collapse

* Wisconsin SOTG

No Stud when we lose.
2021-22 Season SoG Tally
Morsell2
Ighodaro1
Kolek1
Kuath1
Lewis1
Mitchell1

'20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

MAKE YOUR KANSAS STATE PREDICTIONS HERE by Uncle Rico
[Today at 05:48:07 PM]


2021-22 Big East Conference Results by MarquetteMike1977
[Today at 05:44:53 PM]


Big East Poll and NET Rankings by MU82
[Today at 05:13:26 PM]


Beating K-State is Imperative by JakeBarnes
[Today at 05:11:44 PM]


NM by jesmu84
[Today at 03:34:55 PM]


Kohl hole o sole' mio by brewcity77
[Today at 03:15:57 PM]


Badger Game Autopsy by Markusquette
[Today at 01:46:21 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: @ Kansas State

Marquette
76
Marquette @

Kansas St.

Date/Time: Dec 8, 2021, 8:00pm
TV: ESPN2
Schedule for 2021-22
Wisconsin
89

Author Topic: More conference realignment talk  (Read 33326 times)

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17766
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #600 on: October 23, 2021, 05:16:27 PM »
I have always assumed that St. Louis is a likely candidate should the Big East expand.  Shoothoops has made me pray the Big East doesn't expand.
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

shoothoops

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1488
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #601 on: October 23, 2021, 05:19:00 PM »
I have always assumed that St. Louis is a likely candidate should the Big East expand.  Shoothoops has made me pray the Big East doesn't expand.

Trolls troll.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17766
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #602 on: October 23, 2021, 05:21:08 PM »
Thanks for the laughs.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2021, 05:29:17 PM by tower912 »
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

The Lens

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4193
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #603 on: October 23, 2021, 06:44:19 PM »
My wife reminded me of a funny story today.

She was a teacher at a local HS and was teaching honors freshman English.  The problem with teaching this class is every kid is an A student to start.  So they all expect A’s.

One kid got a B. And the parents went nuts.  They ranted and raved.

That student ended up at Dayton; as my wife likes to say:

“He ended up at Dayton, looks like I wasn’t the only teacher to give him a B”
The Teal Train has left the station and Lens is day drinking in the bar car    ---- Dr. Blackheart

Hards_Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #604 on: October 23, 2021, 09:10:11 PM »
In 2008, SLU opened their $80m new arena. Since then they had 4 tournament appearances.  3 of the 4 came from the Rick Majerus’ recruits. They hired Travis Ford in 2016 and he has one tourney appearance. Wojo had three.

In 2020, they were 23-8 but fourth in the A10. Tells you about the A10. Travis is entering his 6th season which means he is close to either jumping ship or being let go.  In his best year, he got run over by VA Tech in the first round.

All this is to say, history shows that SLU hasn’t jumped to P6 level even with the investment. Not to say they won’t have a good run at some point or be better than history has shown. 

But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter anyway, the Big East is the premier basketball only conference. They don’t have to take anyone so they can be extremely selective. An invite is extremely beneficial for SLU but for the other side it is not.  SLU will always be there so the BE can wait to see if the SLU investment actually changes anything. Right now SLU is not a marquee brand in basketball unlike Gonzaga who has made the tourney every year since 1999 and has two runner-ups. I don’t see Gonzaga as working out. Unless Fox sees STL as a completely untapped revenue market it ain’t happening and until SLU has a Gonzaga like run, the A10 is a good place to prove themselves.

Oooooo you engaged.  Big whoopsie, baby.

Hards_Alumni

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 5306
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #605 on: October 23, 2021, 09:14:36 PM »

BallBoy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #606 on: October 23, 2021, 10:21:17 PM »
Again, you are saying past results equals future results. Several of the newer Big East teams have fared better in the Big East, than prior to it, including Marquette.

In 6 seasons prior to joining the Big East, MUBB had 2 NCAA Tourney Appearances. All of those seasons were played under Tom Crean. (Deane 2 our of 5 seasons) (O’Neill 2 out of 5 seasons) (Dukiet 0 of 3) (Majerus 0 of 3).

Al McGuire Center opened in 2003. Budgets, facilities, other things helped. Fr. Wild, Bill Cords etc…so many things that are either assets or non hindrances.

After joining, Marquette had 3 straight NCAA Tourney appearances until Crean left. Then, MUBB continued that streak to 8 by making the NCAA Tourney 5 straight seasons under Buzz.

