier can live with the reduced NCAA payout, the new league still may not give them any additional national television appearances, either  MU, Georgetown, and Villanova (not to mention other big market programs like DePaul, Seton Hall and St. Johns) might be more attractive to the network holding the rights.  Xavier might see a slightly larger television share, but at the cost of reduced visibility.

And based on the comments about the size of the Big East television contract, Xavier may be better off taking a share of a limited A10 contract, and then pitching the rest of their games on their own.

Why is xavier suddenly making fewer tournament runs simply by joining a new conference?  Best I can tell, MU has gotten higher and better seeds since joining the BE.

[The Equalizer]

Why is xavier suddenly making fewer tournament runs simply by joining a new conference?  Best I can tell, MU has gotten higher and better seeds since joining the BE.

I think with Marquette and Georgetown in the same league, Xavier will no longer win the new league championship with the same frequency as they have proven they can in the A10. 

And if they're not winning their league championship as frequently, they're not going to get as favorable a seed on average. And with a lower/worse average seed, its going to be more difficult for them to make a deep run. 

Thus, if Xavier leaves the A10, they probably see less tournament revenue.  And it would be siginficantly less if the new league carries the Big East formula of equal tournament  revenue sharing among all members. 

But even if you can project that Xavier can make the same runs with the same frequency--and the new league carries the A10 formula of giving teams 75% of what they earn (over the certain objection of DePaul, St. Johns, Seton Hall and Providence),  there's still the issue of the A10 buyout and making Xavier whole on their previously earned NCAA credits that would stay with the A10. 

I don't think you realize just how much money Xavier would leave on the table by departing the A10:

Their NCAA earnings overall (of which they keep 75% as long as they stay in the A10)
2012: 3 games x $240K x 5 years remaining = $3.6 million
2011: 1 games x $240K x 4 years = $1.0 million
2010: 3 games x $240K x 3 years = $2.1 million
2009: 3 games x $240K x 2 years = $1.5 million
2008: 4 games x $240K x 1 year = $1.0 million

Total: $9.2 million - Xavier's share at 75% is $6.9 million.  Add in the $1 million departure fee, and if Brew's projection of a $500,000 TV contract value is correct, its 16 years before Xavier breaks even (and that's assuming the value of the A10 contract is zero--which isn't the case). Most likely, its 20+ years.

Maybe there is some emotional reason for Xavier to do this--I just don't see the finanical benefit for them.

[DFW HOYA]

If I'm Georgetown or Marquette, a CYO League is a ticket to irrelevance. Better to stay with Louisville and Memphis than aspire to being the next Detroit or Loyola-Chicago.

[Pakuni]

I think with Marquette and Georgetown in the same league, Xavier will no longer win the new league championship with the same frequency as they have proven they can in the A10. 

And if they're not winning their league championship as frequently, they're not going to get as favorable a seed on average. And with a lower/worse average seed, its going to be more difficult for them to make a deep run. 

Thus, if Xavier leaves the A10, they probably see less tournament revenue.  And it would be siginficantly less if the new league carries the Big East formula of equal tournament  revenue sharing among all members. 

But even if you can project that Xavier can make the same runs with the same frequency--and the new league carries the A10 formula of giving teams 75% of what they earn (over the certain objection of DePaul, St. Johns, Seton Hall and Providence),  there's still the issue of the A10 buyout and making Xavier whole on their previously earned NCAA credits that would stay with the A10. 

I don't think you realize just how much money Xavier would leave on the table by departing the A10:

Their NCAA earnings overall (of which they keep 75% as long as they stay in the A10)
2012: 3 games x $240K x 5 years remaining = $3.6 million
2011: 1 games x $240K x 4 years = $1.0 million
2010: 3 games x $240K x 3 years = $2.1 million
2009: 3 games x $240K x 2 years = $1.5 million
2008: 4 games x $240K x 1 year = $1.0 million

Total: $9.2 million - Xavier's share at 75% is $6.9 million.  Add in the $1 million departure fee, and if Brew's projection of a $500,000 TV contract value is correct, its 16 years before Xavier breaks even (and that's assuming the value of the A10 contract is zero--which isn't the case). Most likely, its 20+ years.

