collapse

* '22-'23 SOTG Totals

2022-23 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro7
Prosper5
Jones, K.2
Joplin2
Mitchell2

'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

2023-2024 Expectations by PointWarrior
[Today at 09:41:35 AM]


More conference realignment talk by Scoop Snoop
[Today at 09:34:30 AM]


Shaka Extended by rocky_warrior
[Today at 09:33:54 AM]


2023 Portal Transfers by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 08:13:12 AM]


MU TBT? by tower912
[Today at 07:46:41 AM]


NM by swoopem
[Today at 07:34:22 AM]


2023 Coaching Carousel by MU82
[June 06, 2023, 10:04:58 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: The long cold summer

Marquette
Marquette

Open Practice

Date/Time: Oct 13, 2023, 6:00 pm
TV: NA
Schedule for 2023-24
29 - 7

Author Topic: More conference realignment talk  (Read 192247 times)

Jockey

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
  • “We want to get rid of the ballots"
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1775 on: February 03, 2023, 10:19:48 AM »
I don't get this sentiment. There is just no way you go to 25 straight NCAA tournaments and are one of the best programs and brands in the game for more than a decade without that having lasting effects on the future of your program. That's how it has always worked for every great/good program (Marquette included) - one coach raised the team up for so long it also raised trajectory of the future of that program.

Until it peaked with Dukiet.

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1776 on: February 03, 2023, 10:22:07 AM »
If the number was minimal, they wouldn't take it. The amount we get from our current contract with fox is a rounding error for those schools. If they wanted to pay (I don't believe they do), they could have any basketball only school they wanted.

It's fine to enjoy and appreciate our current situation and to want it to continue as fan. But we have to be honest about the Big East's place in the hierarchy of College Athletics.

I'm not sure about this. I mean, if they wanted to overpay using the entire TV deal that is powered by football, sure. But why would they take money away from the football schools to pay a basketball-only? I don't think the Big East basketball contract is off by much of the non-SEC/B1G schools.

The CBS article estimates about 20% of a TV rights value comes from basketball. The BigXII's brand new rights deal is worth $31.66 million per school a year. That comes out to $6.3 million for the basketball side of things. I believe the Big East's is $4.6 million and is set to be renegotiated next year. A modest increase to that contract, esp with 10 years of inflation, likely puts our next deal close. The Pac-12/10/? current deal nets them a little over $20 million a year and the new deal is expected to be around the Big 12's range. The ACC's is $32 million/school and isn't up for renegotiation till (lol) 2036.

Now the SEC and B1G are a different animal. They were both around $45-55 million before their new rights agreements raised that to around $70-75 million per school. Using the 20% number that increases the basketball contract value from $10 million to $15 million (20% is debatable, but seems unlikely to be higher - maybe its 25% but if anything I would guess industry people would put it lower). 
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1777 on: February 03, 2023, 10:29:11 AM »
Yall are crazy if you think MU would turn down an invite from the B12 (or SEC/B1G). Only way they would is if they offered a ridiculously low cut of the pie.

No way we would take a Big XII invite. Money honestly wouldn't be worth it unless they juice it beyond the basketball tv value. B1G and SEC another story - but I would remind everyone that (recent) conference realignment has really not worked out for any school. Just think about BC, Pitt, Cuse, Missouri, Nebraska, Maryland. They lost their rivalries and they're almost irrelevant. Texas A&M I would say is the only major success so far and maybe Rutgers now.

And one thing that is often forgotten is that donations are huge drivers of athletics/school revenue (and for the most part more lucrative than the TV rights deal, at least until recently). And what drives donations? Winning!
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6207
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1778 on: February 03, 2023, 10:33:37 AM »
I don't get this sentiment. There is just no way you go to 25 straight NCAA tournaments and are one of the best programs and brands in the game for more than a decade without that having lasting effects on the future of your program. That's how it has always worked for every great/good program (Marquette included) - one coach raised the team up for so long it also raised trajectory of the future of that program.

Villanova says hello

WhiteTrash

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1779 on: February 03, 2023, 10:34:44 AM »
I'm not sure about this. I mean, if they wanted to overpay using the entire TV deal that is powered by football, sure. But why would they take money away from the football schools to pay a basketball-only? I don't think the Big East basketball contract is off by much of the non-SEC/B1G schools.

