Xavier AD says expanding to 12 schools within 5 years

[Bill Marsh]

10 of twelve schools with no football permits the Big East to add 2 schools with football. If you pass on UCONN or Memphis etc. because they have football, that is ridiculous. Every rule has an exception. Butler and Catholic only, Omaha and not being out in BUFU.

Remember that the original Big East had only 2 football schools and 6 non-football schools. Even letting in 2 proved to be a slippery slope. Each concession to them only led to requests/demands for more concessions. Nothing was ever enough.

Actually 3 of the first 8

I think you're being cute. I'm counting Villanova as one of the original 8 even though they didn't begin competition until 1980-81, the 2nd year of the league. (They needed to give the Eastern 8 a year's notice before they could join the Big East.) 1980-81 was Villanova's last year of football before they disbanded the program in the spring of 1981.

So, technically you're correct. But for all practical purposes,it was only 2 schools that were committed to IA football from the start.

[billyjack]

So Susan openly stated her intentions. Meanwhile, the leaders of Cuse, Pitt, and WVU talked about solidarity while behind the scenes they conspired and stabbed each other in the back.

Yeah, that Susan is a real witch.

No, they're all football crack heads. I had a rant about Oliver Luck recently too.

Herbst and others (not Bill M) have been portraying the C-7 as a group that for no reason abandoned UConn and Cincinnati... whereas in reality, the stuff that went down last November was that UConn and Cincy repeated tried to leave us first. Repeatedly.

I agree that UConn was screwed royally by the football schools. They spent tons to upgrade their football program, then everyone bailed on them.

[Burrito]

Not to change the subject from football, but I have been assuming St. Louis would be the logical # 11 for the league. But looking at the program's recruiting pipeline, it's pretty bare. If in 3 years they are finishing in the middle of the A-10, do we still add them? Maybe not.

[TheHall]

No one in their right mind can deny that fb schools behaved liked addicts trying to flee to a P5 conference & I hated that crap...but that's ancient news now. None of that is relevant to ensuring this BE/Fox venture is successful and being labeled a mid-major may be the biggest threat to that. I think people dont realize that when this deal went down Butler w/Stevens was a damn big part of the marketing plan...oops! Butler was an unquestioned #8/9...would they have been if Stevens got the celts job earlier? My point isn't to say Butler won't still become a crown jewel for the BE, just saying to all those advocating for the A-10 teams, how many question mark teams can this league afford to have at one time?

Those living in the past need to see how the B12 (Texas sweetheart deal), Mountain West (BSU sweetheart deal), the AAC (buying off Uconn,USF & Cincy) & even the ACC (ND sweetheart deal) had to hold there nose to ensure a decent amount of stability. Is the BE above doing the same?

[Bill Marsh]

So Susan openly stated her intentions. Meanwhile, the leaders of Cuse, Pitt, and WVU talked about solidarity while behind the scenes they conspired and stabbed each other in the back.

Yeah, that Susan is a real witch.

No, they're all football crack heads. I had a rant about Oliver Luck recently too.

Herbst and others (not Bill M) have been portraying the C-7 as a group that for no reason abandoned UConn and Cincinnati... whereas in reality, the stuff that went down last November was that UConn and Cincy repeated tried to leave us first. Repeatedly.

Right on the money, Billy and your earlier rant was priceless!

[marquette]

Not to change the subject from football, but I have been assuming St. Louis would be the logical # 11 for the league. But looking at the program's recruiting pipeline, it's pretty bare. If in 3 years they are finishing in the middle of the A-10, do we still add them? Maybe not.

I think part of the recruiting issue is that SLU waited so long to take the "interim" tag off Jim Crews, part of it is that they haven't proven to recruits that they can sustain success, and part is that they are in the A10. If you look around that league their recruiting is pretty par for the course. I think that, even with a stumble in the next couple of years, the presidents will still want SLU.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENTS THOUGHTS WILL BE ON THE ISSUE: SLU hasn't really proven much with their recent NCAA success, the presidents have just used that as an excuse to put them in the conversation. I think the presidents want SLU, and will do whatever verbal acrobatics are necessary to add them when expansion happens. Why? Because they are Catholic, because they are Jesuit (in the case of Marquette, Creighton, Xavier, and to a lesser extent Georgetown this is important), because the are a top 100 national program (93 ranking makes them the third highest ranked in the league), because they have a massive endowment (just over $900 million would be 2nd in the league), because they are in a massive market (St. Louis would fall right in the middle of the league), because they are a geographical fit, because they are devoted to other important sports (soccer is the unquestionable #2 sport of this conference and is revenue neutral, revenue producing at some schools), and because they have the potential ability to compete based off of resources alone.

[Bill Marsh]

Not to change the subject from football, but I have been assuming St. Louis would be the logical # 11 for the league. But looking at the program's recruiting pipeline, it's pretty bare. If in 3 years they are finishing in the middle of the A-10, do we still add them? Maybe not.

Most people have been treating St. Louis as the logical. #11. They are a good institutional fit, they have consistently good attendance, and they're coming off back to back tournament appearances with a win in each tournament. Not to mention that they were A10 champs last year. Perfect choice, right?

I've become disenamored of St. Louis. They have not really demonstrated that they can sustain a good thing. Before 2011-12, they hadn't been to the tournament since 2000. Maybe they will sustain it this time, but I've got to see more from them before I'm convinced that they can compete at this level. There is nothing in their history that says they are a good investment.

Although I could live with St. Louis (There are worse choices), they are not where a league wants to go at this time if their goal is to compete at the highest level and to be the non-football alternative to the P5. I've become increasingly convinced that the Big East MUST find a way to make a Gonzaga membership work if they are going to expand. (I'm fine with ten.) BYU Seems to me to be the best way to make it work, but VCU would also be a good choice of a high quality program. Beyond those schools, the pickings get pretty slim.

