What's Your Ideal New Conference?

[Aughnanure]

I actually do like divisions. I think it adds something for the media and fans to follow, root for, and debate to a conference. It creates a race. Something else to win - and a rivalry between the divisions.

12-Team, all private, play everyone in your division twice, 18-game schedule, one home-and-home cross division rival, division winners are #1 & #2 seeds in conference tourney.

East
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier
Providence
Seton Hall

West
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
St. Louis
Creighton
DePaul

[lalumiere]

Marquette
Georgetown
Villanova
St John's
Seton Hall
DePaul
Providence

Xavier
Butler
Saint Louis

Memphis *
Cincinnati*
Connecticut *
Massachusetts*


* Institutions that compete in NCAA FBS football and would have to house its football programs as either an independent or as an associate member of another conference

[WarriorDoc]

Can someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.  

It may have already been summarized, but everyone (rationally) hates on Dayton coming into the conference because of their insignificant TV market and proximity to Xavier, lack of much b-ball tradition, and lack of recent success.  Those are reasons enough not not invite them, but most of us just hate Dayton because they have an annoying fanbase with an inferiority complex.

We'll invite Butler, Xavier, and VCU, and  St. Louis before we invite Dayton. Probably Creighton before Dayton as well, even though the TV market is slightly smaller.

[augoman]

Augh, remember divisions are the reason that UW at Madison is going to the rose bowl in spite of the fact that teams in the other division have better records and finished ahead of them in final standings (and are not on sanctions).  Whenever I mention that 'yes, they're going to the rose bowl, but with an asterisk' the assumption is that I am referring to the two ineligible schools that finished ahead of bajrs in their division.  True, but there are others that are more worthy, although finishing behind Nebraska eliminated them from the opportunity.  IMHO divisions suck.

[brewcity77]

Can someone explain the rational reason for this animosity toward Dayton?

Not every team in the league can be a top-half contender.  If no other reason, we need someone that gives DePaul a fighting chance at not being the "DePaul" of the new league.

The reasoning probably started with the UDPride guy coming on here and acting as though Dayton and the A-10 were light years better off than the Big East and pretty much saying we should come groveling to them for spots in their league and maybe they'd let us in. That may not be rational, but I think a few people were turned off by that.

For a rational reason, it's about what they bring. Dayton doesn't have a major market or even top-50. They are basically in Xavier's back yard, so if we have the Musketeers, what more do the Flyers bring? On the court, they've only been to the tournament 4 times in the past 20 years and it's been nearly 30 years since they made it past the first weekend. The only thing I really like is that they host the First Four every year, but is it worth that small amount of added exposure for something their basketball team is not doing in order to invite them to the conference? Will anyone outside of Ohio get that excited for a Xavier/Dayton rivalry game, or any other school playing Dayton?

And as far as your second point, I think that's the completely wrong way of looking at it. You don't bring anyone in to be a bottom feeder. You only bring in contenders. You could argue Seton Hall and Providence will share that space with DePaul (maybe even 'Nova) but you don't recruit for that reason. You recruit the best teams and let the battles on the court settle who will be the bottom-feeders. If you can get Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, and Creighton and all of them will be perennial contenders, you do it because it strengthens the league.

Buzz doesn't recruit players to be last on the bench, and when guys show up that don't have the ability or work ethic, they are advised to find somewhere to better fit in. It won't be that easy to convince invited universities to transfer as it is students, so don't bother bringing them. Only bring in the best.

[avid1010]

I have to reject this argument.    What is the future at MU if Buzz leaves?    When McDermott graduates from Creighton?   If Wright leaves Villanova?   If Shaka leaves VCU?   What has St Louis ever done without Shoonhour or Majerus?    Other than the fact they have been part of the BEast forever, why do we actually want Providence, St Johns, and Seton Hall?    And if you are going to make that argument about Butler, then you must WANT Dayton, as they have a long history of being decent.    

The tie that binds this new conference going forward is a commitment to being the best basketball-only conference in the country, much like the original vision for the Big East.      There are 'what-ifs' everywhere.   Who knows, upgrading the conference affilitation may KEEP Brad at Butler and Shaka at VCU.  

