Big East Expansion

[GoMuskies]

I know I don't get a vote, but I vote no. 10 is perfect.

[BandAid]

I like 10 too.

Plus, who are you going to bring in who's an ideal fit? Saint Louis is the only one that I can think of. Dayton sucks. VCU is big and public. Richmond is lackluster.

[Titanxman04]

Agreed. SLU maybe...but I love this round-robin stuff and playing everyone. Wouldn't want it any other way.

[throwbackmuskie]

10 please. No one else is needed. I like the round robin. Really sees who is best.

[bleedXblue]

C'mon now.

You know the almighty dollar always wins in the end.

If the BE can add 2-4 large market teams it adds to value/leverage it can garner with TV/advertising.

I think its stays at 10 for a few years, but will ultimately end up at 12 or 14.

[Pajama Joe]

Agreed. How bad would it suck this year if we didn't get our return shot at Creighton at home. Keep it 10.

[throwbackmuskie]

C'mon now.

You know the almighty dollar always wins in the end.

If the BE can add 2-4 large market teams it adds to value/leverage it can garner with TV/advertising.

I think its stays at 10 for a few years, but will ultimately end up at 12 or 14.

At the end of the day, who would the really add? STL is about the only school that would add something.

[bleedXblue]

At the end of the day, who would the really add? STL is about the only school that would add something.

St Louis and to round out things....they would add a VCU, Richmond or UD

[blueblob06]

At the end of the day, who would the really add? STL is about the only school that would add something.

I wouldn't want more than 10 (and yes I know Wichita St is public) but is it crazy to say add STL and Wichita St? Would make Creighton less isolated out there and WSU is certainly a team getting lots of national attention the last few yrs.

[GoMuskies]

Wichita is about as far from St. Louis as Cincinnati is from St. Louis. Not sure adding the Shockers (as much as I'd love it) would do anything to alleviate the SLU isolation factor. It might help Creighton a bit in that regard, though. But I think most Creighton folks want everyone involved with WSU to DIAF.

[throwbackmuskie]

I really do not see a school out that that jumps out as a BE school at this point. JMO

[MHettel]

Yes, Yes, and Yes on expansion.

List the conferences based on "power", but assume the membership changes that will go into effect next year (Maryland to B10, UofL to ACC).

Unquestionably, the ACC will be the best conference ever. Big 10, SEC, B12 and PAC12 are right up there. Then there is a drop off. Big East, A10, and the AAC are all in that next tier down (arguably others as well). Before everyone freaks out about the AAC, you have to realize that a Big 4 of UConn, Memphis, UC and Temple are as good as the top of either the BE or A-10. The bottom half of the AAC is probably the worst among these three conferences...

Anyway, the name of the game is separation. We need to separate from this second tier and move closer to that first tier. Poaching St. Louis and Richmond from the A-10 will go along way towards that. It keeps the BE membership "profile" intact, and adds 2 new markets. We're taking 2 of the stronger programs from a conference that is fighting for equal footing against us. Thats a no-brainer. And, it's not like we have to convince either of these 2 teams to join. Both would come over under ANY terms the BE sets. This would be a major step up for them.

St. Louis would immediately be in the top half of the league, and Richmond would probably be more towards the bottom third, but with a winning tradition and ample resources, I could see them making the necessary investments and commitments to move cleanly into the middle of the conference.

And, for those of you who think the TV contract might dictate the overall decision to expand, I agree 100%. My suspicion is that FS1 will not pay one cent more to the conference for expansion, meaning a bit of dillution for the current membership. My guess is that the current membership had asked to stay at 10, but contractually FS1 has the right to force expansion into new markets if certain rating thresholds are not met (and I'm sure the dismal current ratings are being discussed).

And, honestly, how embarrasing will it be when Madison Square Garden is half full for the Big East tourney. Nobody is going to the Big East tourney unless they are genuine fans of the 10 member teams. Assuming MSG is 20,000 seats, that 2000 per school. Ok, Sure. We need more members.

If they go nuts, and decide to reject the "profile" of the league membership, the BE could attempt to poach 4 teams which could include VCU, Wichita St., St Louis and Dayton (Richmond loses out here to UD, as they directly share the same market as VCU). I'm betting against this. I think they love keeping that small private membership profile.

Last but not least, the 18 game conference schedule, while ideal for cultivating rivalries, has a negative effect of the RPI and SOS. Your opponents W/L record is 50% of your RPI, so any matchup of your conference opponents will always result in one win and one loss being added to your Opponents W/L record. This simply drags it down. If those 2 teams were to NOT play each other, and instead played an additional home game each, they have a good shot of bringing TWO wins and ZERO losses to your Opponents record portion of the RPI. So, each team in the league would play 2 additional non-con games, and frankly all they have to do is have a combined record of over .500 in those games to have a positive benefit for the RPI. AND it has a secondary beneift on the Opponents-Opponents portion of the RPI as well, as these teams all start playing each other...

Look, there is no doubt that this move to the Big East was a no-brainer for XU, and has increased their status and potential for the program. But do not confuse this new Big East with the old Big East. I consider this new Big East to be roughly equivalent to what many of us wanted from the A-10, basically, the A-10 without the 4 bottom feeders (Fordham, LaSalle, Duquesne, SBU).

We have a long way to go and the Massive TV contract, while a huge asset, actually puts MORE pressure on the league to perform and draw interest. Expansion is inevitable and necessary in my opinion.

Thats right, although the Big East is a big step up for us,

[throwbackmuskie]

Couple of schools to keep an eye on, I am reaching a long way, but UCONN and UMASS. UCONN maybe the larger reach here since thye just built a new football stadium not to long ago, but their FB program is hurting, remember going to the Fiesta Bowl cost them a fair amount of money. As for UMASS, they have some issues, playing in Foxboro is one. I am curious to see if thye keep letting their FB program bleed.

[Xavier]

I don't see a team with a football program coming to the BE anytime soon.

[throwbackmuskie]

Butler, Nova, Gt both have football programs. I guess my point was if UCONN is left in the AAC and UMASS keeps losing money, they may think about dropping back to FCS. Like I said it is a huge long shot, just spit balling.

[BMoreX]

Until there is a school that jumps out at me in the Big East's geographic footprint, there is no reason to expand.

[STL_XUfan]

Wichita is about as far from St. Louis as Cincinnati is from St. Louis. Not sure adding the Shockers (as much as I'd love it) would do anything to alleviate the SLU isolation factor. It might help Creighton a bit in that regard, though. But I think most Creighton folks want everyone involved with WSU to DIAF.

Dont you know there is a rip in the space time continuum that makes all cities west of the Mississippi as close as east coast cities?

[RoseyMuskie]

Last but not least, the 18 game conference schedule, while ideal for cultivating rivalries, has a negative effect of the RPI and SOS. Your opponents W/L record is 50% of your RPI, so any matchup of your conference opponents will always result in one win and one loss being added to your Opponents W/L record. This simply drags it down. If those 2 teams were to NOT play each other, and instead played an additional home game each, they have a good shot of bringing TWO wins and ZERO losses to your Opponents record portion of the RPI. So, each team in the league would play 2 additional non-con games, and frankly all they have to do is have a combined record of over .500 in those games to have a positive benefit for the RPI. AND it has a secondary beneift on the Opponents-Opponents portion of the RPI as well, as these teams all start playing each other...

In principal, you are correct.

However, the net effect on the RPI would probably be about neglible. In fact, it could potentially be worse if the likes of DePaul, SH, and St. John's lose OOC against teams with 100+ RPIs.

Without getting into all the variables and calculations (I have to do this little thing called work), I'd imagine the net effect would be a few spots up or down. And quite frankly, I'll gamble with the round robin all day while potentially sacrificing the 22nd ranked RPI for the 24th.

[GoMuskies]

List the conferences based on "power", but assume the membership changes that will go into effect next year (Maryland to B10, UofL to ACC).

Unquestionably, the ACC will be the best conference ever. Big 10, SEC, B12 and PAC12 are right up there. Then there is a drop off.

This part is demonstrably not true. If nothing else, the Big East is and will continue to be better than the SEC by any objective measure. And the Big East will be much closer to the ACC than it will be to the A-10 or the AAC.

[vee4xu]

This latest version of the BE sold itself as a basketball-centric (meaning no revenue generating football), private (mostly Catholic) league. Assuming the league wishes to stay true to that charter the list of potential suspects within a geographically desirable area is limited.

[XUFan09]

And, for those of you who think the TV contract might dictate the overall decision to expand, I agree 100%. My suspicion is that FS1 will not pay one cent more to the conference for expansion, meaning a bit of dillution for the current membership. My guess is that the current membership had asked to stay at 10, but contractually FS1 has the right to force expansion into new markets if certain rating thresholds are not met (and I'm sure the dismal current ratings are being discussed).



Last but not least, the 18 game conference schedule, while ideal for cultivating rivalries, has a negative effect of the RPI and SOS. Your opponents W/L record is 50% of your RPI, so any matchup of your conference opponents will always result in one win and one loss being added to your Opponents W/L record. This simply drags it down. If those 2 teams were to NOT play each other, and instead played an additional home game each, they have a good shot of bringing TWO wins and ZERO losses to your Opponents record portion of the RPI. So, each team in the league would play 2 additional non-con games, and frankly all they have to do is have a combined record of over .500 in those games to have a positive benefit for the RPI. AND it has a secondary beneift on the Opponents-Opponents portion of the RPI as well, as these teams all start playing each other...



Look, there is no doubt that this move to the Big East was a no-brainer for XU, and has increased their status and potential for the program. But do not confuse this new Big East with the old Big East. I consider this new Big East to be roughly equivalent to what many of us wanted from the A-10, basically, the A-10 without the 4 bottom feeders (Fordham, LaSalle, Duquesne, SBU).


For going out to 12 teams, Fox will pay more to the Big East to keep the amount the same per school. This was established in the negotiations, and it's a net benefit to Fox, as they would make proportionally more than the extra money they paid out.



When Xavier beats an in-confernece opponent, it has a greater positive effect on the RPI than it does a negative effect. This is because Xavier only plays 30 games, whereas its opponents play between 840 and 900 games (depending on how many of Xavier's opponents take advantage of exempt tournaments. So, here's the math:

25% of RPI / 30 games = 0.0083333 value added for a win
50% of RPI / 840 games = 0.00059524 value not added for a loss
It has a positive effect on the opponents' opponents' winning percentage, but a single game is negligible in a set between 23,520 and 27,000 games.

The old Big East actually did a good job with this, inflating their records in weak non-conference schedules and then boosting each other's RPIs by playing each other in conference.



This description of the Big East simply is not true (though it's a common misconception). I'll simply reference this blog post (http://fromstaaktomack.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/why-the-big-east-is-better-than-the-a10-since-apparently-thats-a-debate/) rather than make the argument here.

[drudy23]

Get UC to push most of its chips into basketball again and they'd be a great addition. Sharing funding with football = medicority on both ends.

Yeah, I know it would never happen, bu they're a better program that any of those mentioned already.

[vee4xu]

You may be right drudy, but X has to love that the tables are turned with X being in the high profile league and UC being relegated to second class citizen in conference hell or at least limbo. The Little Engine That Could has chugged its way to the top after 30 years and I just don't see X allowing even a conversation of UC in the BE any more than tOSU hearing anything of UC going to the B10. Also, dayton won't be in the mix because any BE expansion has to be in markets that generate enough revenue for Fox to increase school payouts. The dayton market just doesn't do that.

[bleedXblue]

You may be right drudy, but X has to love that the tables are turned with X being in the high profile league and UC being relegated to second class citizen in conference hell or at least limbo. The Little Engine That Could has chugged its way to the top after 30 years and I just don't see X allowing even a conversation of UC in the BE any more than tOSU hearing anything of UC going to the B10. Also, dayton won't be in the mix because any BE expansion has to be in markets that generate enough revenue for Fox to increase school payouts. The dayton market just doesn't do that.

Do you really believe X has the pull to block UC ? I dont think its even a remote possibility anyway....but I dont think we do at this point in our infancy of the league

[MuskieCinci]

Can someone explain to me why a school that would be in a new market matters? This isn't the Big 10 network, Fox Sports is already a national network in 90 million homes (a guess). Adding Duke and Syracuse wouldn't change that number.

[bleedXblue]

Can someone explain to me why a school that would be in a new market matters? This isn't the Big 10 network, Fox Sports is already a national network in 90 million homes (a guess). Adding Duke and Syracuse wouldn't change that number.

Well, St Louis fans tune into ESPN right now to watch the Billikens play.

Pretty sure its all about the ratings and number of viewers to the advertisers

[XUFan09]

Well, St Louis fans tune into ESPN right now to watch the Billikens play.

Pretty sure its all about the ratings and number of viewers to the advertisers

Yup.

[xudash]

Do you really believe X has the pull to block UC ? I dont think its even a remote possibility anyway....but I dont think we do at this point in our infancy of the league

I think you would be surprised.

Also, the C7 Presidents have few to no fond memories of dealing with the football schools in the final few years of the Old Big East.

More to the point, the 10 are the 10 now, and I suspect with as much commonality as exists in the group, that members will listen to fellow members prior to the Big East making any kind of material move.

On that note, though Dayton already was toast based on merit, it absolutely is - well, hopefully is - toast based on Xavier's strategic interests. For that matter, Butler probably would chime in the same way as well.

UC is desperate to get into one of the Big 5 conferences prior to realignment settling down for good for a while. You don't dump $80 million into an inadequate football stadium - I still shake my head over that one - without believing you have a shot at making the promised land. I don't think they'll get there, so they'll be left to forge ahead with UCONN in the AAC.

[ThrowDownDBrown]

Hell no on expansion. And LOL at saying the SEC is anything but a shit tier basketball conference

[Xavier]

UC is desperate to get into one of the Big 5 conferences prior to realignment settling down for good for a while. You don't dump $80 million into an inadequate football stadium - I still shake my head over that one - without believing you have a shot at making the promised land. I don't think they'll get there, so they'll be left to forge ahead with UCONN in the AAC.

I think they get there, I am a little surprised they haven't yet. They have a slightly above average basketball/football program IMO. If you put both together, they stack up good enough with other members in the Big12. Once they build the stadium, I think Big 12 will come after them.

[Seven Eighths]

I think they get there, I am a little surprised they haven't yet. They have a slightly above average basketball/football program IMO. If you put both together, they stack up good enough with other members in the Big12. Once they build the stadium, I think Big 12 will come after them.

UC offers the Big 12 nothing and the Big 12 does not need UC. UC is stuck in the AAC.

[drudy23]

I think they get there, I am a little surprised they haven't yet. They have a slightly above average basketball/football program IMO. If you put both together, they stack up good enough with other members in the Big12. Once they build the stadium, I think Big 12 will come after them.

Ummm...they're not building a stadium. They'll still be at 35,000. That doesn't scream Big 12 to me.

[xudash]

I think they get there, I am a little surprised they haven't yet. They have a slightly above average basketball/football program IMO. If you put both together, they stack up good enough with other members in the Big12. Once they build the stadium, I think Big 12 will come after them.

My specific concern for their football stadium strategy is that they're only taking total capacity to 40k. I get that they are investing for high revenue seats, but 40k stadiums aren't going to be very attractive to the likes of Texas, OU, OSU, etc.

Also, this isn't about settling, as far as Texas, in particular, goes. Additions have to be accretive to the conference's television package.

Beyond that priority, Texas probably already doesn't like the current pathing to the 4 team play-off format, if they perceive the SEC can sustain a position of possibly soaking up two of those 4 slots frequently. Even if that's not a primary concern, they're up against 5 major conferences out there, so UT's appetite for having to plow through a risky conference championship game may not be all that great. I know that can work both ways - perhaps there could be years that UT needs that game to make it, but it's safe to say that the largest revenue generating collegiate athletic program doesn't think that way, especially now that they've made a coaching change.

[Masterofreality]

What's wrong with adding St. Louis alone? That gives you 11- the same number that the "Big 10" was for years.

You could still have a 20 game conference schedule on a round robin. Maybe a bit heavy, but you then would still have your 3 game exempt tourney and 8 other non-con games.

And do you really think that the NCAA is going to stay with a 30 game max season limit?

[BMoreX]

I think a 20 game conference season is way too much. Talk about cannibalism.

[bleedXblue]

Ummm...they're not building a stadium. They'll still be at 35,000. That doesn't scream Big 12 to me.

And Notre Dame just announced a 400 million dollar stadium addition.

Yes, 400 million.

[paulxu]

April Madness!

[Burrcats]

If I were the Big East, I would go with Dayton and St. Louis for #11 and #12. I think those two are good fits institutionally, and St. Louis gives Creighton someone on their side of the globe! It also revives the Dayton/Xavier rivalry which is good for the league because the new schools needs some historic rivalries.

