Conference Shake Up 2.0

[Rlh04d]

Interesting take and there might be some validity to it. Would you say that KU fits that bill as well, or do they simply suck at football?

I'm unsure of KU's finances, but I would assume they do the same.

Although to be fair to Kansas, they make a ton of money off of basketball specifically, thanks to Tier 3 radio rights, I believe.

I believe it's generally assumed that something around 65-75% of a conference's TV contract is from football. Any team that does not spend that much of their part of the TV contract on improving their football program is a drain on their conference financially, IMO.

[Rlh04d]

Maybe, but schools like Miami, and, to a lesser extent, Boston College, failing to be relevant nationally since being poached by the ACC from the Big East had a larger role IMO.

I hear the same argument about FSU regularly.

The argument is that essentially three or four schools in every conference, for whatever reason, bear all responsibility for the financial success of their conference.

I hate Miami, but why should Miami be more responsible for the success of the ACC than Duke? They're both private schools with right around 15k students. Miami has a better recruiting ground for football than Duke, but that doesn't explain why Miami traditionally spends so much more than Duke on their football program. Miami is more responsible for the ACC's success because they've had more success in the past? That's essentially blaming Miami for being good in the past, and giving Duke a free ride because they've always been free-riders on the football side. Miami is more valuable to the ACC than Duke ... Miami, despite limited success since coming from the Big East, is still one of the biggest football TV draws in the conference. Duke is one of the two biggest basketball draws, but football revenue > basketball revenue.

Boston College is in an even worse position. Same amount of students as the other two, worse recruiting area than either. Again, you're blaming them for being successful in the past and not currently. The problem is that there is no reason Duke couldn't have been as successful as BC in the past, other than refusal to invest in their football program.

And there is absolutely no excuse for Duke not being able to match the success of Wake Forest in football. Wake has half of the student body of Duke, nowhere near the donors, nowhere near the fanbase, etc. And yet Wake has invested in their football program and been phenomenally successful for the third best college in North Carolina -- maybe -- with less than 7k students. Wake should have a ceiling around 8 wins, and yet they went to a BCS bowl game a few years ago.

Duke actually has finally made a commitment to football, and it's working out for them now, as they've made their first bowl game in around 20 years. They've invested heavily in facilities and hired a coach that knows what he's doing. But most of the ACC's problems have come down to 8 programs that refuse to invest in their football programs, refuse to upgrade facilities or have stadiums that are bigger than an average high school's, or hire coaches for more than a pittance (the same problem a lot of MVC basketball programs have), and then blame FSU, Miami, Clemson, and VT -- as the only programs that do invest in football -- for not adequately carrying the side of the conference that accounts for 65-75% of TV revenue.

Miami, FSU, Clemson, and VT are to blame for short-term success of the conference. Much as Creighton and Wichita State would be to blame for lack of short-term success in the MVC. But every team in a conference is responsible for the long-term growth and health of a conference. You don't get to just sit on the sidelines, take the revenue being generated by others, refuse to invest to be successful, and then blame the ones that do for not giving you enough. Evansville doesn't get to do it when they enjoy the NCAA tournament revenues of other MVC teams, and Duke doesn't get to do it when they refuse to invest in football.

The SEC isn't a massive success in football just because they have three or four football powers that invest in the sport. They're powerful because just about every program is investing heavily in the sport that brings in the money. If Alabama falls off, they have LSU, Florida, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Tennessee (bad, but they definitely invest in football), Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas, etc., etc. all fighting for the top spot. How many teams outside of the traditional four in the ACC are investing adequately to fight for the top spot? How many teams in the MVC are investing in basketball adequately to fight for the top spot?

Programs being content to spend less than they could, underachieve, and sit at the bottom of the conference while still making just as much as the teams that invest heavily are to blame for the weakness of a conference. Creighton and Wichita State carrying the MVC is great ... but if two other teams had the finances and willingness to spend to match those two programs every year, the MVC would be a far better conference. Of course, if Creighton or WSU won a national championship, the MVC would be far better as well. So who is to blame for the MVC's current status ... Creighton for not winning a national championship, or Indiana State barely paying $200k for a head coach? Should blame fall on those doing the best for not doing more, or on those unwilling to do anything at all?

[Rlh04d]

How is UNC to blame for Maryland leaving? Maryland wanted a stronger upper northeast presence and will help to carry that mantle by themselves along with Penn State and Rutgers. UNC has spent more money on football over the last 25 years, so they are unlike Duke in that regard.

