Which Schools Should Be Added to the Big East?

[ChicagoX]

Since expansion to 12 schools appears likely at some point, which programs do you believe should be added to the Big East?

[GoMuskies]

None

[MHettel]

No public schools. Period.

Richmond, SLU, Dayton and Zags. But you cant add the Zags without some other schools helping you build the way west. Right now, few teams measure up to the criteria, so the Zags, while as worthy as ANY team in the conference, are left out....

[xu95]

I voted that it should stay at 10, but I think realistically it will be St. Louis and Richmond.

[coasterville95]

I could live with either stayig pat at 10, or the SLU/Richmond combo.

The Shockers don't even have Go advocating for them! I'm Shocked!

Actually the SLU/Rich combo (or any combo not including "That Other School" might be better than staying pat, if only becuase that could slam the door on "that other school's" fans saying "Just wait till the expansion, I'm sure ti will happen next year"

Or, we could stay pat at 10 - ahve the double round robin schedule the coaches and fans LOVE, and sit back and laugh as in 2023 "that other school's" fans are still saying "Just wait till the expansion, I'm sure ti will happen next year"


They might even be saying that in the year 2525...

[xudash]

I think I'm coming down the way reflected here already and what probably will be reflected as this thread grows:

Somewhere between none and SLU/UR, should expansion be NECESSARY (content, bids, etc.).

[xubrew]

Stay at ten.

If the league goes out to twelve it will be for more TV money. Which means, the networks will say "we'll offer you X amount more if you add these two teams." So, if the league does expand, I don't think there is going to be a whole lot to debate.

So, in looking at that list....

SLU already has a deal with Fox Sports Midwest. Fox won't look to add them because all it really does is move the furniture around the house. It adds no new furniture.

Wichita is in the MVC, and FSN Midwest has a deal with them as well.

Gonzaga has a deal with Root Sports, which is really Fox Sports Net. They just changed the neame of the network in the Northwest.

That leaves Richmond, VCU and Dayton. I can't imagine that VCU would not top the network's list of teams they'd want to add.

[MADXSTER]

I went with SLU and Wichita St. IMO Wichita St and Creighton are very under valued programs that just do not have the national coverage that they should. A better league will do wonders. Very similar to circumstances as Xavier.

[coasterville95]

But moving SLU, Wichita, etc under the Big East umbrella contract may REDUCE the cost of that furniture for Fox Sports. We've sold enough games to Fox Sports that the same could be said for us, even if the A-10's primary deal was CBS (and what a deal that turned out to be)

I'm still thinking they add Richmond to keep Goegretown happy - it might even be part of the Jesuit Mafia pact - Goegretown voted for Creighton in return for getting Richmond in Phase 2. It would be nice for the Jesuit Mafia to keep it up and take SLU as well. (If only to slam the door on a certain Marianist school)

We have a Jesuit Pope - we can get this done!

[HuskyMuskie]

As much as I don't want Dayton in--I think it happens. For one reason or another, lots of signs seem to point to it. Dayton and SLU would be my guess, but if we have to go to 12, and can keep Dayton out, I think Richmond would be my choice.

That being said, it is interesting that G-Town did vote for Creighton? Maybe, just maybe in Phase II, they will get their backs scratched with another east coast team, a la Richmond.

[coasterville95]

I'm not too sure of that - but it sounded like there was a vote taken on new members - remember Fr. Graham's line about Blue Smoke rising and we were accepted.

SO G'Town gets Richmond as a return for favors rendered to Marquette re: Creighton
SLU gets added so Creighton has somebody at least kind of close in league. (And I recall they just might be Jesuit)
(Shockers could also fit that bill quite nicely - sorry El Shaqtus)

[LadyMuskie]

I think it should stay at 10. If it must grow to 12, I hope it is not Dayton that is added for obvious reasons - which is mostly that its fans are delusional.

[UCGRAD4X]

I think it should stay at 10. If it must grow to 12, I hope it is not Dayton that is added for obvious reasons - which is mostly that its fans are delusional.

I second that emotion!

[GoMuskies]

Wichita State? Are you people nuts? I mean, I'd love to have a Xavier home game every year, but no. Just no.

[paulxu]

Are you people nuts?

That's a trick question, right? Right?

[GoMuskies]

I suppose that it is.

[muskiefan82]

12 is a football number designed solely to allow for a conference championship game. It is not basketball oriented and, therefore, should be banned as an acceptable number of teams for a basketball-centric conference.

[D-West & PO-Z]

As much as I don't want Dayton in--I think it happens. For one reason or another, lots of signs seem to point to it. Dayton and SLU would be my guess, but if we have to go to 12, and can keep Dayton out, I think Richmond would be my choice.

That being said, it is interesting that G-Town did vote for Creighton? Maybe, just maybe in Phase II, they will get their backs scratched with another east coast team, a la Richmond.

The funny thing about my back is its located on my cock!

[xfan'17]

Just as long as udump isn't in

[paulxu]

It's interesting to me that some people would want Dayton added.
If you throw out personal feelings about that school, and consider that if you were interested in continuing to play them we can always schedule them as an OOC game, I can't think of a reason you would want them in the same conference.

Conversely there is a good reason to not be in the same conference...recruiting. Although recruiting is truly nationwide these days, why not have a natural conference separation for the state of Ohio. OSU is already in place, Butler and Indiana right across the border...why would you want to create a conference peer right up I-75?

[UCGRAD4X]

Wichita State? Are you people nuts? I mean, I'd love to have a Xavier home game every year, but no. Just no.

WSU wouldn't be on top of my list either - but I wouldn't completely eliminate them. I'm wondering about your adamant response, especially after your long-time support for them here and their recent success. Interesting...for some reason. Maybe it is the 'nuts' thing after all.

[GoMuskies]

I support Wichita State because I live here. And their recent success is just that...recent. Would anyone have considered WSU a good candidate for the Big East three weeks ago? Because a 9 seed got hot for a few games we want to permanently add them as a conference member?

Prior to last year, WSU had been in the NCAA Tournament I think 1 time in 15-20 years. They spent a long time out in the wilderness playing the role of LaSalle in the MVC. Mark Turgeon did a good job getting the program back on its feet, and Gregg Marshall was a homerun hire, but Gregg Marshall will probably leave in the next five years. That's what coaches do. And there's no reason to think Wichita State will automatically be able to hire a capable replacement.

Most importantly, though, Wichita is in the middle of nowhere. It's fine if you live here, but if you're trying to get in here and then get out of here it pretty much sucks. It's not particularly close to Omaha, and it's a three day forced march from every other school in the league (to be fair, there's a direct flight from Chicago, so DePaul wouldn't have trouble getting here). Plus, the university itself has basically nothing in common with any of the other schools (other than not having football so that the bulk of its attention is on basketball...but baseball is a big deal here too). Wichita has a large Catholic community, so I guess it has that going for it in terms of fit with the other cities/schools.

I just don't see it.

[xubrew]

12 is a football number designed solely to allow for a conference championship game. It is not basketball oriented and, therefore, should be banned as an acceptable number of teams for a basketball-centric conference.

This

[xubrew]

It's interesting to me that some people would want Dayton added.
If you throw out personal feelings about that school, and consider that if you were interested in continuing to play them we can always schedule them as an OOC game, I can't think of a reason you would want them in the same conference.

Conversely there is a good reason to not be in the same conference...recruiting. Although recruiting is truly nationwide these days, why not have a natural conference separation for the state of Ohio. OSU is already in place, Butler and Indiana right across the border...why would you want to create a conference peer right up I-75?

I think Fox would favor Dayton simply because they currently do not have any sort of deal with them, and they'll score decent ratings on the lower tier TV games, which will likely be on FSN Ohio.