(This is where some people come in and talk about 44 years ago. But it isn’t about 44 years ago. It’s about the future.)

Creighton has finished in the top 3 of the Big East 6 out of 8 seasons since joining the league. They had their first NCAA Tourney 2nd weekend in 47 years this past year.

Prior?

Creighton missed the NCAA Tourney 4 of their previous 6 seasons.

Dana Altman had missed the NCAA Tourney 5 of his final 7 seasons at Creighton in the MVC before leaving for Oregon.

Since? Altman and Oregon have finished 1 or 2 in Pac 12 in 7 of 11 seasons. 5 NCAA 2nd weekends, Elite 8, a Final Four. In 16 seasons as Creighton’s coach, Altman made the NCAA Tourney 2nd weekend exactly zero times in the MVC.

As I’ve said before, SLU certainly has to keep doing its part on and off of the floor. They had something going with Moser and Majerus, (in spite of Biondi and others, who didn’t leave until late 2013.) that didn’t extend longer due to Rick’s health and Moser getting his own HC position at Loyola. Rick was adamant that Crews get the SLU HC job. That didn’t work out so well for them, and the removal change was too slow and too loyal. Ford came in and had to start over from that. He turned it around and made the NCAA’s his 3rd season, and has had had two solid seasons since. He’ll need to go another step there regardless of league to keep his job after the next few years. But several things have changed off of the court during his time at SLU, just as several things changed at MUBB off of the court, around the time of TC.

Again, all of what they are doing recently and doing moving forward is not in a Power 5/Big East league. It’s pretty easy to see why they are a strong candidate. Schools increase investment and expectation based as their league $ increases. And as I showed in the examples, on court results increased after the league changed too. What stands out are clearing many hurdles and making a lot of investment, raising budgets, etc…and those things matter.

Expansion and realignment discussions happen when they happen. Big East Commissioner brought it up, therefore the discussion is now or current, just as they were now or current the last few times it happened the past 15 years.

History matters both from brand as well as predicting future results.

All of those teams had a history of winning. SLU does not.  Even with the money investment SLU hasn’t shown season in season out they are the team to beat in their conference. A marginal conference at best. No deep runs in the tourney. Nothing. Win in the A10 and then talk about getting an invite.

Creighton has 15 conference championships in the MVC and a much better post season appearance record than SLU. 

Xavier has been in the NCAA Tourney almost every year since 1985.

Butler had two runner-ups and showed they could win.

All of the teams that joined showed they were dominant the league they were in.

If you can’t show you are good on the court then bring a major TV market like St. John’s or DePaul.

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8199
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #607 on: October 23, 2021, 11:57:31 PM »
History matters both from brand as well as predicting
future results.

Marquette had some good years, but was really not a big time program before McGuire.
UW sucked most of the 20th century. Has been really good in the 21st.
DePaul was great and now sucks.

History matters, but not a s much as you might think.

I think the Big East adds at least three teams, if they expand. In my opinion they will need to match the size of the P5 conferences, which are likely to be 14 to 16 teams. They risk being left out, if these conference decide to have their own tournament.



Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6409
  • Send it in...medium-sized fella!!
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #608 on: October 24, 2021, 06:21:19 AM »
I think the Big East adds at least three teams, if they expand. In my opinion they will need to match the size of the P5 conferences, which are likely to be 14 to 16 teams. They risk being left out, if these conference decide to have their own tournament.


Why would being larger prevent that?  Why would adding some mediocre teams prevent that?
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

BallBoy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #609 on: October 24, 2021, 09:04:04 AM »
Marquette had some good years, but was really not a big time program before McGuire.
UW sucked most of the 20th century. Has been really good in the 21st.
DePaul was great and now sucks.

History matters, but not a s much as you might think.

I think the Big East adds at least three teams, if they expand. In my opinion they will need to match the size of the P5 conferences, which are likely to be 14 to 16 teams. They risk being left out, if these conference decide to have their own tournament.

How good is the A10?  Is it as good as it was 10 years ago?  No because all of the good teams with a brand were asked to join any other conference. They have 14 mediocre teams. No one sees any of those teams competing for a National Title. Could a team make a run…sure. But the brand of the conference took a major hit.

Is the AAC as good of a conference as it was 10years ago? No because they lost their three best teams and replaced with a quantity on mediocre.

Is the Big XII as good? No. Is it because the lost their two best teams at the time or the two best brands? They replaced those two teams with the #6 team in the country. To the casual fan are they better?

