Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

There have been a couple of expansion threads recently - the first in response to the Xavier AD's comments to expect expansion to 12 some time within the next 5 years and a second focused on who the candidates might be. I'd like to propose a more basic topic with regard to expansion:

Why?

What goals might the conference be trying to achieve through expansion? Before there can be any meaningful discussion of who, it's necessary to identify what the conference is trying to accomplish in the first place. That should give us some idea of whom they might look to as candidates.

Personally I see no reason to expand. In fact I see a lot of reasons not to expand. Ten seems like a perfect number. The conference is perfectly balanced between East Coast and Midwest. There is a core of teams with high level success in recent years that qualify the league as a power conference. There are great traditions and markets throughout the 10 members. The schedule of 18 games offers double round robin among all members.

To be honest, I haven't a clue as to what is to be gained by expanding to 12.

Help me out. Can anyone shed any light on this?

Unless it helps significantly, like a ND or Gonzaga, lets not.

Couldn't we also add that the more members we have, the more members we have to split revenues with (eg tourney credits)?

Like you, I would like to expand if and only if we get a powerhouse program in the process (eg ND, Zags, UCONN)

I think the thought is that a 10-team league, while great as an optimal number from the perspective of scheduling, east/west balance, etc., it may not be the optimal number from a television standpoint. The arguments that I hear in favor of expansion seem to revolve around Fox needing more teams in the conference to fill up air space. Or at least, give Fox more options for broadcasting.

However, I believe that the BigXII has an awesome TV rights deal and they have 10 teams.

TV rights/revenues is far from my area of expertise, so I won't say much more, but all arguments for expansion seem to center around 'it's necessary for television'

As a fan I agreed with this 100%.

Obviously there are reasons to expand (more teams making the NCAA=more credits, or more games to sell to the networks=better contract), which I would guess is why every conference talks expansion

I am against further expansion with respect to the available schools not playing FBS football. Ten is perfect in terms of scheduling, building rivalries, and measuring league teams against each other. When we expanded to ten, we took the three best schools out there. I think there is a drop off when you look at the next group of candidates which might be why we did not go to 12 from the start. Does St. Louis or VCU or Richmond really improve the league? The answer is no. At this point, we need to focus on quality rather than quantity. We have the quality at this point and we should let the conference settle in and let the teams bond a bit. You only do that with a smaller, competitive league. All the games are important for everyone. Creighton gets to come to New York every year and get NYC media coverage and St. John's gets to go to Omaha every year and get ingrained in the Blue Jay fan base. It creates rivalries and cohesiveness. Say no to 12.

ElDonBDon wrote:Couldn't we also add that the more members we have, the more members we have to split revenues with (eg tourney credits)?

Like you, I would like to expand if and only if we get a powerhouse program in the process (eg ND, Zags, UCONN)

I think the thought is that a 10-team league, while great as an optimal number from the perspective of scheduling, east/west balance, etc., it may not be the optimal number from a television standpoint. The arguments that I hear in favor of expansion seem to revolve around Fox needing more teams in the conference to fill up air space. Or at least, give Fox more options for broadcasting.

However, I believe that the BigXII has an awesome TV rights deal and they have 10 teams.

TV rights/revenues is far from my area of expertise, so I won't say much more, but all arguments for expansion seem to center around 'it's necessary for television'

Personally, I think we have 7 tournament caliber teams this year, potentially 8 next year (looking at you Hall). It sucks that one of them will have to finish in the bottom half of the league and not get in. Adding more teams potentially helps get those teams into the tourney. Revenue aside, that's more prestige for the league. The more schools get a better reputation, the better for those schools and the league as a whole.

That being said, I believe the revenue generated by NCAA bids is actually a really under-appreciated reason. Yes, if you add 2 teams and get 1 more bid it is easy math to say the proportion is the same, but look at it closer. Every team we get in is a greater potential for wins. The NCAA pays you per teams you get in and for wins in the tournament. Some years that team is going to be 1 and done, keeping it proportional to the league. Some years that team could go to the elite 8 and add 4 more credits to our NCAA money. It is the potential created that makes it attractive.

There is also the tv contract aspect. I'm also not an expert, but it appears that more teams will mean more revenue. Overhead is also lowered by adding teams. Take our current tv contract. $500 million for 12 years split among 10 teams (that's the number everyone is throwing around anyway). That comes to $4.17 million/team/year. Lets say our overhead for the league office is 5 million a year. That cuts our revenue per team to $3.67 M/team/year. Add 2 more teams and we get to keep $3.75 M/team/year. It's not a huge difference on paper, but maybe that extra $80,000 is an important faculty member's salary, maybe it's the budget for some new gym equipment, maybe you just save it for a rainy day. To a president working a budget, that can be very important.

Several posters have mentioned that more members = more teams getting into then NCAA tournament. I don't see how that works. It would only be the case if the new teams add quality. Who's out there with a consistent record of getting to the tournament? The pickings are slim.

If anything, adding teams of lesser quality can potentially reduce the number of teams getting to the tournament because the new additions would lower conference RPI.

I agree with the sentiment that the Be should only expand if they can find a blockbuster addition. Short of that, I don't see how expansion makes this a better conference in any way.

I'm also a big fan of 10 only. And a big fan of the home and home scheduling. And I don't like divisions.

Like it was said above, any additions would have to be a "home run"/ blockbuster add. I think 10 has also helped in recruiting.

I'm told that the contract with Fox calls for 12 teams eventually.

Muskie wrote:I'm told that the contract with Fox calls for 12 teams eventually.

If that's the case, then the question becomes:

What does Fox want to achieve by doing that?

Do they just want a number? Or is there something more than the number that goes along with getting to 12. I suspect if it were just the number, then we'd already be there. If there's more to it, then that would explain why they stopped at 10 and ate waiting to find teams that would Meet Fox's criteria in getting to 12.