I don't particularly think of Dayton as being a huge plus, but I don't think they're a detriment either. We've been in the same conference, and recruiting has not been an issue. I can't think of an example of where a program's recruiting was effected all that much because they were in the same conference with another team that was close by. I can't think of any. There are more examples of conference rivals elevating the recruiting at both programs than there are of one program suffocating the other. Richmond and VCU probably raised both of their profiles.

At the same time, not being in the same conference as another team, or not playing another team, doesn't really do anything either. Butler not being in the Big Ten, and not playing Purdue, IU or Notre Dame didn't do a thing to slow down their excelleration. Washington dropped Gonzaga from the schedule because they didn't feel that it was in their best interest to compete with them, and has never been as good as they were when they used to play them.

At the end of the day, I don't think having Dayton in the conference does anything to help Xavier. I don't think having Dayton in the conference does anything to hurt Xavier. I don't think leaving them out helps or hurts either. I just don't think it matters. Busses are cheaper than planes, and that's nice for your non-revenue sports, but other than that it makes no difference. I know people want them out because it's fun to rub it in their faces, but they're neither an asset nor a threat.

[xubrew]

I support Wichita State because I live here. And their recent success is just that...recent. Would anyone have considered WSU a good candidate for the Big East three weeks ago? Because a 9 seed got hot for a few games we want to permanently add them as a conference member?

Prior to last year, WSU had been in the NCAA Tournament I think 1 time in 15-20 years. They spent a long time out in the wilderness playing the role of LaSalle in the MVC. Mark Turgeon did a good job getting the program back on its feet, and Gregg Marshall was a homerun hire, but Gregg Marshall will probably leave in the next five years. That's what coaches do. And there's no reason to think Wichita State will automatically be able to hire a capable replacement.

Most importantly, though, Wichita is in the middle of nowhere. It's fine if you live here, but if you're trying to get in here and then get out of here it pretty much sucks. It's not particularly close to Omaha, and it's a three day forced march from every other school in the league (to be fair, there's a direct flight from Chicago, so DePaul wouldn't have trouble getting here). Plus, the university itself has basically nothing in common with any of the other schools (other than not having football so that the bulk of its attention is on basketball...but baseball is a big deal here too). Wichita has a large Catholic community, so I guess it has that going for it in terms of fit with the other cities/schools.

I just don't see it.

I think SLU has been overvalued based on what they've done over the past two years as well. I would describe them in very much the same way as you described Wichita State. Wichita State had a better team last year, and although SLU appeared to be better this year, what Wichita did in the tournament was slightly more memorable.

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in Jim Crews. Saint Louis doesn't have a long history of success. In fact, prior to Majerus, they were perhaps one of the worst teams that wasn't considered to be a "low major." I don't see a whole lot that indicates to me that they'll be able to sustain what they've done over the past two years. I think they have potential, but I don't think they're necessarily proven.

[MHettel]

I think SLU has been overvalued based on what they've done over the past two years as well. I would describe them in very much the same way as you described Wichita State. Wichita State had a better team last year, and although SLU appeared to be better this year, what Wichita did in the tournament was slightly more memorable.

I don't have a whole lot of confidence in Jim Crews. Saint Louis doesn't have a long history of success. In fact, prior to Majerus, they were perhaps one of the worst teams that wasn't considered to be a "low major." I don't see a whole lot that indicates to me that they'll be able to sustain what they've done over the past two years. I think they have potential, but I don't think they're necessarily proven.

I disagree on SLU. From the mid 1980's, SLU has had on and off success. They had some decent finishes in the CUSA, and while their start in the A-10 was fairly mediocre, I think they have performed in the upper 1/4 of the A-10 over the last 4-5 years.

SLU has a facility that rivals Cintas. It's almost brand new, and while I dont know the exact size, it's probably one of the nicer arenas out there.

St. Louis is kind of a wierd town. I grew up there. 100% of the people are Baseball / Cardinals fans. Hockey is popular in pockets. NFL football is also popular, but not to the extent that some cities embrace it. College football is kind of underwhelming in St. Louis. College Basketball is also just casually embraced by the city in general, with most people following Mizzou, although maybe only 20% of college graudates actually attended Mizzou. NBA basketball isn't on the radar in stl. A strong, competitive SLU Basketball team could tap into an underserved market and pick up alot of college fans that follow Mizzou. Lots of televisions in St. Louis, many of which are disproportionally NOT currently watching college basketball.

And Jim Crews is not an issue. Thats very short term thinking. If they move to the BE, then either Crews is successful and teh issue resolves itself, or he's unsuccessfull and teh issue resolves itself. It will be interesting to see the stature of the BE as it pertains to coaches. Will coaches at current "big conference" jobs consider it an upgrade to take a position at a BE school, or will it be the other way around????

[xudash]

You can shut this thread down for now:

http://ncronline.org/news/people/depaul-president-all-catholic-conference-never-part-plan

The addition of Butler, a private but nonreligious school, helped cool off any dreams of a faith-based league. Should the league expand further -- an option not currently on the table -- Holtschneider said the league wouldn't limit the search to Catholic schools exclusively, such as the much-rumored Saint Louis University and the University of Dayton in Ohio.

For now, the new Big East has turned its attention to more pressing tasks. The league bylaws could be completed by the end of the week, then attention can turn toward getting a commissioner in place by the summer. Add to that hiring a conference staff, locating its headquarters, and finalizing schedules and officiating.

[XU-PA]

Five votes on this thread for Dayton.
Find those 5, have the drawn and quartered, hang their carcasses from the Cintas Center flag poles

[coasterville95]

Those were our Dayton friends who visit out boards. Had to have been.

So it looks like no secondary announcement before July 1st, that and the A10 talking about raising the exit fines and imposing other sanctions may keep that other school away for awhile.

[xubrew]

I disagree on SLU. From the mid 1980's, SLU has had on and off success. They had some decent finishes in the CUSA, and while their start in the A-10 was fairly mediocre, I think they have performed in the upper 1/4 of the A-10 over the last 4-5 years.

SLU has a facility that rivals Cintas. It's almost brand new, and while I dont know the exact size, it's probably one of the nicer arenas out there.

St. Louis is kind of a wierd town. I grew up there. 100% of the people are Baseball / Cardinals fans. Hockey is popular in pockets. NFL football is also popular, but not to the extent that some cities embrace it. College football is kind of underwhelming in St. Louis. College Basketball is also just casually embraced by the city in general, with most people following Mizzou, although maybe only 20% of college graudates actually attended Mizzou. NBA basketball isn't on the radar in stl. A strong, competitive SLU Basketball team could tap into an underserved market and pick up alot of college fans that follow Mizzou. Lots of televisions in St. Louis, many of which are disproportionally NOT currently watching college basketball.

And Jim Crews is not an issue. Thats very short term thinking. If they move to the BE, then either Crews is successful and teh issue resolves itself, or he's unsuccessfull and teh issue resolves itself. It will be interesting to see the stature of the BE as it pertains to coaches. Will coaches at current "big conference" jobs consider it an upgrade to take a position at a BE school, or will it be the other way around????

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because I don't really disagree with anything you said.

SLU is page two news (if that) in the city. SLU has never been to a Sweet Sixteen. Prior to last season, SLU's last tournament appearance was in 2000. They've been good the last two years, but they don't exactly have a history of successful coaching changes. So, I think they're overvalued. Similar to the way GO thinks Wichita is overvalued. Is there another team out there with as few accomplishments as SLU that is as valued as SLU??