The number of teams matter only for the amount of content. The quality or perception of quality of the product or the number of people in the market determines the cost per unit.

What makes a brand? A history of being good. When the BE was looking to expand SLU was available why did they take MU or DePaul instead?  Better Brands.

MU has been relevant in 1970s and 1980s when Al was a TV commentator. Important because that was the major start of cable TV and the rise of sports monetary value. They were relevant in the late 90s, 2000s and 2010s. Along with others they showed they could elevate Conf USA as a brand. 

On Fox’s New Year’s Day games, would the casual fan more likely switch from Football to Marquette/Nova or SLU/Nova.

To be relevant the Brand has to be good so let SLU build in the A10 and then take them. They are in a conference where the majority are mediocre so be the best if that and then we can talk.

The point of the conference call outs is perception of the conference brand matters. If the Big East is seen as Nova and a bunch of mediocre the conference suffers.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2021, 09:07:28 AM by BallBoy »

bilsu

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8199
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #610 on: October 24, 2021, 10:24:49 AM »
The big football conferences do not need an 11 team basketball conference, if they go it on their own. Going to 14 with Gonzaga helps. Just adding St. Louis does not. In theory a 14 team Big East means more TV money.

I of course do not know, if adding teams will help. The football conferences may just see it as an opportunity to diminish the Big East, if they leave them out. I would hate to see the Power 5 have their own tournament. However, if they do I want the Big East to be included. I do not see that happening, if we stay at 11 teams. Why would they to want to share money with an 11 team Big East conference? It would be much wiser to get Villanova to join them and leave the rest of the chumps out.

BallBoy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #611 on: October 24, 2021, 11:48:51 AM »
The big football conferences do not need an 11 team basketball conference, if they go it on their own. Going to 14 with Gonzaga helps. Just adding St. Louis does not. In theory a 14 team Big East means more TV money.

I of course do not know, if adding teams will help. The football conferences may just see it as an opportunity to diminish the Big East, if they leave them out. I would hate to see the Power 5 have their own tournament. However, if they do I want the Big East to be included. I do not see that happening, if we stay at 11 teams. Why would they to want to share money with an 11 team Big East conference? It would be much wiser to get Villanova to join them and leave the rest of the chumps out.

Big football conferences don’t need a 14 team basketball only conference if they go it alone. If they did they can get the A10. What makes the NCAA tournament what it is today is cinderellas and saying the best team won. If Big Football leaves they lose the claim to both regardless of whether the Big East is 11 or 14.

The Big East’s best bet is to remain the best basketball conference it can be and stay in the Top 5 conferences. Watering it down doesn’t help. Adding Gonzaga helps because they are the best basketball only school in the west  and a main stay in the tourney every year. If the best basketball conference is an 11 team conference then keep it at 11.

If you say that we need to get to 14 to have enough money to stay competitive then go for the 3 teams with the biggest market opportunities.  How good they are doesn’t matter. See Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten.

If Nova were to leave to a football conference, the Big East would be an also ran as it would take a huge hit to the Brand.

So as I have said before you go out and get a major basketball name or someone in a rich market. Don’t get a mediocre team in a mediocre market.

mug644

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #612 on: October 24, 2021, 08:18:07 PM »
How good is the A10?  Is it as good as it was 10 years ago?  No because all of the good teams with a brand were asked to join any other conference. They have 14 mediocre teams. No one sees any of those teams competing for a National Title. Could a team make a run…sure. But the brand of the conference took a major hit.

Is the AAC as good of a conference as it was 10years ago? No because they lost their three best teams and replaced with a quantity on mediocre.

Is the Big XII as good? No. Is it because the lost their two best teams at the time or the two best brands? They replaced those two teams with the #6 team in the country. To the casual fan are they better?

The number of teams matter only for the amount of content. The quality or perception of quality of the product or the number of people in the market determines the cost per unit.

What makes a brand? A history of being good. When the BE was looking to expand SLU was available why did they take MU or DePaul instead?  Better Brands.

MU has been relevant in 1970s and 1980s when Al was a TV commentator. Important because that was the major start of cable TV and the rise of sports monetary value. They were relevant in the late 90s, 2000s and 2010s. Along with others they showed they could elevate Conf USA as a brand. 

On Fox’s New Year’s Day games, would the casual fan more likely switch from Football to Marquette/Nova or SLU/Nova.