I wasn't looking at teams that are already in, and when I looked at Creighton and Butler I just looked at their past NCAA tournament history.  MU won under KO who has proven to be very average in other jobs. We won under TC, then Buzz, and have a strong tradition.  I see the same thing with Gonzaga and Xavier.  The 10th team worries me, and think it's important its a team that's not a current flavor, but has some rich history.  Maybe with a new elevated conference, Butler already has that in the last 5 years.  That said, if I knew Stevens was leaving after this year I would worry.  As pointed out...we have plenty of other teams in the conference that have struggled to find consistency. 

[🏀]

http://www.udpride.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3

Can I watch?

Cowards closed their registration.

Another reason to hate Dayton.

[brewcity77]

Cowards closed their registration.

Another reason to hate Dayton.

Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

[Hards Alumni]

Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

Absolutely my impression as well.  They are in full spin mode.  The thread about the A-10 being the better conference especially tickled me.

[🏀]

Two thoughts on Dayton:

1) All the facts they post ignore that Xavier and Butler seem to have agreed to join up, taking their two most successful teams over the past 15 years.
2) Any of them would leave in a heartbeat if we extended the offer.
3) Based on the vitriol they are spewing, they seem pretty sure they will NOT be team #10...or #11 or #14 for that matter.

4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

[brewcity77]

4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

I like the First Four thing, but the idea that it's make or break is silly. It helps put them probably 7th or 8th in terms of who I want in the league. Still behind Xavier, Butler, VCU, Gonzaga, Creighton, and St. Louis. About a wash with St. Mary's.

And someone needs to tell them Dan Patrick left Bristol YEARS ago.

EDIT: Oh, and...

5) They put WAY too much importance on December RPI and common opponents.

[Aughnanure]

Augh, remember divisions are the reason that UW at Madison is going to the rose bowl in spite of the fact that teams in the other division have better records and finished ahead of them in final standings (and are not on sanctions).  Whenever I mention that 'yes, they're going to the rose bowl, but with an asterisk' the assumption is that I am referring to the two ineligible schools that finished ahead of bajrs in their division.  True, but there are others that are more worthy, although finishing behind Nebraska eliminated them from the opportunity.  IMHO divisions suck.

First, I'm really not sure how this applies to basketball, as there is nothing like an automatic Rose Bowl invite awaiting division winner. There's a conference tourney, that ALL conference members will play-in. Also, I dont get why you can ignore that the reason UW-Madison even got in was b/c of the probation on Ohio St and Penn St. Any other year, it would've been fine. I think that's a pretty unfair situation to use against divisions.

Regardless, besides having an extra 'championship' and an auto #1 or #2 seed in the conference tourney  along with a bye - the NCAA will judge the conference teams on their overall resume, not division finishes. Plus, there will 4 teams total that get a bye in the conference tourney in a 12-team format. So you could still have one division get 3 of the byes, while the other gets just one.

I dont understand what potential controversial could be created with divisions- but if anything, it spurs debate and attention like this. Such as: The records of the West teams weren't as good, but that's because that division was better overall

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I actually like the idea of starting a 9 or 10 and seeing what happens.

You can always add a "western division" later with Gonzaga, St. Mary's and (insert other schools).

I'd hate for MU to be in the "Western Division", because we'd have to give up some games against Georgetown and Nova, but if it makes the whole product better, we might have to bite the bullet.

Anyways, to start just go with 10 teams, you get the following (good) matchups:

Usually Good:
Georgetown (x2)
Nova (x2)
XU (x2)
Butler (x2)
Creighton (x2)

The next tier down (teams that have potential):
St. John's (x2)
DePaul (x2) (they aren't good, yet... but they could be decent, and this is a rivalry game)

That's 14 pretty good games, 7 of those are at home and might draw pretty well (provided the opponent is playing well). Give it a handful of years and there could be some decent rivalries born/enhanced... especially playing twice per year.

The last 4 games against Prov. and SHU are kind of throw-aways at this point... but those teams always have potential to jump up every few years.

That conf. could avg. 4 bids per year, with maybe 5 or 6 in a really good year and only 2 or 3 in a down year.