What do you think UNC's ceiling is? Is that ceiling 7 or 8 wins, which is where they've topped off at? A school with 30k students, massive donor support, massive fan support, etc. should have a ceiling of a national championship. A team with a ceiling at national championship that is actually putting out a product of 7 wins in one of the worst football conferences in the FBS is failing, on a very large scale. They haven't won more than 8 games in a season since 1998. UNC should be a football powerhouse, and their failure to do so demonstrates their unwillingness to invest in football. They've spent more money, but they haven't spent enough.

I'm not arguing that every school is the same, or that every school should have the same baseline to measure success. Success at FSU should be measured far differently than success at Duke ... FSU has a ceiling at national championship, Duke has a ceiling at 8 or 9 wins. But UNC's ceiling should be similar to that of FSU and Miami, and putting out an inferior product is a failure. I think FSU and Miami are to blame for the short-term failure of the ACC, but UNC shoulders the long-term failure of the ACC. Three 10+ win seasons since 1981 (and 10 losing seasons) is unacceptable for a program with the ceiling UNC has.

As for Maryland ... regardless of whatever spin they want to give it, Maryland left the ACC because they will make more than $7million more every year in the Big 10. And the CIC has significant advantages as well for them academically. A founding member of the ACC didn't leave for geographic reasons, and they certainly didn't leave the best overall academic conference for academic reasons. They left because they need money, and the Big 10's athletic TV deal is far superior to the ACC's. The same reason I still think FSU will end up leaving -- particularly if Maryland can get the $50 million exit fee knocked down or off in court (FSU and Maryland were the only ACC teams to vote against the exit fee increase a few months ago). The reason that the TV deal for the Big 10 is superior to that of the ACC is that Big 10 teams have invested in both football and basketball.

In the history of the BCS, seven Big 10 teams have been to at least two BCS bowl games (Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Illinois). In the ACC, three have (FSU, VT, Miami, and Miami has not been to one since joining). The ACC is inferior because only a small number of teams are willing to invest the earnings made by football into football, while the Big 10 has. This has given the Big 10 a bigger TV contract, and is responsible for Maryland leaving. Programs like Duke and UNC are two of the biggest culprits in spending extravagantly on basketball and ignoring football at a time when football is so heavily in the driver's seat when it comes to TV revenue. So, yes, Duke and UNC are to blame for Maryland leaving.

[Rlh04d]

Anyone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a "new" conference doesn't get an auto-bid to the NCAA tournament, correct? Or am I thinking football? Or am I not thinking at all?...

I'm unsure. But I'm fairly certain the teams would lose their NCAA tournament payouts. Hence why the basketball teams won't to kill football to keep the Big East name ... they'd lose several years of NCAA payouts if they quit.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I hear the same argument about FSU regularly.

The argument is that essentially three or four schools in every conference, for whatever reason, bear all responsibility for the financial success of their conference.

I hate Miami, but why should Miami be more responsible for the success of the ACC than Duke?

The difference here is that Miami and Boston College (along with Virginia Tech) were specifically stolen from the East and added to the ACC to improve the football product of the conference. They (Miami and BC) have not done so.

Honestly, there is a great deal of irony if the ACC breaks up since it is the conference that really started the whole realignment craze when it poached Miami, BC and VT from the Big East.

[Rlh04d]

The difference here is that Miami and Boston College (along with Virginia Tech) were specifically stolen from the East and added to the ACC to improve the football product of the conference. They (Miami and BC) have not done so.

Honestly, there is a great deal of irony if the ACC breaks up since it is the conference that really started the whole realignment craze when it poached Miami, BC and VT from the Big East.

I can accept that argument to a degree.

But the idea that one program should be held responsible for the quality they add to a conference and another should not be, despite them both getting the exact same amount of money from the conference, is still unpalatable to me. If certain teams are more responsible for the success or failure of a conference, those teams should get a larger share of conference money. If Duke just gets a free pass "because they're Duke," then the argument is that Miami being successful is more important than Duke being successful. Miami should be given the lion share of Duke's money to improve their football program, because Miami's success is more important to the ACC than Duke's.

I'm not even entirely sure that Miami hasn't fulfilled their end of the bargain, simply on TV ratings. They might not have been as successful a football program as they should have been following the move, but they are still one of the highest television draws in the conference. Off of memory, the top teams in value-added to the ACC's TV contract are FSU, UNC, Clemson, and Miami. You don't have to be successful to draw ratings, and FSU/Miami games, even when both teams were winning 7 games a season, were still setting records for ESPN.

I still think my question about the MVC is relevant: is the MVC's relative weakness due to Creighton not winning MORE, or due to the bottom feeders refusing to invest enough to win? Should conference success be entirely dependent on the top teams, or should it be on every program to perform at a high level?

