Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

[BillikensWin]

What else would she say?

"I definitely think we need more teams, but the people who just hired me have it wrong?"

Just more wait and see time for everyone involved.

[yorost]

...and that means you can pretend Ackerman made a more definitive statement than she did?

I'm not pretending anything. I think she precluded expansion, and you didn't. That's fine...it's why message boards exist.

"Right now, "no immediate," "so much on our plate," these things don't trigger flags to you? Her answer is one of avoidance, not declaration.

[Bluejay]

Butler did as well in the Horizon League, unless last year is the only thing that counts as "recent past" (which in today's society, is pretty much true), and I like the home and home scheduling a lot better than crossing your fingers and hoping the schedule works out in your favor.

Sorry about that. I had forgotten about the Horizon League.

[Irishdawg]

Butler did as well in the Horizon League, unless last year is the only thing that counts as "recent past" (which in today's society, is pretty much true), and I like the home and home scheduling a lot better than crossing your fingers and hoping the schedule works out in your favor.

Sorry about that. I had forgotten about the Horizon League.

No worries

[Bluejay]

I also would not put much stake in media reports in regards to realignment and well i'm not going to waste my time parsing an AD's twitter comments day one into a job.

Yeah, its much better to ignore her comments completely when she doesn't say what you wanted to hear.

I suspect that if instead she had said , "we are looking to go to 12 teams in the near future", you'd take a completely different position.

The fact of the matter is that the conference is pretty well behind right now and needs to get a lot of crap in order ASAP. To think that expansion is one of the first things that will be considered when there isn't even a league office or league staff is beyond wishful thinking; its delusional.

We'll be at 10 for at least two to 3 years guaranteed. After that, unless a SLU or Dayton or Richmond has a Final Four or a series of deep runs in the tourney during that period, I wouldn't be surprised if the powers that be just decide to stay at 10. Why dilute the money stream (and break up the double round robin) unless the potential additions can add to it from day 1?

Also, the idea that 12 teams is the ideal number is purely a football idea. Twelve teams is the minimum number that a conference can have and still have a football championship game, which can generate gobs of cash. That is where the "12" came from and the only reason that many conferences expanded to 12 in the first place. For basketball, 12 teams as opposed to 10 teams, does little (unless you can guarantee that those two additional teams are going to make the tourney yearly, which none of the expansion candidates can guarantee; in fact, it is entirely possible that none of the expansion teams will be dancing this coming season).

[BillEsq]

LOL Bluejay I agree with you 90%. But speaking of Parsing a comment you left out the back half of my quote.

I agree she said 10 and likely it will be 10 for a while. A while might be 1 day it might be 10 years. However, in the past 10 years of realignment I have heard ADs and Commissioners from just about every conference say one thing just to see the opposite happen. The fact is no commissioner is going to say the league will be expanding until the league expands. Heck the only reason we knew the C7 was going to add members is because they had to get to 8. But we did not know who was going to be added or how many until they made there official announcement.

Now you said and i quote "We'll be at 10 for at least two to 3 years guaranteed" . that is a brave statement. I would not guarantee anything in the volatile world of College Sports. In 2-3 years the BCS conferences might split from the NCAA drastically changing the landsccape. In 2-3 years the Big 5 conferences might be down to 4 16 team conferences. The ramifications of either of these possible situations will likely effect the BE. Not to mention the league may simply choose to expand for its own reasons. In the current environment of college realignment I wouldn't guarantee anything.

As far as ignoring a twitter comment posted by a news reporter of what someone might have said out of context on her first day. Yes, in this environment i'll choose to ignore that.

[BillikensWin]

About the only guarantee is that the Big East will tip off with 10 teams for the upcoming season.

[DudeAnon]

My question is, the TV contract and MSG contracts have already been signed. Why would we want to expand and add 2 (lesser) teams to share the pie with? Even if FOX demands that we expand to 12, they signed a contract and there really isn't anything they can do about it. Whether or not it makes basketball sense is up for debate. Financially, it is money lost for each of the existing ten schools. In my experience, money is more important than basketball.

[yorost]

There was $100 million extra for two teams, reportedly. If that's still there, and a report of unknown reliability from yesterday or today said it was, it doesn't dilute payouts. If Fox wants them to go to 12, I would guess they either already have it in the contract or they will have to add the necessary money to make it happen.

[BillikensWin]

There was $100 million extra for two teams, reportedly. If that's still there, and a report of unknown reliability from yesterday or today said it was, it doesn't dilute payouts. If Fox wants them to go to 12, they either already have it in the contract or they will have to add the necessary money to make it happen.

$500M for 10, or $600 for 12 (exact same payout per year) has been stated from the beginning. I guess the $1M question is Fox. How many do they want?

Expansion will happen IF the Big East and Fox decides they need more inventory.