The CBS article estimates about 20% of a TV rights value comes from basketball. The BigXII's brand new rights deal is worth $31.66 million per school a year. That comes out to $6.3 million for the basketball side of things. I believe the Big East's is $4.6 million and is set to be renegotiated next year. A modest increase to that contract, esp with 10 years of inflation, likely puts our next deal close. The Pac-12/10/? current deal nets them a little over $20 million a year and the new deal is expected to be around the Big 12's range. The ACC's is $32 million/school and isn't up for renegotiation till (lol) 2036.

Now the SEC and B1G are a different animal. They were both around $45-55 million before their new rights agreements raised that to around $70-75 million per school. Using the 20% number that increases the basketball contract value from $10 million to $15 million (20% is debatable, but seems unlikely to be higher - maybe its 25% but if anything I would guess industry people would put it lower).
I think your numbers are off some, the BIG XII distributed $43M (under the old TV deal, projected to go up $6-$10M) while the ACC was about the $36M (no change till 2036). *

The PAC12/10 is in a weird spot, they were have to had a deal in place by now.  I don't know if they will get close to the Big XII or more importantly stay intact.

* All-In revenue , not TV only.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 10:39:08 AM by WhiteTrash »

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1780 on: February 03, 2023, 10:34:48 AM »
I don't get this sentiment. There is just no way you go to 25 straight NCAA tournaments and are one of the best programs and brands in the game for more than a decade without that having lasting effects on the future of your program. That's how it has always worked for every great/good program (Marquette included) - one coach raised the team up for so long it also raised trajectory of the future of that program.

Villanova

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1781 on: February 03, 2023, 11:07:33 AM »
Villanova says hello

You're saying this after one year?! Jay Wright didn't even win Nova's its first championship. They'll be fine, but yeah it's hard to follow a legend.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

ChitownSpaceForRent

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6207
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1782 on: February 03, 2023, 11:09:13 AM »
You're saying this after one year?! Jay Wright didn't even win Nova's its first championship. They'll be fine, but yeah it's hard to follow a legend.

Their roster isn’t all that different than last year when they went to the Final Four.

Neptune looks completely inept

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9931
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1783 on: February 03, 2023, 11:11:02 AM »
Their roster isn’t all that different than last year when they went to the Final Four.

Neptune looks completely inept

You might call him "Ineptune"

Laughter? No? I'll see myself out...
Maigh Eo for Sam

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1784 on: February 03, 2023, 11:13:28 AM »
I think your numbers are off some, the BIG XII distributed $43M (under the old TV deal, projected to go up $6-$10M) while the ACC was about the $36M (no change till 2036). *

The PAC12/10 is in a weird spot, they were have to had a deal in place by now.  I don't know if they will get close to the Big XII or more importantly stay intact.

* All-In revenue , not TV only.

Yeah, but that's not TV rights. That's including NCAA tournament credits, bowl revenue, and college football playoff revenue. Big East also pays out tournament credits. A non-football school isn't going to get that FBS money and NCAA tournament credits are worth the same no matter your conference you earn them in. TV rights is the best comparison we can use (though not perfect, cause its not entirely clear how much of a % goes to basketball).

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34910144/big-12-nears-six-year-228b-tv-extension-deal-espn-fox
"The overall value of the Big 12's media deal is expected to increase from $220 million annually to $380 million. That's an average increase in media-only revenue per school from $22 million to $31.7 million (the $380 million is now divided 12 ways with the addition of BYU, UCF, Cincinnati and Houston).

The new deal will mark an uptick in the Big 12's overall distribution number, which currently stands at $42.6 million per school. That number is subject to myriad variables such as NCAA tournament units, bowl revenue and new College Football Playoff revenue."
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 11:16:13 AM by Aughnanure »
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1785 on: February 03, 2023, 11:15:26 AM »
Their roster isn’t all that different than last year when they went to the Final Four.

Neptune looks completely inept

Yeah, and they'll move on if he doesn't show something by year 3. That doesn't mean the entire program has sunk.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9931
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1786 on: February 03, 2023, 11:16:44 AM »
Yeah, and they'll move on if he doesn't show something by year 3. That doesn't mean the entire program has sunk.

