NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 3:39 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:28 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
It's not like the Big East schools are set to improve. Creighton's losing McDermott, and I wonder if his dad might journey onward now, too. Marquette's guy is now VT's guy (and if they can't land Shaka, it looks bad for the school having those two slips out there in the press). Who knows when Butler comes back to life (and can they keep a coach), and every year Seton Hall and DePaul are "just about there," but never are. Xavier's coach is said to be not long for those sidelines. Everybody wonders how long Villanova's guy is really going to stay.

Between the two, I'd rather be in the senior-heavy team boat than the musical-chairs coach one. I mean, I don't know if SLU is any good without Majerus and his kids, and "his kids" are now gone, too. You see GWU and SJU go through cycles, as you do Dayton. I can't believe UMass has been gone for so long. VCU looks like a suitable Xavier replacement...one of those automatic bids regardless of outright conference titles or conference tournament titles. A steady coach can create that consistency.

I don't think the Big East should raid the A10 or any conference just for the sake of "superiority." It's about quality and not quantity, but it's a discussion that requires some schools to ask themselves why they've been the way that they've been on certain institutions than on others. The Big East simply has more to prove. They wanted (and bought) the name. They felt they could be better by themselves. They felt their collective was what made the conference what it truly was. They put themselves onto a pedestal and cried out for attention...it's not like people went looking around for trouble there. All on them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:20 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
Did I hear last night that {Va Tech of ACC] ??? might be after Shaka ?
If he leaves, does VCU suffer the same fate as Butler ?

One thing the Big East BB programs have gong for them is a healthy chunk of change from FOX.
If the schools leave that money ear-marked for BB operations, that can pay for a top coach and/or some nice fcilites....'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1130
Even if the money's good for now, it wasn't like it was putrid before. That wasn't an incentive to get the old bottom-feeders back into the game when the conference was amazing, so I wonder if better money with less quality gets a different result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
People are looking at the Big East and A-10 backward.

It's really this simple: The Big East needs more BAD basketball teams, NOT more good basketball teams.

Which conference has more good basketball teams, the Big East or the American? The Big East, duh. But the crappy basketball teams at the bottom of the American are more conducive to NCAA bids than a strong bottom of the league beating each other up. You need separation to get a ton of bids. The American had a really, really obvious line, the Big East had a garbled mess of bubble teams.

If you're going to have a 7-team free for all in conference play in a 10-team league, you better win 80% of your OOC games like the Big XII did.

How did the A-10 get so many bids losing their programs like Xavier, Butler and Temple?

Here's the Big East's OOC performance: 94-31 (.752)
Here's the top 10 of the A-10 OOC: 106-36 (.747)

The Big East was BETTER Out of Conference than the A-10's top 10 teams.
And since the A-10's bottom feeders were 21-18, better than the A-10 as a whole.

So how does that translate to six NCAA R64 teams for the A-10, and three (plus a First Four loser) for the Big East?

The top 10 of the Big East went 90-90 (.500) in conference games.
The top 10 of the A-10 went 93-67 (.581) in conference games.

The Big East's top 10 had to lose more to each other because there was no one else to play.
The A-10's top 10 had less losses because they had Fordham, Duquesne and George Mason to beat up on.

(And the Big East had 18 conference games, which gives you more conference losses than if you play 16 conference games).



It was a mathematical certainty that the Big East would be hurt by conference play more than the A-10, which is why crazy fools like me actually predicted this occuring.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
yeah but I don't think we'll see the BE adding Fordham and Duquesne over St.Louis and Dayton or Richmond. We know they want SLU's market if they expand again. So hope they suck post Majarus. Take Richmond b/c they're suckier.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:44 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
They should take SLU, Dayton, St. Bona and Duquesne.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
JPSchmack wrote:
They should take SLU, Dayton, St. Bona and Duquesne.

Swap St. Bona with Richmond and I'd agree with you :mrgreen:

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
By the way, have St. Bona and Duquesne been successful teams in recent years?