Maybe there is some emotional reason for Xavier to do this--I just don't see the finanical benefit for them.

1. Pretty sure your numbers for Xavier's NCAA tourney revenues are off. Units in 2011 were worth a little less than $240k. But in 2010 they were worth $222k. From what I could find, the value of a unit rises about 8 percent each year. So, it would seem to me that simply multiplying every round of the past five seasons by the value of last year's units would lead to a higher revenue than actually exists. Am I wrong about that?

2. Your model assumes that Xavier gets $0 NCAA tournament revenue from its new conference over the next 16 years. I think that's unlikely. While they may lose out on having to share equally as opposed to keeping 75 percent, I suspect that in a better conference more teams get in, and more teams make deep runs, which means there's a much larger pie to share. Especially if, say, that pie is divided up among 12 members as opposed to 16 in the A-10. Outside of Xavier and St. Joe's in 2004, when was the last time an A-10 team went deep into the tourney? (VCU and Butler weren't A-10 teams, remember). It may or may not equal what Xavier gets from its current A-10 arrangement, but it's obviously not $0.

3. Winning the A-10 isn't the key to a good seed.  Last year's champ was a #14. 2011's champ was a #12. In 2010, the champ was a #5. 2009 was an #11. 2008 was a #10.
Since 2001, Xavier's average seed has been a 7.3. So it's not as if A-10 success is getting them an easy path to the second weekend.

[Benny B]

1. Pretty sure your numbers for Xavier's NCAA tourney revenues are off. Units in 2011 were worth a little less than $240k. But in 2010 they were worth $222k. From what I could find, the value of a unit rises about 8 percent each year. So, it would seem to me that simply multiplying every round of the past five seasons by the value of last year's units would lead to a higher revenue than actually exists. Am I wrong about that?

2. Your model assumes that Xavier gets $0 NCAA tournament revenue from its new conference over the next 16 years. I think that's unlikely. While they may lose out on having to share equally as opposed to keeping 75 percent, I suspect that in a better conference more teams get in, and more teams make deep runs, which means there's a much larger pie to share. Especially if, say, that pie is divided up among 12 members as opposed to 16 in the A-10. Outside of Xavier and St. Joe's in 2004, when was the last time an A-10 team went deep into the tourney? (VCU and Butler weren't A-10 teams, remember). It may or may not equal what Xavier gets from its current A-10 arrangement, but it's obviously not $0.

3. Winning the A-10 isn't the key to a good seed.  Last year's champ was a #14. 2011's champ was a #12. In 2010, the champ was a #5. 2009 was an #11. 2008 was a #10.
Since 2001, Xavier's average seed has been a 7.3. So it's not as if A-10 success is getting them an easy path to the second weekend.

The model is a forward model... therefore it's actually understating the amount to be earned.  Tourney shares in 2013 and beyond will be more than $240k (not a fixed percentage under the new deal), so even a conservative estimate would be over $10M.

[Pakuni]

The model is a forward model... therefore it's actually understating the amount to be earned.  Tourney shares in 2013 and beyond will be more than $240k (not a fixed percentage under the new deal), so even a conservative estimate would be over $10M.

I think you're misunderstanding. Equalizer is talking about the money Xavier leaves behind if it bails on the A-10.
Tournament units in 2013 and beyond - which will be over $240k - will be available to Xavier no matter the conference affiliation.

[The Equalizer]

1. Pretty sure your numbers for Xavier's NCAA tourney revenues are off. Units in 2011 were worth a little less than $240k. But in 2010 they were worth $222k. From what I could find, the value of a unit rises about 8 percent each year. So, it would seem to me that simply multiplying every round of the past five seasons by the value of last year's units would lead to a higher revenue than actually exists. Am I wrong about that?

Partially. 

You're correct that I didn't factor the increasing value.

You're incorrect that the value of a unit is frozen to the value when earned.  The value of a unit increases ever year, as does the payout.

So for 2012, Xavier won't actually get 75% of the (5 x $240 x 3 games)=$3.6 million I listed.  They'll get more.  Lots more.