[Bill Marsh]

No one in their right mind can deny that fb schools behaved liked addicts trying to flee to a P5 conference & I hated that crap...but that's ancient news now. None of that is relevant to ensuring this BE/Fox venture is successful and being labeled a mid-major may be the biggest threat to that. I think people dont realize that when this deal went down Butler w/Stevens was a damn big part of the marketing plan...oops! Butler was an unquestioned #8/9...would they have been if Stevens got the celts job earlier? My point isn't to say Butler won't still become a crown jewel for the BE, just saying to all those advocating for the A-10 teams, how many question mark teams can this league afford to have at one time?

Those living in the past need to see how the B12 (Texas sweetheart deal), Mountain West (BSU sweetheart deal), the AAC (buying off Uconn,USF & Cincy) & even the ACC (ND sweetheart deal) had to hold there nose to ensure a decent amount of stability. Is the BE above doing the same?

I agree with your general line of thinking - especially with your point that the biggest threat to the Big East is the possibility of becoming a mid major like the A10. They MUST make it a priority to only bring in programs that have demonstrated that they can compete at the highest level. The 3 available programs who have demonstrated that are Gonzaga, BYU, and VCU. Take your pick.

IMO, a program is bigger than a coach. Butler is a "program", not just the creation of Stevens. He simply built on the foundation that the coaches before him had established. They were a good program before he got there and they will continue to be a good program now that he's gone. For that reason I have no concerns about them and continue to believe that they are a great addition even with his departure.

There is no Ned for the Big East to buy off anyone. They have good choices available without that.

[GumbyDamnit!]

What will happen to all of those schools at the kid table when the Power 5 FB conferences eventually settle in? How much longer will state funded schools be able to get away with FB programs that lose millions of dollars each year--at the expense of the state taxpayer subsidies (see: Temple, Uconn as relevant examples). I can speak for my home state of PA where the governor is cutting mllions from the state budget for education. And yet Temple U., a school that relies on state funds to keep its doors open, is losing millions upon millions each year so their FB program can aspire to be big time. So in their attempts to make the Chico's Bail Bonds Dadelion Bowl--which ends up costing the school more money to send their teams to than they actually make--they keep throwing money down the drain. At what point is enough, enough and the state starts questioning, and Temple has to cut back on their program or abandon it altogether?

Which brings me to my point... a lot of discussion here about making sure to keep the FB schools at bay and jump at the SLU's and Richmond's of the hoops world. Why not stay at 10 for a few more years, and just see how much more the dust settles. Maybe schools like Uconn or Umass or Memphis or VCU just scrap their FB altogether or relegate it the FCS, and they become realistic targets. Or maybe someone in the West emerges along with Gonzaga that makes expansion out there more attractive.

If we go west how about this:

NorthEast:
Nova
Prov
SJU
SHU

Central:
Gtown
Butler
Xavier
Depaul

West:
Creighton
Gonzaga
Marq
SLU/BYU/UNLV/St. Mary's/San Fran

Play each team in your division 2x and everyone else once. Maybe the 1st place finishers of each div play each other 2x (& 2nd vs 2nd; 3rd vs 3rd, etc.)for a total of 16 games.

[Bill Marsh]

Not to change the subject from football, but I have been assuming St. Louis would be the logical # 11 for the league. But looking at the program's recruiting pipeline, it's pretty bare. If in 3 years they are finishing in the middle of the A-10, do we still add them? Maybe not.

I think part of the recruiting issue is that SLU waited so long to take the "interim" tag off Jim Crews, part of it is that they haven't proven to recruits that they can sustain success, and part is that they are in the A10. If you look around that league their recruiting is pretty par for the course. I think that, even with a stumble in the next couple of years, the presidents will still want SLU.

THE FOLLOWING IS AN OPINION OF WHAT THE PRESIDENTS THOUGHTS WILL BE ON THE ISSUE: SLU hasn't really proven much with their recent NCAA success, the presidents have just used that as an excuse to put them in the conversation. I think the presidents want SLU, and will do whatever verbal acrobatics are necessary to add them when expansion happens. Why? Because they are Catholic, because they are Jesuit (in the case of Marquette, Creighton, Xavier, and to a lesser extent Georgetown this is important), because the are a top 100 national program (93 ranking makes them the third highest ranked in the league), because they have a massive endowment (just over $900 million would be 2nd in the league), because they are in a massive market (St. Louis would fall right in the middle of the league), because they are a geographical fit, because they are devoted to other important sports (soccer is the unquestionable #2 sport of this conference and is revenue neutral, revenue producing at some schools), and because they have the potential ability to compete based off of resources alone.

That's all well and good, but if the presidents want to keep cashing their checks from Fox, they Bette give them a product that Fox can sell. The presidents are not simply free agents. Fox is their partner and will have a lot to say about whether there will be expansion and which new members will be acceptable and which ones will not.

If I were Fox's basketball expert, I would tell them that St. Louis has simply not established the kind of track record to convince me that they can be successful at this level. Their upgrade under Majerus and Crews is promising, so things could look different 5 years from now. My fear is that the program is where it is because the administration doesn't make good choice. When Cincinnati dismissed Bobby Huggins, they had And Kennedy, a promising young coach as the interim. Kennedy did a good job, but Cincy wanted the best and named Mick Cronin as the permanent Head Coach, charged with rebuilding the program. If St.Louis wants to compete at the highest level, they should have done the same and replaced Crews. If I were a St. Louis fan, knowing what's at stake, I'dbe worried about what the next few years will bring.