[xubrew]

Five votes on this thread for Dayton.
Find those 5, have the drawn and quartered, hang their carcasses from the Cintas Center flag poles

I voted for them, but misread the question. I thought it was asking who the most likely candidates are, not who it should be. If it expands, I think Dayton will end up being one of the teams for the reasons I listed earlier in the thread. If I had a vote, I'd just stay at ten. Really, I'd like to toss someone else out and just get it down to nine.

[LA Muskie]

Is there another team out there with as few accomplishments as SLU that is as valued as SLU??
Yes. Dayton.

[UCGRAD4X]

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with because I don't really disagree with anything you said.

SLU is page two news (if that) in the city. SLU has never been to a Sweet Sixteen. Prior to last season, SLU's last tournament appearance was in 2000. They've been good the last two years, but they don't exactly have a history of successful coaching changes. So, I think they're overvalued. Similar to the way GO thinks Wichita is overvalued. Is there another team out there with as few accomplishments as SLU that is as valued as SLU??

Define value.

Are you talking about its value as a media outlet - or to the league as a member? How are you measuring this value?

[XUPhilly04]

I voted Other because I think the league shouldnt just take a school and hope the basketball program develops due to being in a league (like USF to the old BE). No other major league is looking that the schools we would add because of football. The BE should put all private schools in the east/midwest on notice that for the next 2-3 years, there will an open audition for the next spots. Let other programs invest in their own programs. The BE can wait for finished products, not undertake projects. Today, we are talking about SLU/UD/Richmond, in 2-3 years, it could be Davidson, Belmount. The BE should be in no hurry to take risk.

[xubrew]

Define value.

Are you talking about its value as a media outlet - or to the league as a member? How are you measuring this value?

Mainly just accomplishments, potential, and brand name recognition.

When Rick Majerus isn't coaching, SLU is bad more than they're good. I know they're good now, but I'm not convinced they have the staying power. They might, but it's hardly a guarantee. About four years ago, it was a half empty house watching a bad team, and that's pretty much how it was for a decade.

[XUPhilly04]

Mainly just accomplishments, potential, and brand name recognition.

When Rick Majerus isn't coaching, SLU is bad more than they're good. I know they're good now, but I'm not convinced they have the staying power. They might, but it's hardly a guarantee. About four years ago, it was a half empty house watching a bad team, and that's pretty much how it was for a decade.

I agree that SLU does not have the NCAA accomplishments, but I think they do have a valid media outlet and the structure in place to be competitive on a regular basis. But like I said in my earlier post, we should not be in a hurry add anyone, including SLU.

[xudash]

I voted Other because I think the league shouldnt just take a school and hope the basketball program develops due to being in a league (like USF to the old BE). No other major league is looking that the schools we would add because of football. The BE should put all private schools in the east/midwest on notice that for the next 2-3 years, there will an open audition for the next spots. Let other programs invest in their own programs. The BE can wait for finished products, not undertake projects. Today, we are talking about SLU/UD/Richmond, in 2-3 years, it could be Davidson, Belmount. The BE should be in no hurry to take risk.

Agree completely.

If Fox absolutely needed 12 teams out of the gate, it would have been teed up that way originally. Don't dilute the product.

[paulxu]

I'm always a little leery of comments like "it's not on the table." We have seen that can really mean "we haven't voted yet."
10 seems to be an ideal basketball number for the round robin in-conference format...and the other side might be Fox wanting 12.

But the schools have to look at all sports and NCAA requirements, which I think for division 1 means 7/7 mens/womens sports, or 6/8 sports offered.
Some guy on Holylandofhoops did a recap of the current membership, and there are a few holes in getting the current 10 schools to 6 per/sport to make a "conference" (I think that is the requirement).

I guess the holes can be filled by schools outside the conference in an adhoc sort of way, and maybe that is often done for non-revenue sports.
But ideally they would be conference mates.
The sports that need additions are: lacross (1) and swimming/diving (1)
Those could be brought to the minimum of 6 teams needed for a conference, with the addtion of SLU and Richmond.
It's also interesting that a couple schools don't seem to meet the minimum of 6 sports on his chart, but I'm assuming those schools like Creighton/Seton Hall offer some NCAA sanctioned sports not listed to come up to 6 for men's sports.

http://holylandofhoops.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=709&sid=d1fecdff199b69bb812d25e6c5d6c8fb

What I find more interesting is the A10 going to 13. This may be in advance of UMass leaving for football (aac?) or it may be in recognition that the BE will take one more eastern school and haven't decided on a western school...which might still happen before June 30th. If the BE took Dayton, the A10 would expect SLU to leave being so far out of the footprint. If they took SLU, they might find a western partner to keep Dayton on board.

Lots of considerations, but I'm not convinced the BE is done for 2014 until June 30th rolls around.

[xubrew]

A school needs six men's sports, and eight women's sports to be div1.

This rule is always changing, but I believe the current rule is that a conference must have seven members who have been full div1 members for eight years.

You see affiliate membership all the time in the non-revenues. Kansas, for instance, is in Conference USA for rowing. Kentucky and South Carolina are in CUSA for men's soccer. You also see leagues, like Hockey East, that only exist for one sport. I'm guessing that for La Crosse, they AAC and Big East schools may consider joining up the La Crosse teams in both conferences and forming a single La Crosse only conference.

It's good to have all your revenue sports in one conference. It's good to have all your sports in one conference. But, it isn't worth expanding just to meet the minimum requirement in an Olympic sport, when you can just add affiliate members.

[xubrew]

Yes. Dayton.

Who values Dayton other than Dayton, and perhaps Fox (who values them for reasons that have nothing to do with how good they are...or aren't)??

[Masterofreality]

Through this season, LaSalle has more NCAA Tournament wins in the last 23 years than udump.

Let that sink in for a second.

[LA Muskie]

Who values Dayton other than Dayton, and perhaps Fox (who values them for reasons that have nothing to do with how good they are...or aren't)??

I would say the morons who annually (or so it seems) vote them onto preseason Top 25 and "watch" lists, and keep them there until their inevitable early-season losses showing they never belonged in the first place.

[X-band '01]

Through this season, LaSalle has more NCAA Tournament wins in the last 23 years than udump.

Let that sink in for a second.

Explorer Steve v. Muddy Waters will be an entertaining pissing match on the A-10 board next season.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Mainly just accomplishments, potential, and brand name recognition.

When Rick Majerus isn't coaching, SLU is bad more than they're good. I know they're good now, but I'm not convinced they have the staying power. They might, but it's hardly a guarantee. About four years ago, it was a half empty house watching a bad team, and that's pretty much how it was for a decade.

This just isnt true. When I was a freshman through senior at SLU 2004-2008 they didnt even have an on campus arena and they played where the Blues play. It was half empty because of how big the arena was but they were at the top in A10 attendance. I'll have to look at the numbers but I believe it was around 9,000 fans a game even when SLU wasnt great.

[xudash]

Explorer Steve v. Muddy Waters will be an entertaining pissing match on the A-10 board next season.

They deserve one another.

[xubrew]

This just isnt true. When I was a freshman through senior at SLU 2004-2008 they didnt even have an on campus arena and they played where the Blues play. It was half empty because of how big the arena was but they were at the top in A10 attendance. I'll have to look at the numbers but I believe it was around 9,000 fans a game even when SLU wasnt great.

I just looked it up and they did average right around 9k in the time you were there. It was a half empty house, but I had forgotten just how big the house was. I think it seats over 22k, so what I said was misleading. I didn't mean for it to be, but I can see how it was.

But, also in the four years you were there it looks as though they had one top 100 finish, two losing seasons, and zero postseason appearances.