They'll actually get 75% of  (3x$240K + 3x$258K + 3x$277K + 3x$298K + 3x$320K). 

Source:http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/03/14/march-madness-a-trip-to-the-final-four-is-worth-9-5-million/

2. Your model assumes that Xavier gets $0 NCAA tournament revenue from its new conference over the next 16 years. I think that's unlikely. While they may lose out on having to share equally as opposed to keeping 75 percent, I suspect that in a better conference more teams get in, and more teams make deep runs, which means there's a much larger pie to share. Especially if, say, that pie is divided up among 12 members as opposed to 16 in the A-10.

That's true, but the model didn't factor in future revenue from the A10 either. 

I'd like to see your math on how many more NCAA units the new league will have to generate (if split equally) to match Xavier's current 75% of their own earnings in the A10. 

As I calculate, Xavier over 5 years has averaged 2.8 units/year in the A10. Factor in their 75% share, and they keep the eqivalent of 2 units/year.

Now lets look at the proposed new 12 team league. To match what Xavier can get on its own, the new league would have to generate 24 units, of which Xavier would get a 1/12 share--or 2 units. 

Given that a final four run is five units, generating 24 in a year is a LOT of deep runs.

Outside of Xavier and St. Joe's in 2004, when was the last time an A-10 team went deep into the tourney? (VCU and Butler weren't A-10 teams, remember).

It doesn't matter.

With a 75% rate (versus the 8.25% on a 12-way equal split) Xavier makes about the same money simply for making the tourney in the A10 than they would if TWO of the new conference's teams made the final four.

Math--again using Forbes assumpions on the value of a Final Four vs one-game):
New conference: ($9.5 million x 2 Final Four teams )/12 teams = $1.58 million
A10: ($1.9 million) x 75% = $1.43 million.

The A-10's 75% payout rate becomes a pair of golden handcuffs for Xavier. 

3. Winning the A-10 isn't the key to a good seed.  Last year's champ was a #14. 2011's champ was a #12. In 2010, the champ was a #5. 2009 was an #11. 2008 was a #10.
Since 2001, Xavier's average seed has been a 7.3. So it's not as if A-10 success is getting them an easy path to the second weekend.

Over the last five years, Xavier has been a 3 seed, a 4 seed, a 6 seed, a 9 seed and a 10 seed.  Certainly 3 of those 5 would be considered relatively easy paths.

[Benny B]

I think you're misunderstanding. Equalizer is talking about the money Xavier leaves behind if it bails on the A-10.
Tournament units in 2013 and beyond - which will be over $240k - will be available to Xavier no matter the conference affiliation.

Incorrect.  Tournament shares are paid over six years to the conference with which the team is affiliated at the time of the NCAA appearance. 

The 12 shares Butler earned from b2b championship game appearances?  The A-10 won't see a dime of that money.  MU's shares from 2003?  Stayed with CUSA after we went to the BE.

[MU82]

Basketball schools jump ship and they might have to pay a buyout fee. Let things take their course and collect buyout fees as from Louisville, Uconn, etc. It is the best chance for the basketball schools to remain together with a few football teams.

This. Of course.

Any other "plan" is silly.

[brewcity77]

What this boils down to us that any basketball-only conference has to be one that is already existent. Either by holding out long enough that we get the rights to the Big East name, television rights, and tourney shares, or jumping into the A-10. Otherwise, we won't have the financial incentive to lure the Xaviers and Butlers of the world.

This is another reason I think a 10-12 team conference, if we split, is best for all involved. The Big East payout works fine when you get 8-10 bids a year, but in a conference without teams like UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt, appearances will be down and deep runs will be less frequent.

[bilsu]

What this boils down to us that any basketball-only conference has to be one that is already existent. Either by holding out long enough that we get the rights to the Big East name, television rights, and tourney shares, or jumping into the A-10. Otherwise, we won't have the financial incentive to lure the Xaviers and Butlers of the world.

This is another reason I think a 10-12 team conference, if we split, is best for all involved. The Big East payout works fine when you get 8-10 bids a year, but in a conference without teams like UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, and Pitt, appearances will be down and deep runs will be less frequent.