I also believe you could make an argument for Richmond over Dayton. I think they just renovated their arena and they have a good academic profile (favored by Georgetown).

[LA Muskie]

I love 10 and would prefer to stay at that number. But assuming we expand, the decision on who gets in will be only tangentially tied to their W/L record. So while I think there are a lot of reasons why Dayton won't be (or at least shouldn't be) included in any expansion, they fact that they are horrible this year (and generally mediocre at best) will not be high on the list of reasons why they are not added.

[RealDeal]

I love 10 and would prefer to stay at that number. But assuming we expand, the decision on who gets in will be only tangentially tied to their W/L record. So while I think there are a lot of reasons why Dayton won't be (or at least shouldn't be) included in any expansion, they fact that they are horrible this year (and generally mediocre at best) will not be high on the list of reasons why they are not added.

It certainly doesn't help.

[LA Muskie]

It certainly doesn't help.
Touche. I can't argue with that.

[vee4xu]

To me, it's just a perverted sense of fun to lord over the University of Clifton and ud that X is now in a conference widely accepted among coaches and the media to be one of the finest in the country, while the other two wallow in basketball purgatory. It has to totally piss off UC that they now can arguably be considered the step-sister of Cincinnati DI basketball. All we ever hear from UC and ud fans is the decorated histories of their respective vaunted programs, while poor old XU has never even been to a Final Four. Evidently, others like X's overall body of work because we are upstairs with the pretty woman and they are outside taking things into their own hands.

[Big Man Fan]

Keep it simple all, TV $'s, thus no overlapping of TV markets, that means no VCU (Georgetown) nor Dayton or UC (X), then private catholic for privacy issues, St. Louis is in next year, and non-football (D1, D3 non-revenue okay), Richmond in, Wichita State now possibility (not catholic, non-D1 football) higher profile BE and much larger revenue pie via Fox Sports.

[muskiefan82]

What about the potential of a different MVC team? I love the idea of the Shockers, but do they fit the BE profile?

[XUFan09]

Keep it simple all, TV $'s, thus no overlapping of TV markets, that means no VCU (Georgetown) nor Dayton or UC (X), then private catholic for privacy issues, St. Louis is in next year, and non-football (D1, D3 non-revenue okay), Richmond in, Wichita State now possibility (not catholic, non-D1 football) higher profile BE and much larger revenue pie via Fox Sports.

The only media overlap there is between DC and Richmond concerns professional sports teams, since Richmond has none. Otherwise, these are distinct media markets.

[GoMuskies]

What about the potential of a different MVC team? I love the idea of the Shockers, but do they fit the BE profile?

No, we're way the hell out in the middle of nowhere here (4.5 hour drive to Omaha; 6 hours to St. Louis), and WSU is a public institution. They do meet the "no football" requirement, even though there's a relatively large football stadium on campus (football died in the '80s here).

[SlimKibbles]

What about the potential of a different MVC team? I love the idea of the Shockers, but do they fit the BE profile?

The only private schools in the MVC are Bradley, Evansville, Drake, and Loyola. Obviously Loyola is Jesuit but the BE already has DePaul in Chicago. Bradley and Drake are independent. Evansville is Methodist. Regardless of the religious affiliations, I'd take Bradley out of that group if I was forced to choose one (likely at gunpoint). To answer your first question, the options aren't great.

[waggy]

Duquesne.


I know, I know.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Gonzaga? Men basketball only.

[BandAid]

Duquesne.


I know, I know.

If they didn't find themselves immediately in the cellar every year I'd be for it.

[Muskie1000]

Duquesne.


I know, I know.

and besides, they are one team I'm glad we don't have to play anymore. We struggled with them at times on the road, even when they weren't very good - so thanks but no thanks.

[throwbackmuskie]

Like I said earlier, there really is not a viable option at his point IMO. IF there really was I think it would have happened this past summer.

[drudy23]

Gonzaga? Men basketball only.

Would be great to have them...but would suck for them.

[GoMuskies]

Would be great to have them...but would suck for them.

If they fly charters everywhere, it honestly wouldn't be that bad for them. If they fly commercial...it would be brutal.

[BMoreX]

I'd really like to know what they do for their non-revenue sports. I'm sure men's (and probably women's) basketball have charter flights.

Let's not kid ourselves. Their cross country team isn't bussing to Pepperdine or San Diego. So they are already flying pretty much anywhere. The closest WCC school to Gonzaga is Portland, 5+ hours away.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/WestCoastLocations.png

[danaandvictory]

If they fly charters everywhere, it honestly wouldn't be that bad for them. If they fly commercial...it would be brutal.

BYU almost would make more sense.

[GoMuskies]

The Catholics and the Mormons. Now THAT would be interesting.

[danaandvictory]

The Catholics and the Mormons. Now THAT would be interesting.

BYU's current conference is almost entirely Catholic schools - I think Pacific and Pepperdine are the only exceptions.

[GoMuskies]

Yes, but no one pays any attention to the WCC, and the "Catholic-ness" of the WCC has never been as well-publicized as the "Catholic-ness" of the Big East was this past year.

[gladdenguy]

You would think sUCks won the National Championship last night based on reactions of winning on the road against a team that is now 0-4 against ranked teams.
Gotta love the comments today from sUCks fans
Here are just a few

Where you at XU, UK, Ohio St!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Xavier will always be considered the other team in Cincinnati.
Where are Xavier's national championships at? In the closet like all their fans

After a decade there still are some sUCks fans starting to make themselves known.

[GoMuskies]

Ha, that UC fan must be pretty old to remember UC winning national titles. CCNY thinks UC should shut up.

[danaandvictory]

Yes, but no one pays any attention to the WCC, and the "Catholic-ness" of the WCC has never been as well-publicized as the "Catholic-ness" of the Big East was this past year.

OK. This is an unbelievably stupid argument.

[danaandvictory]

GG, you should be used to this by now.

Anytime UC gets a big win they come out of the woodwork. All of a sudden there are literally tens of thousands of diehard CAT FANATICS out there. I bet if you polled their fanbase at this point, you'd find that there were 45,000 people personally in attendance at the NC State game.

[throwbackmuskie]

The Catholics and the Mormons. Now THAT would be interesting.

Ever been to SLC? Pretty much you are Catholic of Mormon.

[GoMuskies]

OK. This is an unbelievably stupid argument.

???? What argument?

[GoMuskies]

Ever been to SLC? Pretty much you are Catholic of Mormon.

That's pretty true in Wichita, too. My boss and half my colleagues are Mormon.

[xubrew]

What's wrong with adding St. Louis alone? That gives you 11- the same number that the "Big 10" was for years.

You could still have a 20 game conference schedule on a round robin. Maybe a bit heavy, but you then would still have your 3 game exempt tourney and 8 other non-con games.

And do you really think that the NCAA is going to stay with a 30 game max season limit?

Yes. I don't think that number will change anytime soon. There is a better chance of it being reduced than being increased.

Also, having two teams that are either from the same market, or that appeal to the same market, is actually good for ratings, especially if the two are natural rivals. Look it up. If one network has two teams from the same market, then chances are the entire market will watch both games, and both games will be on the same network. That basically gives them the entire market twice. If two teams are in different leagues and on different networks, then they're only getting half of the market once.

Having said all that, there is no reason to expand. There isn't a single team out there who would want to join the Big East that offers it anything that it does not already have that makes adding them worth it.

[Masterofreality]

Ha, that UC fan must be pretty old to remember UC winning national titles. CCNY thinks UC should shut up.

Loyola Chicago has a more recent National Championship than the Borecats.

And Cleveland actually has a more recent World Championship.

Relevancy of a SucKS championship? No.

[Masterofreality]

You would think sUCks won the National Championship last night based on reactions of winning on the road against a team that is now 0-4 against ranked teams.
Gotta love the comments today from sUCks fans
Here are just a few

Where you at XU, UK, Ohio St!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Xavier will always be considered the other team in Cincinnati.
Where are Xavier's national championships at? In the closet like all their fans

After a decade there still are some sUCks fans starting to make themselves known.

Here's where we are......at the intersection of 64 and 47.

[MHettel]

Yes. I don't think that number will change anytime soon. There is a better chance of it being reduced than being increased.

Also, having two teams that are either from the same market, or that appeal to the same market, is actually good for ratings, especially if the two are natural rivals. Look it up. If one network has two teams from the same market, then chances are the entire market will watch both games, and both games will be on the same network. That basically gives them the entire market twice. If two teams are in different leagues and on different networks, then they're only getting half of the market once.



Ok, I give up. Where exactly do I "look it up"?

I dont think your approach to the markets is on target. Lets take St. Louis for example. If the Big East were to add St. Louis, of course you'd get the people that like to watch the St. Louis games tuning in, but you'd also get a subset of St. Louis fans that would watch Big East games where St. Louis is NOT playing.

How many of you guys watched an A10 game in the past, just becasue they were XU opponents? I wouldnt watch Umass @ SJU for any other reason.

The goal is to create interest which translates to viewers which translates to ratings which translates to revenue. It's not more complicated than that.

Adding St. Louis as a new market would create significantly more incremental viewers of the Big East than adding Dayton, which has overlap to the Cincy market where a fair amount of interest already exists.

I said a long time ago that I felt Duquesne might be in as good of a position as anyone for expansion. Adding a bad team to gain Pittsburg as a market is potentially more valuable than adding Dayton or Richmond who have some overlap to existing BE markets.

[xu82]

Here's where we are......at the intersection of 64 and 47.

Sounds a little like someone (else) made a wrong turn and refuses to ask for directions, but we're in a good place.

[xubrew]

UC offers the Big 12 nothing and the Big 12 does not need UC. UC is stuck in the AAC.

If they decide they want a football championship game, which they may not, then they'll have to add someone, and they would probably want one of the schools to be in somewhat of a proximity to West Virginia. If you're going to be traveling that far in all the other sports other than football, then it would be nice to be able to play two games instead of just one.

IF they decide to go back out to twelve, which they may not because they actually seem to like it at ten (take notes, Big East), then Cincinnati makes about as much sense as anybody. I mean, who else would they get?? Memphis?? Boise?? BYU?? I think if anything is abundantly clear, it's that they do not want Boise, and that BYU has no interest in joining up with any league. So, I think those two are out.

[Masterofreality]

If they decide they want a football championship game, which they may not, then they'll have to add someone, and they would probably want one of the schools to be in somewhat of a proximity to West Virginia. If you're going to be traveling that far in all the other sports other than football, then it would be nice to be able to play two games instead of just one.

IF they decide to go back out to twelve, which they may not because they actually seem to like it at ten (take notes, Big East), then Cincinnati makes about as much sense as anybody. I mean, who else would they get?? Memphis?? Boise?? BYU?? I think if anything is abundantly clear, it's that they do not want Boise, and that BYU has no interest in joining up with any league. So, I think those two are out.

Adding SucKS to the Big 12 is exactly like adding Dookcane to the Big East. Both bad ideas.

[Seven Eighths]

If they decide they want a football championship game, which they may not, then they'll have to add someone, and they would probably want one of the schools to be in somewhat of a proximity to West Virginia. If you're going to be traveling that far in all the other sports other than football, then it would be nice to be able to play two games instead of just one.

IF they decide to go back out to twelve, which they may not because they actually seem to like it at ten (take notes, Big East), then Cincinnati makes about as much sense as anybody. I mean, who else would they get?? Memphis?? Boise?? BYU?? I think if anything is abundantly clear, it's that they do not want Boise, and that BYU has no interest in joining up with any league. So, I think those two are out.

UC makes no sense and that is probably part of the reason why the Big 12 has not expanded beyond 10 because outside of BYU, there is no one that attractive.

UC fans that think the Big 12 will come after them need to get a grip on reality. I know most UC fans lost that years ago but still.

[xubrew]

UC makes no sense and that is probably part of the reason why the Big 12 has not expanded beyond 10 because outside of BYU, there is no one that attractive.

UC fans that think the Big 12 will come after them need to get a grip on reality. I know most UC fans lost that years ago but still.

If they decide they want a football championship game, which I realize is a VERY big "if", then they'll need two more teams, and UC makes as much sense as anybody. I cannot think of two teams that make more sense than UC. Can you?? Before you say BYU, it won't be them.

[xubrew]

Ok, I give up. Where exactly do I "look it up"?

I dont think your approach to the markets is on target. Lets take St. Louis for example. If the Big East were to add St. Louis, of course you'd get the people that like to watch the St. Louis games tuning in, but you'd also get a subset of St. Louis fans that would watch Big East games where St. Louis is NOT playing.

How many of you guys watched an A10 game in the past, just becasue they were XU opponents? I wouldnt watch Umass @ SJU for any other reason.

The goal is to create interest which translates to viewers which translates to ratings which translates to revenue. It's not more complicated than that.

Adding St. Louis as a new market would create significantly more incremental viewers of the Big East than adding Dayton, which has overlap to the Cincy market where a fair amount of interest already exists.

I said a long time ago that I felt Duquesne might be in as good of a position as anyone for expansion. Adding a bad team to gain Pittsburg as a market is potentially more valuable than adding Dayton or Richmond who have some overlap to existing BE markets.


Did it ever occur to you that since you don't even know where to look up that kind of information, that perhaps your suppositions are also pretty far off?? They are, by the way.

Lets take a look at last week's highest rated ESPN games

http://sonofthebronx.blogspot.com/2014/01/espn-espn2-espnu-and-espnews-ratings_31.html

1. Michigan vs Michigan State. Both in the same conference. Both have interests in the same markets.

2. Indiana vs Michigan State. Both teams have conference opponents that appeal to the same market.

3 Texas A&M vs Kentucky. Admittedly I don't understand this one because it wasn't that close of a game, and it wasn't a case where both teams are ranked. But, lets keep going....

4. Florida State at Duke. Duke has three other teams in their conference that are appealing to the same market.

5. Illinois at Ohio State.

6. Baylor at Kansas. Kansas is in a conference with Kansas State, and Baylor is in with other Texas schools.

Now, for ESPN 2

1. West Virginia at Oklahoma State. Okie State is in with Oklahoma. It's also interesting that this game did not get a big ratings boost until 2:47 because the previous game ran over. The previous game was VCU and La Salle, both of whom are in a conference with other teams in their city.

2. Colorado at Arizona. Arizona is in with Arizona State.

3. Duke at Miami

4. BYU at Gonzaga. This is another game on the list where neither team is in a conference with someone else who appeals to the same markets, but it's also worth noting that Utah was not playing during this game. Utah State was, and if they hadn't been, the game would have rated higher than 0.3.


Lets look at Fox Sports 1 (it's kind of depressing)

1. Creighton at Villanova. This game scored a 0.1, which is way lower than any of the ESPN games. There was also another game in Philly going on at that time.

2. Georgetown at Creighton. Again, a 0.1.


Here is ESPN U

1. Clemson at North Carolina. It got a 0.3, and it probably would not have gotten that had Duke or NC State been playing at the time, and/or in different leagues.

2. Kansas at TCU.

3. San Diego at Gonzaga (this is only the third example of a game where neither team is in the same conference with at least one other team that appeals to similar markets). Both games involved Gonzaga.

4. Maryland at NC State. This was a Monday night game. Do you think this game gets anywhere close if Duke and UNC are in different leagues and on different channels and playing at the same time?? Neither team is a tournament team, yet it was the 4th overall game on ESPNU. I guarantee you that Duke and UNC fans were watching for the same reason we're fixated on Dayton.



I could go on and on, but you get the point. I don't work in television, but I do have friends that work in that industry. They've studied this way more than I have, and they'll be the first to tell you that it's GOOD to have teams from the same markets in the same conference. It allows them to control the times of the games and stagger them so they're not playing at the same time, and you'll get big ratings in those local markets for all the games.

I know people are naturally influenced by their own prejudices. I don't mean that in a bad way. It's human nature. But, because so many XU fans don't like Dayton, they've convinced themselves that they bring nothing to the league and aren't necessary because it's not a new market. The reality is that it IS a new market, and they WOULD increase ratings because every XU fan would watch the UD game, and every UD fan would watch the XU game. Fox DID want them, even if there were other schools in the league that didn't.

[waggy]

I think this idea that teams from the same market or that "appeal" to the same market, is a good thing, is basically a bunch of crap.

As far as the Big East goes, give me good teams at private schools in the biggest unreached urban markets possible.

[xubrew]

I think this idea that teams from the same market or that "appeal" to the same market, is a good thing, is basically a bunch of crap.

As far as the Big East goes, give me good teams at private schools in the biggest unreached urban markets possible.

If it's a bunch of crap then why do conferences that have multiple teams in the same market get bigger ratings, both in those markets and nationally, when those teams play?

