All the teams that eventually join will be successful and improve their programs, definitely including Saint Bonaventure if they were to be invited. They (Bob Lanier etc) along with Niagara (Calvin Murphy) and Canisius used to play PC and probably St John's and Villanova every year pre Big East. Siena in comparison never was scheduled and may not have had a D-1 team back then. Saint Bonaventure would only be considered I think if they at a minimum agreed to play every Big East home game in Buffalo but they'd still be a long shot.

I understand the post someone made about wanting to keep the C7 fully in the NYC orbit. That would be the key for the Upstate NY schools. But I think each one has too big a hurdle... three are MAAC schools and the fourth (from A-10) is too remote or isolated and hasn't had a lot of recent success.

Just to follow up... tough typing on my Kindle... Buffalo as a city from a rivalry standpoint would be a positive because the Sabres and Bills are longtime division rivals the Bruins and Jets and Patriots. Low on the list of priorities but just wanted to toss that out there.

(02-13-2013 04:20 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:09 PM)LouPower Wrote:  I've been seeing references to a C7+3 setup with Xavier/Butler/Creighton. Is there any chance of the C7 stopping there, or will the networks force it to 12?

I would then wonder what happens to the rejects. I'm the eternal pessimist (see the team I root for), and I don't like any of the alternatives, because I don't see any.

I see no way that happens. We get more money per team with more teams. Also, if you expand in the middle of a TV contract you get a small bump but multiple years added to the contract.

The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

Explain to me how having ten teams is better than 12?

1. 10 allows you to play a double round robin. It's more of a true league.

2. Going to 12 or beyond creates the likelihood of a lower percent of the teams making the tournament. We saw that in the expanded Big East. There just seems to be an aversion to taking too many teams from one league while they have no problem taking 6 or 7 from one league even if it only has 10 members.

3. Once the league gets too big, teams that go through a down cycle get stuck at the bottom because there are too many teams above them to climb over. Again we saw this in the Big East when programs that had been viable in the old Big East cycling through lean years and big years got stuck near the bottom of the conference and just couldn't pull themselves out. The result is a league with a lot of dead weight.

4. There is a point of diminishing returns in TV money. A 10 team league with a $30 million contract nets $3 million per team. A 14 team league has to push it to $42 million just to break even. And what was gained? Loss of rivalries. Less sense of identity with the league. To make it worth the costs, the additional teams really need to increase the revenue for everybody. It's hard to see anyone who does that. The result is excess inventory that has little or no value.

5. Unless the expansion can truly expand the number of NCAA tournament bids by the same proportion, tournament revenue is spread over more members, resulting in fewer dollars per school. Again cost/benefit has to be evaluated. If tournament bids are only at the same proportion, what has been gained? Where are the benefits? Divisional play means fewer marquee matchups among the top teams. Expansion to 12 was a football concept, designed to generate revenue from a league championship game. Before that, no one ever saw any benefit from such an unwieldy size. But basketball doesn't need 12 or 14 to have a conference tournament, so absolutely nothing has been gained by adding numbers just for the sake of numbers.

(02-14-2013 01:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The final number including everything....TV would only be a part of it...

10 ways- if you make 30 million on everythign else, it's 3 million per school. So 3 million tv, 3 million everything else- 6 million total.
12 ways- 30 million on everything else, 2.5 million per school. 3.33 million tv, 2.5 million everything else 5.83 million total.

Except that teams will have more loses in a true round robin than if they play an 11 team schedule. That means less of a chance getting more teams in the NCAA.

No one is playing an 11 game schedule.

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:09 PM)LouPower Wrote:  I've been seeing references to a C7+3 setup with Xavier/Butler/Creighton. Is there any chance of the C7 stopping there, or will the networks force it to 12?

I would then wonder what happens to the rejects. I'm the eternal pessimist (see the team I root for), and I don't like any of the alternatives, because I don't see any.

I see no way that happens. We get more money per team with more teams. Also, if you expand in the middle of a TV contract you get a small bump but multiple years added to the contract.

The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

(02-19-2013 06:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:09 PM)LouPower Wrote:  I've been seeing references to a C7+3 setup with Xavier/Butler/Creighton. Is there any chance of the C7 stopping there, or will the networks force it to 12?