Pitt did not make it last year. Uconn cannot make it this year. I would generally expect Memphis and Tulane to make the tournament. In the end we will not be getting a record 11 bids, but I would still expect 8 to 9 bids.

[Hards Alumni]

Pitt did not make it last year. Uconn cannot make it this year. I would generally expect Memphis and Tulane to make the tournament. In the end we will not be getting a record 11 bids, but I would still expect 8 to 9 bids.

I would not expect Tulane to do anything more than be a good school and graduate a lot of engineers.

Their Basketball team is extremely mediocre.

[Pakuni]

Incorrect.  Tournament shares are paid over six years to the conference with which the team is affiliated at the time of the NCAA appearance. 

The 12 shares Butler earned from b2b championship game appearances?  The A-10 won't see a dime of that money.  MU's shares from 2003?  Stayed with CUSA after we went to the BE.

Yes and no.
I stand corrected on the A-10 payouts going over six years.
That said, I am correct that Xavier will be eligible for payouts from their new conference.

[Pakuni]

Over the last five years, Xavier has been a 3 seed, a 4 seed, a 6 seed, a 9 seed and a 10 seed.  Certainly 3 of those 5 would be considered relatively easy paths.

A four seed means a likely second-round matchup with a five seed, a relative equal. A six means a second-round matchup with a three, nearly always a top 10 team (not to mention a first-round matchup with what's often a solid team from a power conference, i.e. MU in 2011). In fact, six seeds have gone 4-8 against 11 seeds in the first round over the past three tourneys. These are not easy paths to the second weekend.

[The Equalizer]

Yes and no.
I stand corrected on the A-10 payouts going over six years.
That said, I am correct that Xavier will be eligible for payouts from their new conference.

Xavier will be eligible.  But initially there aren't any payouts to measure, because the new conference had no members who receive payouts for the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012 tournaments.  

Yes, it's a fair assumption that the new league will earn credits going forward, and Xavier will certainly receive a share of those. But if you're making a finanical comparision, there's a line on the spreadsheet for "Income from prior NCAA tournaments" which is $7+ million on the A10 column, and $0 in the new conference.

To compare income from future tournaments, you need to make a huge assumption on how the league will distribute NCAA earnings.  If the New Conference maintains the Big East's equal sharing rule, there's no way it makes financial sense for Xavier to leave the A10--and that would go for Butler as well.






 

[The Equalizer]

A four seed means a likely second-round matchup with a five seed, a relative equal. A six means a second-round matchup with a three, nearly always a top 10 team (not to mention a first-round matchup with what's often a solid team from a power conference, i.e. MU in 2011). In fact, six seeds have gone 4-8 against 11 seeds in the first round over the past three tourneys. These are not easy paths to the second weekend.

Fine. Not worth debating.  I'll concede your point that Xavier got those seeds and made those deep runs independent of their conference affilication. They've made 3 Sweet 16s and 2 Elite Eights over the past several years because they're just that good.

Doesn't change the finanical caclulation. The new conference (assuming the Big East payout formula) won't come close to matching tournament payouts  under the A10 distribution formula going forward.  And it will take 15 to 20 years of increased television money to payback the $7 million+ of accumulated NCAA payouts and a $1 million exit fee.   

If I were Xavier and I was really and really wanted to play the Big East teams, I wouldn't leave the conference--I'd simply schedule them as non-conference games.  Still get the prestige and visibility of playing the former Big East teams.  And keep the favorable A-10 tournament distribution.

[Lennys Tap]

 

Over the last five years, Xavier has been a 3 seed, a 4 seed, a 6 seed, a 9 seed and a 10 seed.  Certainly 3 of those 5 would be considered relatively easy paths.

Please define a "relatively easy path". These are admittedly rough approximations, but a 3 seed has about a 51% (.85 x .6)  chance to make the Sweet 16, a 4 seed 40% (.8 x .5), a 6 24% (.6 x .4), a 9 10% (.5 x .2), a 10 12% (.4 x .3). Given that, Xavier (3 Sweet 16s, 1 Elite 8) probably overachieved its seeds more than anyone this side of Butler or VCU in the last 5 years. No matter where they are (A10, BEast, ACC or CUSA) it will be nearly impossible to match that overperformance.

