Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

The home for Big East hoops

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby Edrick » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:19 am

This "more inventory" argument is and always has been a fallacy. Adding two more teams that would be on the bottom half of the league in terms of programming attractiveness (obviously) reduces the mean attractiveness of the league schedule. AND, if Fox requires more programming they have the rights to the remainder of the schools home schedules. When it comes down to it, none of the potential adds are interesting enough to move the needle. Its just not worth moving off 10 for C-programming.
User avatar
Edrick
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:06 am

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby redmen9194 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:46 am

aughnanure wrote:
redmen9194 wrote:I know it goes back and forth on here, but I really like ten teams for this league. A round robin schedule with what should be a solid conference RPI every year. The ability to get at least half of the teams dancing each year. Geographically balanced between the East and Mid-West. Easier scheduling for the non-revenues. More opportunity for national television games. Everyone talks about the 11 NCAA bids the Big East got in 2011 - which was very much an incredible number. But in the early 90's, the league got 7 bids out of 9 teams. That is something I think this league can get close to accomplishing.


I like 12 with Gonzaga and St. Louis even better.


Forget Gonzaga. They were interested, it was apparently discussed, but they are just too far away. I think St. Louis is the safe bet as number 11 if we expand.
User avatar
redmen9194
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:46 am

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby Dew » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:51 am

redmen9194 wrote:
aughnanure wrote:
redmen9194 wrote:I know it goes back and forth on here, but I really like ten teams for this league. A round robin schedule with what should be a solid conference RPI every year. The ability to get at least half of the teams dancing each year. Geographically balanced between the East and Mid-West. Easier scheduling for the non-revenues. More opportunity for national television games. Everyone talks about the 11 NCAA bids the Big East got in 2011 - which was very much an incredible number. But in the early 90's, the league got 7 bids out of 9 teams. That is something I think this league can get close to accomplishing.


I like 12 with Gonzaga and St. Louis even better.


Forget Gonzaga. They were interested, it was apparently discussed, but they are just too far away. I think St. Louis is the safe bet as number 11 if we expand.

I agree that SLU is 11 if we expand. Big IF.
User avatar
Dew
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby shupat08 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:07 am

[/quote]I agree that SLU is 11 if we expand. Big IF.[/quote]

I like St. Louis as 11 and Dayton as 12 if we expand... Looking at it from the MSG/BET perspective... If we really have to fill MSG to continue to have the BET there... Dayton has a very good alum/fan base in the NJ/NYC area... They easily brought 3-4k to The Rock to play Seton Hall a few years back.
"No doubt, I'm from The X and I've seen it all, shorties with dreams of playing ball for Seton Hall." - Big Pun
shupat08
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby Dew » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:55 am

My concern is diluting the strength of the names in the Big East if we expand. The AAC is just CUSA with a different logo. I don't want the perception of the Big East to be that we're the A10.
User avatar
Dew
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby aughnanure » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:01 pm

redmen9194 wrote:
aughnanure wrote:
redmen9194 wrote:I know it goes back and forth on here, but I really like ten teams for this league. A round robin schedule with what should be a solid conference RPI every year. The ability to get at least half of the teams dancing each year. Geographically balanced between the East and Mid-West. Easier scheduling for the non-revenues. More opportunity for national television games. Everyone talks about the 11 NCAA bids the Big East got in 2011 - which was very much an incredible number. But in the early 90's, the league got 7 bids out of 9 teams. That is something I think this league can get close to accomplishing.


I like 12 with Gonzaga and St. Louis even better.


Forget Gonzaga. They were interested, it was apparently discussed, but they are just too far away. I think St. Louis is the safe bet as number 11 if we expand.


Geography is Gonzaga's problem. Not the leagues. They are the only team that would make expansion to 12 worth it.
“All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dreams with open eyes to make it possible”
User avatar
aughnanure
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:54 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby BillikensWin » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:02 pm

Dew wrote:My concern is diluting the strength of the names in the Big East if we expand. The AAC is just CUSA with a different logo. I don't want the perception of the Big East to be that we're the A10.


Interesting thought. Never thought of it that way. The Big East will do what's best for them regardless.