To be relevant the Brand has to be good so let SLU build in the A10 and then take them. They are in a conference where the majority are mediocre so be the best if that and then we can talk.

The point of the conference call outs is perception of the conference brand matters. If the Big East is seen as Nova and a bunch of mediocre the conference suffers.

I overall agree with this post, except for the bolded part. "Casual" fans are switching from football to basketball in that scenario, not to a basketball match up that is more interesting than the football game. That is, Nova (since they are currently a national brand) vs. anyone is what might grab that casual fan, not that it's MU or SLU. To think that MU is a real factor in that decision, these days, is wearing blue and gold glasses. Until Shaka shakes the world.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2021, 09:51:20 PM by mug644 »

mug644

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #613 on: October 24, 2021, 08:32:34 PM »
If P5 conferences/teams were to pull away from the NCAA and create their own tournament, would they be more likely to take a smaller, stronger non-P5 conference (such as the BEast now) or a larger, more diluted conference (such as the AAC, if they expand)? Obviously, the BEast is more appealing at this point, yet I wonder if/how a larger Beast helps the P5 'vision' (especially when there are more teams, win or lose, that take a cut)? P5s might like the BEast to take on Gonzaga, but taking on SLU or Dayton might even lesser the appeal.

HarpnShamDollaBeers

  • Walk-On
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #614 on: October 25, 2021, 04:46:22 PM »
IMO Ideal Conference Additions/Realignment

Assuming we keep all of the current teams and expanding to 14. Bringing back Syracuse, adding Gonzaga, and then either Wichita State or Loyola Chicago.

Realistically, Syracuse seems out of our reach but would just make things right in the world again. Maybe Memphis would be a fun program to throw into the mix.

LUC and Wichita both have had their years dominating the MVC. Wichita made the jump to the American so that would be a similar move bringing them over like we did with UCONN's return.

Would've loved bringing Cinci back into the fold but Big 12 snatched them up. I think there are definitely programs out there and as the big football conferences start growing, I think it would be in our intererst to as well.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6409
  • Send it in...medium-sized fella!!
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #615 on: October 25, 2021, 04:49:48 PM »
IMO Ideal Conference Additions/Realignment

Assuming we keep all of the current teams and expanding to 14. Bringing back Syracuse, adding Gonzaga, and then either Wichita State or Loyola Chicago.

Realistically, Syracuse seems out of our reach but would just make things right in the world again. Maybe Memphis would be a fun program to throw into the mix.

LUC and Wichita both have had their years dominating the MVC. Wichita made the jump to the American so that would be a similar move bringing them over like we did with UCONN's return.

Would've loved bringing Cinci back into the fold but Big 12 snatched them up. I think there are definitely programs out there and as the big football conferences start growing, I think it would be in our intererst to as well.


Growing and adding value?  Yes. And adding value means a more lucrative media contract per school. Syracuse would do that…but they’re not dropping football or taking it independent.

Growing just to grow?  Nope.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1869
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #616 on: October 25, 2021, 05:01:35 PM »
Fox's interest in expanding aside (as we do not know for sure if they are in favor of expansion), there is something to be said in increasing the value for the Big East in terms of tournament bids and seeds that inevitably improve our tournament credits over time.  The Big East has been very fortunate to be living off the cash cow that is Villanova in tournament credits for the past several years (not unlike the C7 living off of Marquette when we first separated and helped reform the Big East). 

With a round robin set-up, cannibalization of our teams does go into effect.  It is great for TV, but in terms of maximizing our bids and seeds, it is less than ideal.  Moving forward, we will be the lone power conference to employ a R/R set-up.  Conference play alone is a zero sum game - for every win, there is a loss.  By adding just one school, and moving to 12 total teams, we eliminate the R/R and increase the number of teams that can reach 10 or 11 wins in conference.  Our third or fourth place team could average one more win in-conference, at the expense of our eleventh or twelfth place teams. 

Does this mean adding any team for the sake of getting to 12?  Absolutely not.  However, there is value for the conference in increasing our number of bids and seeds annually, even if it is a slight bump. Outside of Villanova, and Xavier one year, the Big East has not been successful in regularly securing top seeds in the tournament - which inevitably maximize opportunities to win games in the NCAAT.