[bilsu]

I think the reality is that the Atl-10 is the more stable conference. When football splits the Big East the Atl 10 will either take 2 or 4 Big East basketball schools. The rest are off to Conference USA, etc.

[Benny B]

That said, I am correct that Xavier will be eligible for payouts from their new conference.

In theory, yes.  In reality, it depends.

The distribution of shares to member schools is entirely at the discretion of the conference... some conferences may allow the school that "earns" a share to take a portion before the share is thrown into the conference kitty (e.g. the A-10), and some may distribute shares equally amongst the institutions (Big East) regardless of who earns what shares.

Conferences are also given complete discretion regarding distribution of the shares to new & former conference members.  A school that leaves a conference may "forfeit" shares already earned just like a conference may choose to not distribute any shares to a new member for a given period of time.

Hypothetically, let's say Xavier moves to the Big East today (Sept 2012).  Xavier currently has 54 "earned but unpaid" shares:

2012: 3 games x 6 years = 18 shares  (2012 shares are not paid until 2013).
2011: 1 games x 5 = 5
2010: 3 games x 4 = 12
2009: 3 games x 3 = 9
2008: 4 games x 2 = 8
2007: 2 games x 1 = 2
Total = 38 shares paid b/t 2013-2017

The A-10 has the discretion to give Xavier all, part, or none of the revenue from those 54 shares... it all depends on what is in their conference membership agreement/constitution/bylaws.  Presumably, conferences don't share revenue with former members, so Xavier likely sees nothing for the ~$13-16M the A-10 will collect for those 54 shares.

On the other side, the Big East will be paid on a total of 117 shares in 2013 (approx. $28.3M).  The Big East may elect to give Xavier in 2013 a "fair shake" (i.e. the amount every other conference member gets), a portion of a fair shake, a flat payout or nothing.  In 2014, they could get a fair shake, 1/6 of a fair shake, a proportionate shake depending on the number of shares they earn in 2013, a flat payout, or nothing at all... again, it all depends on the conference membership agreement/constitution/bylaws.

For schools like Pitt, Syracuse & WVU, I would have to believe that part of the negotiation to get them into the ACC and XII discussed distribution of tournament shares.  Even though their new conferences will collect nothing on their behalf for the first year, the ACC and XII needed an incentive to get these schools to join, they might give the schools a fair shake right away; conversely, if the schools were the ones begging to get into the conference, they might get nothing for a few years (or until they start earning shares for the conference).

[The Equalizer]

Please define a "relatively easy path". These are admittedly rough approximations, but a 3 seed has about a 51% (.85 x .6)  chance to make the Sweet 16, a 4 seed 40% (.8 x .5), a 6 24% (.6 x .4), a 9 10% (.5 x .2), a 10 12% (.4 x .3). Given that, Xavier (3 Sweet 16s, 1 Elite 8) probably overachieved its seeds more than anyone this side of Butler or VCU in the last 5 years. No matter where they are (A10, BEast, ACC or CUSA) it will be nearly impossible to match that overperformance.

My point was that Xavier received a more favorable seed by playing in the A10 than they would have received if they had played in a tougher conference in each of those seasons.  
Look at their 2011 team.  They received a 6 seed based on an A10 regular season  championship, and a 15-1 A-10 record.  I don't think that team would have been good enough to recieve a 6 seed if they were in the Big East, Big 10, ACC or other major conference.

My opinion is that if they played a tougher conference, their w/l record, ranking, and RPI would all suffer in comparision, and that would be reflected in their ultimate seed.

[brewcity77]

Pitt did not make it last year. Uconn cannot make it this year. I would generally expect Memphis and Tulane to make the tournament. In the end we will not be getting a record 11 bids, but I would still expect 8 to 9 bids.

My point wasn't based on any one-year results, but rather that the football schools in general seem more likely to make the tournament and win a game or two than the non-football schools are. Of the 9 Big East football teams (including ND) 7 of them have been fairly successful over the past few years. Whereas of the 7 basketball-only teams, only 3 have had consistent success.

If we eventually split, I don't think we'll see the same level of success in a basketball-only league