I just think that in many clases, including the case of SLU, people have knee-jerk reactions as to what the overall strength of a program is after just one or two good years. SLU has been good the last two years, but the biggest driving force that made them good is gone now. Prior to that, they weren't that good. Their athletic department seems to be experiencing quite a bit of turnover lately. That's a potential issue.

I'm not saying that I don't see any way that SLU can be good and continue to grow. I'm saying that it is not a safe bet that they will. Prior to last year, they went twelve years between tournament appearances. They've never been to a Sweet Sixteen.

This is how I look at it. Just my opinion, and I know not everyone shares it.....

If a program is very mediocre by the standards of whatever level they're at, and then suddenly explodes onto the scene, chances are it is more of a reflection of the coach than it is the overall strength of the program. I remember when Greg Marshall was at Winthrop and they were everyone's favorite dark horse, and people were saying what a great program they were and what an asset they'd be to a stronger conference. Same with Siena under Fran McCaffery. Same with UAB under Mike Anderson. Same with a lot of teams who were once favorite dark-horses that have since been forgotten. I would even throw George Mason into this category. Seeing who they hired after Larranaga left, and how crappy they've become, I think their success was more of a reflection of Larannaga than it was George Mason's overall program.

Now, when you have a team that improves bit by bit each year, those are the ones that stick around. VCU was good before Shaka Smart got there. They've been through several coaching changes, and have continued to improve over time. That's a strong program, and their success is an indication of the department as much as it is the coaches. Same with Butler. Same with Xavier. Same with Colorado State. If you look at the programs that went from mediocre or bad to good, and stayed good, you can look at them and see more at play than just the coach.

I don't see that with SLU. I associate them more with the former than the latter. I could end up being proven wrong. You can't continue to improve and stay good for ten years until you've done it for at least two, I guess, but right now I'm thinking that much of what made them good is now gone and won't be replaced. Just my opinion.

[XU '11]

A school needs six men's sports, and eight women's sports to be div1.

This rule is always changing, but I believe the current rule is that a conference must have seven members who have been full div1 members for eight years.

You see affiliate membership all the time in the non-revenues. Kansas, for instance, is in Conference USA for rowing. Kentucky and South Carolina are in CUSA for men's soccer. You also see leagues, like Hockey East, that only exist for one sport. I'm guessing that for La Crosse, they AAC and Big East schools may consider joining up the La Crosse teams in both conferences and forming a single La Crosse only conference.

It's good to have all your revenue sports in one conference. It's good to have all your sports in one conference. But, it isn't worth expanding just to meet the minimum requirement in an Olympic sport, when you can just add affiliate members.

In the short-term, both mens and womens lacrosse plus field hockey will compete in a joint Big East-AAC league. Not sure which name they'll use though.

[xubrew]

In the short-term, both mens and womens lacrosse plus field hockey will compete in a joint Big East-AAC league. Not sure which name they'll use though.

I don't know that for sure. I'm just guessing that's what they'll do.

[D-West & PO-Z]

I just looked it up and they did average right around 9k in the time you were there. It was a half empty house, but I had forgotten just how big the house was. I think it seats over 22k, so what I said was misleading. I didn't mean for it to be, but I can see how it was.

But, also in the four years you were there it looks as though they had one top 100 finish, two losing seasons, and zero postseason appearances.

I just think that in many clases, including the case of SLU, people have knee-jerk reactions as to what the overall strength of a program is after just one or two good years. SLU has been good the last two years, but the biggest driving force that made them good is gone now. Prior to that, they weren't that good. Their athletic department seems to be experiencing quite a bit of turnover lately. That's a potential issue.

I'm not saying that I don't see any way that SLU can be good and continue to grow. I'm saying that it is not a safe bet that they will. Prior to last year, they went twelve years between tournament appearances. They've never been to a Sweet Sixteen.

This is how I look at it. Just my opinion, and I know not everyone shares it.....

If a program is very mediocre by the standards of whatever level they're at, and then suddenly explodes onto the scene, chances are it is more of a reflection of the coach than it is the overall strength of the program. I remember when Greg Marshall was at Winthrop and they were everyone's favorite dark horse, and people were saying what a great program they were and what an asset they'd be to a stronger conference. Same with Siena under Fran McCaffery. Same with UAB under Mike Anderson. Same with a lot of teams who were once favorite dark-horses that have since been forgotten. I would even throw George Mason into this category. Seeing who they hired after Larranaga left, and how crappy they've become, I think their success was more of a reflection of Larannaga than it was George Mason's overall program.

Now, when you have a team that improves bit by bit each year, those are the ones that stick around. VCU was good before Shaka Smart got there. They've been through several coaching changes, and have continued to improve over time. That's a strong program, and their success is an indication of the department as much as it is the coaches. Same with Butler. Same with Xavier. Same with Colorado State. If you look at the programs that went from mediocre or bad to good, and stayed good, you can look at them and see more at play than just the coach.

I don't see that with SLU. I associate them more with the former than the latter. I could end up being proven wrong. You can't continue to improve and stay good for ten years until you've done it for at least two, I guess, but right now I'm thinking that much of what made them good is now gone and won't be replaced. Just my opinion.

I dont necessarily disagree with a lot of what you are saying. I do think SLU's sustainability is better than you think it is and I think with recent success an invite to the Big East would only help sustain that success.

The biggest thing I was correcting was your assumption that SLU had a lack of fan support when things werent great. That just wasnt and isnt true. They have the fan support good or not. Obviously it is better the better SLU is but it is still pretty good either way.

[MHettel]

I just looked it up and they did average right around 9k in the time you were there. It was a half empty house, but I had forgotten just how big the house was. I think it seats over 22k, so what I said was misleading. I didn't mean for it to be, but I can see how it was.

But, also in the four years you were there it looks as though they had one top 100 finish, two losing seasons, and zero postseason appearances.

I just think that in many clases, including the case of SLU, people have knee-jerk reactions as to what the overall strength of a program is after just one or two good years. SLU has been good the last two years, but the biggest driving force that made them good is gone now. Prior to that, they weren't that good. Their athletic department seems to be experiencing quite a bit of turnover lately. That's a potential issue.

I'm not saying that I don't see any way that SLU can be good and continue to grow. I'm saying that it is not a safe bet that they will. Prior to last year, they went twelve years between tournament appearances. They've never been to a Sweet Sixteen.

This is how I look at it. Just my opinion, and I know not everyone shares it.....

If a program is very mediocre by the standards of whatever level they're at, and then suddenly explodes onto the scene, chances are it is more of a reflection of the coach than it is the overall strength of the program. I remember when Greg Marshall was at Winthrop and they were everyone's favorite dark horse, and people were saying what a great program they were and what an asset they'd be to a stronger conference. Same with Siena under Fran McCaffery. Same with UAB under Mike Anderson. Same with a lot of teams who were once favorite dark-horses that have since been forgotten. I would even throw George Mason into this category. Seeing who they hired after Larranaga left, and how crappy they've become, I think their success was more of a reflection of Larannaga than it was George Mason's overall program.

Now, when you have a team that improves bit by bit each year, those are the ones that stick around. VCU was good before Shaka Smart got there. They've been through several coaching changes, and have continued to improve over time. That's a strong program, and their success is an indication of the department as much as it is the coaches. Same with Butler. Same with Xavier. Same with Colorado State. If you look at the programs that went from mediocre or bad to good, and stayed good, you can look at them and see more at play than just the coach.

I don't see that with SLU. I associate them more with the former than the latter. I could end up being proven wrong. You can't continue to improve and stay good for ten years until you've done it for at least two, I guess, but right now I'm thinking that much of what made them good is now gone and won't be replaced. Just my opinion.

really, the only thing that matters is what's ahead. I think SLU is very well positioned with their arena. The city has some local talent. The city is underserved when it comes to college basketball. Being added to the BE will be like fertilizer for all of this. Among the teams, SLU has the biggest upside.