Unless they've found their Wojo!
Maigh Eo for Sam

GoldenWarrior11

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1987
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1787 on: February 03, 2023, 11:17:04 AM »
I'll preface that I personally continue to want Gonzaga as a member of the Big East (either as a basketball-only member, which sounds like it is a possibility for the Big 12, or as a full Olympics member).  I am a big believer in institutional fit for conferences (B1G - AAU/Land-grant, SEC - Southern state, Football-first, brands, etc.).  I would make the argument that UConn, despite being a public school, is an institutional fit for the Big East; they are a national championship-caliber basketball (both men's and women's), with a strong NE presence, great basketball facilities and fan base, and a top-tier brand.  Their historical association with the Big East completely eliminates any sense of not being a private/Catholic school, in my mind.

For Gonzaga, it is similar to UConn in my mind that they check every single box for membership, except instead of not being a public school (like UConn), they are just way the heck out there in Spokane.  The Big East is a basketball-first conference, with like-minded membership; even if a program goes through a Georgetown-level lull period, they still have the peer associations as a Private/Jesuit/Catholic school to the rest of the membership.  If Gonzaga goes through a Georgetown-level rebuild in the Big 12, they provide little-to-no value to the league (which is a mixture of privates/publics, urban/rural, etc.).  There would also be something to said about being a basketball-first entity in a football-first league (even if the Big12 remains as the top basketball conference in the country).  They should ask the C7 and Wichita State what it's like to be a non-football member in a football league.  The feedback would be less than favorable. 

Having said all of that, Gonzaga will do what's best for Gonzaga.  They are exceptional at prioritizing their value and needs long-term versus short-term fixes.  They have rebuffed the MWC and (to-date) a marriage with the Big East has not happened.  For other unknown reasons, a partnership with the Big 12 has not (yet) occurred.  Due to the academic snobbery of the PAC, I don't see them realistically a candidate (but they will need to take someone to fill out its membership, especially if other defections occur). 

I think there's still a chance of Gonzaga/Big East coming together, especially if Fox wants to stick it to ESPN.  But money talks.  Gonzaga or no Gonzaga, our annual payouts will be going up (I expect to the $6-$8 million range); if Gonzaga does come, it does give it a bump.

The Equalizer

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1717
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1788 on: February 03, 2023, 11:20:04 AM »
Quote from: Aughnanure link=topic=62146.msg1511926#msg1511926 date=
You're saying this after one year?! Jay Wright didn't even win Nova's its first championship. They'll be fine, but yeah it's hard to follow a legend.

Louisville is finding it's hard to follow the guy who followed a legend.

Georgetown is finding it's hard to follow the son of legend who followed the guy who followed a legend--even if you hire a legend in his own right. 

And don't get me started on DePaul or UCLA.


Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1789 on: February 03, 2023, 11:22:38 AM »
I don't think Gonzaga is ever going to happen.

I'd love to add BC. They have a past with the Big East, and fit the profile of our schools and would add a school in Massachusetts, which we don't have.  Even though they generally suck at sports, it would be a net positive for the conference. Their football team could easily go independent like UConn.

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9679
  • Send it in medium-sized fella!
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1790 on: February 03, 2023, 11:24:44 AM »
I don't think Gonzaga is ever going to happen.

I'd love to add BC. They have a past with the Big East, and fit the profile of our schools and would add a school in Massachusetts, which we don't have.  Even though they generally suck at sports, it would be a net positive for the conference. Their football team could easily go independent like UConn.


But why would they do that?  If UConn were in the ACC, they would have never joined the BE. If the ACC invites them tomorrow, they'd be out the door in a nanosecond.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

Galway Eagle

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9931
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1791 on: February 03, 2023, 11:25:26 AM »
I don't think Gonzaga is ever going to happen.

I'd love to add BC. They have a past with the Big East, and fit the profile of our schools and would add a school in Massachusetts, which we don't have.  Even though they generally suck at sports, it would be a net positive for the conference. Their football team could easily go independent like UConn.

I'd love BC and ND we could promise them a bunch of super easy football wins each year in Uconn, Xavier, Butler, and Georgetown! but neither is ever happening.



Maigh Eo for Sam

Coleman

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1792 on: February 03, 2023, 11:26:57 AM »

But why would they do that?  If UConn were in the ACC, they would have never joined the BE. If the ACC invites them tomorrow, they'd be out the door in a nanosecond.

In the current landscape, they wouldn't. But if there is another huge shift in conference realignment, I could see a school like BC needing a new home.

The Sultan of Semantics

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9679
  • Send it in medium-sized fella!
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1793 on: February 03, 2023, 11:27:14 AM »
Louisville is finding it's hard to follow the guy who followed a legend.