[🏀]

5) They put WAY too much importance on December RPI and common opponents.

6) They put WAY too much importance on a November 2008 game played in Hoffman Estates.

[Aughnanure]

I actually like the idea of starting a 9 or 10 and seeing what happens.

You can always add a "western division" later with Gonzaga, St. Mary's and (insert other schools).

I'd hate for MU to be in the "Western Division", because we'd have to give up some games against Georgetown and Nova, but if it makes the whole product better, we might have to bite the bullet.
...

That's 14 pretty good games, 7 of those are at home and might draw pretty well (provided the opponent is playing well). Give it a handful of years and there could be some decent rivalries born/enhanced... especially playing twice per year.

Of course it depends on what teams are in the western division, but I like the idea of potentially becoming Gonzaga's main division rival. ESPN would be all over the Gonzaga-Marquette games twice a year - and we'd be able to be the leaders of our division.

The bad thing about 9 teams is that's not a lot of inventory to sell if we're trying to create a good TV deal. A 20% jump in the number of teams would increase the inventory significantly. I saw the numbers for this on the Hoya board or the Xavier board (too lazy to figure out on my own how many total conference games each set-up would get to sell), but it was a large increase for a much smaller boost in the number of teams.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Of course it depends on what teams are in the western division, but I like the idea of potentially becoming Gonzaga's main division rival. ESPN would be all over the Gonzaga-Marquette games twice a year - and we'd be able to be the leaders of our division.

The bad thing about 9 teams is that's not a lot of inventory to sell if we're trying to create a good TV deal. A 20% jump in the number of teams would increase the inventory significantly. I saw the numbers for this on the Hoya board or the Xavier board (too lazy to figure out on my own how many total conference games each set-up would get to sell), but it was a large increase for a much smaller boost in the number of teams.

Yea, for revenue's sake, you might have to go with at least 12 to start. I get it.

But, from a pure rivalry and conference building standpoint, I'd start with 10.

$ will probably win out, and I guess that's fine.

[chapman]

IMHO divisions suck.

Agree.  Only necessary in football.  The SEC just scrapped them for basketball because they were a mess that added no value.

4) Believe their 'First Four' involvement carries too much clout. Believes ESPN LOVES Dayton and adds value to any TV contract.

They hope their team can make it there someday.

[Aughnanure]

Yea, for revenue's sake, you might have to go with at least 12 to start. I get it.

But, from a pure rivalry and conference building standpoint, I'd start with 10.

$ will probably win out, and I guess that's fine.

But how do you do scheduling? I think you have to do division/regional scheduling if you want Gonzaga in - and I think you want Gonzaga in. I just hate to see division type-scheduling (like the Big 12  used to do) but then division-less standings when all the teams didn't play matching schedules.

[Pakuni]

I wasn't looking at teams that are already in, and when I looked at Creighton and Butler I just looked at their past NCAA tournament history.  MU won under KO who has proven to be very average in other jobs. We won under TC, then Buzz, and have a strong tradition.  I see the same thing with Gonzaga and Xavier.  The 10th team worries me, and think it's important its a team that's not a current flavor, but has some rich history.  Maybe with a new elevated conference, Butler already has that in the last 5 years.  That said, if I knew Stevens was leaving after this year I would worry.  As pointed out...we have plenty of other teams in the conference that have struggled to find consistency.  

Yes, Butler could drop off if/when Stevens leaves, but it should be pointed out that Butler had a consistently good program for 10+ years before Stevens.
In the 11 years before Stevens, Butler made six NCAAs and three NITs. Of those six NCAAs, they made two Sweet 16s and one round of 32 ... nearly always beating higher-seeded opponents. And they did it under three different coaches.
Obviously this all occurred in a far lesser conference, but it's pretty respectable nonetheless. I'm not terribly worried about Butler dropping off the cliff if they lost their coach.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

But how do you do scheduling? I think you have to do division/regional scheduling if you want Gonzaga in - and I think you want Gonzaga in. I just hate to see division type-scheduling (like the Big 12  used to do) but then division-less standings when all the teams didn't play matching schedules.