Maybe you believe that their lack of enormous success in the past will somehow impact the possiblity for future success, and thats fine. But you cannot overlook the pieces that ARE in place at SLU which many teams do NOT have.

[xudash]

The thread title asks which schools should be added to the (N) BE.

I would love to know if that is universally deemed necessary. Do we know for a fact that it MUST expand beyond 10?

[xubrew]

really, the only thing that matters is what's ahead. I think SLU is very well positioned with their arena. The city has some local talent. The city is underserved when it comes to college basketball. Being added to the BE will be like fertilizer for all of this. Among the teams, SLU has the biggest upside.

Maybe you believe that their lack of enormous success in the past will somehow impact the possiblity for future success, and thats fine. But you cannot overlook the pieces that ARE in place at SLU which many teams do NOT have.

I'm not convinced that SLU will not succeed. It would not surprise me if they did. It's just that I'm not convinced that they will not fail either. The things that have me questioning it was the way the school handled the transition from Soderberg to Majerus. When you're letting the boosters play that big of a role, that makes me pause. Also, the resources that enabled them to get someone like Majerus in the way that they did appear to be gone. Majerus is also gone. Before he was gone, he was seemingly always griping about something. That's not a good sign either. Either he's A), legitimately unhappy, and B) able to continually voice that publicly while going unchecked, or C) both seems to suggest (not prove, but suggest) that maybe the leadership doesn't have a solid footing over there.

Hiring someone like Majerus is obvious if you're able to do it. Now, my question is whether or not they can make successful hires when the options aren't as obvious, and when the boosters seem to have as big of a say as they do??

Maybe they can. Maybe they cannot. I'm uncertain. That's not the same as being certain that they'll fail. But, if you ask why I'm not sold on them, that's why. That, and they've been bad more than they've been good.


The thread title asks which schools should be added to the (N) BE.

I would love to know if that is universally deemed necessary. Do we know for a fact that it MUST expand beyond 10?

I honestly don't know why it's necessary to even have ten. I'd prefer to just stay at nine and toss out one of the weaker programs. I agree. No one should be added.

[nuts4xu]

The thread title asks which schools should be added to the (N) BE.

I would love to know if that is universally deemed necessary. Do we know for a fact that it MUST expand beyond 10?

I don't think anyone knows for sure that we MUST expand, it is being assumed and seems logical to get to 12 teams.

10 is great, and makes for a ton of great rivalries. But 12 teams could provide more exposure, attention, and (most importantly) revenue.

[xudash]

I don't think anyone knows for sure that we MUST expand, it is being assumed and seems logical to get to 12 teams.

10 is great, and makes for a ton of great rivalries. But 12 teams could provide more exposure, attention, and (most importantly) revenue.

TV revenue presumed to be a wash: added revenue in the numerator offset by the addition of two teams to the denominator.

So, the added revenue presumption is coming from bids to the tournament at the increment. In other words, perhaps going from 4/5 out of 10 to 4/6 out of 12, or something like that. Obviously, nothing is guaranteed.

I truly would love to know how Fox is looking at all this. On the one hand, if 12 is better (needed) for content purposes, so be it, but it has to be equally true at this point that perceived dilution of the overall product is not acceptable out of the gate. As an example, assuming SLU is obvious as #11, but they can't come to terms with what makes an obvious #12, then you hold, set-up, move forward, and address it later.

Otherwise, if 10 means truly strengthening the product through the creation of better inter-conference rivalries, why dilute that, assuming 12 truly isn't accretive to the overall deal?

It will be interesting to follow.

[El Shaqtus]

I'm not too sure of that - but it sounded like there was a vote taken on new members - remember Fr. Graham's line about Blue Smoke rising and we were accepted.

SO G'Town gets Richmond as a return for favors rendered to Marquette re: Creighton
SLU gets added so Creighton has somebody at least kind of close in league. (And I recall they just might be Jesuit)
(Shockers could also fit that bill quite nicely - sorry El Shaqtus)

You'd be right. WSU is close. And they're pretty good. Plus, it would have some of the great internet arguments of our day...SLU to A10 or MVC.

[GoMuskies]

WSU is close to St. Louis? It's a 6+ hour drive.

[El Shaqtus]

It's closer to Creighton, who's in the league.

[GoMuskies]

5 hours instead of 6. Close-ish.

[xudash]

If it's between WSU and SLU, SLU wins that race hands down.

Private. (Jesuit).

St. Louis.

Excellent school.

And, notwithstanding the Shocker's run, all the program elements we could possibly want for the BE.

[jdm2000]

Gonzaga has a deal with Root Sports, which is really Fox Sports Net. They just changed the neame of the network in the Northwest.



Root Sports is really DirectTV, not Fox Sports. I think they broadcast stuff in the Pittsburgh area, too. The Mariners just agreed to purchase a majority stake in some part of the Root Sports network (presumably in the Northwest).

[SM#24]

http://www.rootsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=25900&ATCLID=205126777
Root Sports

[SM#24]

I get a sense that none of the 10 current Big East schools want to expand. My guess is that it is Fox that wants 12 (as has been speculated by many) and this one year delay was the schools way of pushing it off with the hope that Fox might change their mind. The excuse of not wanting to raid the A10 all at once is just a cover.

[sirthought]

I think ten is a good number to stay at for some time.

They have a good presence in big media markets, so it doesn't need to be motivated by needing extra coverage or bigger alumni base following them.

They just have to focus on developing the teams they have a unit for a while and see where it takes them.

[wkrq59]

Whichever schools are selected for invites to an expanded Big East in the future, two years maybe, the schools will be private regardless of religious affiliation. Private schools do not have to open their books, public schools do. And that is one thing all these BE schools want to avoid at any cost. That means coaches salaries, gate guarantees, tourney revenues etc. are private. Yes, the NCAA shares will be public, but how they are distributed won't be.
:stickmove::yuk:

[muskienick]

Whichever schools are selected for invites to an expanded Big East in the future, two years maybe, the schools will be private regardless of religious affiliation. Private schools do not have to open their books, public schools do. And that is one thing all these BE schools want to avoid at any cost. That means coaches salaries, gate guarantees, tourney revenues etc. are private. Yes, the NCAA shares will be public, but how they are distributed won't be.
:stickmove::yuk:

What you say above is definitely true, q. But in all the years we were in the A-10 with UMass, URI, Temple, Charlotte, and VCU, where did that create a big problem for the Conference in general and the individual members in particular?

[danaandvictory]

What you say above is definitely true, q. But in all the years we were in the A-10 with UMass, URI, Temple, Charlotte, and VCU, where did that create a big problem for the Conference in general and the individual members in particular?

There wasn't any money, and the TV contracts were written on the back of a bar napkin in Linda Bruno's blood.

[muskienick]

There wasn't any money, and the TV contracts were written on the back of a bar napkin in Linda Bruno's blood.

So if q's quote is indeed totally factual, then nobody who was not already adversely affected with prying eyes would be if the Big East were to invite a publicly-funded institution to join the Conference. He said that private schools don't have to open their books to public scrutiny; only public schools do. So a school like VCU being invited to the Big East would have to open its books to a public agency as it would even now if it were asked. The privates seemingly wouldn't because they are private. (One would have to think that VCU or some other public institution would jump at the chance to join the Big East and get many times over the media money and prestige such a move would bring even though the school would be susceptible to public screening of their finances --- they already are!)