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
By the way, have St. Bona and Duquesne been successful teams in recent years?

Duquesne last went to the tourney in 1977. St.Bona went in 2000, 2012 during the 28 years I've been watching college bball. FYI JP went to St.Bona, I'll be pitching Fresno St. to the Pac 12 later :D

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
By the way, have St. Bona and Duquesne been successful teams in recent years?

Duquesne last went to the tourney in 1977. St.Bona went in 2000, 2012 during the 28 years I've been watching college bball. FYI JP went to St.Bona, I'll be pitching Fresno St. to the Pac 12 later :D


Sounds logic enough. But I bet you won't say the same logic or answer about other schools from other conferences to be eligible for other conferences (such as the Southland's Stephen F. Austin State, with their run this season upto to the NCAA tourney with almost a 30-game win streak before losing to UCLA, who might be a candidate for the Sun Belt in the future).

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:49 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
JP Schmack is onto something.

Every conference with a few powerhouse teams needs to have a few patsies to help the powerhouse teams "pad their record".

So the BE should focus on:
a) nice TV market for FOX
b) Catholic schools with similar "mission"
c) track record of the school to play crappy ball for extended periods

The college presidents need to understand that their own W-L record depends upon the weaklings' [in-conference] L-W records.


Duquense hasn't been too hot since Lionel "Big Train" Billingsly in the 1970s.... (they are physically located in the shadow of Pitt).
Maybe they can deliver some viewership via hte Pittsburgh market.
SLU can possibly deliever the St. Louis market. No NBA team, and Mizzou basketball is VERY inconsistent,lately.
St. Bonaventure might reel in some upstate NY eyeballs.....
How about Holy Cross ? (Worcester, Mass) ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 9:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
By the way, have St. Bona and Duquesne been successful teams in recent years?

Duquesne last went to the tourney in 1977. St.Bona went in 2000, 2012 during the 28 years I've been watching college bball. FYI JP went to St.Bona, I'll be pitching Fresno St. to the Pac 12 later :D


Sounds logic enough. But I bet you won't say the same logic or answer about other schools from other conferences to be eligible for other conferences (such as the Southland's Stephen F. Austin State, with their run this season upto to the NCAA tourney with almost a 30-game win streak before losing to UCLA, who might be a candidate for the Sun Belt in the future).

Beleive it or not there is some solid logic behind JP's wish list.

Duquesne and St Bona aren't elite. That's obvious but he is argueing that the Big East has too many elite teams and need more filler to add to give the Big East teams a couple to beat up on. Except for SH's run from 88-94 under P.J. Carlesimo, Seton Hall has been the only truely bad team which make playing each other in conference really difficult.

Adding Dusquesne/St Bona would be the underlings of the Big East and they fit the private/mostly Catholic mold. These would give there already established "stars" more chance to shine against the lesser competition and make matchups between good competition (which seemed like nearly every week) more valueable to the fans/viewing audience.

About your SFA analogy...the Big East is not the Sun Belt, the Big East makes more money w/o fb than the Sun Belt does with football. Its an apples/oranges comparision. The Sun Belt needs football to be successful.

A more apt analogy would be like (adapting the timeline to fit this narrative) the MWC adding Utah St/San Jose St/UTEP (both not very historical powers in fb) to a strong fb league that included Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno St, Nevada, Boise St, BYU, TCU, CSU, Air Force, and WYO plus weak fb schools UNLV/UNM.

By adding two more weaker football schools, you make the good fb schools look better (free win for BSU/TCU/BYU, easy wins for the rest) and give your weaker schools a "rival" which they may actually be able to keep a competitive series that can be the highlight of their normally miserable 1-2 wins season.

Also realize what the A10(bb) and SEC(fb) have proved, that by scheduling winable OOC games and by only playing your members semi-regularly (SEC only play's their "cross division rival" only 1 interdivisional game a year, meaning they'll play home-home with everyone in 12 years)(A10 playing 16 games in an 13 member conference meaning play everyone + 4).