I would then wonder what happens to the rejects. I'm the eternal pessimist (see the team I root for), and I don't like any of the alternatives, because I don't see any.

I see no way that happens. We get more money per team with more teams. Also, if you expand in the middle of a TV contract you get a small bump but multiple years added to the contract.

The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

(02-19-2013 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:09 PM)LouPower Wrote:  I've been seeing references to a C7+3 setup with Xavier/Butler/Creighton. Is there any chance of the C7 stopping there, or will the networks force it to 12?

I would then wonder what happens to the rejects. I'm the eternal pessimist (see the team I root for), and I don't like any of the alternatives, because I don't see any.

I see no way that happens. We get more money per team with more teams. Also, if you expand in the middle of a TV contract you get a small bump but multiple years added to the contract.

The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

Haven't seen that, but if so, that article is the only one who has tied the membership numbers directly to those 2 dollar amounts. I'm thinking that the situation is too fluid to be that specific.

The other thing that seems strange is that the last 2 schools added could raise the value of the contract that much. Theoretically they're bring the least value of the new adds.

The other question is inventory. 10 teams = 18 game schedule = 90 games. How do they schedule 12? Normally 12 = 16 game schedule = 96 games with a loss of double round robin for some of the most attractive match ups. So, there's no significant increase in inventory unless they're going to some exotic scheduling model, but even that only adds 6 more games for each additional game in the schedule. If they go to a 17 game schedule, that brings them to 102 games. Are the extra 12 games worth millions more? Do they have room in their broadcast schedule for those extra games?

(02-19-2013 08:02 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 03:13 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I see no way that happens. We get more money per team with more teams. Also, if you expand in the middle of a TV contract you get a small bump but multiple years added to the contract.

The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

Haven't seen that, but if so, that article is the only one who has tied the membership numbers directly to those 2 dollar amounts. I'm thinking that the situation is too fluid to be that specific.

The other thing that seems strange is that the last 2 schools added could raise the value of the contract that much. Theoretically they're bring the least value of the new adds.

The other question is inventory. 10 teams = 18 game schedule = 90 games. How do they schedule 12? Normally 12 = 16 game schedule = 96 games with a loss of double round robin for some of the most attractive match ups. So, there's no significant increase in inventory unless they're going to some exotic scheduling model, but even that only adds 6 more games for each additional game in the schedule. If they go to a 17 game schedule, that brings them to 102 games. Are the extra 12 games worth millions more? Do they have room in their broadcast schedule for those extra games?

I figured out a 12-team, 18-game schedule when we were arguing divisions-or-not. Take the usual 12-team 16-game schedule and add two home and homes, on a three year rotation.

It adds a dozen games, and of those dozen games, around first-class matchups (Villanova vs Creighton), four second class matchups (Villanova vs SLU) and four lousy matchups (Seton Hall vs SLU).

Fox Sports 1 figures to have plenty of room on their schedule between college football Championship Saturday and whenever they start regular season baseball coverage. NASCAR gives you some Sunday nights, UFC gives you a couple of Saturday nights, Ultimate Fighter maybe covers Friday nights. That leaves Saturday and Sunday afternoons and 4 nights a week wide open.

They're in the TV programming business. So they might see some value in plugging in 3 games on Saturday, 3 on Sunday, 2 on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday. Even if that means showing Depaul-Seton Hall to a national audience, your airtime is filled with live programming.

(02-19-2013 08:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:02 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-13-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The difference would seem to be only 333k between 10 (30 million/10 teams=3 million per school) and 12 (40 million/12=3.33 mil per school). With that differential, it's not a lock at all to expand. Might wind up making more when you take into account NCAA units etc. with 10 vs 12.

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

Haven't seen that, but if so, that article is the only one who has tied the membership numbers directly to those 2 dollar amounts. I'm thinking that the situation is too fluid to be that specific.

The other thing that seems strange is that the last 2 schools added could raise the value of the contract that much. Theoretically they're bring the least value of the new adds.