BallBoy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #617 on: October 25, 2021, 07:28:16 PM »
Fox's interest in expanding aside (as we do not know for sure if they are in favor of expansion), there is something to be said in increasing the value for the Big East in terms of tournament bids and seeds that inevitably improve our tournament credits over time.  The Big East has been very fortunate to be living off the cash cow that is Villanova in tournament credits for the past several years (not unlike the C7 living off of Marquette when we first separated and helped reform the Big East). 

With a round robin set-up, cannibalization of our teams does go into effect.  It is great for TV, but in terms of maximizing our bids and seeds, it is less than ideal.  Moving forward, we will be the lone power conference to employ a R/R set-up.  Conference play alone is a zero sum game - for every win, there is a loss.  By adding just one school, and moving to 12 total teams, we eliminate the R/R and increase the number of teams that can reach 10 or 11 wins in conference.  Our third or fourth place team could average one more win in-conference, at the expense of our eleventh or twelfth place teams. 

Does this mean adding any team for the sake of getting to 12?  Absolutely not.  However, there is value for the conference in increasing our number of bids and seeds annually, even if it is a slight bump. Outside of Villanova, and Xavier one year, the Big East has not been successful in regularly securing top seeds in the tournament - which inevitably maximize opportunities to win games in the NCAAT.

The RR format does not impact the perceived strength of conference so if you add crappy teams it will drag down the strength of the conference during non-conference play which gives a reason to take fewer teams.  Being .500 in a good conference is better than 11-7 in a crappy one.

In order for your theory to play out, the team we bring in would have to be crappy 11 or 12 or one of the other teams would need to become crappy because the 3 and 4 teams need to beat them twice.  The only way adding teams in the world you describe is not the RR but if you subscribe to the belief that no more than 50% of a conference should get an invite so by having 12 teams during a good year would mean 6 bids versus the 5. 

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1869
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #618 on: October 25, 2021, 11:00:12 PM »
The RR format does not impact the perceived strength of conference so if you add crappy teams it will drag down the strength of the conference during non-conference play which gives a reason to take fewer teams.  Being .500 in a good conference is better than 11-7 in a crappy one.

In order for your theory to play out, the team we bring in would have to be crappy 11 or 12 or one of the other teams would need to become crappy because the 3 and 4 teams need to beat them twice.  The only way adding teams in the world you describe is not the RR but if you subscribe to the belief that no more than 50% of a conference should get an invite so by having 12 teams during a good year would mean 6 bids versus the 5. 

Our .500 (in conference) teams either get really bad seeds or do not make the tournament at all.  Statistically speaking, .500 (in conference) teams from larger power conferences are better than our's (in Big East) (in terms of tournament bids and seeds).  Non-con SOS is great until you get into conference play, because it becomes a zero sum game.  It's a big reason why so many of our tournament seeds are in the 7-11 range, creating likelihood of not surviving to second weekend.

Before UConn was added, the league averaged five (half) of teams with greater than .500 in conference records.  At 12 teams, we could add a sixth team to get to over .500 mark (10 wins) which significantly increase likelihood of adding another NCAAT team annually, not to mention improve the average seeding.

Herman Cain

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9708
  • 9-9-9
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #619 on: October 25, 2021, 11:14:49 PM »
Fox's interest in expanding aside (as we do not know for sure if they are in favor of expansion), there is something to be said in increasing the value for the Big East in terms of tournament bids and seeds that inevitably improve our tournament credits over time.  The Big East has been very fortunate to be living off the cash cow that is Villanova in tournament credits for the past several years (not unlike the C7 living off of Marquette when we first separated and helped reform the Big East). 

With a round robin set-up, cannibalization of our teams does go into effect.  It is great for TV, but in terms of maximizing our bids and seeds, it is less than ideal.  Moving forward, we will be the lone power conference to employ a R/R set-up.  Conference play alone is a zero sum game - for every win, there is a loss.  By adding just one school, and moving to 12 total teams, we eliminate the R/R and increase the number of teams that can reach 10 or 11 wins in conference.  Our third or fourth place team could average one more win in-conference, at the expense of our eleventh or twelfth place teams. 

Does this mean adding any team for the sake of getting to 12?  Absolutely not.  However, there is value for the conference in increasing our number of bids and seeds annually, even if it is a slight bump. Outside of Villanova, and Xavier one year, the Big East has not been successful in regularly securing top seeds in the tournament - which inevitably maximize opportunities to win games in the NCAAT.

The re constituted Big East was counting on Georgetown and Marquette to be consistently in the tournament with some deep runs. Instead both programs laid an egg. If those two programs had done as projected expansion would not be a discussion point.