[waggy]

Basically they're called rivalries 'Brew.

A bunch of crap may be too strong, but there are many variables when it comes ratings and college basketball.

[xubrew]

Basically they're called rivalries 'Brew.

A bunch of crap may be too strong, but there are many variables when it comes ratings and college basketball.

Yes, there are, and this is a variable that tends to make the ratings go up.

[waggy]

So you're saying rivalries make the ratings go up?

[xubrew]

So you're saying rivalries make the ratings go up?

I'm saying a little more than that.

I'm saying having two teams who are appealing to the same viewing area will make the ratings go up if they're in the same conference.

In an earlier post I said why I felt that way, and even posted the top rated games from the previous week to prove my point.

If you go back over a period of years and look at each week's ratings, you'll see that the vast majority of top rated games involve teams that share a market and/or viewing area with a team in their conference.

There are two reasons for this.

1. Fans will watch their team, and their team's rival.

2. Having a TV deal with two or more teams from the same market allows the network to stagger the times so the teams aren't playing at teh same time, and maximize the size of the audience. For instance, if Duke and UNC were in different conferences, and playing on different networks at the same time, then the ratings wouldn't be anywhere nearly as big as they are now.

Having Michigan gives you half of the Michigan viewing area whenever Michigan plays. Having Michigan and Michigan State pretty much gives you the entire Michigan viewing area whenever either one of them play.

[waggy]

So I think you said you'd rather that no teams be added, but if I put a gun to your head which two teams would you say should be added to the BE?

[xubrew]

So I think you said you'd rather that no teams be added, but if I put a gun to your head which two teams would you say should be added to the BE?

For TV ratings, Dayton and VCU.

For consistent overall league quality, VCU, and I'm having a hard time coming up with anyone else. I'm not at all convinced that SLU will continue to be good once these seniors leave. Jim Crews is staying, after all, and he has a long career of digressing programs.

But, truth be told I'd like to kick out DePaul, or Seton Hall, or both. I know DePaul is in the Chicago market. That would be nice if anyone in Chicago cared about them.

[Muskie1000]

lets not start talking about who we would like to get rid of. On any given day I would rather be in affiliation with those teams than Fordham, SBU or Duquesne.

[xavierj]

Dayton vs. Xavier would do little for the ratings. There just isn't that many people outside the hard core that would really care and I dont think Xavier really wants to be on an even playing field with them. We have already done that and the ratings were not all that great before. I am done with them.

[xavierj]

I am also willing to bet that the Xavier vs Marquette game on fox will draw a much larger audience. People just don't know where to find FS 1 yet. It will get better. But it needs more marketing. It's only 6 months old.

[DC Muskie]

Dayton vs. Xavier would do little for the ratings. There just isn't that many people outside the hard core that would really care and I dont think Xavier really wants to be on an even playing field with them. We have already done that and the ratings were not all that great before. I am done with them.

Actually the ratings the last few years for Dayton/Xavier games have been terrible.

The reason why the games Brew listed had high ratings are timing, (there's no football) both teams are very good (Mich and Mich State) and have a national following.

[xubrew]

Actually the ratings the last few years for Dayton/Xavier games have been terrible.

The reason why the games Brew listed had high ratings are timing, (there's no football) both teams are very good (Mich and Mich State) and have a national following.

Do you think the ratings for Duke, UNC, and NC State would be higher or lower in North Carolina markets if they were in different conferences and on different networks where they frequently played at the same time??

How about Michigan and Michigan State??

How about Arizona and Arizona State??

I just find it amazing that people think it's bad to have two teams from the same viewing area in the same conference. The evidence is overwhelming that it will increase ratings (ESPECIALLY in those local markets), and not decrease them.

It's one thing to say that you don't care about ratings. Truth be told, I really don't. I'd like to have Dayton in the league, but that has more to do with how fun I think the rivalry is than it does with the fact that I think they'll help ratings (albiet only in the southern Ohio markets). Given the choice of having 11 with them or 10 without them, I'd rather have ten without them.

But, you can't say that having a second team from a given viewing area is detrimental to ratings. It's not. That doesn't make any sense at all. In any given week, the vast majority of highest rated games involve teams who share a market/viewing area with a team in their conference. I'd like someone who thinks having two teams from the same market will be bad for ratings to explain that to me.

Can anyone provide just one example of a ratings increase in a viewing area where two teams from that area had been in the same conference, and one of them left??

[Burrcats]

For TV ratings, Dayton and VCU.

For consistent overall league quality, VCU, and I'm having a hard time coming up with anyone else. I'm not at all convinced that SLU will continue to be good once these seniors leave. Jim Crews is staying, after all, and he has a long career of digressing programs.

But, truth be told I'd like to kick out DePaul, or Seton Hall, or both. I know DePaul is in the Chicago market. That would be nice if anyone in Chicago cared about them.

VCU would be a very bad fit for the Big East institutionally. They are a large public school, while the rest of the league is made up of small private schools. There are also talks that VCU is considering adding football (LINK (http://www.vcuramfootball.com/The%20Case%20for%20VCU%20Footballfinal%20by%20Dann y%20Swanson.pdf)) much like UNC-Charlotte or Old Dominion have recently. They have a TON of potential to do the same, I didn't realize how young of a University they are.

Richmond makes more sense than VCU for the Big East and I believe adding them along with St. Louis would both add new markets for the league and help to decimate the revitalized Atlantic 10 cementing the Big East as the premiere non-football conference.

[X-band '01]

I always got the impression from VCU fans that they didn't want to start up football, but if they do decide to start up, they're probably looking at future C-USA membership like Charlotte and Old Dominion.

[xubrew]

VCU would be a very bad fit for the Big East institutionally. They are a large public school, while the rest of the league is made up of small private schools. There are also talks that VCU is considering adding football (LINK (http://www.vcuramfootball.com/The%20Case%20for%20VCU%20Footballfinal%20by%20Dann y%20Swanson.pdf)) much like UNC-Charlotte or Old Dominion have recently. They have a TON of potential to do the same, I didn't realize how young of a University they are.

Richmond makes more sense than VCU for the Big East and I believe adding them along with St. Louis would both add new markets for the league and help to decimate the revitalized Atlantic 10 cementing the Big East as the premiere non-football conference.

Richmond's athletic department is a tire fire. When tires are on fire, it is advisable to stay away. I think they're good because of Chris Mooney, not because of their leadership, and once he's gone they won't be good anymore. VCU has way more stability. I don't think football is being seriously considered at the university level. They're considering football in the same way some of the Xavier fans are. They are a public institution, but that's something that a lot of people get caught up on that really doesn't matter. Their athletic department is very solid, and very similar in structure to everyone else's in the Big East.

[Burrcats]

I always got the impression from VCU fans that they didn't want to start up football, but if they do decide to start up, they're probably looking at future C-USA membership like Charlotte and Old Dominion.

Old Dominion sold out season tickets, I believe they even had to turn folks down. VCU has the potential to do the same, and college football is still king. According to the link I posted, 73% were in favor of football, maybe message board fans feel another way. Virginia is definitely a "football" state.

[waggy]

For TV ratings, Dayton and..


Why not Wright State or Northern Kentucky?

[GuyFawkes38]

I really don't care. Anyone but Dayton. IMHO, the X admin should quietly but actively push against Daton's membership. We are direct competitors, so we have a zero sum game with them.

[DC Muskie]

Do you think the ratings for Duke, UNC, and NC State would be higher or lower in North Carolina markets if they were in different conferences and on different networks where they frequently played at the same time??

How about Michigan and Michigan State??

How about Arizona and Arizona State??

I just find it amazing that people think it's bad to have two teams from the same viewing area in the same conference. The evidence is overwhelming that it will increase ratings (ESPECIALLY in those local markets), and not decrease them.

It's one thing to say that you don't care about ratings. Truth be told, I really don't. I'd like to have Dayton in the league, but that has more to do with how fun I think the rivalry is than it does with the fact that I think they'll help ratings (albiet only in the southern Ohio markets). Given the choice of having 11 with them or 10 without them, I'd rather have ten without them.

But, you can't say that having a second team from a given viewing area is detrimental to ratings. It's not. That doesn't make any sense at all. In any given week, the vast majority of highest rated games involve teams who share a market/viewing area with a team in their conference. I'd like someone who thinks having two teams from the same market will be bad for ratings to explain that to me.

Can anyone provide just one example of a ratings increase in a viewing area where two teams from that area had been in the same conference, and one of them left??

My only disagreement is that these schools have been in the same conference for more than 40 years. Sure we've been playing Dayton for decades, but when they suck, or when we are playing like Dayton, those ratings aren't there. They aren't going to magically appear simply because we are back in the same conference.

[sirthought]

Why is this topic even being discussed?
I know boards are set up to pontificate, but seriously you have no indication they want to expand.
It's the first year and things haven't been running long enough to see if it's good or not.
Just enjoy the ride and analysis something proactive for the program, like how to get Myles Davis' touch back.

[xubrew]

My only disagreement is that these schools have been in the same conference for more than 40 years. Sure we've been playing Dayton for decades, but when they suck, or when we are playing like Dayton, those ratings aren't there. They aren't going to magically appear simply because we are back in the same conference.

In Cincinnati and Ohio, I can almost guarantee that it would. If XU and UD were in the same conference, they would not have been playing at the same time today, and because the majority of fans are obsessed with the other team, most of them would have watched both games, and the ratings in those two markets would have been significantly higher for both games.

VCU and Richmond have helped each other out in that market.

We're not expanding, nor should we. There are many good reasons not to do it. Saying that Dayton would hurt ratings is not a good reason. It's a dumb reason, and it's an incorrect reason. That's really all I'm saying. I make no secret about the fact that I'd rather have them than some of the teams in the league (including the one that just beat us), but I don't want them (or anyone else) if it means having more than ten teams.

[waggy]

In Cincinnati and Ohio, I can almost guarantee that it would. If XU and UD were in the same conference, they would not have been playing at the same time today, and because the majority of fans are obsessed with the other team, most of them would have watched both games, and the ratings in those two markets would have been significantly higher for both games.

VCU and Richmond have helped each other out in that market.

We're not expanding, nor should we. There are many good reasons not to do it. Saying that Dayton would hurt ratings is not a good reason. It's a dumb reason, and it's an incorrect reason. That's really all I'm saying. I make no secret about the fact that I'd rather have them than some of the teams in the league (including the one that just beat us), but I don't want them (or anyone else) if it means having more than ten teams.


Nothing, absolutely nothing, is better with dayton. Maybe you have this site confused with pride.

[DC Muskie]

In Cincinnati and Ohio, I can almost guarantee that it would. If XU and UD were in the same conference, they would not have been playing at the same time today, and because the majority of fans are obsessed with the other team, most of them would have watched both games, and the ratings in those two markets would have been significantly higher for both games.

And I'm telling you when we were in the same conference, the last few years, those ratings weren't good.

[xudash]

What is more important, holding a strategic advantage over Dayton or garnering potential, small bumps in television ratings for one or two games per season because of UD's inclusion in the Big East.

There is no reason to support having UD in the Big East. Not one good reason.

[xubrew]

And I'm telling you when we were in the same conference, the last few years, those ratings weren't good.

What exactly are you looking at?? It's not that I don't believe you. I'm just curious where you're getting that from.

I can only see what last year's ratings were, and I'm too lazy to look up the others. I can honestly say that I do not recall them being exceptionally low. I have looked at it before, and I do recall both Xavier and Dayton rating well in both Xavier and Dayton. Both teams rated well both places.

The XU v UD game last year that was on ESPN 2 got a 0.199. I don't know what they were in the local Cincinnati and Dayton markets, but to pull a national rating like that when it was two teams that weren't NCAA Tournament teams and that no one else outside of Ohio really cared about, I can't imagine the local ratings were bad. Do you know what they were??

That's actually not bad for a noon game between two teams that were nowhere close to the NCAA tournament. It was up against Nova v Uconn and Virginia v UNC.

[paulxu]

There is no reason to support having UD in the Big East. Not one good reason.

This is true.

[xubrew]

What is more important, holding a strategic advantage over Dayton or garnering potential, small bumps in television ratings for one or two games per season because of UD's inclusion in the Big East.

There is no reason to support having UD in the Big East. Not one good reason.

It would more than just one or two games. It would likely boost the ratings in those markets for all the games, but that's beside the point.

I'm not arguing that we should invite Dayton in order to boost the ratings. I really don't care that much about the ratings. I don't think we should invite anyone. I'm merely disputing the absurd claim that adding Dayton wouldn't help the ratings. It would. They'd still be low nationally, but they wouldn't be quite as low, and they'd be noticeably better in the southern Ohio markets.


I don't consider holding a strategic advantage over Dayton to be any more important (or less important) than holding a strategic advantage over SLU, or Richmond, or VCU, or anyone else for that matter. It's not like Dayton ever did anything to hold Xavier back in all those years they were in the same conference.

[xudash]

It would more than just one or two games. It would likely boost the ratings in those markets for all the games, but that's beside the point.

I'm not arguing that we should invite Dayton in order to boost the ratings. I really don't care that much about the ratings. I don't think we should invite anyone. I'm merely disputing the absurd claim that adding Dayton wouldn't help the ratings. It would. They'd still be low nationally, but they wouldn't be quite as low, and they'd be noticeably better in the southern Ohio markets.


I don't consider holding a strategic advantage over Dayton to be any more important (or less important) than holding a strategic advantage over SLU, or Richmond, or VCU, or anyone else for that matter. It's not like Dayton ever did anything to hold Xavier back in all those years they were in the same conference.

Respecting your opinion, I believe it is safe to suggest that strategic advantage is considered valuable.

[xubrew]

Respecting your opinion, I believe it is safe to suggest that strategic advantage is considered valuable.

I'm not saying that it isn't. I just don't know why you seem to only be concerned with maintaining it over Dayton and not over anyone else that's being suggested. (actually, I do know why).

I don't think that avoiding being in the same conference as Dayton is all that important to Xavier's overall strategic plan.

[xudash]

I'm not saying that it isn't. I just don't know why you seem to only be concerned with maintaining it over Dayton and not over anyone else that's being suggested. (actually, I do know why).

I don't think that avoiding being in the same conference as Dayton is all that important to Xavier's overall strategic plan.

I don't mean to appear to seem that I only care about Dayton.

I don't consider the strategic advantage issue when it comes to SLU or the other schools. SLU is widely regarded to be #11 IF expansion ever takes place, and SLU is in Mizzou, not Southwestern Ohio.

No comment with respect to the University's strategic planning.

[MHettel]

So much potential in this thread!!!! But limited time to lay it all out.

Brew- You keep talking about all of this evidence that you have that 2 teams in the same market are the key to ratings success. The list of the highest rated games from last week had basically the best "brands" in college basketball today. People watch Kentucky and Duke and Michigan State and whoever else were on the list. The fact that UNC and Duke are close together isn't the reason why. Kentucky vs. Texas A.M. was one of the best rated games. You want to know why? Because Kentucky Played.

And the idea that during expansion discussion for a brand new league that's trying to position itself with the "big boys" (a league where 70% of the team used to BE "big Boys"), that you would use Michigan State vs. Michigan as "Exibit A" in your argument.

Later you challenge US to provide evidence on exactly how it would be bad to add a team in an existing market.

Nobody said it would be bad. It's just not as good as adding a new market.

Go find a fisherman that has 10 nets in the water. Give him a net. Do you think he throws that net where he's already got one, or does he find a whole new spot?

[xubrew]

So much potential in this thread!!!! But limited time to lay it all out.

Brew- You keep talking about all of this evidence that you have that 2 teams in the same market are the key to ratings success. The list of the highest rated games from last week had basically the best "brands" in college basketball today. People watch Kentucky and Duke and Michigan State and whoever else were on the list. The fact that UNC and Duke are close together isn't the reason why. Kentucky vs. Texas A.M. was one of the best rated games. You want to know why? Because Kentucky Played.

And the idea that during expansion discussion for a brand new league that's trying to position itself with the "big boys" (a league where 70% of the team used to BE "big Boys"), that you would use Michigan State vs. Michigan as "Exibit A" in your argument.

Later you challenge US to provide evidence on exactly how it would be bad to add a team in an existing market.

Nobody said it would be bad. It's just not as good as adding a new market.

Go find a fisherman that has 10 nets in the water. Give him a net. Do you think he throws that net where he's already got one, or does he find a whole new spot?


Take a look at what you said. It is an over the top, over the moon, over the stars level of crazy...


Adding St. Louis as a new market would create significantly more incremental viewers of the Big East than adding Dayton, which has overlap to the Cincy market where a fair amount of interest already exists.

