More conference shuffling? Big East-basketball defection

[JasonEvans]

Here is a story (http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-basketball/2011/12/21/2653048/big-east-realignment-two-schools-discuss-leaving-basketball-league) saying that 2 Big East schools are looking to form a basketball-only conference. The two schools are not named, but I would guess it is prominent hoops schools without Div 1 football programs like Georgetown, Villanova, St John's, and Marquette... perhaps Providence and/or DePaul might also be involved.

The 2 schools leading this conversation want to add some other big-time basketball programs (without BCS-level football) such as Butler, Temple, and Xavier.

It is an intriguing plan and one that would seem to make a lot more sense than the non-football members of the Big East continuing to be held at the mercy of the football programs. Of course, whenever someone talks about forming a super-conference, I always wonder... who will be the bottom of the league? I mean, someone has to be in the basement. Will any of those programs enjoy a turn at the bottom? If you have 8 top 30 programs in a league together, a couple of them are gonna miss the Big Dance because of the lumps they take during the conference regular season.

-Jason "I also want this to happen because I think it might help hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC" Evans

[Bob Green]

Jason "I also want this to happen because I think it might help hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC" Evans

Explain to me why any of us should be looking to hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC? I realize expansion is reality, the cat cannot be put back in the bag and the eight team ACC of my youth (I miss South Carolina) will never again exist, but I fail to understand how adding Pitt and Syracuse is a good thing.

As far as a the prospect of forming a basketball only Super Conference, this idea is a daydream. The trend is heading the other way toward four 16 team Super Conferences consisting of schools who compete in both football and basketball (I guess I just answered my own question). I am not a fan of the Super Conference model and hope it does not happen.

[NSDukeFan]

Explain to me why any of us should be looking to hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC? I realize expansion is reality, the cat cannot be put back in the bag and the eight team ACC of my youth (I miss South Carolina) will never again exist, but I fail to understand how adding Pitt and Syracuse is a good thing.

As far as a the prospect of forming a basketball only Super Conference, this idea is a daydream. The trend is heading the other way toward four 16 team Super Conferences consisting of schools who compete in both football and basketball (I guess I just answered my own question). I am not a fan of the Super Conference model and hope it does not happen.

My reason for looking forward to Syracuse and Pitt joining the conference is that the ACC has been down the last couple of years and adding these two schools will immediately increase the competitiveness of the conference beyond UNC and Duke. I am optimistic that most, if not all, of the new coaches hired in the past couple of years are going to lead their programs to become more competitive in the next few years, but Pitt and Cuse are already there and will make ACC more interesting as soon as they begin competing.

[Bob Green]

My reason for looking forward to Syracuse and Pitt joining the conference is that the ACC has been down the last couple of years and adding these two schools will immediately increase the competitiveness of the conference beyond UNC and Duke.

That sounds great - in theory. But isn't this the same tune proponents of expansion were singing in regard to football and the addition of Miami and Virginia Tech? How has that worked out?

Bob "Color me skeptical" Green

[Duvall]

Explain to me why any of us should be looking to hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC? I realize expansion is reality, the cat cannot be put back in the bag and the eight team ACC of my youth (I miss South Carolina) will never again exist, but I fail to understand how adding Pitt and Syracuse is a good thing.

The sooner Pitt and Syracuse join the ACC, the sooner the ACC can renegotiate its TV deal with ESPN to reflect the current market. That will mean more money for Duke athletics, which will mean smaller athletic subsidies needed from the University, which will mean more money for Duke to spend on academics.


As far as a the prospect of forming a basketball only Super Conference, this idea is a daydream. The trend is heading the other way toward four 16 team Super Conferences consisting of schools who compete in both football and basketball (I guess I just answered my own question). I am not a fan of the Super Conference model and hope it does not happen.

The basketball-only Super Conference would consist of teams that would be left out of the four football "superconferences" - the Big East Catholic schools plus Butler, Xavier, etc.

[lotusland]

Explain to me why any of us should be looking to hasten Pitt and Syracuse's move to the ACC? I realize expansion is reality, the cat cannot be put back in the bag and the eight team ACC of my youth (I miss South Carolina) will never again exist, but I fail to understand how adding Pitt and Syracuse is a good thing.
.