The league was lucky Villanova did its thing when it did, and X had some good years under Mack. Plus the league has done very well in non -conference ( last year was a bit off trend and we still got 4 teams in the tournament )

 The reintroduction of U Conn had made the league very tough . From the competitive standpoint of MU I would rather do no more new teams .  We need to get out of the bottom half of the league ,

Unless the math absolutely showed guaranteed dollars per school significantly greater I hope the Big East Presidents say no to new teams

Old Spice Moisturize with Shea Butter Body Wash is a great product

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=srXChURjbqI

BallBoy

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #620 on: October 26, 2021, 12:09:04 AM »
Our .500 (in conference) teams either get really bad seeds or do not make the tournament at all.  Statistically speaking, .500 (in conference) teams from larger power conferences are better than our's (in Big East) (in terms of tournament bids and seeds).  Non-con SOS is great until you get into conference play, because it becomes a zero sum game.  It's a big reason why so many of our tournament seeds are in the 7-11 range, creating likelihood of not surviving to second weekend.

Before UConn was added, the league averaged five (half) of teams with greater than .500 in conference records.  At 12 teams, we could add a sixth team to get to over .500 mark (10 wins) which significantly increase likelihood of adding another NCAAT team annually, not to mention improve the average seeding.

You just made my point. A .500 team in a good conference gets in while an 11-7 in a crappy one does not. It might be a bad seed but they get in before the crappy conference team. 

If you are .500 you should be in the 7-11 range. If you are seen as a great conference you get in and you get the best seeds. Right now the Big East is good but not great. It is also seen as Nova so usually they get a high seed.

The conf schedule is not zero sum for SOS but it is zero sum for conference strength. For example, MU playing Nova increases our strength of schedule, etc. but it doesn’t change the Conference rating because the impact of one team winning is negated by the other team losing. Conference rankings are determined in the non-conference.  So we want better teams.

The important part about your 5 teams above .500 comment is if you water down the bottom half of the conference those team will lose in non-conference. The Big East would be seen as weaker so you aren’t going to get the 6th in at .500 and you might even lose a spot. Again bad conference then fewer teams in. Last year the Big East wasn’t good and they got 4 teams in with GU BET run. MVC got two in and a 12-6 in conference team didn’t make it.

UConn on the other hand should be a team in the top half of the conference making us stronger in non-conference and making it more likely a team gets in.

With all that said there are only a few teams which would make the top half better. The options the Big East has to fish from are the AAC, A10, WCC, MVC, Horizon and Conf USA. No team is going to move from a power 5 to the Big East.

Conf USA is done. They are down to five teams and all are horrible.

WCC is Gonzaga which would good but hard to pull off.

The Horizon league overlaps markets and does not bring good teams.

MVC is Bradley, Drake and Loyola. None are good options.

I would look to the AAC.  They are currently making $7-8M per team for TV but they lost most of their teams in football and are bringing in a lot of Conf USA so it is conceivable that they get Conf USA money which was $1M a team. At that point, if I was an AD I would consider the UConn route which might open the door to Memphis, WS, SMU. Why SMU? because it is a big market. They bring DePaul value. Not likely because Texas is football.  Hurts Conf ranking but brings more TV coin.

The A10 is a lot of nothing. They will all accept an invite so see what shakes out as there is no rush. Check in with Memphis. See about Gonzaga. Maybe work with them to add more WCC and see if we could get to an East/West.

Retire0

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 8181
  • I feel the master, I feel him.
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #621 on: October 26, 2021, 05:34:40 AM »
ABD and *drumroll* anyone but St. Louis. ABSL.
New TallTitan bold prediction: Sacar Anim will play in more NBA games than Markus Howard.

TallTitan's bold prediction of Davante Gardner being drafted in 2014.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=27259.msg310060;topicseen#new

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1869
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #622 on: October 26, 2021, 07:56:50 AM »
You just made my point. A .500 team in a good conference gets in while an 11-7 in a crappy one does not. It might be a bad seed but they get in before the crappy conference team. 

If you are .500 you should be in the 7-11 range. If you are seen as a great conference you get in and you get the best seeds. Right now the Big East is good but not great. It is also seen as Nova so usually they get a high seed.

The conf schedule is not zero sum for SOS but it is zero sum for conference strength. For example, MU playing Nova increases our strength of schedule, etc. but it doesn’t change the Conference rating because the impact of one team winning is negated by the other team losing. Conference rankings are determined in the non-conference.  So we want better teams.