[XUFan09]

If just one institution is public, any money distributed across the conference has to be reported, I believe. A public school contaminates everyone else.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

[xu95]

So if q's quote is indeed totally factual, then nobody who was not already adversely affected with prying eyes would be if the Big East were to invite a publicly-funded institution to join the Conference. He said that private schools don't have to open their books to public scrutiny; only public schools do. So a school like VCU being invited to the Big East would have to open its books to a public agency as it would even now if it were asked. The privates seemingly wouldn't because they are private. (One would have to think that VCU or some other public institution would jump at the chance to join the Big East and get many times over the media money and prestige such a move would bring even though the school would be susceptible to public screening of their finances --- they already are!)

Nick, the reason VCU won't get an invite has nothing to do with them having to open their books about the money they receive. It will have to do with emails and other correspondence between the President's about what they plan to do with the conference. Since they are private institutions their dealings are not privy to a FOIA request, but VCUs would be. Not saying they are doing or are going to do anything shady, but they don't want to be beholdened to oversight.

[MHettel]

If just one institution is public, any money distributed across the conference has to be reported, I believe. A public school contaminates everyone else.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2

I dont think this is right at all. There is no requirement that any money distributed HAS to be reported. Who is requiring that? The bottom line is if there are 9 private schools and 1 public school, then the public school is likely required to disclose any distribution THEY receive. While not specifically discussing the distribution the private schools receive, it does essentially let the cat out of the bag.

[xudash]

Can we have UD declared a pubic...sorry, public school?

[LA Muskie]

I dont think this is right at all. There is no requirement that any money distributed HAS to be reported. Who is requiring that? The bottom line is if there are 9 private schools and 1 public school, then the public school is likely required to disclose any distribution THEY receive. While not specifically discussing the distribution the private schools receive, it does essentially let the cat out of the bag.

As a member a public institution would have access to -- and would receive -- myriad information that the privates want to keep private. While they wouldn't have to disclose anything themselves, VCU would be subject to public records requests and any info it had could (and likely would) become public.

It's sort of like states with 1-party consent recording statutes. Everyone involved is stuck with no privacy as among themselves (and therefore are only protected from third party "Peeping Toms"). In that analogy, VCU has essentially consented to recording (and disclosure) by operation of law.

[MHettel]

As a member a public institution would have access to -- and would receive -- myriad information that the privates want to keep private. While they wouldn't have to disclose anything themselves, VCU would be subject to public records requests and any info it had could (and likely would) become public.

It's sort of like states with 1-party consent recording statutes. Everyone involved is stuck with no privacy as among themselves (and therefore are only protected from third party "Peeping Toms"). In that analogy, VCU has essentially consented to recording (and disclosure) by operation of law.

I dont get that. Why would a public school get access to something they dont need to know about that pertains to a private school? That makes no sense. The public school might have knowledge of the NCAA credit distribution methodology of the conference- I get that. But they can't just say "hey we need to know how much money you pay your coach", then just give it up based on FOIA.

Bottom line is that whatever a public school might have a reason to know, could become information for all the public to see. But that doesnt mean that all the privates go "open book" on everything (even amongst themselves), or that that information about a private is automatically assumed to become public knowledge just becasue someone asks for it.

[muskienick]

As a member a public institution would have access to -- and would receive -- myriad information that the privates want to keep private. While they wouldn't have to disclose anything themselves, VCU would be subject to public records requests and any info it had could (and likely would) become public.
It's sort of like states with 1-party consent recording statutes. Everyone involved is stuck with no privacy as among themselves (and therefore are only protected from third party "Peeping Toms"). In that analogy, VCU has essentially consented to recording (and disclosure) by operation of law.

Can you provide examples of the type of information that a private institution would be obliged to provide its fellow members of a Conference that would "let cats out of their respective bags"? I can certainly understand if Public State University receives $3,500,000 in media money during a year's membership in the new Big East, one might conclude that Private Papal University received a like amount. What's the big deal?

I doubt very much that the same Private Papal University will be forwarding emails to their Public Conference partner(s) that the religious order that runs the University is privately funding 6 houses of ill repute in Nevada to supplement its basketball recruiting budget and coaches' pay enhancement program.

[LA Muskie]

Can you provide examples of the type of information that a private institution would be obliged to provide its fellow members of a Conference that would "let cats out of their respective bags"? I can certainly understand if Public State University receives $3,500,000 in media money during a year's membership in the new Big East, one might conclude that Private Papal University received a like amount. What's the big deal?

I doubt very much that the same Private Papal University will be forwarding emails to their Public Conference partner(s) that the religious order that runs the University is privately funding 6 houses of ill repute in Nevada to supplement its basketball recruiting budget and coaches' pay enhancement program.
The information wouldn't necessarily flow from the private institutions. It would flow from the conference. Some examples of documents that, once in a public institution's possession, would be subject to public disclosure include (but would not necessarily be limited to) the following:

1. The conference charter
2. Media contracts between the conference and distributors
3. Other contracts between the conference and third parties (i.e., marketing, advertising, etc.)
4. Communications and Memoranda from the conference to its member institutions, including (without limitation) conference financials and distribution calculations
5. Intra-conference communications involving the public institution

In any event you are missing the point. Obviously the private institutions would maintain some confidentiality -- namely just about anything they don't (or don't have to) share with the conference or its member institutions. The point is that they want the ability to maintain just about everything in confidence.

[muskienick]

The information wouldn't necessarily flow from the private institutions. It would flow from the conference. Some examples of documents that, once in a public institution's possession, would be subject to public disclosure include (but would not necessarily be limited to) the following:

1. The conference charter
2. Media contracts between the conference and distributors
3. Other contracts between the conference and third parties (i.e., marketing, advertising, etc.)
4. Communications and Memoranda from the conference to its member institutions, including (without limitation) conference financials and distribution calculations
5. Intra-conference communications involving the public institution

In any event you are missing the point. Obviously the private institutions would maintain some confidentiality -- namely just about anything they don't (or don't have to) share with the conference or its member institutions. The point is that they want the ability to maintain just about everything in confidence.

I guess you are missing MY point. As it stands now, every conference most people would place ahead of the new Big East in money and prestige has public universities and, for some reason, things seem to be progressing just fine with them. (I am assuming that current Big East members would like to struggle through membership in the B1G, SEC, ACC, etc. with their additional millions of dollars per member each year and the special fascination Dickie V and his media buddies have with the Duke's, UK's, Texas's, Ohio State's, and Arizona's and the like of the Big 5.) I simply don't see the negatives involved with being open with the items you list above unless there is something to hide about the facts or unless there is something there to be embarrassed about. "The Biggies" don't seem to mind a bit.

[LA Muskie]

I guess you are missing MY point. As it stands now, every conference most people would place ahead of the new Big East in money and prestige has public universities and, for some reason, things seem to be progressing just fine with them. (I am assuming that current Big East members would like to struggle through membership in the B1G, SEC, ACC, etc. with their additional millions of dollars per member each year and the special fascination Dickie V and his media buddies have with the Duke's, UK's, Texas's, Ohio State's, and Arizona's and the like of the Big 5.) I simply don't see the negatives involved with being open with the items you list above unless there is something to hide about the facts or unless there is something there to be embarrassed about. "The Biggies" don't seem to mind a bit.
You are right -- I was missing your point. My response would be that the biggies have to live with it because they have no choice but to do so. It doesn't mean they like it. If they could find a way to operate privately, I am nearly certain they would do so. But unlike the new Big East, they need those big state schools to effectively operate, so for them the public disclosure of much of their operational materials is simply a cost of doing business for them.