I said a long time ago that I felt Duquesne might be in as good of a position as anyone for expansion. Adding a bad team to gain Pittsburg as a market is potentially more valuable than adding Dayton or Richmond who have some overlap to existing BE markets.

If you were to add Saint Louis, it would increase the ratings in Saint Louis, but only when Saint Louis was playing. The ratings for the other games that SLU isn't playing in would not even increase enough to register ratings any higher than what they are now.

Adding Duquesne wouldn't do anything because not only would no one in Pittsburgh watch any of the games that Duquesne wasn't playing in, they wouldn't watch any of the games Duquesne WAS playing.

The AAC added Houston. No one in Connecticut, or Louisville, or Memphis, or Cincinnati, or anywhere else is watching the Houston games, so it did nothing to increase ratings. No one in Houston is really watching the Houston games either. If increasing ratings was their primary goal, then adding Houston was a bad idea.

I've said this before. In general, regular season college basketball rates well in the markets and viewing areas of the teams that are playing, but nationally, they rate lousy. A HUGE percentage of any national rating is coming from the markets where the teams that are playing are located.

It's not as simple as adding markets. It's getting those markets to watch the games, and to watch more than one game. The best way to do that is to have overlap. Take Richmond and VCU. When the two were in different conferences, the Richmond fans typically watched Richmond, and the VCU fans typically watched VCU. Networks were essentially getting half the market whenever one of the teams played. Now that they're in the same conference, and on the same network, and that they can stagger the starts, and because it's a rivalry and people have an interest in both, they're getting the WHOLE market whenever one of them plays. They've drastically increased the ratings in that market for both teams because fans watch both games, and they're not competing with each other for ratings anymore. Instead of the network getting half the market once, it gets the whole market twice. It has boosted ratings.

I'm well aware that there are other variables. I was merely showing you the majority of the top rated games each week consist of teams that have market/viewing area overlap. It's not the only reason the ratings are high. I never said it was. It does help, though. If Michigan and Michigan State were in different leagues and frequently played at the same time, neither team's games would have as good of ratings as they do now. That's just basic common sense.

Kind of like not adding Duquesne and understanding that adding Duquesne would do nothing to help the ratings. Basic common sense.

Again, I don't want to add Dayton. I don't want to add anyone. If anything, I'd rather get rid of a team. I actually agree with the majority of what most of the people have posted to this thread. But, when you're trying to explain to me how ratings work and how adding Duquesne would help more than adding Dayton, that's just idiotic. That doesn't mean that I want to add Dayton. I don't. But, I'd MUCH prefer them to Duquesne.

[GoMuskies]

I think I might prefer going back to the A-10 if the Big East adds Duquesne. The A-10 agreeing to boot Fordham would seal the deal.

[waggy]

I feel the same way about Dayton Go.

[Masterofreality]

If it's a bunch of crap then why do conferences that have multiple teams in the same market get bigger ratings, both in those markets and nationally, when those teams play?

Just one question, what was the FS1 rating onthe X/Borecat game?

[Masterofreality]

The XU v UD game last year that was on ESPN 2 got a 0.199.

And the other X udump game was shown on CBSCCCCCCPSN. If it was such a great draw for eyes, don't you think that the four letter network would have found a place for it somewhere?

Look, Brew, I'm not arguing, but to postulate that bringing the Cryers in just because they are a "rival" in the same market is faulty. The dump brings nothing to the table. The other "rivalry" games you pointed out were big schools with big alumni in big conferences. Just bringing in a school with a long term secondary program that has won one NCAA game in 20 years does nothing nationally. It would be a big deal in Southern Ohio, but met with a collective YAWN in the rest of the country.

How did that addition of Fordham to the A-10 work out?

[xubrew]

Just one question, what was the FS1 rating onthe X/Borecat game?

0.1. 212,000 sets tuned in. It was FS1's highest rated game that week.

[xubrew]

And the other X udump game was shown on CBSCCCCCCPSN. If it was such a great draw for eyes, don't you think that the four letter network would have found a place for it somewhere?

Look, Brew, I'm not arguing, but to postulate that bringing the Cryers in just because they are a "rival" in the same market is faulty. The dump brings nothing to the table. The other "rivalry" games you pointed out were big schools with big alumni in big conferences. Just bringing in a school with a long term secondary program that has won one NCAA game in 20 years does nothing nationally. It would be a big deal in Southern Ohio, but met with a collective YAWN in the rest of the country.

How did that addition of Fordham to the A-10 work out?


I'm not arguing to bring Dayton in. I've said multiple times that I don't want to bring anyone in. If they were to be brought in, it would not hurt the ratings.

ESPN didn't have the rights to the game at Dayton, so they couldn't have found a place for it if they wanted to. CBS did, and they put it on their network which is not on a basic tier in an attempt to get people to subscribe to it.

The addition of Fordham to the Atlantic Ten did not work out nearly as well as the addition of Dayton did. The addition of Duquesne to the Big East wouldn't work either.

[paulxu]

If you were building a conference to be the best it could possibly be, why would you add a team with one NCAA win in 25 years and a .500 record in their own conference in the last 10 years?

Forget for a moment who they are, who they were 50 years ago, where they are located, how big they are, etc.

Forget all that. Concentrate on picking a team that would help your conference. Would a team with that resume even be on your radar?

[xubrew]

If you were building a conference to be the best it could possibly be, why would you add a team with one NCAA win in 25 years and a .500 record in their own conference in the last 10 years?

Forget for a moment who they are, who they were 50 years ago, where they are located, how big they are, etc.

Forget all that. Concentrate on picking a team that would help your conference. Would a team with that resume even be on your radar?

I assume you're talking about Dayton and not Duquesne, who is actually worse.

Did you miss the previous 58 or so times I said that I didn't want to add anyone?? I'm merely pointing out that adding them would not hurt ratings. It wouldn't. That's not the same as saying we should add them (or anyone). We shouldn't.

[X-band '01]

Anyone who is talking about either bringing teams in or kicking teams out should also remember that there are performance criteria in place by the Big East as it is. Exactly what it is, I have no idea.

Another thing to consider is that even with the A-10 getting an expanded TV package with the Mothership Networks, CBS Sports Network and NBC Sports Network, they're still making far less per school than they would be getting in the Big East right now. Even then, the money distributed would be diluted by adding another team or two.

[paulxu]

I don't think there is any dilution if 2 more teams are added.
The original deal with Fox called for the same amount per team for 10 or 12 (I'm pretty sure that's what was publicized).
They'd just ante up more if 2 teams were added.

[xubrew]

I don't think there is any dilution if 2 more teams are added.
The original deal with Fox called for the same amount per team for 10 or 12 (I'm pretty sure that's what was publicized).
They'd just ante up more if 2 teams were added.

What does adding two more teams accomplish?? It doesn't yield more money, it probably won't increase the ratings, and it won't elevate the quality of the league. Why do it??

Sometimes I think that if you took a bunch of college basketball fans, analysts, and administrators to the Middle East, their diplomatic solution to all the problems would be expansion. Lets add a few teams, and everything will be better off.

Someone posted it earlier in the thread, but if you're not playing a team in your conference twice, then you don't get anywhere close to the same mathematical advantage to being in the same league with them in the power ratings. It's true. There is no real advantage to expanding because there really isn't a program out there that's worth giving up a balanced schedule so we can include them.

I seriously doubt SLU is going to stay at the level they're currently at. Much of this is the result of the work of a guy that's not there anymore. After this year they lose a lot, and I just don't think you can assume they'll get it back. GW had a really strong run for a couple of years as well. So did Nevada. So did Drake. So did George Mason. I just don't think SLU will sustain it like those other teams didn't.

[paulxu]

Brew, what's the deal? I didn't advocate expansion. I responded to a concern about dilution of dollars if there was expansion.

If there is expansion, I imagine those people who make the decision to do so will have what they think are good reasons.
I certainly don't imagine them sitting around saying..."well, there is NO good reason to expand...so let's expand."

We'll have to check into their reasons as offered if that day ever comes. More inventory for TV, maybe everyone goes to a 22 game conference schedule, they want to hold down travel to a division area, some football teams give up football and are good basketball schools, etc. Hell, I don't know.

[DC Muskie]

What exactly are you looking at?? It's not that I don't believe you. I'm just curious where you're getting that from.

I can only see what last year's ratings were, and I'm too lazy to look up the others. I can honestly say that I do not recall them being exceptionally low. I have looked at it before, and I do recall both Xavier and Dayton rating well in both Xavier and Dayton. Both teams rated well both places.

The XU v UD game last year that was on ESPN 2 got a 0.199. I don't know what they were in the local Cincinnati and Dayton markets, but to pull a national rating like that when it was two teams that weren't NCAA Tournament teams and that no one else outside of Ohio really cared about, I can't imagine the local ratings were bad. Do you know what they were??

That's actually not bad for a noon game between two teams that were nowhere close to the NCAA tournament. It was up against Nova v Uconn and Virginia v UNC.

Those are the same ratings I was looking at. That's average to bad side of ratings on ESPN2 for an afternoon game. Years before that game was well above that.

[Masterofreality]

0.1. 212,000 sets tuned in. It was FS1's highest rated game that week.

But it isn't significantly better than many of the other FS1 games, which blows a hole in the "same market rivalry game rating" point.

And Brew, I agree. I don't want anybody else either!

[xubrew]

But it isn't significantly better than many of the other FS1 games, which blows a hole in the "same market rivalry game rating" point.

And Brew, I agree. I don't want anybody else either!

It's not so much the same market "rivalry GAME." It's the idea that if two teams from the same market are in the same market, the ENTIRE market will watch both their games every week instead of a split market just watching one of the team's games.

Think of it this way. UC and Xavier aren't in the same conference. If they were, and there were UC and Xavier double headers each night, or if they always played on different nights, the ratings for both team's games in that market (and probably nationally) would be significantly higher. You would get an entire market watching two games instead of a split market watching one game.


Brew, what's the deal? I didn't advocate expansion. I responded to a concern about dilution of dollars if there was expansion.

If there is expansion, I imagine those people who make the decision to do so will have what they think are good reasons.
I certainly don't imagine them sitting around saying..."well, there is NO good reason to expand...so let's expand."

We'll have to check into their reasons as offered if that day ever comes. More inventory for TV, maybe everyone goes to a 22 game conference schedule, they want to hold down travel to a division area, some football teams give up football and are good basketball schools, etc. Hell, I don't know.

I don't know who's arguing for what anymore. I was never an advocate of expansion, and I wasn't arguing for it, yet some how I started arguing with people who had that same viewpoint.

I don't care about ratings either. As long as I'm able to watch the games I want to watch, I really don't care how many other people are watching. There were 31 people who logged in to watched the internet stream of IPFW at Denver. I was one of them. I don't see why that matters, though. Who cares if no one else is watching??

My only thing was MHettel's belief that adding Duquesne would be good for ratings, and adding Dayton wouldn't be, was an assessment that can best be described as psychotic.

I'm not saying we should add Dayton. We shouldn't add anyone.

[waggy]

I think SLU has historically been a fringe top 100 team. Maybe dropping to as low as 150 on a given year. However they've only had an on campus arena for a little while now. They should be fine.

Can't add just one team I don't think, which means another is going to have to be found. It also means divisions, which could affect X in an interesting way. If Drake for example was added, X could end up in the eastern division, which would be just fine. If Duquesne or Richmond is added, they're the eastern teams problem primarily.

[Masterofreality]

It's not so much the same market "rivalry GAME." It's the idea that if two teams from the same market are in the same market, the ENTIRE market will watch both their games every week instead of a split market just watching one of the team's games.

I guess I disagree with that premise. Why? Because I'm more inclined to watch ANY teams in my league, whether they are in the same market or not. I'll watch Villanova, Creighton and Marquette on a higher level than I would the dump. The Cryers mean less to me than teams that actually matter to my team. Would I watch them more if they were in my league? Yeah, but I would also watch St. Louis more if they were in my league on an equal basis. I would suggest that unless you are a Cryer fan in Southeast Ohio, you're not watching them whether they are in your league or not..at least any more than you would StL.
The point being is that a St. Louis market is much larger than a split southern Ohio market where you already have a presence, so why not tap into the bigger available pool rather than mucking up the same water?

[xubrew]

I guess I disagree with that premise. Why? Because I'm more inclined to watch ANY teams in my league, whether they are in the same market or not. I'll watch Villanova, Creighton and Marquette on a higher level than I would the dump. The Cryers mean less to me than teams that actually matter to my team. Would I watch them more if they were in my league? Yeah, but I would also watch St. Louis more if they were in my league on an equal basis. I would suggest that unless you are a Cryer fan in Southeast Ohio, you're not watching them whether they are in your league or not..at least any more than you would StL.
The point being is that a St. Louis market is much larger than a split southern Ohio market where you already have a presence, so why not tap into the bigger available pool rather than mucking up the same water?

You're using yourself as your reference point. Me, you, and pretty much everyone on this site make up a very small part of the demographic. How many viewers who tune in to Xavier games do you think are like yourself and pay that kind of attention to Villanova?? Not many. The diehards do, but not the typical fan and viewer. Most people will only see those teams play when they're playing Xavier.

[usfldan]

Can't add just one team I don't think, which means another is going to have to be found.

There’s no reason you have to add two teams. Looking at the standings on cbsports.com, 12 DI conferences have an odd number of teams (A-East, ACC, A-10, Big Sky, Colonial, Big West, Horizon, MAAC, MEAC, Mountain West, Southern, WAC). If there was one perfect candidate out there, there’s no reason you have to take a dog with them just to get them in. That being said, it doesn’t look like anyone is the perfect candidate right now.

[waggy]

There’s no reason you have to add two teams. Looking at the standings on cbsports.com, 12 DI conferences have an odd number of teams (A-East, ACC, A-10, Big Sky, Colonial, Big West, Horizon, MAAC, MEAC, Mountain West, Southern, WAC). If there was one perfect candidate out there, there’s no reason you have to take a dog with them just to get them in. That being said, it doesn’t look like anyone is the perfect candidate right now.


I looked at the ACC and they have 15 teams and no divisions, so you are correct there are other ways of doing it.

[GoMuskies]

The ACC will fix that next year, but they also had 9 teams for about 15 years after picking up Florida State and before raiding the Big East for VPI, BC and Miami. The Big Ten was really the Big 11 for a number of years, too.

[xudash]

Back the fundamental question: what is the reason for considering expansion?

Does it have to do with television? Is it about needed additional content? Is it about some effort to improve ratings? I don't see the former as being a requirement on Fox's part, and I don't see the latter being achievable, given which programs are presently available as expansion candidates.

Does it have to do with the idea of garnering NCAA tournament units at the increment? I can't see any guarantees of that happening either.

Stay at 10.

Stay at 10. Stay at 10 and wait to see what happens with further football realignment. In today's world, virtually anything is possible with collegiate athletics.

[DC Muskie]

You know as crazy as it sounds, but if UConn spends the next ten years sucking at football and it effects the basketball program, I could see UConn dropping football.

Okay, maybe I can't really SEE UConn dropping football, but I could understand it. They would be a great addition to the BE, without question.

[xubrew]

You know as crazy as it sounds, but if UConn spends the next ten years sucking at football and it effects the basketball program, I could see UConn dropping football.

Okay, maybe I can't really SEE UConn dropping football, but I could understand it. They would be a great addition to the BE, without question.

Storrs is not a big enough market.

We should consider the University of Toronto. I think they do have football, but it's Canadian football, not BCS football. It's also a big market.

[Masterofreality]

Storrs is not a big enough market.

We should consider the University of Toronto. I think they do have football, but it's Canadian football, not BCS football. It's also a big market.

Well, now. The first International College league? That would generate interest.

[West is Best]

Back the fundamental question: what is the reason for considering expansion?

Does it have to do with television? Is it about needed additional content? Is it about some effort to improve ratings? I don't see the former as being a requirement on Fox's part, and I don't see the latter being achievable, given which programs are presently available as expansion candidates.

Does it have to do with the idea of garnering NCAA tournament units at the increment? I can't see any guarantees of that happening either.

Stay at 10.

Stay at 10. Stay at 10 and wait to see what happens with further football realignment. In today's world, virtually anything is possible with collegiate athletics.

From what I've been told, the Fox Sports contract stipulates that the Big East will add two more members in the next two years.

[dnnrobert]

I have a question for you guys.

This question requires ignoring all logic in terms of TV ratings, revenue, strategic advantage, etc. Just think about how you feel about the rivalry with Dayton. Think about the guys you know who are Dayton fans you talk trash to at the office, memorable moments from the rivalry, whatever it is that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about playing Dayton (if there is anything at all). Aren't you going to miss having them in your conference?