The important part about your 5 teams above .500 comment is if you water down the bottom half of the conference those team will lose in non-conference. The Big East would be seen as weaker so you aren’t going to get the 6th in at .500 and you might even lose a spot. Again bad conference then fewer teams in. Last year the Big East wasn’t good and they got 4 teams in with GU BET run. MVC got two in and a 12-6 in conference team didn’t make it.

UConn on the other hand should be a team in the top half of the conference making us stronger in non-conference and making it more likely a team gets in.

With all that said there are only a few teams which would make the top half better. The options the Big East has to fish from are the AAC, A10, WCC, MVC, Horizon and Conf USA. No team is going to move from a power 5 to the Big East.

Conf USA is done. They are down to five teams and all are horrible.

WCC is Gonzaga which would good but hard to pull off.

The Horizon league overlaps markets and does not bring good teams.

MVC is Bradley, Drake and Loyola. None are good options.

I would look to the AAC.  They are currently making $7-8M per team for TV but they lost most of their teams in football and are bringing in a lot of Conf USA so it is conceivable that they get Conf USA money which was $1M a team. At that point, if I was an AD I would consider the UConn route which might open the door to Memphis, WS, SMU. Why SMU? because it is a big market. They bring DePaul value. Not likely because Texas is football.  Hurts Conf ranking but brings more TV coin.

The A10 is a lot of nothing. They will all accept an invite so see what shakes out as there is no rush. Check in with Memphis. See about Gonzaga. Maybe work with them to add more WCC and see if we could get to an East/West.

What designates a power conference vs a non-power conference?  Power programs and TV dollars.  Comparing us with the MVC, or any other similar league, is fruitless because they don't have either. Instead, we should be comparing to the B1G, ACC, Big 12 (even without UT/OU), PAC and SEC.

Outside of increasing revenue through improving tournament bids and seeds, adding a team also increases TV content, as well as adds a session to our BET, which also adds the league money.

I am not advocating for any one school to expand with, but expansion for the Big East makes financial sense for many reasons.  It's why our own commissioner brought it up at BE Media Days.  The Big East will be the smallest power conference in basketball moving forward, and the only one to utilize a R/R. 

There were also many folks on here that didn't want UConn, a program with four national championships in prior twenty years, because they played football and/or were a public.  While expansion won't make everyone happy, every decision Val Ackerman has made has increased perception and value to the Big East. Regardless of what happens (I do think we expand prior to 2025), I am confident it will be in best decision for Marquette and our conference.

Fluffy Blue Monster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6409
  • Send it in...medium-sized fella!!
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #623 on: October 26, 2021, 08:18:53 AM »
What designates a power conference vs a non-power conference?  Power programs and TV dollars.  Comparing us with the MVC, or any other similar league, is fruitless because they don't have either. Instead, we should be comparing to the B1G, ACC, Big 12 (even without UT/OU), PAC and SEC.

Outside of increasing revenue through improving tournament bids and seeds, adding a team also increases TV content, as well as adds a session to our BET, which also adds the league money.

I am not advocating for any one school to expand with, but expansion for the Big East makes financial sense for many reasons.  It's why our own commissioner brought it up at BE Media Days.  The Big East will be the smallest power conference in basketball moving forward, and the only one to utilize a R/R. 

There were also many folks on here that didn't want UConn, a program with four national championships in prior twenty years, because they played football and/or were a public.  While expansion won't make everyone happy, every decision Val Ackerman has made has increased perception and value to the Big East. Regardless of what happens (I do think we expand prior to 2025), I am confident it will be in best decision for Marquette and our conference.


I agree that expansion MAY make sense for the reasons you suggest, but that doesn't mean that all expansion candidates are created equal.  In fact I think there are not many that move the needle financially at all on a per school basis.

But Ball Boy's point is that your conference record doesn't matter one bit when it comes to your NCAA selection and seeding.  Your overall record and who you play does.  And adding mediocre programs like SLU doesn't help that.  Adding the likes of Gonzaga does.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.”  -Clarence Darrow

MU Fan in Connecticut

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2904
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #624 on: October 29, 2021, 10:27:38 AM »
I saw a news notification that UConn Football may be in discussion to be a football only member of C-USA as it tries to rebuild after schools left for the AAC.  Along with Liberty & New Mexico St.

 

feedback