Yea, I really don't know how to approach it above 10 teams. That's above my pay-grade.

They might have to go to divisions, which is less than ideal... but if that means more tv$, then you have to do it.

Like I said, I'd like to see 10 teams to build some rivalries and familiarity and then go up to 12 or 14... or maybe in 5 years the landscape looks even different and you go to 20 teams, or maybe stay at 10. I dunno.

[chapman]

They might have to go to divisions, which is less than ideal... but if that means more tv$, then you have to do it.

I think divisions are actually worse for TV revenue.  They lock you into set scheduling, which promotes imbalance rather than solving it.  The current BE actually had a better approach with the way they handled the home-and-homes, with scheduling based on preseason predictions.  NFL does similar with its two in-conference, out of division floaters each year being based on previous year standings (how we saw a big deal Colts/Patriots game every year instead of once every three).  I would assume offering a similar approach in a television deal would be appealing to a network as you're telling them that your schedule will adjust to give them more of the premiere match-ups that they want to air.

[Aughnanure]

I think divisions are actually worse for TV revenue.  They lock you into set scheduling, which promotes imbalance rather than solving it. The current BE actually had a better approach with the way they handled the home-and-homes, with scheduling based on preseason predictions.  NFL does similar with its two in-conference, out of division floaters each year being based on previous year standings (how we saw a big deal Colts/Patriots game every year instead of once every three).  I would assume offering a similar approach in a television deal would be appealing to a network as you're telling them that your schedule will adjust to give them more of the premiere match-ups that they want to air.

I think the NFL does it because there's 32 teams and only 16 games....and they use divisions/pods. At 10-12 teams with a 16-20 game schedule, the difference you can make through competitive scheduling is non-existent to minimal at best.

[Coleman]

I actually do like divisions. I think it adds something for the media and fans to follow, root for, and debate to a conference. It creates a race. Something else to win - and a rivalry between the divisions.

12-Team, all private, play everyone in your division twice, 18-game schedule, one home-and-home cross division rival, division winners are #1 & #2 seeds in conference tourney.

East
Georgetown
St. John's
Villanova
Xavier
Providence
Seton Hall

West
Marquette
Gonzaga
Butler
St. Louis
Creighton
DePaul

+100000000000000000000


This should be our conference. These divisions are pretty well balanced. Home and home within division. One home-and-home with a rival from the other division (could rotate). Play everyone else in the other division once. Structure the conference tournament so each division is one side of the bracket.

I also think this approach mitigates, if not eliminates, the travel issue with Gonzaga. Everyone within their division is in the midwest. Those flights are 3-4 hours tops (not awesome, but definitely workable). They have to travel to the east coast maybe 3-4 times a year, that's it.

[MUMBA]

I threw this idea out in another thread, and I'll toss it out a second time if only to liven the discussion.

I have always liked the English soccer league's system of tiers and relegation/promotion, where the lowest team in the "A League" gets relegated to the "B League", and the best from "B" gets promoted to "A".  The system gives overachieving teams with small budgets and second rate facilities a chance to play with the big boys, and it doesn't let the big boys get fat, lazy, and uncompetitive.  Plenty of pros and cons, I'm sure.  But if the rest of D1 is aligning superconferences to generate excitement TV negotiating power, might this be a creative way to create one ourselves?

2014/15 tiers would be based on a predetermined measure (ie 2012/2013 ratings - Sagarin, Pomeroy, Value-Add, whatever).  $'s awarded proportionately to the biggest contributors.  A hasty example of how it might play out...

*Tier 1*
Georgetown
Marquette
St Johns
Gonzaga
Xavier
Butler
Villanova
VCU
Creighton

*Tier2*
Seton Hall
DePaul
VCU
Providence
St Louis
St. Joe's
Dayton
St. Mary's
George Mason

*Tier 3*
Duquesne
Fordham
St. Bonaventure
LaSalle
Loyola
Richmond
Sienna
Iona
Manhattan College (a sentimental favorite)

[brewcity77]

The problem with promotion/relegation is how do you schedule it? And how do you factor standings? You need the tiers to be completely separate, which would require 30 teams to really work. I love the idea but just don't see it working at this level.