Don't get me wrong, if there was a state school that was head and shoulders better than any private option, and if that school would seemlessly fit within the rest of the conference, I have a feeling it would be strongly considered. I doubt that being a public school would be an automatic deal-breaker. That said, if there are a two relatively equivalent options -- one private, one public -- I believe the strong preference would be for the private institution.

[xubrew]

If just one institution is public, any money distributed across the conference has to be reported, I believe. A public school contaminates everyone else.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2


Nick, the reason VCU won't get an invite has nothing to do with them having to open their books about the money they receive. It will have to do with emails and other correspondence between the President's about what they plan to do with the conference. Since they are private institutions their dealings are not privy to a FOIA request, but VCUs would be. Not saying they are doing or are going to do anything shady, but they don't want to be beholdened to oversight.


As a member a public institution would have access to -- and would receive -- myriad information that the privates want to keep private. While they wouldn't have to disclose anything themselves, VCU would be subject to public records requests and any info it had could (and likely would) become public.

It's sort of like states with 1-party consent recording statutes. Everyone involved is stuck with no privacy as among themselves (and therefore are only protected from third party "Peeping Toms"). In that analogy, VCU has essentially consented to recording (and disclosure) by operation of law.


I dont get that. Why would a public school get access to something they dont need to know about that pertains to a private school? That makes no sense. The public school might have knowledge of the NCAA credit distribution methodology of the conference- I get that. But they can't just say "hey we need to know how much money you pay your coach", then just give it up based on FOIA.

Bottom line is that whatever a public school might have a reason to know, could become information for all the public to see. But that doesnt mean that all the privates go "open book" on everything (even amongst themselves), or that that information about a private is automatically assumed to become public knowledge just becasue someone asks for it.


Can you provide examples of the type of information that a private institution would be obliged to provide its fellow members of a Conference that would "let cats out of their respective bags"? I can certainly understand if Public State University receives $3,500,000 in media money during a year's membership in the new Big East, one might conclude that Private Papal University received a like amount. What's the big deal?

I doubt very much that the same Private Papal University will be forwarding emails to their Public Conference partner(s) that the religious order that runs the University is privately funding 6 houses of ill repute in Nevada to supplement its basketball recruiting budget and coaches' pay enhancement program.


The information wouldn't necessarily flow from the private institutions. It would flow from the conference. Some examples of documents that, once in a public institution's possession, would be subject to public disclosure include (but would not necessarily be limited to) the following:

1. The conference charter
2. Media contracts between the conference and distributors
3. Other contracts between the conference and third parties (i.e., marketing, advertising, etc.)
4. Communications and Memoranda from the conference to its member institutions, including (without limitation) conference financials and distribution calculations
5. Intra-conference communications involving the public institution

In any event you are missing the point. Obviously the private institutions would maintain some confidentiality -- namely just about anything they don't (or don't have to) share with the conference or its member institutions. The point is that they want the ability to maintain just about everything in confidence.


I guess you are missing MY point. As it stands now, every conference most people would place ahead of the new Big East in money and prestige has public universities and, for some reason, things seem to be progressing just fine with them. (I am assuming that current Big East members would like to struggle through membership in the B1G, SEC, ACC, etc. with their additional millions of dollars per member each year and the special fascination Dickie V and his media buddies have with the Duke's, UK's, Texas's, Ohio State's, and Arizona's and the like of the Big 5.) I simply don't see the negatives involved with being open with the items you list above unless there is something to hide about the facts or unless there is something there to be embarrassed about. "The Biggies" don't seem to mind a bit.


You are right -- I was missing your point. My response would be that the biggies have to live with it because they have no choice but to do so. It doesn't mean they like it. If they could find a way to operate privately, I am nearly certain they would do so. But unlike the new Big East, they need those big state schools to effectively operate, so for them the public disclosure of much of their operational materials is simply a cost of doing business for them.

Don't get me wrong, if there was a state school that was head and shoulders better than any private option, and if that school would seemlessly fit within the rest of the conference, I have a feeling it would be strongly considered. I doubt that being a public school would be an automatic deal-breaker. That said, if there are a two relatively equivalent options -- one private, one public -- I believe the strong preference would be for the private institution.

I don't think any of this has anything to do with why VCU won't be in the league.

I don't think Georgetown wants them in the league. I don't think Georgetown's reasons for not wanting them in the league have anything to do with them being a public institution that is subject to disclosing information that private schools are not subject to disclosing. I don't think any of this is being discussed or considered or worried about in any way, shape or form.

I would love for VCU to be in the league, and would rather have them than some of the teams that currently are on the league. But, the league is already at ten. There is no reason to add anyone else. Public or private. Ten is enough.

If Fox wants to expand, and is willing to dish out money if certain teams are added, and VCU is one of those teams, then the league will likely add them without any reservations about them being a public school who is required to disclose certain records. That is a complete non issue.

[muskienick]

I don't think any of this has anything to do with why VCU won't be in the league.

I don't think Georgetown wants them in the league. I don't think Georgetown's reasons for not wanting them in the league have anything to do with them being a private institution that is subject to disclosing information that private schools are not subject to disclosing. I don't think any of this is being discussed or considered or worried about in any way, shape or form.

I would love for VCU to be in the league, and would rather have them than some of the teams that currently are on the league. But, the league is already at ten. There is no reason to add anyone else. Public or private. Ten is enough.

If Fox wants to expand, and is willing to dish out money if certain teams are added, and VCU is one of those teams, then the league will likely add them without any reservations about them being a public school who is required to disclose certain records. That is a complete non issue.

I agree with everything you say in this (above) post. Well done!

[bleedXblue]

St Louis market gets SLU in.....hands down not even a question.

The other remaining school is up for serious debate as none of them bring that big market and significant increase in advertising dollars associated with it.

If you're looking for good quality basketball schools, I think UD and VCU are being looked at hard.

[xubrew]

I've said this before, but market size is way too overvalued. They need to look at ratings, not market size.


SLU is in a big market. But, if a school like VCU is crushing them in the national ratings, then who cares how big SLU's market is?? VCU is the better choice for the networks. I don't know why no one seems to think that way.

Seriously, the majority of major programs are in crap markets. Norman, Oklahoma. Blacksburg Virginia. Durham, NC. Chapel Hill, NC. Bloomington, IN. Lexington, KY. With a national TV deal, they should look at the nation as one big market and pick the team that more people will want to watch. Now that Majerus is gone, I don't see that as being SLU.

[GoMuskies]

size is way too overvalued.

I've been saying this, too.

[xubrew]

I've been saying this, too.

****standing and applauding****

[Muskie]

I've said this before, but market size is way too overvalued. They need to look at ratings, not market size.


SLU is in a big market. But, if a school like VCU is crushing them in the national ratings, then who cares how big SLU's market is?? VCU is the better choice for the networks. I don't know why no one seems to think that way.

Seriously, the majority of major programs are in crap markets. Norman, Oklahoma. Blacksburg Virginia. Durham, NC. Chapel Hill, NC. Bloomington, IN. Lexington, KY. With a national TV deal, they should look at the nation as one big market and pick the team that more people will want to watch. Now that Majerus is gone, I don't see that as being SLU.

I think VCU loses because they aren't private. There seems to be a concerted effort to keep financial info of the Big East out of the public review.

As a totally unrelated point. If Richmond is picked, are they willing to step up and spend $? I didn't see a huge commitment to the A-10 when the joined.

[xu95]

St Louis market gets SLU in.....hands down not even a question.

The other remaining school is up for serious debate as none of them bring that big market and significant increase in advertising dollars associated with it.

If you're looking for good quality basketball schools, I think UD and VCU are being looked at hard.

Things can obviously change, but I have it on pretty good authority that Dayton is getting little to no consideration right now.

