Why expand?

[BigEast1]

I'm with many of you here who would rather not expand. Lets not forget that we also don't have a track record yet with the Selection Committee with our new league. Lets think about the worst case scenario...we lose some key non conference game, we then bump each other on the head in conference play and we end up with 3 or 4 bids, and that becomes a pattern. Do we want to add teams so that 3 or 4 teams are being sent to the NCAA out of 12 teams? I know that this scenario is unlikely, especially this year, but there is no guarantee that we are going to win all of the games against teams like Syracuse, Michigan St, Wisconsin, & Kentucky. Gonzaga is different but makes zero sense from a travel perspective..

[DumpsterFireA10]

I more or less agree with the premise to not expand because I don't think it's happening.

There's no financial incentive to add schools.

[ccaibew1225]

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Answer: probably just more markets.

[TheHall]

...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....

Even though I agree with you about the perfection bball-wise of our conference with the 10 team schedule, geographical balance, etc but here are 2 practical reasons to go to 12 that come to mind:

1. This chart:



I'm using this chart to represent the biggest threat to the BE maintaining it's success going forward, which is the dreaded mid-major status. Which chart will wind up describing the performance/perception balance of our conference over the next 2-3 years?

Type 1- Positive skew (literally) = The BE is led by 1-3 top 15 teams (ex: SHU, Gtown, Marq?), 3-5 top 16-50 teams, 0-2 top 50+ teams. This is the B1G high-major model. This is the ACC model too except they really fall off after the first 2-3 teams historically. But they can get away with it because those 2 teams are cbb royalty.

Type 2- Normal (probably BE current status) = The BE led by 1-2 top 10-25 teams, 4-7 top 26-100 teams, 1-2 top 100+ team. This is the B12, WCC & Mountain West (maybe) model. If in the first 2-3 years the BE shows itself to be a solid conference but evenly balanced our brand will be hard to market as high major. No elite conference has this type of "performance distribution" historically.

Type 3- Negative (train wreck) = The BE is led by 0-2 ranked teams, 4-6 top 26-100 teams, 2-3 top 100+ teams. This is A-10, Pac12 all-day. Unfortunately with the departure of Brad Stevens, as is, this scenario has increased in likelihood.

If in the first 2-3 years the BE shows itself to be a type a conference then expansion from a bball perspective is not as vital. However if the BE shows itself to be strong but evenly balanced (type b) our brand will be hard to market as elite. At that point conference expansion is the only quick way to change our graph. That's where the choice of 11 & 12 gets tricky because I doubt there are any non-fb schools except Gonzaga that could change the BE from a type 2 to a type 1 perception. Also the BE must not only perform as a type 1 or at least type 2 (I refuse to consider type 3) conference but we must also recruit similarly as far as recruiting rankings over time.

But no matter the conference the performance the drive to 12 will happen because of the next reason.

2. FOX SPORTS wants/needs more quality programing over the next few years period.

[OutlawWales]

I like the idea of a 10 team conference, particularly if the 10 teams can maintain high performance in non-conference play and then in postseason play.

As a Creighton fan, I will freely admit that there is a bit of a paranoid voice in the back of my head that says that national pundits, and especially ESPN (with the added conflict with FS1, etc.) is just waiting to see the teams in this conference falter a bit before starting to refer to the Big East as more of a midmajor conference than a major conference. I'm sure that sounds preposterous to fans of Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette. But Creighton has been in the Valley and fighting to be recognized as anything other than a midmajor team for so long, that it's very to believe that people will take that approach. Additionally, the "local" media in Nebraska would jump at the chance to do that because they salivate about a chance to push Creighton down to the same level as the state college down the road. Without Syracuse, UConn, Louisville in the "Big East" and "politics" being what they are, that's a fear that I think is shared by at least some other Creighton fans (and maybe X and Butler fans, too).

I have nothing against teams like SLU, VCU, Richmond, etc. -- but if the conference pushes to expand too quickly, starts adding more teams that are from perceived "mid major" conferences, and then falters, it seems to me that there is potentially a hightened risk of that happening. With the 10 teams that we currently have, there is enough history and enough of the "old" Big East to buy a little time for acceptance of Creighton, X, Butler as not being mid-major teams anymore. Then look at expansion, if it makes sense.

I also freely admit that there may be little actual risk of that happening -- but that's why it's paranoia, eh?

[Bill Marsh]

...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....