Good question. I agree completely not that it matters in the least what ACC or Big East hoops fans want.

[uh_no]

The sooner Pitt and Syracuse join the ACC, the sooner the ACC can renegotiate its TV deal with ESPN to reflect the current market. That will mean more money for Duke athletics, which will mean smaller athletic subsidies needed from the University, which will mean more money for Duke to spend on academics.



The basketball-only Super Conference would consist of teams that would be left out of the four football "superconferences" - the Big East Catholic schools plus Butler, Xavier, etc.

probably also ND if they stay indy, perhaps memphis

[mgtr]

The reason to add new teams may be similar to commercial banking in the US the last 15-20 years. Big banks gobbled up smaller banks like crazy. "Eat or be eaten" was the byword, and so medium-size banks acquired smaller banks, attempting to stave off the inevitable. Ultimately we will end up with 5 or 6 really big banks. Roughly the same thing is happening with D1 football, and basketball gets dragged along kicking and screaming, for the most part.

[Indoor66]

The reason to add new teams may be similar to commercial banking in the US the last 15-20 years. Big banks gobbled up smaller banks like crazy. "Eat or be eaten" was the byword, and so medium-size banks acquired smaller banks, attempting to stave off the inevitable. Ultimately we will end up with 5 or 6 really big banks. Roughly the same thing is happening with D1 football, and basketball gets dragged along kicking and screaming, for the most part.

How is that working out? A few arrogant, lousy banks rather than a larger number of banks competing for your business. Got to love that concept of too big to fail. Sometimes bigger is not better and I think that applies to college athletics. I would rather have lots of eight team conferences that play each team in every sport at least once per year (depending on sport). IMO that gives a better picture of quality when making selections for post-season play - whether basketball or soccer or football. Of course, I am just an old codger.

[mgtr]

How is that working out? A few arrogant, lousy banks rather than a larger number of banks competing for your business. Got to love that concept of too big to fail. Sometimes bigger is not better and I think that applies to college athletics. I would rather have lots of eight team conferences that play each team in every sport at least once per year (depending on sport). IMO that gives a better picture of quality when making selections for post-season play - whether basketball or soccer or football. Of course, I am just an old codger.

I agree completely. I was not espousing such mergers, just pointing out the similarities.

[luvdahops]

probably also ND if they stay indy, perhaps memphis

I hear conflicting things about ND around this idea. On the hand, it would allow them to keep indy status in football. But I also understand that it would be very sub-optimal (from ND's perspective) in terms of non-revenue sports. As a result, some believe this might actually push them toward joining a BCS conference as an all-sports member.

[WiJoe]

I hear conflicting things about ND around this idea. On the hand, it would allow them to keep indy status in football. But I also understand that it would be very sub-optimal (from ND's perspective) in terms of non-revenue sports. As a result, some believe this might actually push them toward joining a BCS conference as an all-sports member.

Don't hold your breath. Notre Dame and its alums are more proud of their football independence than ANYTHING.

[Highlander]

That sounds great - in theory. But isn't this the same tune proponents of expansion were singing in regard to football and the addition of Miami and Virginia Tech? How has that worked out?

Bob "Color me skeptical" Green

You mean the same Virginia Tech that has won the conference championship 4 times and the ACC Coastal six times since joining the league in 2004? And the same Virginia Tech that got the ACC its first ever at large berth to a BCS bowl game, earning the conference another $1M per school? The same Virginia Tech that almost didn't make it in over Syracuse, and in basketball they were supposed to be an also-ran, but has more than held their own in conference play.

Now, I fully admit that adding Syracuse and especially Pitt to the conference don't necessarily knock my socks off. And granted, Miami hasn't impressed anyone lately on the Football field or the basketball court. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that adding VTech to the conference hasn't improved the financial and athletic stature of the conference in Football.

[-bdbd]

You mean the same Virginia Tech that has won the conference championship 4 times and the ACC Coastal six times since joining the league in 2004? And the same Virginia Tech that got the ACC its first ever at large berth to a BCS bowl game, earning the conference another $1M per school? The same Virginia Tech that almost didn't make it in over Syracuse, and in basketball they were supposed to be an also-ran, but has more than held their own in conference play.