The Big East could/should realize this, and assuming FOX is willing to pay, expand to 16, play everyone plus 3 rivals or pod for a nice 18 game schedule.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:16 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
tkalmus wrote:
Beleive it or not there is some solid logic behind JP's wish list.

Duquesne and St Bona aren't elite. That's obvious but he is argueing that the Big East has too many elite teams and need more filler to add to give the Big East teams a couple to beat up on. Except for SH's run from 88-94 under P.J. Carlesimo, Seton Hall has been the only truely bad team which make playing each other in conference really difficult.

Adding Dusquesne/St Bona would be the underlings of the Big East and they fit the private/mostly Catholic mold. These would give there already established "stars" more chance to shine against the lesser competition and make matchups between good competition (which seemed like nearly every week) more valueable to the fans/viewing audience.

About your SFA analogy...the Big East is not the Sun Belt, the Big East makes more money w/o fb than the Sun Belt does with football. Its an apples/oranges comparision. The Sun Belt needs football to be successful.

A more apt analogy would be like (adapting the timeline to fit this narrative) the MWC adding Utah St/San Jose St/UTEP (both not very historical powers in fb) to a strong fb league that included Hawaii, SDSU, Fresno St, Nevada, Boise St, BYU, TCU, CSU, Air Force, and WYO plus weak fb schools UNLV/UNM.

By adding two more weaker football schools, you make the good fb schools look better (free win for BSU/TCU/BYU, easy wins for the rest) and give your weaker schools a "rival" which they may actually be able to keep a competitive series that can be the highlight of their normally miserable 1-2 wins season.

Also realize what the A10(bb) and SEC(fb) have proved, that by scheduling winable OOC games and by only playing your members semi-regularly (SEC only play's their "cross division rival" only 1 interdivisional game a year, meaning they'll play home-home with everyone in 12 years)(A10 playing 16 games in an 13 member conference meaning play everyone + 4).

The Big East could/should realize this, and assuming FOX is willing to pay, expand to 16, play everyone plus 3 rivals or pod for a nice 18 game schedule.


I can understand and respect JP's point of view. I expect the same from mine. Besides, UTEP has not YET competed in the MW, except having conference rivalries with most of the current MW membership during the old WAC football days, just wanna correct you on that.

Plus, on basketball, I prefer the division format play than the "playing all members" format. In 12-team conferences, 10 times with 5 of own division twice and 6 of other division once for 16 total; in 14-team conferences, 12 times with 6 of own division twice and 7 of other division once for 19 total.

On the Sun Belt's perspective, how come that FIU, FAU, MTSU and North Texas were chosen by C-USA for this past season (2013-14)? Did these schools had recent success prior to that? The most recent ones are so far Arkansas St. and UL-Lafayette. Sadly, neither Sun Belt team (past or present alike) has EVER had a 10+-win season OR been ranked in the top 25 (for at least a week on a span or on the final polls of each past season) in its history of the conference sponsoring that sport since 2001.

But going back to the new Big East conversation, how about putting an agreement with the A-10 for a "mini-tournament-like" partnership in-game competition series, like the ACC-Big TEN Challenge or the SEC-Big XII Challenge? To see which of these two is the better conference, and might help build up rivalries.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1463
ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
I can understand and respect JP's point of view. I expect the same from mine. Besides, UTEP has not YET competed in the MW, except having conference rivalries with most of the current MW membership during the old WAC football days, just wanna correct you on that.

No correction needed, I said would be like. Trust me, as a UTEP fans (see helmet below) I know UTEP's never been in the MWC.

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
Plus, on basketball, I prefer the division format play than the "playing all members" format. In 12-team conferences, 10 times with 5 of own division twice and 6 of other division once for 16 total; in 14-team conferences, 12 times with 6 of own division twice and 7 of other division once for 19 total.
I like it too but could see some value in the pod structure if they go to 16.