Even though I agree with you about the perfection bball-wise of our conference with the 10 team schedule, geographical balance, etc but here are 2 practical reasons to go to 12 that come to mind:

1. This chart:



I'm using this chart to represent the biggest threat to the BE maintaining it's success going forward, which is the dreaded mid-major status. Which chart will wind up describing the performance/perception balance of our conference over the next 2-3 years?

Type 1- Positive skew (literally) = The BE is led by 1-3 top 15 teams (ex: SHU, Gtown, Marq?), 3-5 top 16-50 teams, 0-2 top 50+ teams. This is the B1G high-major model. This is the ACC model too except they really fall off after the first 2-3 teams historically. But they can get away with it because those 2 teams are cbb royalty.

Type 2- Normal (probably BE current status) = The BE led by 1-2 top 10-25 teams, 4-7 top 26-100 teams, 1-2 top 100+ team. This is the B12, WCC & Mountain West (maybe) model. If in the first 2-3 years the BE shows itself to be a solid conference but evenly balanced our brand will be hard to market as high major. No elite conference has this type of "performance distribution" historically.

Type 3- Negative (train wreck) = The BE is led by 0-2 ranked teams, 4-6 top 26-100 teams, 2-3 top 100+ teams. This is A-10, Pac12 all-day. Unfortunately with the departure of Brad Stevens, as is, this scenario has increased in likelihood.

If in the first 2-3 years the BE shows itself to be a type a conference then expansion from a bball perspective is not as vital. However if the BE shows itself to be strong but evenly balanced (type b) our brand will be hard to market as elite. At that point conference expansion is the only quick way to change our graph. That's where the choice of 11 & 12 gets tricky because I doubt there are any non-fb schools except Gonzaga that could change the BE from a type 2 to a type 1 perception. Also the BE must not only perform as a type 1 or at least type 2 (I refuse to consider type 3) conference but we must also recruit similarly as far as recruiting rankings over time.

But no matter the conference the performance the drive to 12 will happen because of the next reason.

2. FOX SPORTS wants/needs more quality programing over the next few years period.

Nice break down. I'm a stats guy myself with multiple Statistics courses on the graduate level, so I appreciate the information you're presenting. Let's take a look at it.

1. I believe that the Big East is easily a Type A conference in its formation with 4 programs that have been to the Final Four in the past 11 years (5 appearances) and a fifth with 2 Elite 8's. so, the question is whether they can maintain that going forward. What the graph brilliantly illustrates is that they will only maintain that in an expanded conference if the new additions fall to the right of the mean. Anything else will only be a drag on quality even if the top programs maintain their position because the mean and median will both move to the left. Quality additions are required.

2. The key word in your final sentence is "QUALITY". Simply adding more members will not result in quality programming. The additions must be high quality or the ratings will decline and Fox will eventually begin to look elsewhere, ultimately resulting in a non-renewal or a drastically reduced contract in the next negotiations.

The problem is in finding suitable additions with enough history to demonstrate that they can compete at this level and that they can make the conference better. I don't think that it makes sense to take a flyer on a program without that track record. And I don't think that Fox wants to invest another $100 million dollars in new additions that just represent a wing and a prayer.

[Bill Marsh]

I like the idea of a 10 team conference, particularly if the 10 teams can maintain high performance in non-conference play and then in postseason play.

As a Creighton fan, I will freely admit that there is a bit of a paranoid voice in the back of my head that says that national pundits, and especially ESPN (with the added conflict with FS1, etc.) is just waiting to see the teams in this conference falter a bit before starting to refer to the Big East as more of a midmajor conference than a major conference. I'm sure that sounds preposterous to fans of Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette. But Creighton has been in the Valley and fighting to be recognized as anything other than a midmajor team for so long, that it's very to believe that people will take that approach. Additionally, the "local" media in Nebraska would jump at the chance to do that because they salivate about a chance to push Creighton down to the same level as the state college down the road. Without Syracuse, UConn, Louisville in the "Big East" and "politics" being what they are, that's a fear that I think is shared by at least some other Creighton fans (and maybe X and Butler fans, too).

I have nothing against teams like SLU, VCU, Richmond, etc. -- but if the conference pushes to expand too quickly, starts adding more teams that are from perceived "mid major" conferences, and then falters, it seems to me that there is potentially a hightened risk of that happening. With the 10 teams that we currently have, there is enough history and enough of the "old" Big East to buy a little time for acceptance of Creighton, X, Butler as not being mid-major teams anymore. Then look at expansion, if it makes sense.