Who wouldn't, right?
Saint Louis University: Proud Members of the Big Atlantic Valley Conference
BillikensWin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby BillEsq » Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:30 pm

BillikensWin wrote:
Dew wrote:My concern is diluting the strength of the names in the Big East if we expand. The AAC is just CUSA with a different logo. I don't want the perception of the Big East to be that we're the A10.


Interesting thought. Never thought of it that way. The Big East will do what's best for them regardless.

Who wouldn't, right?


This is just bad logic. The reason why the AAC is considered CUSA is because next year almost all the schools in it will be former long term CUSA teams. If the BE adds 2 more A-10 teams they will still not even approach the make up of the A-10.

As far as quality goes... assuming two of the usual suspects are added you are adding two year in year out top 100 teams. So the BE's rankings among the conferences will go unchanged.

I don't think people think of the BE as the new A-10. The A-10 has long been a holding league for teams moving on to bigger conferences. If anything the A-10 is a proving ground/ minor league for the BE. I don't think public perception is much different than that. If anything the BE cherry picking schools from the A-10 just shows that it is a top dog league.
BillEsq
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby BillEsq » Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:55 pm

Edrick wrote:This "more inventory" argument is and always has been a fallacy. Adding two more teams that would be on the bottom half of the league in terms of programming attractiveness (obviously) reduces the mean attractiveness of the league schedule. AND, if Fox requires more programming they have the rights to the remainder of the schools home schedules. When it comes down to it, none of the potential adds are interesting enough to move the needle. Its just not worth moving off 10 for C-programming.


Yikes... such a horrible conclusion.

The inventory argument is that Fox wants inventory and if Fox wants inventory Fox will pay $$ therefore if Fox pays $$ the league will expand.

Simple enough.

Now for the rest of the nonsense

Fox will likely show hundreds of MBball games a year. Maybe 20-30 a week nationally with countless more on their regional networks. The BE at 10 teams gives them 10 or so games a week at most. Home rights for OOC doesn't even barely changes. It doesn't matter if you have 10 teams or 16 teams Fox is likely buying games to fill out the slack. Fox is likely going to have to buy games just to fill the schedule. Lets assume for the moment that your C- minus slur is correct If the top teams of the 7th best conference are C- that means the majority of games for Fox to choose from will be D to F-, of course they are going to want to show the C- teams. The advantage of paying the BE to by these dastardly C- teams is twofold. First the C- teams will get a pop of awareness likely boosting them to a measly C or C+ Secondly Fox does not have to pay for the rights for these two teams down the road . Win win for Fox.

Now for your wacky idea of C- programs. I suggest you take a look at the Basketball ratings closely and realize what you are talking about. Unless you school is named Duke, Kentucky, NC, Louisville, Indiana, or Kansas the viewership numbers are pretty much on par. Most games are under .4 or around 400,000 viewers. of all the basketball games shown over 90% scored a 0.0 (mainly ESPN U and NBCSports) Very few games got over a 1.0 and almost all of those were on ESPN. The fact is the same amount of people nationwide are watching Dayton and Richmond games on TV as are watching Marquette and Georgetown games.
BillEsq
 
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:30 pm

Re: Ackerman: "Expansion isn't even on our plate"

Postby CTYankee10 » Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:01 pm

First time poster. Long time fan of some old/new Big East teams, ties to A-10 as well. In terms of expansion, you really have to make it "worth it", because once you move the needle to 12, you probably aren't growing anymore, and teams probably won't be jumping ship. For that reason,I think you stand pat. In terms of teams with a "newer" reputation, I think you see what St. Louis and VCU do in the near-term. They will probably not be receiving a better offer for the A-10.

The only moves you make are ones with national appeal. I think UConn & Gonzaga/Cincinnati in tandem as "basketball only" or some measure of affiliate membership (less football) are the types of teams you bring in. You can have an agreement similar to the Big 12, where they have to forfeit any TV/tournament revenue earned while a member of the concert, in addition to any exit fees if they did have to leave. UConn has a lot of rivalries with Big East teams, including Providence, St Johns, and Villanova. Gonzaga had a nice thing going against Butler last year, and Cincinnati with Xavier, obviously. Have to think big with expansion, or hold pat.
User avatar
CTYankee10
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 5:52 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 37 guests