Now, I fully admit that adding Syracuse and especially Pitt to the conference don't necessarily knock my socks off. And granted, Miami hasn't impressed anyone lately on the Football field or the basketball court. But you'd be hard pressed to convince me that adding VTech to the conference hasn't improved the financial and athletic stature of the conference in Football.

While I generally agree with Bob on almost everything - and not just b/c he's also a Navy guy with a Japan connection - but in this case I have to go the other way. If you think that expansion with Syracuse and Pitt as announced is a good thing, then it is hard to argue that delaying it is anything but bad. Even if you don't like adding those two schools, the fact is that the ACC has made that decision public already so delaying its implementation, dragging out the transition, just leaves the conference in a form of "perceptional limbo" that much longer. As in business, uncertainty is not generally a good thing. And, as stated, it delays that added revenue another year or two, including the ESPN TV contract renegotiation.

Though a separate issue, the strategic decision to add those two was certainly a long-term plus for the ACC in terms of B-ball performance and revenue, if looking at them over the last ten years. Both of those schools have been performing well above the ACC mean in BB for many years now (in the Orange's case that statement might be able to extend 30 years back...). On the FB side, these two schools do have some solid history/tradition, even though the last handful of years have been a bit down. I do expect them to enhance the ACC football-wise over time. I like the new Pitt HC football hire. And, importantly, they are reasonable fits for culture, academics and geography. And the addition of Miami, BC and VPI - and I'm an old-timer who likes to lump FSU into the "recent FB additions" category - while not as lucrative as hoped, certainly has meant more overall revenue to the ACC than would have otherwise been the case. (Performance-wise VPI has been the dominant program in the ACC for most of the last decade, and FSU the decade before that, and I'll never complain about the BC addition - with strong academics and generally above-average football since joining.) But the real bottom line here is simply that, just b/c the Miami and, arguably, BC additions might not have quite lived up to hopes/expectations, that has NO bearing on whether the Pitt and Syracuse adds will enhance the conference revenue and on-field performance.


The sooner the better on the long-since-announced Pitt and Syracuse additions to the ACC.

[Scorp4me]

How is that working out? A few arrogant, lousy banks rather than a larger number of banks competing for your business. Got to love that concept of too big to fail. Sometimes bigger is not better and I think that applies to college athletics. I would rather have lots of eight team conferences that play each team in every sport at least once per year (depending on sport). IMO that gives a better picture of quality when making selections for post-season play - whether basketball or soccer or football. Of course, I am just an old codger.

I agree with Indoor66 and find it hard to believe that with increased travel and smaller pieces of the pie, that smaller 8 team conferences are not the way to go. I mean is it really that different to have 4 conferences of 16 than 8 of conferences of 8 when it comes to economics?

Speaking of which I think it'd be 10 conferences of 8 anyway. Cause while I don't see the Big East ultimately surviving, there is just too many teams to eliminate another conference I think.

[jjasper0729]

I agree with Indoor66 and find it hard to believe that with increased travel and smaller pieces of the pie, that smaller 8 team conferences are not the way to go. I mean is it really that different to have 4 conferences of 16 than 8 of conferences of 8 when it comes to economics?

Speaking of which I think it'd be 10 conferences of 8 anyway. Cause while I don't see the Big East ultimately surviving, there is just too many teams to eliminate another conference I think.

I just believe the old adage that Bear Bryant said. Conferences should be no bigger than 10.

Then you can play everyone in football once and everyone in basketball twice. I'm an old codger that way too I suppose.

[Acymetric]

I just believe the old adage that Bear Bryant said. Conferences should be no bigger than 10.

Then you can play everyone in football once and everyone in basketball twice. I'm an old codger that way too I suppose.

20 conference games would be a hard sell to the schools, I think (although as a fan I would love it).

[uh_no]

20 conference games would be a hard sell to the schools, I think (although as a fan I would love it).

10 teams is 18 conference games....unless you're planning on playing 2 games against yourself.....