I don't think the ACC will ever break up. Pecking order has been set, and the ACC has plenty of teams it can still poach. I still think FSU, VT, Clemson, NC State, and UNC are all threats to leave the ACC, but I doubt all of them leave. Even if they did, the ACC can still scoop up UConn, Cincinatti, USF, UCF (obviously the ACC would expand to a Florida school if FSU left ... Florida is too important a state to lose, for recruiting and TVs), SMU, etc. But yes, I would shed no tears for the ACC.

[CourtJester]

The difference here is that Miami and Boston College (along with Virginia Tech) were specifically stolen from the East and added to the ACC to improve the football product of the conference. They (Miami and BC) have not done so.

Honestly, there is a great deal of irony if the ACC breaks up since it is the conference that really started the whole realignment craze when it poached Miami, BC and VT from the Big East.

It really started when the SEC poached Arkansas from the Southwest Conference and the Big 12 added Texas, A&M, etc., 5 years later.

The ACC responded because rumors at the time were that the SEC was looking to poach ACC members.

[SubGod22]

I've seen message board posts lately that Dayton may not be a guaranteed add as I would have expected. Some believe that Xavier would prefer to leave them behind and don't see them as a rival. I find this interesting because it could open the door for the MVC to reach out to them.

What would Dayton and SLU think of an A10 that loses Xavier and Butler? Would they still view it and east coast exposure as better than the MVC? Would they be correct? Would it be worth WSU looking into joining the A10 if Dayton, SLU and VCU were still around? Maybe, but if the C7 decided to grow a few more those schools could be taken and then we'd be left in a crap conference. Or, do we join that conference and make a run and show ourselves to be a stronger program than others may think?

If the C7 only goes to 10, adding Xavier, Butler and one other, it could be interesting to see if either the A10 or MVC could poach from one another.

[ripemupshocks]

It's hard to believe the C-7 wouldn't want Dayton. A private Catholic University. A long basketball history starting in 1903. An arena that seats over 13,400 with good attendance. And in terms of Xavier's relationship with Dayton; they're only about fifty miles apart. They started playing each other in 1920, and have played each other 157 times, with Dayton leading the series 84-73. That's more games against each other than against any other team. Hell they even joined the A-10 together in 1995. Can't get much more rival than that.

I say if the C-7 doesn't want Dayton and SLU, the MVC needs to fight like hell to get em. I really believe, because of football, at some point there will be huge changes in college athletics. Football is like the elephant in the room. The cost makes it unsustainable except for a select few. And I think, as time goes on, more and more universities will abandon football, at least at the scholarship level. If the MVC plays its cards right, with it's history, it could once again become one of the top basketball conferences.

[ShockTalk]

I'm still somewhat amazed at the aura the C7 have. Frankly, team-wise, they don't measure up to the A-10 prospects they're looking at allowing to play with them. Too many Big Least bottomfeeders. Yes, I understand the TV markets that most are in, but if they don't perform, they may not be as valuable.

Using RPIForecast.com:

Current RPI:
Big Priest 7 - #41 Georgetown, #75 Seton Hall, #85 Providence, #89 St Johns, #97 Marquette, #100 Villanova, #177 DePaul

A-10 Prospects - #6 Butler, #29 VCU, #65 Dayton, #73 St Louis, #80 Richmond, #81 Xavier, #91 St. Josephs
There are currently 4 other A-10 teams mixed within the 7 above.

Projected RPI:
Big Priest 7 - #52 Georgetown, #58 Marquette, #72 Seton Hall, #77 Providence, #79 Villanova, #92 St. Johns, #113 Depaul
Even after the boost of the top Big Least teams. 5 are projected to have losing conference records (6-12 to 8-10) and 2 at .500.

A-10 Prospects - #13 VCU, #32 Butler, #48 St Louis, #63 Richmond, #67 Dayton, #85 St Josephs, #90 Xavier
Still 4 other A-10 teams within the above teams. Also, Xavier having a very down year.

If the A-10 teams don't bolt to the C7, the C7 could be in some trouble. More over, if the A-10 could rid themselves of a few bottom teams and add 2-4 other solid "basketball" first schools, they'd have a much better conference than the C7 could ever come up with.

I'd be wary of joining those prima donnas, even if I was a Catholic school.

[SubGod22]

The bottom of the A10 is much worse than anything the C7 has and that's a big deal. Plus, the A10 divides the pie more ways and is looking at getting equal or fewer units come NCAA Tourney time. Plus, the C7 still has the prestige of having been a part of the BE which is going to help them when it comes to a TV deal as well. More TV time and money goes a long way when it comes to exposure and recruiting. The projected C7 conference would be a Top 5 conference the last 10 years. Something the A10 is not.