Georgetown is finding it's hard to follow the son of legend who followed the guy who followed a legend--even if you hire a legend in his own right. 

And don't get me started on DePaul or UCLA.


The first three coaches that followed Wooden did just fine. Not as good as Wooden, but Final Four and Elite 8 fine.
“True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else.” - Clarence Darrow

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 21021
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1794 on: February 03, 2023, 11:43:52 AM »
You might call him "Ineptune"



Bravo (slow clap)
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.

Litehouse

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2209
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1795 on: February 03, 2023, 11:56:03 AM »
I don't get this sentiment. There is just no way you go to 25 straight NCAA tournaments and are one of the best programs and brands in the game for more than a decade without that having lasting effects on the future of your program. That's how it has always worked for every great/good program (Marquette included) - one coach raised the team up for so long it also raised trajectory of the future of that program.
Gonzaga has been good for a sustained period of time, and I think they'll continue that "good" level of going to the NCAAs most years.  However, I think their recent "great" level of getting #1 seeds has coincided with a lot of the Pac-12 being down.  If some of the other west coast programs (USC, UCLA, Arizona, Washington, etc.) can get back to previous levels, I think that (along with Few's nearing retirement) is going to impact their ability to stay at their recent "great" level.


I don't know as much about their fanbase, but NIL could potentially impact them as well.  Being in a small market with most of their games not being nationally televised while most of the country is asleep could impact the NIL earning ability of their players. 

Aughnanure

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2856
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1796 on: February 03, 2023, 12:29:38 PM »
Louisville is finding it's hard to follow the guy who followed a legend.

Georgetown is finding it's hard to follow the son of legend who followed the guy who followed a legend--even if you hire a legend in his own right. 

And don't get me started on DePaul or UCLA.

Yeah, it is. Very few programs don't go through ups and downs. But that doesn't mean those programs are valueless now. I just dont see a world where Gonzaga is not a valuable brand to add post-Few. They have built-up a fanbases and national following  over multiple decade that will push them to invest and succeed.

Also, UCLA? They went to a Final Four in 2021 and a Sweet Sixteen last year. And John Thompson went to 8 NCAA tournaments his first 11 years, including a Final Four. Are we trying to argue that no program is worth adding if they may not be as great as their program's literal peak? Seems a bit dismissive coming from Marquette fans who've had their own problems even getting close to McGuire's era, much less the early aughts and early 2010s - but I dont think we would say our program is not worth value even 10 years past our last NCAA win.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2023, 12:32:24 PM by Aughnanure »
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.” - T.E. Lawrence

MU82

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 20907
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1797 on: February 03, 2023, 01:08:11 PM »
Are we trying to argue that no program is worth adding if they may not be as great as their program's literal peak? Seems a bit dismissive coming from Marquette fans who've had their own problems even getting close to McGuire's era, much less the early aughts and early 2010s - but I dont think we would say our program is not worth value even 10 years past our last NCAA win.

This was my reaction, too.
"You are not serious people." - Logan Roy

MDMU04

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 542
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1798 on: February 03, 2023, 02:01:00 PM »
Are we trying to argue that no program is worth adding if they may not be as great as their program's literal peak? Seems a bit dismissive coming from Marquette fans who've had their own problems even getting close to McGuire's era, much less the early aughts and early 2010s - but I dont think we would say our program is not worth value even 10 years past our last NCAA win.

Frame the question differently.  Name a program that:
- Could even remotely be considered available
- Isn't at their peak
- You want in the Big East

If the answer were obvious, I think the conference would have expanded already.
"They call me eccentric. They used to call me nuts. I haven't changed." - Al McGuire

SaveOD238

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1417
Re: More conference realignment talk
« Reply #1799 on: February 03, 2023, 03:01:01 PM »
Frame the question differently.  Name a program that:
- Could even remotely be considered available
- Isn't at their peak
- You want in the Big East

If the answer were obvious, I think the conference would have expanded already.

I'm not convinced there's anyone that fits all three of these criterion.

I want off-peak BC, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Pitt, but all are unavailable.
I want available Gonzaga and maybe St Mary's, but they're both potentially peaking.
SLU, Dayton, Davidson (and St. Thomas lol) are all off-peak and available, but I don't want them.

Maybe Loyola Chicago fits the bill, but they conflict with DePaul.