Reason I ask is that, as a Cincinnati fan, I am absolutely heartbroken that we will no longer share a conference with Louisville. Yes, they are an hour and a half down the road, yes I'm jealous of their facilities/new conference affiliation, yes Rick Pitino competes for recruits with Mick Cronin and has even stolen a few from us over the years. But I'll be damned if I don't look forward to playing Louisville every year, just like I look forward to playing Xavier.

Isn't the preservation of a conference rivalry important? I always thought the XU-Dayton rivalry was similar to the UC-Louisville rivalry -- very similar schools in terms of size/culture, geographic rivals, and conference rivals for a long time. Am I overstating the importance of the Dayton rivalry? Does Louisville mean more to UC than Dayton does to XU? Just asking objectively here.

[dnnrobert]

Storrs is not a big enough market.

We should consider the University of Toronto. I think they do have football, but it's Canadian football, not BCS football. It's also a big market.

Also, I will add that it would be cool as hell if a Canadian college joined the NCAA. In fact, I'm really not sure why it hasn't happened unless the interest just isn't there.

I was reading about the University of Toronto... 83,000 students, but their basketball gym holds 600. I guess that should tell you about how much interest they have in the basketball team. I've heard the national champions up there are on par with a division II NCAA team. It seems like if just one Canadian university could somehow make the leap, they could do very well recruiting Canada, and a city like Toronto would be very attractive to international players.

Here's an article about some Canadian players playing D-I ball this season: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-01-08/oh-canada

Okay, I know that was way off topic. I find it to be a very interesting topic for debate.

[RealDeal]

Does Louisville mean more to UC than Dayton does to XU? Just asking objectively here.

One is the national champion, and the other is dayton. Yes.

[XUFan09]

Am I overstating the importance of the Dayton rivalry? Does Louisville mean more to UC than Dayton does to XU? Just asking objectively here.

I'd flip the situation, based off the power differential. You view Louisville like Dayton fans view Xavier, as opposed to how Xavier fans view Dayton. How Xavier fans view Dayton might be akin to how Louisville fans view Cincinnati, just not to the same degree of disparity as at least Cincinnati is a regular tournament team.

Hatred in a rivalry is one thing. Xavier fans often view Dayton with contempt, and many are glad that Xavier isn't even playing the Flyers because they despise that program. Personally, I would like see Xavier beating up on Dayton again in the future, but I am not torn up by the fact that the teams are not playing now because they were too low on the list of non-conference scheduling priorities with all the commitments Xavier had already made. I'd rather face a mid-level power conference team than them, as at least that might draw some respect.

[xubrew]

Also, I will add that it would be cool as hell if a Canadian college joined the NCAA. In fact, I'm really not sure why it hasn't happened unless the interest just isn't there.

I was reading about the University of Toronto... 83,000 students, but their basketball gym holds 600. I guess that should tell you about how much interest they have in the basketball team. I've heard the national champions up there are on par with a division II NCAA team. It seems like if just one Canadian university could somehow make the leap, they could do very well recruiting Canada, and a city like Toronto would be very attractive to international players.

Here's an article about some Canadian players playing D-I ball this season: http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2014-01-08/oh-canada

.

I was just kidding when I said that. College sports in Canada are entirely different. I think players can only play three years, and the schools are not allowed to recruit.

Okay, I know that was way off topic. I find it to be a very interesting topic for debate.


I have a question for you guys.

This question requires ignoring all logic in terms of TV ratings, revenue, strategic advantage, etc. Just think about how you feel about the rivalry with Dayton. Think about the guys you know who are Dayton fans you talk trash to at the office, memorable moments from the rivalry, whatever it is that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about playing Dayton (if there is anything at all). Aren't you going to miss having them in your conference?

Reason I ask is that, as a Cincinnati fan, I am absolutely heartbroken that we will no longer share a conference with Louisville. Yes, they are an hour and a half down the road, yes I'm jealous of their facilities/new conference affiliation, yes Rick Pitino competes for recruits with Mick Cronin and has even stolen a few from us over the years. But I'll be damned if I don't look forward to playing Louisville every year, just like I look forward to playing Xavier.

Isn't the preservation of a conference rivalry important? I always thought the XU-Dayton rivalry was similar to the UC-Louisville rivalry -- very similar schools in terms of size/culture, geographic rivals, and conference rivals for a long time. Am I overstating the importance of the Dayton rivalry? Does Louisville mean more to UC than Dayton does to XU? Just asking objectively here.

No one moves Xavier's needle more than Dayton. Fans that claim not to care about UD are so emphatic when they make that claim that they kind of prove their point in the converse. I think the make up of the XU v UD rivalry is that X enjoyed bullying UD, and of course UD always hated it. The fact that X is in the Big East and UD isn't is fantastic to a lot of fans because we now get to rub that in their face. Not scheduling them as an OOC game is great too because we get to talk about how we're above them.

I did enjoy the rivalry, and I do wish they'd keep playing it. The crowds were more charged for the UD game than they will be for anyone we'd replace them with. It's not the same when it's not a conference game, but its' still a much better game than Miami.

I grew up a huge Louisville fan, and know both programs pretty well. Cincinnati was a big conference game, but I don't think it was a heated rivalry. Memphis was who Louisville used to really hate. And, like Dayton, Louisville just decided to quit playing after joining the Big East. That is more of a parallel. Memphis got left out and was stuck in CUSA, and Louisville fans loved it. Louisville wouldn't schedule Memphis, and the fans loved to talk about how doing so would be beneath them.

But, after about eight years, I guess people decided that those games were kind of fun, and Memphis is now back on their schedule. They're in the same conference this year, but they won't be next year, but they've still agreed to a ten year series starting either next year or the year after that.

So, I think Xavier will play Dayton again. Some day.

As for Cincinnati, there was a period in the late 90s/early 2000s where UC won nine titles in ten years, and Louisville did resent that because they felt dominating CUSA should be their job, but other than that I don't think Louisville considered UC a rival. It's not that they looked down on them. It's that they just didn't hate them as much as you're supposed to hate your rival.

[danaandvictory]

Think of it this way. UC and Xavier aren't in the same conference. If they were, and there were UC and Xavier double headers each night, or if they always played on different nights, the ratings for both team's games in that market (and probably nationally) would be significantly higher. You would get an entire market watching two games instead of a split market watching one game.

I don't think there are that many UC fans that watch Xavier games, or vice versa. I know I don't go out of my way.

Much more likely to watch a game featuring XU's conference mates than a UC game.

[RoseyMuskie]

I have a question for you guys.

This question requires ignoring all logic in terms of TV ratings, revenue, strategic advantage, etc. Just think about how you feel about the rivalry with Dayton. Think about the guys you know who are Dayton fans you talk trash to at the office, memorable moments from the rivalry, whatever it is that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about playing Dayton (if there is anything at all). Aren't you going to miss having them in your conference?

Reason I ask is that, as a Cincinnati fan, I am absolutely heartbroken that we will no longer share a conference with Louisville. Yes, they are an hour and a half down the road, yes I'm jealous of their facilities/new conference affiliation, yes Rick Pitino competes for recruits with Mick Cronin and has even stolen a few from us over the years. But I'll be damned if I don't look forward to playing Louisville every year, just like I look forward to playing Xavier.

Isn't the preservation of a conference rivalry important? I always thought the XU-Dayton rivalry was similar to the UC-Louisville rivalry -- very similar schools in terms of size/culture, geographic rivals, and conference rivals for a long time. Am I overstating the importance of the Dayton rivalry? Does Louisville mean more to UC than Dayton does to XU? Just asking objectively here.

As much as I loved beating Dayton year in and year out at home, I don't think I'd lose any sleep if we never played Dayton again. The "Jimmy Carter" bragging rights were, and continue to be fun. But watching Dayton toil in mediocrity in the A-10 while we are in the Big East is much more satisfying to me.

The game would also benefit Xavier in no way. X and Dayton waged (and continue to wage) recruiting battles. Now Xavier holds the upper hand. I don't want to give Archie any sort of talking point. And not only does it affect basketball recruits, but also students in general. Dayton and Xavier were two of my three final college candidates. I'd be lying if I said basketball didn't play somewhat of a part of that decision. I think it's reasonable to say that many HS students face the similar X/UD decision every year - and if the Big East name can entice 5-10 students every year, it would be great for Xavier.

The obvious issue at this moment is that UD wants no part of Cintas due to the streak, and X isn't going to go on the road to UD to begin a series.

[xubrew]

As much as I loved beating Dayton year in and year out at home, I don't think I'd lose any sleep if we never played Dayton again. The "Jimmy Carter" bragging rights were, and continue to be fun. But watching Dayton toil in mediocrity in the A-10 while we are in the Big East is much more satisfying to me.

The game would also benefit Xavier in no way. X and Dayton waged (and continue to wage) recruiting battles. Now Xavier holds the upper hand. I don't want to give Archie any sort of talking point. And not only does it affect basketball recruits, but also students in general. Dayton and Xavier were two of my three final college candidates. I'd be lying if I said basketball didn't play somewhat of a part of that decision. I think it's reasonable to say that many HS students face the similar X/UD decision every year - and if the Big East name can entice 5-10 students every year, it would be great for Xavier.

The obvious issue at this moment is that UD wants no part of Cintas due to the streak, and X isn't going to go on the road to UD to begin a series.

I just think this is way overemphasized. I'm not picking on you specifically. Just on this line of thinking.

UC and Ohio State have recruiting wars. They don't play each other. Same with Kentucky and Indiana. Same with Washington and Gonzaga.

Xavier can say they have nothing to gain from playing Dayton, and perhaps they're right. But, you can say that about any team in the country. Xavier doesn't need to play any one specific team. Kansas and Missouri don't need each other. Kentucky and Indiana don't need each other. Texas and Texas A&M don't need each other. West Virginia and Pitt don't need each other. Gonzaga and Washington don't need each other.

But damn, it sure was fun. When you single out any game and compare it to the rest of the schedule, you can easily make the case that you don't need to play that game. And you'd be right. But, because you can literally say that about anybody, that's a stupid reason to stop playing IMHO. We didn't need to play Alabama. We didn't gain a damn thing by playing them. Yet, no one is going on and on and on and on about how we don't need to play Alabama the way they are about how we don't need to play Dayton. Again, you can single out any team, claim that you don't need to play them, and be right.

On top of that, there really isn't a correlation.

Washington stopped playing Gonzaga because they had nothing to gain, and didn't need it, and wanted to play a more national schedule. Their program has digressed substantially. I'm not saying it wouldn't have digressed had they kept playing Gonzaga, but I'm saying that playing that one game wasn't a factor either way.

When Butler was making their rapid ascent, they weren't playing any of the Indiana schools on a regular basis. They used to play them, but that was before their program exploded. So, the Indiana schools didn't exactly keep Butler down by not playing them. Now they're playing them, and Butler isn't quite as good. Again, I'm not saying Butler is better off not playing them. I'm just saying that there is no correlation, and, like Washington, it is a little ironic.

Wisconsin Milwaukee was a top flight mid major, and actually made the Sweet Sixteen and Round of 32 in back to back years. That was before they played Marquette on a regular basis. Now that they play Marquette, they're not as good. Again, no correlation.

Louisville now plays Western KY home and home, but anyone who now thinks of Western KY as being "on Louisville's level" simply because of that would need their head examined.

We've played Miami home and home for years.

All of the teams that don't want to play their rivals because they feel doing so is somehow conceding something are no better off for not doing it. Not one. We also aren't better off because we don't play Dayton. No, we don't need it, but at the same time we wouldn't be conceding anything if we were to play it. No one does. So, since those games tend to be more fun than whoever we'd schedule instead, then why not keep it going??

[paulxu]

I have no idea if this is an age thing or what, but I really can't get worked up about Dayton.
UC is a totally different story. That's a true "rivalry" game. Same city, close proximity, run into opposite side fans all year long in the city, etc.
If Mick screws that up for everyone, he should go coach at Dayton.

[RealDeal]

Clearly brew is over valuing the game because he went to both schools. It's just his opinion. Personally, after the Huggins non handshake and all that history, I don't know how anyone could have that opinion. The feeling I got from beating UC this year I've never gotten from beating dayton.

[xubrew]

Clearly brew is over valuing the game because he went to both schools. It's just his opinion. Personally, after the Huggins non handshake and all that history, I don't know how anyone could have that opinion. The feeling I got from beating UC this year I've never gotten from beating dayton.

What does UC have to do with it??

I'm not saying we replace UC with Dayton. I'm not even comparing the two series. There is more talk about UD than there is UC on this board, even though we don't play UD anymore and UD isn't anywhere nearly as nationally significant as UC is at the moment. It's kind of hard to deny that observation. That's what I meant by "moving the needle."

I'm saying that we don't concede anything by playing UD, and we don't. People talk as if we're lowering our standards and the perception of our program if we were to play them home and home, and that's simply not the case. I'm not valuing the Dayton series more than the UC series, but I do value it more than the buy games we schedule, and what was an endless home and home with Miami.

If the thrill you get from beating UC is your barometer for who we should and should not schedule out of conference, then we probably need to wipe out the entire OOC schedule.

[paulxu]

I'm not valuing the Dayton series more than the UC series, but I do value it more than the buy games we schedule,

I could live with that. Let's schedule them as a buy into the Cintas every year.

[RoseyMuskie]

Brew: You make fair points.

The problem with Dayton is that they are a middling team: wouldn't be a bad loss, wouldn't be a great win (probably somewhere in the 60-100 RPI range at the end of each year if they continue their recent playing trends). UD has a lot more to gain than X: bragging rights, recruiting edge for both basketball and the school, bolstering their own resume.

So why gamble on a game against a middling team when there's not a whole lot to gain when you can do the same with less to lose against a middle of the pack power conference team? You could argue the "fun" factor, but I already think we play enough "fun" games. Some might argue differently, and that's fine. I just don't see the benefit to playing UD besides continuing a rivalry. And for that sake alone, I don't care if we continue the rivalry or not.

Others may disagree, but that's just my stance.

[dnnrobert]

I realize Dayton is nowhere near the level of Xavier in terms of basketball success, so it is a little different than the UC-Louisville comparison. I was just curious how people felt about losing the Dayton games. Also, while Cincinnati and Louisville fans circle each other on their schedules, there's more respect than contempt in our rivalry. I do know that Louisville fans appear to be just as bummed out as Cincinnati fans judging by the thoughts we've all exchanged on various internet outlets.

Interestingly, Cincinnati fans are showing a lot of interest in scheduling games with Dayton again. I think that's mostly because the bottom half of our conference is going to be awful for the foreseeable future and we need any top-100 RPI game we can get.

Perhaps Xavier will pick up a new secondary rival in the Big East. When it comes to rivalries, I say the more the merrier.

[waggy]

The X-Dayton rivalry is only a rivalry in the minds of Dayton fans.

[MHettel]

If you look at expansion from just one perspective at a time...

-From a geographical standpoint, Dayton is a strong fit

-From a quality of basketball standpoint, Dayton would be a decent fit, and be among the top 10 potential adds.

-From a school demographics standpoint, Dayton would be a strong fit.

-From a TV market standpoint, Dayton is not one of the most attractive available markets.


In the end, when ALL of the points of view are considered, it seems like UD would be a longshot candidate for expansion to 12, but probably a strong candidate for any expansion beyond 12.

[xubrew]

Brew: You make fair points.

The problem with Dayton is that they are a middling team: wouldn't be a bad loss, wouldn't be a great win (probably somewhere in the 60-100 RPI range at the end of each year if they continue their recent playing trends). UD has a lot more to gain than X: bragging rights, recruiting edge for both basketball and the school, bolstering their own resume.

So why gamble on a game against a middling team when there's not a whole lot to gain when you can do the same with less to lose against a middle of the pack power conference team? You could argue the "fun" factor, but I already think we play enough "fun" games. Some might argue differently, and that's fine. I just don't see the benefit to playing UD besides continuing a rivalry. And for that sake alone, I don't care if we continue the rivalry or not.

Others may disagree, but that's just my stance.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but again, if that is the standard that you're going to apply to non conference scheduling, then over half the teams on our schedule shouldn't have been on there. Yet, no one is singling those teams out.

The better a team is, the more their opponents have to gain from playing them. Anyone that isn't as good as you are arguably has less to lose and more to gain.

Had Saint John's beaten Syracuse, which they almost did, I don't think anyone would have thought Syracuse's program had taken a huge step backward, I don't think anyone would have thought as Saint John's program suddenly being at the same level as Syracuse, I don't think it would have hurt them any more than losing any other OOC game would have hurt them, and ultimately, once conference play started, I don't think anyone would have really remembered or cared about it anymore.

There are teams I'd much rather play than Dayton, but I'd rather play Dayton than the majority of teams that we are playing. I just think it's kind of silly to go on and on about how we have nothing to gain by playing them, while at the same time ignoring the fact that they're a much bigger asset to the schedule than most of the teams we do play.