[SubGod22]

And as far as we go, we're on the outside looking in at the moment. We MAY get consideration from the C7 a few years down the road if they choose to go to 14 or more. We have a better chance if they pick VCU and CU is there. If the C7 goes that big, or plans to, the A10 is not a viable option. If the C7 goes to 10 to start and we jumped to the A10, we'd be stuck with a lot of crap in a few years when the C7 chose to go to 12+ unless we were included. The only other hope is for the rumblings from the MWC to be true. There has been a little talk that they may consider adding nonfootball schools in the future to strengthen the conference. But if that ever does happen, it'll be a few years down the road when they get the football situation all smoothed out. I don't know what the odds are, but if they went E/W it would help with both travel and strength. We'd be in a division with UNM, CSU, AFA and Wyoming which isn't bad at all. Rumors of UTEP and even Tulsa have been thrown out there as possible adds as well as Texas State or even UTSA. So there could be more options is a few years. Or, we simply get stuck in a depleted MVC which would likely lose ISU and UNI if the basketball side started to falter too much as they have higher football aspirations anyway.

[ShockTalk]

The bottom of the A10 is much worse than anything the C7 has and that's a big deal. Plus, the A10 divides the pie more ways and is looking at getting equal or fewer units come NCAA Tourney time. Plus, the C7 still has the prestige of having been a part of the BE which is going to help them when it comes to a TV deal as well. More TV time and money goes a long way when it comes to exposure and recruiting. The projected C7 conference would be a Top 5 conference the last 10 years. Something the A10 is not.

I agree regarding the TV money (which talks volumes). However, I'm not talking about comparing the C7 to the whole Atl-10. What I'm saying is if the C7 added the 7 Atl-10 teams I listed (ones being talked about to add), the 7 additions would be better than the original 7.

The Atl-10 is losing Temple and Charlotte to football and probably UMass in the very near future. Subtract Fordham and Rhode Island and that leaves 11 schools. Add WSU, Creighton, and George Mason and you've got a league that would garner 6-7 Dance tickets to divide 14 ways. That's not bad at all and you don't have to mess with the C7 teams. It's a pipe dream, but what fun that league would be.

[SubGod22]

And while I'm thinking about it, I wonder if we could try and schedule a few of the C7 teams to a H/H and see if that would help us at all for at least consideration. I'd play any of them at this point. It's a solid group and it wouldn't hurt to create some sort of connection with them. Biggest problem with all of that is they're not really located in areas that we recruit hard, and we certainly aren't in an area that they recruit. But we have popped up on the lists of a few guys from NY and PA in the past. Maybe playing some games with a few of those teams could help in that area.

[SubGod22]

I agree regarding the TV money (which talks volumes). However, I'm not talking about comparing the C7 to the whole Atl-10. What I'm saying is if the C7 added the 7 Atl-10 teams I listed (ones being talked about to add), the 7 additions would be better than the original 7.

The Atl-10 is losing Temple and Charlotte to football and probably UMass in the very near future. Subtract Fordham and Rhode Island and that leaves 11 schools. Add WSU, Creighton, and George Mason and you've got a league that would garner 6-7 Dance tickets to divide 14 ways. That's not bad at all and you don't have to mess with the C7 teams. It's a pipe dream, but what fun that league would be.

I follow. I thought you were saying they'd be better off in the A10 as is than joining with the C7. But you're looking a little farther ahead than that.

How do you subtract Fordham and URI though? UMass will end up with the other BE schools eventually. That A10 you propose could end up very strong. But rather than waiting for some of those things to happen, Xavier can just jump to a 10 team C7 that would get 4 or 5 bids most years and only split that 10 ways. If they go to 12, you're looking at potential for 5 or 6 bids with the teams they're talking about. And it sounds like Xavier and Butler have already unofficially said they're in when the C7 is ready to move. Team 10 is the question at this point. Some believe Dayton because of Xavier, but others think that's what'll keep them out. SLU gives them a market and a decent school. CU gives them a good school. And VCU is still being tossed around as a public. I think they'll go to 12 eventually, not sure if they do that right away though.

I think best case scenario for the MVC would be for the C7 to go to 10 and stay with the 10th team being VCU. If that happened, there could be an outside chance of convincing Dayton and SLU to join us. If they go to 12, those two could be off the board and it's possible we still have CU if the C7 doesn't want to go that far West. In which case, the MVC gets lucky. I still think that regardless of what happens, the MVC needs to be looking at expansion candidates to move to 12. But they have to do a lot of research and reach out to schools that could invest and compete at the top of the conference. I've listed a number of teams in the past to look at, but I'm not good at finding info on their athletic budgets or in figuring out how much potential there is for more from each university. Adding just to add is dumb.

I still hope we get out somehow.