[xubrew]

Things can obviously change, but I have it on pretty good authority that Dayton is getting little to no consideration right now.

Agreed, but one of the key phrases is "right now."


I think VCU loses because they aren't private. There seems to be a concerted effort to keep financial info of the Big East out of the public review.

I'm not seeing that. I'm just not seeing whatever it is that is making people think that keeping financial info out of public view is such a huge priority. Even if all their financial info was available, it's just not a huge point of interest to that many people. For the peoplethat are interested in it, they can generally find a way to see it anyway. I just don't think keeping all their financial info locked up tight is something that's all that high in their consciousness right now.

Are they going to be hesitant to schedule OOC games against public institutions?? After all, if there is any correspondence with a public institution via email, cell phone, or telephone, or if there is any money involved, then anyone who wants to can find out all about it. It's a little silly to worry about that. I agree that VCU is not a candidate, but I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with a perceived inability to keep financial info a secret. Quite frankly, I think Georgetown is scared of them. I think that has more to do with it than anything else. Not to mention, there are already ten teams in the league.

[LA Muskie]

I'm not seeing that. I'm just not seeing whatever it is that is making people think that keeping financial info out of public view is such a huge priority. Even if all their financial info was available, it's just not a huge point of interest to that many people. For the peoplethat are interested in it, they can generally find a way to see it anyway. I just don't think keeping all their financial info locked up tight is something that's all that high in their consciousness right now.

Are they going to be hesitant to schedule OOC games against public institutions?? After all, if there is any correspondence with a public institution via email, cell phone, or telephone, or if there is any money involved, then anyone who wants to can find out all about it. It's a little silly to worry about that. I agree that VCU is not a candidate, but I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with a perceived inability to keep financial info a secret. Quite frankly, I think Georgetown is scared of them. I think that has more to do with it than anything else. Not to mention, there are already ten teams in the league.
Brew, while it wasn't originally a major issue internally, as I understand things the privacy thing has picked up a significant amount of steam as the conference members have come to enjoy finally being able to keep their business private. I still don't think it's necessarily a deal-breaker, but it is a factor -- that I can assure you. As for your hypo, there is a lot more sensitivity to overall conference business, operations, and strategy than out-of-conference opponents.

But you are correct: VCU is not currently a candidate. Frankly it really never has been, despite the fact that they are universally recognized as the best potential addition for basketball purposes east of the Rockies. Whether that is because of Georgetown, lack of institutional fit, issues with its public nature -- or a combination of them -- I don't know. I tend to think it's more the first two because they were discounted early on in the process, but I now think the third would factor in as well.

You are also correct that if Fox REALLY wants VCU in, they will probably get their way. But I'm not hearing that to be the case. At least not "right now."

[paulxu]

As a totally unrelated point. If Richmond is picked, are they willing to step up and spend $? I didn't see a huge commitment to the A-10 when the joined.

I don't know what this means. What should they have spent when joining A10 that they didn't?
They are sinking a boatload into retrofitting the Robins Center...and if money is the key, their endowment dwarfs any current BE school.
If they were asked in, and money was a factor...they wouldn't turn it down because of a lack of funds.

[Muskie]

I don't know what this means. What should they have spent when joining A10 that they didn't?
They are sinking a boatload into retrofitting the Robins Center...and if money is the key, their endowment dwarfs any current BE school.
If they were asked in, and money was a factor...they wouldn't turn it down because of a lack of funds.

I guess I was talking money (it's nice they are finally putting some $ into Robbins), upping their OOC schedule, that sort of thing?

[xubrew]

Brew, while it wasn't originally a major issue internally, as I understand things the privacy thing has picked up a significant amount of steam as the conference members have come to enjoy finally being able to keep their business private. I still don't think it's necessarily a deal-breaker, but it is a factor -- that I can assure you. As for your hypo, there is a lot more sensitivity to overall conference business, operations, and strategy than out-of-conference opponents.

But you are correct: VCU is not currently a candidate. Frankly it really never has been, despite the fact that they are universally recognized as the best potential addition for basketball purposes east of the Rockies. Whether that is because of Georgetown, lack of institutional fit, issues with its public nature -- or a combination of them -- I don't know. I tend to think it's more the first two because they were discounted early on in the process, but I now think the third would factor in as well.

You are also correct that if Fox REALLY wants VCU in, they will probably get their way. But I'm not hearing that to be the case. At least not "right now."

I think I get what you're saying. Perhaps they are concerned about it. I just don't see it as being anything to really worry about, but that doesn't mean that they're not worried about it.

Here's the thing. I'm not an investigative reporter, much less an adequate investigative reporter, and even much less a good investigative reporter. Yet, if I really wanted that information, and had no morals, I know exactly how I'd go about obtaining it. If I can figure that out, then I'm sure a solid investigative reporter could as well. Just come up with a reason for the NCAA to investigate their funds, and then request that information from them. The NCAA would give it to them.

But, to my original point, who really gives a crap if the financial info can be accessed?? It's a silly thing to worry about. If I wanted to, I could dig up all the Pac Twelve, Big Twelve, Big Ten and ACC information I wanted. It's all available. I'm not going to do that for the same reason you aren't. I just don't give a shit. Most people don't, and the ones that do will find a way to get it anyway.

I had not seen any indications that this was a concern for the Big East, and I don't think it should be a concern. But, I also know that that doesn't mean it's not a concern.

[MHettel]

Here's the thing. I'm not an investigative reporter, much less an adequate investigative reporter, and even much less a good investigative reporter. Yet, if I really wanted that information, and had no morals, I know exactly how I'd go about obtaining it. If I can figure that out, then I'm sure a solid investigative reporter could as well. Just come up with a reason for the NCAA to investigate their funds, and then request that information from them. The NCAA would give it to them.

.

I read this multiple times. I still have no idea what the heck you said. Sounds like a bad movie plot for a Showtime movie that is really just a bunch of half naked women.

You want evidence that the Private membership of the BE isn't interested in having a public member? Take a look at the membership. the fact that there are no public members might be a clue to how they feel about public members.

I think private means private, and I wouldn't expect any public schools ever. If they wanted Public they could have probably had UConn....

[xubrew]

I read this multiple times. I still have no idea what the heck you said. Sounds like a bad movie plot for a Showtime movie that is really just a bunch of half naked women.

....

That does not surprise me, because you oftentimes have no idea or understanding. If you're making some sort of connection between ways to obtain financial information from the Big East and half naked women on Showtime, then you are in fact missing the point.

...and as if you needed to further demonstrate you're lack of understanding, you then state that if they were going to add any public members, then they'd add UConn. Wow.

[SM#24]

I read this multiple times. I still have no idea what the heck you said. Sounds like a bad movie plot for a Showtime movie that is really just a bunch of half naked women.

You want evidence that the Private membership of the BE isn't interested in having a public member? Take a look at the membership. the fact that there are no public members might be a clue to how they feel about public members.

I think private means private, and I wouldn't expect any public schools ever. If they wanted Public they could have probably had UConn....
First off, watch the bad plot movies on Cinemax where the women are fully naked.

Did you just really imply that the BE could have had UConn in it but did not because they were public ?
I second, Brew, WOW !

While I think that all institutions would prefer to not have all their information available to the public, I'm with Brew again, I think the primary drivers are Gtown not wanting to give VCU a platform to take their program to another level and having the Georegtown name associated with VCU.

[jdm2000]

I agree that the finances are not that important. But don't underestimate the value of not having to be subject to public records requests. The Ohio State comments of the last couple days are a good example. Nothing financial there, but if you didn't have to release them in the first place, think of the firestorm you prevent.