Playing Alabama on the road in front of a half empty house does little to prepare you for the hostile environments you'll see in conference play. It's a dangerous game to play because they're a sub-NIT team that will occasionally play well at home. It was buried on the CSS Network and ESPN almost wasn't allowed to stream it. Beating them did nothing for our profile. Yet, no one talks about how that was a bad game for us. We won, and it didn't help much, and it sure as hell would have hurt quite a bit had we not won.

[dnnrobert]

I agree with others that the Big East is solid with 10 teams. I like a round-robin schedule, as you get a true regular season conference champion.

However, if the Big East does decide to expand, has anyone thought of the University of Detroit Mercy as an expansion candidate? Only 3 NCAA tournament appearances in the last 15-20 years, but they have had a lot of success in the Horizon League since the mid-'90s, which is a very respectable mid-major conference. They have had 7 20-win seasons since 1997-98 and several other winning seasons. Big market, good geographic fit, good cultural fit, decent facilities. Their attendance is pretty dreadful though. I do believe that with the excitement of joining the Big East and bringing big names to their arena, attendance would increase greatly.

I think St. Louis would be a no-brainer for expansion candidate #11... Detroit might actually be my #12 pick.

[SM#24]

Interestingly, Cincinnati fans are showing a lot of interest in scheduling games with Dayton again.
I think it's because Dayton has performed so poorly, UC views this as an easy win that's more respectable than a 300+ RPI win.

[SM#24]

I've thought of Detroit as an expansion candidate and quickly dismiss them. They bring no more of the Detroit market than NKU brings of the Cincinnati market, maybe less. There's probably 30+ other schools I'd rather have.
Heck, I find Duq more attractive. But to be clear, I can't think of anyone except perhaps SLU or VCU that would add value.
Like most, I'm good with 10.

[RoseyMuskie]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but again, if that is the standard that you're going to apply to non conference scheduling, then over half the teams on our schedule shouldn't have been on there. Yet, no one is singling those teams out.

The better a team is, the more their opponents have to gain from playing them. Anyone that isn't as good as you are arguably has less to lose and more to gain.

Had Saint John's beaten Syracuse, which they almost did, I don't think anyone would have thought Syracuse's program had taken a huge step backward, I don't think anyone would have thought as Saint John's program suddenly being at the same level as Syracuse, I don't think it would have hurt them any more than losing any other OOC game would have hurt them, and ultimately, once conference play started, I don't think anyone would have really remembered or cared about it anymore.

There are teams I'd much rather play than Dayton, but I'd rather play Dayton than the majority of teams that we are playing. I just think it's kind of silly to go on and on about how we have nothing to gain by playing them, while at the same time ignoring the fact that they're a much bigger asset to the schedule than most of the teams we do play.

Playing Alabama on the road in front of a half empty house does little to prepare you for the hostile environments you'll see in conference play. It's a dangerous game to play because they're a sub-NIT team that will occasionally play well at home. It was buried on the CSS Network and ESPN almost wasn't allowed to stream it. Beating them did nothing for our profile. Yet, no one talks about how that was a bad game for us. We won, and it didn't help much, and it sure as hell would have hurt quite a bit had we not won.

Dayton may not be a sub-NIT team, but they are an NIT team at best. And when we play them, mainly at their place, they play like world beaters. While losing to Bama would hurt in the short term vs. UD (RPI), I think losing to Dayton would have bigger consequences. I suppose it comes down to how much you want to gamble. And to me, I don't want want to gamble away the significant edge we hold over them for a chance to play on ESPN and continue a rivalry. If UD was a perennial contender in the A-10 (or a complete bottom feeder) I'd be all for playing. There would be more of a reason. But the fact that they add nothing besides a rivalry makes me think we should keep the series on hold.

[94GRAD]

I love playing dayton at home. Not only do we beat them EVERY time, but is't our busiest day of the year.

[xubrew]

Dayton may not be a sub-NIT team, but they are an NIT team at best. And when we play them, mainly at their place, they play like world beaters. While losing to Bama would hurt in the short term vs. UD (RPI), I think losing to Dayton would have bigger consequences. I suppose it comes down to how much you want to gamble. And to me, I don't want want to gamble away the significant edge we hold over them for a chance to play on ESPN and continue a rivalry. If UD was a perennial contender in the A-10 (or a complete bottom feeder) I'd be all for playing. There would be more of a reason. But the fact that they add nothing besides a rivalry makes me think we should keep the series on hold.

Even if Dayton were to beat us on occasion, we wouldn't lose our "significant edge" over them. They've beaten us before and we've never lost it before, and that was a conference game. In that nine year stretch where Northern Iowa beat Iowa seven times, no one ever thought of Northern Iowa as being the bigger program. I think people are greatly overestimating how much an out of conference game in November/December will resonate. Who's the better program this year, VCU or Virginia?? People don't think that Virginia gave up anything or conceded anything. It's probably just a game that faded into the background for most people.

I get that people don't like Dayton. If people came out and said they don't want to play Dayton because they don't like the idea of Dayton having a good game on their schedule, I'd think it's silly, but it's kind of hard to argue with.

But, when people come out and make the argument that Xavier's program would somehow digress if we played Dayton, that's simply not true. We wouldn't surrender anything. We wouldn't concede anything. I'd rather have a few hard road game in November and December than not have any. We haven't exactly been the best road team this year.

Do you remember how overrated Michigan and Kansas were in early December?? It's faded into the background. I think playing at Duke and Florida and Colorado and Iowa State got them ready for their league games, and look at them now.

Playing at Dayton and losing would suck in the moment, but it wouldn't hurt THAT bad. It would actually look better than losing at Alabama in most years. That, and it is a conference-type road game that isn't actually a conference game. If you go to Dayton and win, it actually helps.

Dayton isn't the best team we can play. I'm not saying there aren't other teams that I'd rather play. To be honest, right now, I'd actually rather play Ohio home and home. They're going to be good next year, they're going to win more games, and that will help our numbers more. But, I just find the laundry list of nonsense that people come up with as to why we shouldn't play them to be silly, especially when we're playing a lot of the crap that we are. In reality, they just don't want Dayton to have a good game on their schedule, even if it's not a bad game for us....which it isn't.

[xubrew]

I love playing dayton at home. Not only do we beat them EVERY time, but is't our busiest day of the year.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

[RoseyMuskie]

Even if Dayton were to beat us on occasion, we wouldn't lose our "significant edge" over them. They've beaten us before and we've never lost it before, and that was a conference game. In that nine year stretch where Northern Iowa beat Iowa seven times, no one ever thought of Northern Iowa as being the bigger program. I think people are greatly overestimating how much an out of conference game in November/December will resonate. Who's the better program this year, VCU or Virginia?? People don't think that Virginia gave up anything or conceded anything. It's probably just a game that faded into the background for most people.

I get that people don't like Dayton. If people came out and said they don't want to play Dayton because they don't like the idea of Dayton having a good game on their schedule, I'd think it's silly, but it's kind of hard to argue with.

But, when people come out and make the argument that Xavier's program would somehow digress if we played Dayton, that's simply not true. We wouldn't surrender anything. We wouldn't concede anything. I'd rather have a few hard road game in November and December than not have any. We haven't exactly been the best road team this year.

Do you remember how overrated Michigan and Kansas were in early December?? It's faded into the background. I think playing at Duke and Florida and Colorado and Iowa State got them ready for their league games, and look at them now.

Playing at Dayton and losing would suck in the moment, but it wouldn't hurt THAT bad. It would actually look better than losing at Alabama in most years. That, and it is a conference-type road game that isn't actually a conference game. If you go to Dayton and win, it actually helps.

Dayton isn't the best team we can play. I'm not saying there aren't other teams that I'd rather play. To be honest, right now, I'd actually rather play Ohio home and home. They're going to be good next year, they're going to win more games, and that will help our numbers more. But, I just find the laundry list of nonsense that people come up with as to why we shouldn't play them to be silly, especially when we're playing a lot of the crap that we are. In reality, they just don't want Dayton to have a good game on their schedule, even if it's not a bad game for us....which it isn't.

Comparing Duke and Florida to Dayton? Really? I get the premise of your point, though.

You're right. It's not a bad game. But it isn't a good game. I wholeheartedly agree on the Ohio U point. Make the game worthwhile. At this point, I don't see UD being the most worthwhile opponent (point you and I have both already made).

I think some of the disconnect is also the way we are viewing the game. I'm looking it at it from a macro level, you're looking at it on a micro level. I legitimately believe the BE name will allure students in general away from UD to X. It's foolish to assume one game might change an opinion, but if Dayton keeps beating us at home (which they have done a pretty good job at lately), it might sway a few students. There's probably no tangible way to prove that point, but I believe it is better for Xavier University (not X basketball) to not continue the game. I also admit there's an argument to made for the reverse case.

Some might think my point is a bit foolish, but a lot of factors go into a college decision, and perception of a basketball program can be one of those.

[xubrew]

Comparing Duke and Florida to Dayton? Really? I get the premise of your point, though.

It didn't come off the way that I meant it. I was just trying to come up with examples of games that seemed huge at the time, but that just a month later no one really talked about anymore. I failed, but that's what I meant.

A month later, no one remembers how overrated everyone thought Michigan and Kansas were.....although Michigan is playing like they're overrated right now.

I don't want to lose to Dayton, but I'm not afraid of it because even though it would suck at the time, it wouldn't even a defining moment in the season a month later.

[DC Muskie]

Highest rated college basketball game on FS1. GTown and Michigan State during Super Bowl week.

[Fireball]

I really like the rivalry with Dayton. They were mostly good games and definitely emotionally charged.

That being said, I like the Big East at 10 teams. I hope that we don't expand.

[xubrew]

Highest rated college basketball game on FS1. GTown and Michigan State during Super Bowl week.

Well then Michigan State is who we should add.

[GoMuskies]

Well then Michigan State is who we should add.

I'd grudgingly accept them.

[xsteve1]

I really like the rivalry with Dayton. They were mostly good games and definitely emotionally charged.

That being said, I like the Big East at 10 teams. I hope that we don't expand.

Let's just move on from the Dump. They are so far in the rear view mirror I can't even see them.

[wkrq59]

Let's leave it at 10 the next 5 years and see how it works. I really don't want the Cryers in the BE.

:dizzy::bigstick::overheated::medicated:

[bobbiemcgee]

Order a teeshirt, you're in the BE now:

http://teespring.com/HolyLandofHoops

[xudash]

Let's leave it at 10 the next 5 years and see how it works. I really don't want the Cryers in the BE.

:dizzy::bigstick::overheated::medicated:

Agree completely.

We - the Big East - appears to have the luxury of time. We don't need to press the issue now.

I certainly don't want Dayton brought into the conference.

[Masterofreality]

This is a league with a legitimate regular season race. Round robin home and homes. 10 is perfect.

[DC Muskie]

Well then Michigan State is who we should add.

And have Fox televise the Super Bowl. Oh and play the Super Bowl like every week.

[El Shaqtus]

What does adding two more teams accomplish?? It doesn't yield more money, it probably won't increase the ratings, and it won't elevate the quality of the league. Why do it??

Sometimes I think that if you took a bunch of college basketball fans, analysts, and administrators to the Middle East, their diplomatic solution to all the problems would be expansion. Lets add a few teams, and everything will be better off.

Someone posted it earlier in the thread, but if you're not playing a team in your conference twice, then you don't get anywhere close to the same mathematical advantage to being in the same league with them in the power ratings. It's true. There is no real advantage to expanding because there really isn't a program out there that's worth giving up a balanced schedule so we can include them.

I seriously doubt SLU is going to stay at the level they're currently at. Much of this is the result of the work of a guy that's not there anymore. After this year they lose a lot, and I just don't think you can assume they'll get it back. GW had a really strong run for a couple of years as well. So did Nevada. So did Drake. So did George Mason. I just don't think SLU will sustain it like those other teams didn't.

Figured I'd come to you...I think the demise of SLU is greatly exaggerated. No matter how much we lose, there is no way SLU is winning 2 games in a conference season like someone else that was added. I had no problem with Xavier or Creighton (and still don't).

I think you're safe, because the Big East is probably not expanding anytime soon.

[throwbackmuskie]

Power Conference teams, BE, B1G, SEC,ACC, PAC12, Big12, have noting to gain and should never play @ a mid major school, ever. If Dayton wants to play us, they need to come to Cincinnati, period. We are in the big leagues now guys, time to act like it.

[danaandvictory]

Power Conference teams, BE, B1G, SEC,ACC, PAC12, Big12, have noting to gain and should never play @ a mid major school, ever. If Dayton wants to play us, they need to come to Cincinnati, period. We are in the big leagues now guys, time to act like it.

I absolutely disagree with this. If X can play a home-and-home with Gonzaga, Louisville, Memphis, UConn, Wichita State, VCU, SDSU, UNLV, or SLU (to name 9 at random), we should. Conference affiliation is secondary to program quality.

[throwbackmuskie]

I absolutely disagree with this. If X can play a home-and-home with Gonzaga, Louisville, Memphis, UConn, Wichita State, VCU, SDSU, UNLV, or SLU (to name 9 at random), we should. Conference affiliation is secondary to program quality.

Big differance in those schools and Dayton,most those schools you listed are 25 team year in and year out. That is why Xavier was able to get home-home with Power 6 when we were A10. Why do you think VCU doesn't get any big boys at home? They are not at the level yet, Dayton is the same way. If you want to play big boy basketball, you have to do things the big boy way.

[muskienick]

I agree with D&V on this issue. The A-10 (often referred to as a "Mid-Major" League) was not a "top 6" conference during XU's membership and yet a significant number of Big Six schools agreed to play us on our own home floor. Just during the Cintas Center Era, the following Big Six schools played at our home Arena: Alabama, Arizona State, UC, Florida, Iowa State, LSU, Mississippi State, Purdue, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Wake Forest, and Wisconsin. I am not necessarily advocating that we resume our annual H/A series with UD or agree to play them home one year and away the next. But to say that we shouldn't play an away game at ANY "Mid-Major" Conference foe is way over the top and even hypocritical, especially if some of those saying it are among those who blasted the "Big Sixers" for refusing to play us in Cincinnati when we were in the MCC and A-10.

[throwbackmuskie]

Read my second post and reply to D&V. Playing the Top Mid Majors home-home is fine, the Gonzaga's and Memphis of the world, proven solid teams, like Xavier was. But look at schools who were can relate to, Pitt, Alabama, Stanford, they rarely if ever play a nonpower 6 school at thier place. Like I said there are a few exceptions, Dayton is there yet. We want to be big time basketball, this is how big time basketball works, look at Duke, UNC, osu, Michigan, Syracuse, Kentucky do you think those schools play @ nonpower conference schools?

[GoMuskies]

I absolutely disagree with this. If X can play a home-and-home with Gonzaga, Louisville, Memphis, UConn, Wichita State, VCU, SDSU, UNLV, or SLU (to name 9 at random), we should. Conference affiliation is secondary to program quality.

None of those are mid-majors other than Wichita State and Gonzaga.

Seriously, UConn and Louisville?!?

[bleedXblue]

I absolutely disagree with this. If X can play a home-and-home with Gonzaga, Louisville, Memphis, UConn, Wichita State, VCU, SDSU, UNLV, or SLU (to name 9 at random), we should. Conference affiliation is secondary to program quality.

Agree. We despised this kind of treatment a year ago and now we're condoning it?

[throwbackmuskie]

So we should play home and home with St Joes? Or Murray St? or USC Upstate of Florida Gulf Coast?

There is a difference in playing UC, Gonzaga or Wichita State home-home. A loss will not hurt as they are a big program, like Xavier has been for the last 20 years.

A loss at Dayton or the other schools I just mentioned only hurt, heck a close win will hurt as well when it comes time for seeding. This is the way of big time programs, we need to embrace it.

[GoMuskies]

Playing Murray State on average is probably about the same as playing Alabama.

[throwbackmuskie]

Playing Murray State on average is probably about the same as playing Alabama.

When is the last time Murray State was ranked? Bama was ranked last year or the year before.

[XUFan09]

Playing Murray State on average is probably about the same as playing Alabama.

And St. Joe's is better than Alabama this year.

[GoMuskies]

When is the last time Murray State was ranked? Bama was ranked last year or the year before.

Murray State went as high as #7 in the Coaches' Poll two years ago.

[throwbackmuskie]

And when is the last time Murray St or St joe's hosted a power conference team that was not a bottom of the league school?

I will help ya, outside of Nova, St Joe's never gets a big time school in, penn st, not a big time school.

[GoMuskies]

No idea. But we'd have been a lot better off going there than going to Auburn a few years ago.