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
On the Sun Belt's perspective, how come that FIU, FAU, MTSU and North Texas were chosen by C-USA for this past season (2013-14)? Did these schools had recent success prior to that? The most recent ones are so far Arkansas St. and UL-Lafayette. Sadly, neither Sun Belt team (past or present alike) has EVER had a 10+-win season OR been ranked in the top 25 (for at least a week on a span or on the final polls of each past season) in its history of the conference sponsoring that sport since 2001.

MTSU and UNT had some success, not Boise St success but some though both were on a downward spiral recently.

The reason they were added was to replace out going members and their markets.
MTSU was to replace Memphis
UNT was to replace SMU
UTSA was to replace Houston (as a school in Texas not in Houston which was unnessecary since they still have Rice)
FAU was to replace UCF
UNCC was to replce ECU
LA Tech was to replace Tulane
Western Kentucky was to replace Tulsa
ODU was added to add a new market not in non-AQ conference and give Marshall/UNCC some better travel.
FIU was to double down on the South Florida market and for recruiting purposes (ACC/AAC both have 2 why shouldn't CUSA).

ncaanopaawaa2000 wrote:
But going back to the new Big East conversation, how about putting an agreement with the A-10 for a "mini-tournament-like" partnership in-game competition series, like the ACC-Big TEN Challenge or the SEC-Big XII Challenge? To see which of these two is the better conference, and might help build up rivalries.

The Big East doesn't want to show the A10 that kind of respect, that would be like the PAC12/MWC having a challenge...it's not going to happen. If they were to do this and the A10 were to win they'd get embarrassed and it gives the Big East little/no benefit in beating schools they are supposed to beat. If they were to setup a "challenge" it would be with the WCC most likely.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 11:39 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
tkalmus wrote:
No correction needed, I said would be like. Trust me, as a UTEP fans (see helmet below) I know UTEP's never been in the MWC.


Oops, sorry for correcting. I thought you didn't know about it. But UTEP should be a logical fit geographically and traditionally in the MW.

tkalmus wrote:
I like it too but could see some value in the pod structure if they go to 16.


That is if most of the D-I conferences plan to have 16 teams, with 4 4-team pods. Then, how would you organize the schedule format/structure?

tkalmus wrote:
MTSU and UNT had some success, not Boise St success but some though both were on a downward spiral recently.


True, but still, neither of them had been ranked in the BCS standings during their tenures.

tkalmus wrote:
The reason they were added was to replace out going members and their markets.
MTSU was to replace Memphis
UNT was to replace SMU
UTSA was to replace Houston (as a school in Texas not in Houston which was unnessecary since they still have Rice)
FAU was to replace UCF
UNCC was to replce ECU
LA Tech was to replace Tulane
Western Kentucky was to replace Tulsa
ODU was added to add a new market not in non-AQ conference and give Marshall/UNCC some better travel.
FIU was to double down on the South Florida market and for recruiting purposes (ACC/AAC both have 2 why shouldn't CUSA).


Sounds logically fair, with the changes and stuff, but I have something to clarify about it. ONLY if Western Kentucky HADN'T "jumped the gun" on going to C-USA for the upcoming season (even with the additions of Appalachian State and Georgia Southern), the Sun Belt would have a CCG for just only one season, THEN Western Kentucky would have planned to join C-USA for 2015-16 (the same season that UNCC would have its football program in C-USA conference play). But no, instead, there will be 13 teams in C-USA, including Old Dominion to C-USA conference play.

tkalmus wrote:
The Big East doesn't want to show the A10 that kind of respect, that would be like the PAC12/MWC having a challenge...it's not going to happen. If they were to do this and the A10 were to win they'd get embarrassed and it gives the Big East little/no benefit in beating schools they are supposed to beat. If they were to setup a "challenge" it would be with the WCC most likely.


At least I tried, because that's how my opinions are expressed so far, whatsoever.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 318 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group