I also freely admit that there may be little actual risk of that happening -- but that's why it's paranoia, eh?

Completely agree with everything you said.

What burns me most is the way that those who look at college sports through a football lens define everything in terms of football. To the extent that ESPN may have an agenda against the Big East it will be compounded by all of those with a football agenda who think that football is the only thing that defines an athletic program as big time.

Post 1990, most of the NCs in basketball have come from schools with football - UConn being the only exception - just reinforcing that claim. No matter that Duke is about as much of a football school as Johns Hopkins. Since they field san ACC football program, they fit the agenda.

However, these past 2 decades or so are an aberration in the history of college basketball. Before that, football and basketball exellence were seen as incompatible a=on the same campus. In fact very few schools have won NCs in both sports. Programs perceived as college basketball blue bloods have in fact never won a NC in football with the exception of UCLA's shared title in 1954 - Kentucky, Indiana, North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, Louisville, UConn. They are all basketball-first schools. In every decade before the 1990's, basketball championships were won be schools whose involvement in football was either non-existent or non-major.

The Big East is hopefully testing the proposition that non-football schools can continue to compete and win for championships. We'll have to see if in fact they can achieve that.

[Bill Marsh]

Bingo, you hit the nail on the head. Answer: probably just more markets.

The Big East better provide Fox with a product that it can sell in those markets.

[TheHall]

Bill Marsh...Nixe break down. I'm a stats guy myself with multiple Statistics courses on the graduate level, so I appreciate the information you're presenting. Let's take a look at it.

1. I believe that the Big East is easily a Type A conference in its formation with 4 programs that have been to the Final Four in the past 11 years (5 appearances) and a fifth with 2 Elite 8's. so, the question is whether they can maintain that going forward. What the graph brilliantly illustrates is that they will only maintain that in an expanded conference if the new additions fall to the right of the mean. Anything else will only be a drag on quality even if the top programs maintain their position because the mean and median will both move to the left. Quality additions are required.

2. The key word in your final sentence is "QUALITY". Simply adding more members will not result in quality programming. The additions must be high quality or the ratings will decline and Fox will eventually begin to look elsewhere, ultimately resulting in a non-renewal or a drastically reduced contract in the next negotiations.

The problem is in finding suitable additions with enough history to demonstrate that they can compete at this level and that they can make the conference better. I don't think that it makes sense to take a flyer on a program without that track record. And I don't think that Fox wants to invest another $100 million dollars in new additions that just represent a wing and a prayer.

Thanks for the compliment on the chart Bill and I agree the BE will be judged going forward not looking backwards like you mentioned. The grading you were referring to earlier is IMO what gave legitimacy for creating the 10 team league in the first place. But as far as whether we are elite or not is tbd. Why, because:

1. No one knows if Creighton or Butler can recruit at the BE level yet...Let's hope they can.
2. No one knows if SJU or SHU or maybe prov can "hold down" NYC & MSG like the BE did with cuse, pitt & uconn in the league.
3. No ESPiN - The Big East was born & grew up w/ESPiN.
4. FOX SPORTS1 is unproven...
5. Speculation on how many NCAA bids we will average yearly.
6. What will Butler's program become without Stevens.
7. etc.

I only point this out to say even though I agree we're already a type 1 conference now...IMO it's only borderline. If a few things on that list don't pan out well we could easily be caught in the "parody trap."

About the graph. I used it to compare the relative strength amongst conference mates, not an actual mean or median necessarily. So even though right now we have 5-7- tourny teams it could still be represented best by the Type 2 model. That's why I included national ranking examples. The short hand version of type 1 is having 1-2 teams with F4 ambitions most years, not even the same teams necessarily. We "could" be there but it's close. Also adding a team for my purposes would just put a bump in the chart (visual aid really) not change the mean...ie. Dayton (lo mid-major) & Richmond (low mid-major) would likely effect the slope of the back end of our type 2 chart making look more like type 3. While adding Uconn (high-major) & Gonzaga (high major) would shift the percentage of high majors in the BE.

BTW I'm an IE by trade so I speak "statistics" too

[walijones]

Bill Marsh....agree with your post but need to point out a common mistake: To paraphrase, you said "In fact, very few colleges have won national championships in both football and basketball". In fact, only one college has won an NCAA championship in both football and basketball....Villanova.