Granted, we might have actually been challenged by Murray State.

[throwbackmuskie]

The point is playing teams who are not Tournament teams year in and year out, at thier place does no good for Xavier at this point. As yourself this, when is the last time Xavier went on the road to play a midmajor school/low major school who was not a Tournament team year in and year out?

[throwbackmuskie]

2010 vs Miami (OH). So why now all of a sudden to we want home and home wiht dayton, who let's be honest is about on the same level as Miami. Shoot Ohio U has been better than Dayton recently, and they came to play us.

[GoMuskies]

The point is playing teams who are not Tournament teams year in and year out, at thier place does no good for Xavier at this point.

So why go to Alabama?

[XUFan09]

Actually here's a list of mid-majors not yet mentioned who are higher in the Kenpom rankings than Alabama this year:

San Diego State
SMU
SLU
UMass
Southern Miss
Utah
Louisiana Tech
New Mexico
-----Top 50 Cut-off--------
BYU
Harvard
Stephen F. Austin
St. Mary's
St. Bonaventure
UC Santa Barbara
Boise St.
Cleveland St.
Richmond
Vermont
Toledo
UTEP
Georgia St.
-------Top 75 Cut-off--------
St. Joseph's
Iona
Manhattan
North Dakota St.
Indiana St.
New Mexico St.
Wyoming Green Bay
UNLV
Mercer
UC Irvine
Delaware
La Salle
American
Portland

It's pretty disingenous to say that we shouldn't play mid-majors other than the few proven ones. Not all of these would be actual candidates for scheduling, but there are a number of mid-majors who will have teams worth playing.

[throwbackmuskie]

When we went to Bama, they were #19 in the country IIRC. Also at the point Xavier needed to play Power Schools on the road to help build the reputation.

[throwbackmuskie]

Actually here's a list of mid-majors not yet mentioned who are higher in the Kenpom rankings than Alabama this year:

San Diego State
SMU
SLU
UMass
Southern Miss
Utah
Louisiana Tech
New Mexico
-----Top 50 Cut-off--------
BYU
Harvard
Stephen F. Austin
St. Mary's
St. Bonaventure
UC Santa Barbara
Boise St.
Cleveland St.
Richmond
Vermont
Toledo
UTEP
Georgia St.
-------Top 75 Cut-off--------
St. Joseph's
Iona
Manhattan
North Dakota St.
Indiana St.
New Mexico St.
Wyoming Green Bay
UNLV
Mercer
UC Irvine
Delaware
La Salle
American
Portland

It's pretty disingenous to say that we shouldn't play mid-majors other than the few proven ones. Not all of these would be actual candidates for scheduling, but there are a number of mid-majors who will have teams worth playing.

I never said not to play Mid majors, I said don't play them on the road.

[GoMuskies]

I never said not to play Mid majors, I said don't play them on the road.

Why not mid-majors on the road if we're willing to play mediocre to bad majors on the road?

[throwbackmuskie]

Losing to another power conference school does not look as bad on the resume. A loss vs a middle of the road SEC at their place does not look as bad as a loss to a MAC school.

If it wasn't the case why doesn't osu play games at Ohio, who is one of the higher MAC teams?
Why can't Murray St get anyone in a power conference to come to their house to play?

There is a huge difference is high level teams in the power 6 going to play at Gonzaga than playing at Dayton. Dayton can get teams like SoCal and Auburn to play at their place because those are lower level power 6 school.

[GoMuskies]

$$$$$

There might be some public perception differences among college basketball dunces who would think Xavier losing to Utah State was more damaging than their actual loss to USC, but for the Selection Committee losing to (or beating) a good mid-major on the road is going to be less harmful (or more beneficial as the case may be) than losing to (or beating) a worse power conference team on the road.

[throwbackmuskie]

$$$$$

There might be some public perception differences among college basketball dunces who would think Xavier losing to Utah State was more damaging than their actual loss to USC, but for the Selection Committee losing to (or beating) a good mid-major on the road is going to be less harmful (or more beneficial as the case may be) than losing to (or beating) a worse power conference team on the road.

There is the point you are missing again, USU is a solid program, who makes the tournament regularly.

Schools like Dayton, St Joe's LaSalle, Bowling Green, Eastern KY, just to name a few, those are the types of schools that Schools like Xaiver and other high major teams will not go on the road to play, nor should they.

[throwbackmuskie]

I have no issue with Xavier going on the road to play Gonzaga, Memphis, BYU, and VCU. Those a quaility programs who make the tournament yearly.

[xubrew]

When is the last time Murray State was ranked? Bama was ranked last year or the year before.

In basketball??

Alabama hasn't been ranked since 2005. They've been to only two tournaments since then, and have just one win.

Saint Joe's has played a home and homes with Creighton, Nova, and Minnesota in recent years. Saint Joe's doesn't play many because after a 16 game conference schedule, exempt tournament, and OOC games against the rest of the Big Five, they just don't have any room left.

VCU v Virginia is a home and home series. Virginia has also played Old Dominion home and home.

Wisconsin plays Green Bay and Milwaukee home and home. I believe Marquette does as well.

The state of Iowa has recently switched things up with a doubleheader in these series, but Iowa and Iowa State play Northern Iowa and Drake home and home.

Louisville plays Western Kentucky home and home

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State play Tulsa home and home (albeit not every year). Oklahoma has even played at Tulsa in football.

West Virginia and Marshall play at a neutral site every year.

Pitt and Duquesne did always play home and home, but have now decided they both prefer a neutral site.


To say that major programs don't go on the road and play mid-majors is kind of like saying the tournament is in June.

[GoMuskies]

There is the point you are missing again, USU is a solid program, who makes the tournament regularly.


OK, so you'd be okay with Xavier playing home and home with USU? Murray State makes the Tournament regularly, too (and was in the top 10 two years ago), but no home and home with them? How about Belmont?

I think you need to sharpen up your criteria a bit.

[throwbackmuskie]

In basketball??

Alabama hasn't been ranked since 2005. They've been to only two tournaments since then, and have just one win. Bama was #8 when Xavier played @ Bama
Saint Joe's has played a home and homes with Creighton, Nova, and Minnesota in recent years. Saint Joe's doesn't play many because after a 16 game conference schedule, exempt tournament, and OOC games against the rest of the Big Five, they just don't have any room left. Creighton at the time was in a mid major conference Minnesota was a average at best Big Ten team, year in year out tournament team.
VCU v Virginia is a home and home series. Virginia has also played Old Dominion home and home. See Minnesota

Wisconsin plays Green Bay and Milwaukee home and home. I believe Marquette does as well. Wisky playes them as a 2 for 1, not a true home and home

The state of Iowa has recently switched things up with a doubleheader in these series, but Iowa and Iowa State play Northern Iowa and Drake home and home.

Louisville plays Western Kentucky home and home false, last 4 games, 2 at louis, one @WKY, 1 netrual game.

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State play Tulsa home and home (albeit not every year). Oklahoma has even played at Tulsa in football. another rare occurance

West Virginia and Marshall play at a neutral site every year. small state, two biggest schools

Pitt and Duquesne did always play home and home, but have now decided they both prefer a neutral site.


To say that major programs don't go on the road and play mid-majors is kind of like saying the tournament is in June.

You are looking at mid power 6 schools for the most part.

[throwbackmuskie]

OK, so you'd be okay with Xavier playing home and home with USU? Murray State makes the Tournament regularly, too (and was in the top 10 two years ago), but no home and home with them? How about Belmont?

I think you need to sharpen up your criteria a bit.

As I stated there is a differnce between the Gonzagas of the world and Murray State of the world.

[XUFan09]

As I stated there is a differnce between the Gonzagas of the world and Murray State of the world.

He asked about USU.

[GoMuskies]

As I stated there is a differnce between the Gonzagas of the world and Murray State of the world.

Sure, but where is that line for you? You seem okay with USU but not Murray State, and I find those programs to not be particularly dissimilar. Which side is Belmont on? Davidson?

[paulxu]

In basketball??

Alabama hasn't been ranked since 2005.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2012/week/4/seasontype/2

[GoMuskies]

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings/_/year/2012/week/4/seasontype/2

Take that 'brew! Granted, they ended up 21-12 and a 9 seed, but I see a team ranked just above them who had a similar fall that season...

[throwbackmuskie]

Sure, but where is that line for you? You seem okay with USU but not Murray State, and I find those programs to not be particularly dissimilar. Which side is Belmont on? Davidson?

Actually I never stated anything about play at USU, only that they are a solid program. The difference with USU and Murray St is USU is in a better conference. Same for Belmont and Davidson.

[danaandvictory]

None of those are mid-majors other than Wichita State and Gonzaga.

Seriously, UConn and Louisville?!?

He defined "mid-majors" based on conference affiliation, and provided a list of conferences that did not include the AAC, WCC, or MVC.

[GoMuskies]

Let's start over then: which non-power conference schools are we allowed to play on the road? I mean, if we're willing to go to Alabama this year (who is likely to finish with a losing record), which mid-majors are also okay?

[GoMuskies]

He defined "mid-majors" based on conference affiliation, and provided a list of conferences that did not include the AAC, WCC, or MVC.

Any definition of mid-majors that includs UConn and Louisville is a seriously messed up definition of mid-majors.

[danaandvictory]

Also, until the last second, we were supposed to play at Northwestern this year, which has to be the worst major conference team historically in college basketball.

[danaandvictory]

Any definition of mid-majors that includs UConn and Louisville is a seriously messed up definition of mid-majors.

It wasn't my definition.

[throwbackmuskie]

He defined "mid-majors" based on conference affiliation, and provided a list of conferences that did not include the AAC, WCC, or MVC.

Actually I said the power 6 should not play mid majors, there are mid major schools and then there are mid major conferences. Not all schools in mid major conferences are mid majors, much like Xavier was not a mid major program the last say 15 years.

Sorry if you got that impression.

[throwbackmuskie]

Also, until the last second, we were supposed to play at Northwestern this year, which has to be the worst major conference team historically in college basketball.

And until this year X was still in a mid major conference.

[GoMuskies]

Not all schools in mid major conferences are mid majors,

I completely disagree with this premise. As well as the notion that the A-10 is a mid-major.

[danaandvictory]

I don't understand why programs and teams can't be judged on their merits without using perjorative labels with no fixed definition.

The AAC has three programs that have won national championships and five with no historical success whatsoever, four of whom are currently terrible. How do you throw a blanket over that?

[GoMuskies]

I don't think the AAC is a mid-major at all, personally. They're likely to get five bids to the NCAA Tournament this year. In what universe is that a mid-major?

If you're in a traditionally one-bid league, you're a mid-major. Gonzaga got a #1 seed last year, and Wichita State went to the Final Four. Being a mid-major didn't really seem to harm either of them.

[GoMuskies]

I consider the following major conferences:

Big XII
Big Ten
SEC
ACC
Big East
Pac 12
AAC
A-10

The MWC has traditionally been a major conference, and I'd probably lean toward characterizing them as such, but conference realignment has been tough on them. I used to consider the WAC a major conference, but then it went poof.

Not that anyone really cares that much, but I've actually always thought of college basketball as having 4 distinct groups: "power" conferences (the SECs, ACCs, Big 10s, etc.) of the world that I hope the Big East will long be considered a part of (I think people are tentatively putting the Big East in that group for now), the "other majors" that are multi-bid leagues but typically do not have legitimate national title contenders (with some exceptions, of course), the mid-majors that are traditionally one-bid leagues but might sneak an extra team in from time to time (the MACs, Valleys, Sun Belts, etc.) and are typically your 11, 12, 13 seeds that are hell on wheels in March and then your low majors (the SWACs, Patriots, Northeasts) that are typically your 14, 15 and 16 seed cannon fodder in March.

[paulxu]

This was interesting:


In a strong mid-major conference already home to traditional powers UConn and Louisville, the scramble for talent is now a 4 team race, and the allure of Larry Brown could likely push SMU ahead of the men in black.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2014/2/11/5399912/cincinnati-bearcats-college-basketball-ncaa-tournament

[XUFan09]

And until this year X was still in a mid major conference.

Northwestern's removal from the schedule had nothing to do with Xavier changing conferences. They got a new coach who wanted to go in a different direction.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

You are looking at mid power 6 schools for the most part.


Take that 'brew! Granted, they ended up 21-12 and a 9 seed, but I see a team ranked just above them who had a similar fall that season...

Ahh, forgot about that. You got me there. They were ranked in the sense that Marquette and Indiana were ranked at the start of this season. I'm pretty sure Alabama has not been ranked during conference play since 2005, though.

Alabama was not ranked 8th when Xavier played there earlier this year. I don't know where some of this guy's figures come from.

I'm looking at the current top 25, btw. Current top 25 teams that play home and homes against mid majors include Louisville, Villanova, San Diego State (not sure how you want to categorize them), Saint Louis, Iowa State, Iowa, Virginia, Creighton, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Other notables include Oklahoma State and North Carolina. I don't know if you consider UNC to be a major program or not.

At best, I don't think there is any clear distinction between the major programs that do play mid-majors and the ones that don't. One category isn't significantly more successful than the other.

What cannot be said is that it does not occur. It absolutely does. Major programs play mid-majors in home and homes and/or at neutral sites all the time. Saying that they don't is like saying Alabama was ranked #8th back in December. It's just brazenly not true.

[LA Muskie]

Power Conference teams, BE, B1G, SEC,ACC, PAC12, Big12, have noting to gain and should never play @ a mid major school, ever. If Dayton wants to play us, they need to come to Cincinnati, period. We are in the big leagues now guys, time to act like it.

Wow. That's a high horse you're sitting on up there. My how the view looks different from this window. In the house we just bought last week.

[paulxu]

If you are in a conference that all the pundits call a "mid-major," then you are probably going to play a lot of home/home with other mid-majors.

Just saying.

[xubrew]

I consider the following major conferences:

Big XII
Big Ten
SEC
ACC
Big East
Pac 12
AAC
A-10

The MWC has traditionally been a major conference, and I'd probably lean toward characterizing them as such, but conference realignment has been tough on them. I used to consider the WAC a major conference, but then it went poof.

Not that anyone really cares that much, but I've actually always thought of college basketball as having 4 distinct groups: "power" conferences (the SECs, ACCs, Big 10s, etc.) of the world that I hope the Big East will long be considered a part of (I think people are tentatively putting the Big East in that group for now), the "other majors" that are multi-bid leagues but typically do not have legitimate national title contenders (with some exceptions, of course), the mid-majors that are traditionally one-bid leagues but might sneak an extra team in from time to time (the MACs, Valleys, Sun Belts, etc.) and are typically your 11, 12, 13 seeds that are hell on wheels in March and then your low majors (the SWACs, Patriots, Northeasts) that are typically your 14, 15 and 16 seed cannon fodder in March.

Other than the SEC being in the top tier, I agree with this. Florida and Kentucky are good. the top of the SEC is good. The bottom is pretty bad. It reminds me a lot of the American, but with fewer good teams.

[throwbackmuskie]

Ahh, forgot about that. You got me there. They were ranked in the sense that Marquette and Indiana were ranked at the start of this season. I'm pretty sure Alabama has not been ranked during conference play since 2005, though.

Alabama was not ranked 8th when Xavier played there earlier this year. I don't know where some of this guy's figures come from.

I'm looking at the current top 25, btw. Current top 25 teams that play home and homes against mid majors include Louisville, Villanova, San Diego State (not sure how you want to categorize them), Saint Louis, Iowa State, Iowa, Virginia, Creighton, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma. Other notables include Oklahoma State and North Carolina. I don't know if you consider UNC to be a major program or not.

At best, I don't think there is any clear distinction between the major programs that do play mid-majors and the ones that don't. One category isn't significantly more successful than the other.

What cannot be said is that it does not occur. It absolutely does. Major programs play mid-majors in home and homes and/or at neutral sites all the time. Saying that they don't is like saying Alabama was ranked #8th back in December. It's just brazenly not true.

I forgot we played at Bama this year, was thinking the previous time.

And I think you guys are still missing my point. For the most part, high level teams, yes Xavier is a high level team, do not go on the road for the most part to play mid level teams. There are some expections, however when you look at most schools who are in the power 6 or high level teams, however you want to slice it they do not go play the Daytons on the world @ their place on a regular basis. At this point going to play @ dayton does not really do a whole lot for Xavier. Now if Dayton wants to do a 2-1 then so be it. Take last year's schedule , the only road noncon games were at a SEC, ACC and B1G school. The year before it was @ 1 SEC school and a high program, Butler. Schedules like this got X where it is now, and that is how they should stay going forward. Why do you think we don't play at Miami anymore? It really doesn't do anything for us.

[xubrew]

I forgot we played at Bama this year, was thinking the previous time.

And I think you guys are still missing my point. For the most part, high level teams, yes Xavier is a high level team, do not go on the road for the most part to play mid level teams. There are some expections, however when you look at most schools who are in the power 6 or high level teams, however you want to slice it they do not go play the Daytons on the world @ their place on a regular basis. At this point going to play @ dayton does not really do a whole lot for Xavier. Now if Dayton wants to do a 2-1 then so be it. Take last year's schedule , the only road noncon games were at a SEC, ACC and B1G school. The year before it was @ 1 SEC school and a high program, Butler. Schedules like this got X where it is now, and that is how they should stay going forward. Why do you think we don't play at Miami anymore? It really doesn't do anything for us.

You forgot about Alabama. Well, it was rather forgettable and we really didn't gain much by playing it.

I haven't done this for this season, but I've actually looked at it each of the previous four years and all the teams from the old Big Six conferences played an average of over 3 games against non-power conference teams away from home. Considering they have a limited number of OOC games, and that a good number of those will be buy games, I think for a team to play over three games away from home against non-power conference teams is pretty telling.

High level teams do go on the road to play mid-level teams. Damn near half the top 25 went on the road and played a mid-level team. How much more evidence do you need before you realize that what you're arguing just isn't true??

[throwbackmuskie]

you are right I surrender, we should go play @ Dayton and @UIC and @ Loyola every year! I mean after all doing that is what got X to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 and into the Big East

Here is some food for though, the last 10 years our road games vs nonpower6 were the following:

03-04:Miami
04-05: NONE
05-06: Miami, Creighton
06-07: VCU, Creighton
07-08:Miami
08-09:NONE
09-10: Butler
10-11:Miami, Gonzaga
11-12:Butler,Memphis
12-13: NONE
13-14: NONE

We also stopped playing everyother year at Miami. So outside of Miami we played Top notch nonpower 6 schools.

[xubrew]

you are right I surrender, we should go play @ Dayton and @UIC and @ Loyola every year! I mean after all doing that is what got X to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 and into the Big East

Here is some food for though, the last 10 years our road games vs nonpower6 were the following:

03-04:Miami
04-05: NONE
05-06: Miami, Creighton
06-07: VCU, Creighton
07-08:Miami
08-09:NONE
09-10: Butler
10-11:Miami, Gonzaga
11-12:Butler,Memphis
12-13: NONE
13-14: NONE

We also stopped playing everyother year at Miami. So outside of Miami we played Top notch nonpower 6 schools.

What is your argument??

Arguing that we shouldn't play Dayton is entirely different than arguing that no high level programs play mid-level programs on the road. It's two completely different things.

Arguing that we shouldn't play Dayton because no other high level programs play mid level programs on the road is stupid because it simply isn't true.

Arguing that no high level teams play mid-level teams on the road is even more stupid. It's like arguing that Florida is one of the northern most states.

[xubrew]

It's slow in coming, but we're starting to see more and more "high level" teams scheduling road games against mid-level and low level teams. The reason is that it's a winnable road game, which can put a little bit of eye candy on the resume (which I personally don't think would work THAT well, but I do understand the thinking).

The other is that it's an easy way of inflating the power rankings, particularly the RPI.

I don't think Xavier should do this, but had they played Gardner Webb, Morehead State and Bowling Green all on the road, they probably win all three of them, and suddenly the RPI rankings and other computer rankings are noticeably better. Winning just two of them on the road is more of an RPI boost than winning all three at home. Some teams in top leagues are taking note of that, and beginning to schedule a few winnable games on the road instead of at home.

So, again, saying that no major programs do it is simply wrong.

[throwbackmuskie]

When is the last time Duke, Syracuse, Ohio State played a Mid major on the road? Florida played in Jacksonville this year, not really a road game. You get the point though.

Yes you found some high level teams who play on the road, not home and home minus long time rivals. Wisky gets 2-1 for Mil and GB. Hell I just showed you that in the last 10 years Xavier will not go on the road to play mid majors. But all of a sudden it is ok to go do that?

IMO it is stupid for any major conference school to go on the road and play a mid major, there is nothing to gain. You win, you were suppose to win, you lose, you are labeled overrated.

Do you want Xavier to run with the elite schools of the country? Or do you want Xavier to be a decent high major team? The last 10 years is the model Xavier should continue to use for scheduling, the last few, no road game at Miami is the best of those. You want to go on the road, go play a power 6 or a Gonzaga, UCONN, UC, VCU, Memphis, Wichita.

[throwbackmuskie]

Wow. That's a high horse you're sitting on up there. My how the view looks different from this window. In the house we just bought last week.

Funny, but I have seen programs lose on the road to low majors/mid majors and those programs have not recoved from it, South Carolina lost on the road to Elon a few years back, have had a horrible program since.Washington St lost on the road to Pepperdine last year, you think that helps them in recruiting? They are a few years removed from being a really good team, now they are stuggling big time. Those loses hurt in recruiting and perception of the teams.

[throwbackmuskie]

[QUOTE=xubrew;428937]It's slow in coming, but we're starting to see more and more "high level" teams scheduling road games against mid-level and low level teams. The reason is that it's a winnable road game, which can put a little bit of eye candy on the resume (which I personally don't think would work THAT well, but I do understand the thinking).

The other is that it's an easy way of inflating the power rankings, particularly the RPI.

I don't think Xavier should do this, but had they played Gardner Webb, Morehead State and Bowling Green all on the road, they probably win all three of them, and suddenly the RPI rankings and other computer rankings are noticeably better. Winning just two of them on the road is more of an RPI boost than winning all three at home. Some teams in top leagues are taking note of that, and beginning to schedule a few winnable games on the road instead of at home.

[B]So, again, saying that no major programs do it is simply wrong.[QUOTE]

The Majors will never play road games at the mid majors on a regular bais, nothing to gain, and it doesn't help the pocket book.

You're right I misspoke there. The Elites are not doing, and neither is Xavier.

[throwbackmuskie]

Final thing I will say is this, as I showed Xavier has gotten to where it has today by playing a tougher schedule and only going on the road to play power 6 and high profile schools. There is no need to go on the road vs the Bowling Green, Ohio, Toledo, Dayton, St Joe's of the world. We need to stay the course we have the last 10 years. Why do you guys think we stopped going to Miami OH? I guess the brass at X agree with me, after all they are doing what I believe in.

[xudash]

Expansion.

I just wanted to type that word since, you know, this thread used to be about Big East Expansion.

[throwbackmuskie]

Expansion.

I just wanted to type that word since, you know, this thread used to be about Big East Expansion.

LOL my fault, I say no to expansion, no worthy schools out there at this point!

[XUFan09]

Expansion.

I just wanted to type that word since, you know, this thread used to be about Big East Expansion.

We're ruining the discussion of Dash's favorite topic lol.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

[xubrew]

You're right I misspoke there. The Elites are not doing, and neither is Xavier.

Why do you keep insisting that no elite programs play mid level teams away from home??

Louisville won the national title a year ago, and was in the Final Four the last two years. Are they not elite??

North Carolina arguably isn't elite now, but they have an overall status of being an elite program. They've always played mid-level teams away from home.

It's one thing to say that you don't feel that Xavier should do it. I don't agree, but I would not look at that as an invalid opinion. It's another thing to just falsely state that no major programs or no elite programs do it. That's just simply not true. I'm not saying that EVERY power conference team or elite team does it. If I were, then I'd be wrong. But, to say that NONE of them do it is also wrong.

[DoubleD86]

you are right I surrender, we should go play @ Dayton and @UIC and @ Loyola every year! I mean after all doing that is what got X to the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 and into the Big East

Here is some food for though, the last 10 years our road games vs nonpower6 were the following:

03-04:Miami
04-05: NONE
05-06: Miami, Creighton
06-07: VCU, Creighton
07-08:Miami
08-09:NONE
09-10: Butler
10-11:Miami, Gonzaga
11-12:Butler,Memphis
12-13: NONE
13-14: NONE

We also stopped playing everyother year at Miami. So outside of Miami we played Top notch nonpower 6 schools.

You are missing all of the A-10 road games that are not top notch nonpower 6 or power 6 schools. Yes, you will come back saying "but I was talking out of conference" while completely missing that the fact it was conference is why Xavier couldn't afford to do so in the OOC schedule as well. Meanwhile, as many others have proven, those who get to avoid these games in conference do in fact, with pretty good regularity, play those types of schools away OOC.

Further, you have been proven wrong multiple times, tried to continuously alter your argument and then pounded your head against a wall on an argument that is clearly flawed (at best).

[xubrew]

And yes, as far as expansion goes, I'm against it. I'm actually in stronger favor of contraction, but I realize that's not a realistic option.

[danaandvictory]

Funny, but I have seen programs lose on the road to low majors/mid majors and those programs have not recoved from it, South Carolina lost on the road to Elon a few years back, have had a horrible program since.Washington St lost on the road to Pepperdine last year, you think that helps them in recruiting? They are a few years removed from being a really good team, now they are stuggling big time. Those loses hurt in recruiting and perception of the teams.

Clearly XU's home loss to Wofford has been disastrous vis-à-vis recruiting.

[paulxu]

Why do you keep insisting that no elite programs play mid level teams away from home??

To be fair, the "away from home" is a little misleading. If you play one of those programs at a neutral site in a tournament, that's a whole lot different than actually scheduling an away game "on the road" (i.e. in that other team's arena). Most of the programs you note (check Duke for example) don't go onto the home court of the mid level teams they play. Some exceptions occur (makes sense on a trip to Hawaii to stop at Long Beach State) or there is some prior relationship between the coaches and they are doing a favor, or a state legislature mandates a game, etc.

[xubrew]

To be fair, the "away from home" is a little misleading. If you play one of those programs at a neutral site in a tournament, that's a whole lot different than actually scheduling an away game "on the road" (i.e. in that other team's arena). Most of the programs you note (check Duke for example) don't go onto the home court of the mid level teams they play. Some exceptions occur (makes sense on a trip to Hawaii to stop at Long Beach State) or there is some prior relationship between the coaches and they are doing a favor, or a state legislature mandates a game, etc.

That is fair, but the majority of the examples I gave, particularly Louisville and North Carolina, do play true road games.

Louisville doesn't play many, but they do play WKU home and home, and they did play Butler home and home. They actually played FIU home and home, but again, to be fair, that fell under the category of "relationship between the coaches" when they scheduled it.

[bleedXblue]

And yes, as far as expansion goes, I'm against it. I'm actually in stronger favor of contraction, but I realize that's not a realistic option.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Contraction? Who and why? This I'm very interested in hearing.

[xubrew]

I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Contraction? Who and why? This I'm very interested in hearing.

It's a personal preference. I just like nine teams instead of ten. A 16 game balanced schedule is better than an 18 team balanced schedule.

Again, I saw one of those mathematical studies that showed that a nine team league is the most likely way to collectively elevate the conference through the power rankings. I don't remember the exact formula, but the basis was that if you play 18 games, it's two fewer chances for each team to win an OOC game. If it's just 14 teams, then there aren't as many games within the conference to elevate the status of the league as they go through league play.

So, there's that. I also like 13 out of conference games. Just as a fan, I think it provides more chances for intriguing match ups.

[throwbackmuskie]

That is fair, but the majority of the examples I gave, particularly Louisville and North Carolina, do play true road games.

Louisville doesn't play many, but they do play WKU home and home, and they did play Butler home and home. They actually played FIU home and home, but again, to be fair, that fell under the category of "relationship between the coaches" when they scheduled it.

Louisville-WKU was 2@ Louisville, 1@ WKU and 1 netrual game. Not a home and home. And I have stated more than once Butler falls under the high level programs. Not mid major.

[throwbackmuskie]

You are missing all of the A-10 road games that are not top notch nonpower 6 or power 6 schools. Yes, you will come back saying "but I was talking out of conference" while completely missing that the fact it was conference is why Xavier couldn't afford to do so in the OOC schedule as well. Meanwhile, as many others have proven, those who get to avoid these games in conference do in fact, with pretty good regularity, play those types of schools away OOC.

Further, you have been proven wrong multiple times, tried to continuously alter your argument and then pounded your head against a wall on an argument that is clearly flawed (at best).

You don't control conference games.

Like I said most of the those road games are not true home and home, more like a 2 for 1 deal or a netrual site game.

[throwbackmuskie]

Clearly XU's home loss to Wofford has been disastrous vis-à-vis recruiting.

Home loss, not road loss.

[paulxu]

That is fair, but the majority of the examples I gave, particularly Louisville and North Carolina, do play true road games.

Louisville doesn't play many, but they do play WKU home and home, and they did play Butler home and home. They actually played FIU home and home, but again, to be fair, that fell under the category of "relationship between the coaches" when they scheduled it.

Road game = game played in home arena of opponent for North Carolina

2013
@ #1 MSU, and @UAB (UAB is former Roy assistant and got a home game on a 2 for 1 swap)
2012
@ #1 Indiana, and @ Texas, and @ Long Beach State on the way to Maui (also 2 for 1 swap)
2011
@ #1 Kentucky and @ UNC Asheville (Roy's home town and the state sister school opening it's new arena)
2010
@ #20 Illinois and @ Evansville ("They came for one reason: To give Zeller an opportunity to play in front of his family and friends from Washington, Ind., about 60 miles away.")
2009
@ #5 Kentucky and @ Charleston ("Williams has a beach home just north of the city in the Wild Dunes resort and, with the university on winter break, brought the Tar Heels in on Saturday night with the team staying at the swanky Charleston Place hotel.")

Roy does play a couple of road games each year. But never more than 1/year against a "non-power" school, and generally with some ulterior motive or 2 for 1 swap. Maybe we could play Dayton 2 for 1?

[GoMuskies]

I don't think Louisville has played in Diddle Arena since Denny Crum was coach. Could be wrong, but I don't recall the Cards playing WKU anywhere but Louisville and Nashvegas since Pitino took the reins.

I see Louisville went there in 2010 now. It was their first trip to Diddle since 1990. The Cards used to play down there regularly, though. They also used to visit UD Arena fairly regularly.

[xubrew]

Road game = game played in home arena of opponent for North Carolina

2013
@ #1 MSU, and @UAB (UAB is former Roy assistant and got a home game on a 2 for 1 swap)
2012
@ #1 Indiana, and @ Texas, and @ Long Beach State on the way to Maui (also 2 for 1 swap)
2011
@ #1 Kentucky and @ UNC Asheville (Roy's home town and the state sister school opening it's new arena)
2010
@ #20 Illinois and @ Evansville ("They came for one reason: To give Zeller an opportunity to play in front of his family and friends from Washington, Ind., about 60 miles away.")
2009
@ #5 Kentucky and @ Charleston ("Williams has a beach home just north of the city in the Wild Dunes resort and, with the university on winter break, brought the Tar Heels in on Saturday night with the team staying at the swanky Charleston Place hotel.")

Roy does play a couple of road games each year. But never more than 1/year against a "non-power" school, and generally with some ulterior motive or 2 for 1 swap. Maybe we could play Dayton 2 for 1?

Sort of.

Long Beach and UAB were not straight up 2-for-1's. It was two different contracts. One was a buy game, and the other was a straight up home and home. That's basically the same thing, but it's not quite the same thing. Believe it or not, the reason North Carolina does this is because it helps the team that they're playing out even more. They get the benefit of a home and home, AND the benefit of a buy game in which they received way more than what most teams get for playing buy games on the road. I'm not in favor of Xavier doing that simply because I'm not THAT generous.

The UNC board of trustees basically mandated that they go to Asheville to be the first game in that new arena. The board oversees Chapel Hill, Asheville and Greensboro (and maybe Wilmington, but I'm not entirely sure). That's why I didn't mention that one. I don't think it had anything to do with it being Roy's hometown, but maybe it did.

I don't think that was their motive for going to Charleston, but if you know something I don't I won't argue the point. They did go there. For whatever reason.

I'm almost certain that Louisville v Western KY has been a straight up home and home since 2010, and that it is scheduled to continue. Charleston was a straight up 2-for-1. Butler was home and home. FIU was home and home (albeit under a condition).

Even with 2-for-1s, that's not the same as never playing mid-level teams on the road. We've gone from "no major program does it," to "no elite program does it," to "no elite program does it unless it's a 2-for-1." We keep moving these goal posts back more and more.

[xubrew]

I don't think Louisville has played in Diddle Arena since Denny Crum was coach. Could be wrong, but I don't recall the Cards playing WKU anywhere but Louisville and Nashvegas since Pitino took the reins.

I see Louisville went there in 2010 now. It was their first trip to Diddle since 1990. The Cards used to play down there regularly, though. They also used to visit UD Arena fairly regularly.

Didn't they work out a long term deal once Selig stopped being a douche??