The other question is inventory. 10 teams = 18 game schedule = 90 games. How do they schedule 12? Normally 12 = 16 game schedule = 96 games with a loss of double round robin for some of the most attractive match ups. So, there's no significant increase in inventory unless they're going to some exotic scheduling model, but even that only adds 6 more games for each additional game in the schedule. If they go to a 17 game schedule, that brings them to 102 games. Are the extra 12 games worth millions more? Do they have room in their broadcast schedule for those extra games?

I figured out a 12-team, 18-game schedule when we were arguing divisions-or-not. Take the usual 12-team 16-game schedule and add two home and homes, on a three year rotation.

It adds a dozen games, and of those dozen games, around first-class matchups (Villanova vs Creighton), four second class matchups (Villanova vs SLU) and four lousy matchups (Seton Hall vs SLU).

Fox Sports 1 figures to have plenty of room on their schedule between college football Championship Saturday and whenever they start regular season baseball coverage. NASCAR gives you some Sunday nights, UFC gives you a couple of Saturday nights, Ultimate Fighter maybe covers Friday nights. That leaves Saturday and Sunday afternoons and 4 nights a week wide open.

They're in the TV programming business. So they might see some value in plugging in 3 games on Saturday, 3 on Sunday, 2 on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday. Even if that means showing Depaul-Seton Hall to a national audience, your airtime is filled with live programming.

Bottom line is that it's still only 18 more games. Why would they be worth $10,000,000, or $555,555 per game when the first 90 @ $30,000,000 are only costing the network $333,333 per game? Especially when the additional 2 teams require divisional play and therefore reduce the number of attractive match ups. This would only make sense if the additional 2 teams brought additional value, which is obviously not the case.

I really don't see Fox showing EVERY C7 game at all. I mean, they do have Pac 12 games(some are starting at 8:30 or 9pm on the east coast now).

Also, I think and hope we will continue to have a big time game on Monday night. It's otherwise a pretty quiet night so it's great for a big game to be shown.

(02-19-2013 08:53 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:02 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:46 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  I don't know where people are getting the idea that there will be more money per team with more teams.

$30 - $40 million was thrown out there as a range. No one ever said that 10 teams = $30 and $12 = $40. That range was just a starting point. Until the membership has been decided and the negotiations have been completed, there's no way of knowing where any group of whatever size will fall within or even outside of that range.

There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

Haven't seen that, but if so, that article is the only one who has tied the membership numbers directly to those 2 dollar amounts. I'm thinking that the situation is too fluid to be that specific.

The other thing that seems strange is that the last 2 schools added could raise the value of the contract that much. Theoretically they're bring the least value of the new adds.

The other question is inventory. 10 teams = 18 game schedule = 90 games. How do they schedule 12? Normally 12 = 16 game schedule = 96 games with a loss of double round robin for some of the most attractive match ups. So, there's no significant increase in inventory unless they're going to some exotic scheduling model, but even that only adds 6 more games for each additional game in the schedule. If they go to a 17 game schedule, that brings them to 102 games. Are the extra 12 games worth millions more? Do they have room in their broadcast schedule for those extra games?

I figured out a 12-team, 18-game schedule when we were arguing divisions-or-not. Take the usual 12-team 16-game schedule and add two home and homes, on a three year rotation.

It adds a dozen games, and of those dozen games, around first-class matchups (Villanova vs Creighton), four second class matchups (Villanova vs SLU) and four lousy matchups (Seton Hall vs SLU).

Fox Sports 1 figures to have plenty of room on their schedule between college football Championship Saturday and whenever they start regular season baseball coverage. NASCAR gives you some Sunday nights, UFC gives you a couple of Saturday nights, Ultimate Fighter maybe covers Friday nights. That leaves Saturday and Sunday afternoons and 4 nights a week wide open.

They're in the TV programming business. So they might see some value in plugging in 3 games on Saturday, 3 on Sunday, 2 on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday. Even if that means showing Depaul-Seton Hall to a national audience, your airtime is filled with live programming.

Bottom line is that it's still only 18 more games. Why would they be worth $10,000,000, or $555,555 per game when the first 90 @ $30,000,000 are only costing the network $333,333 per game? Especially when the additional 2 teams require divisional play and therefore reduce the number of attractive match ups. This would only make sense if the additional 2 teams brought additional value, which is obviously not the case.

Possibility--the presidents are stuck on a No. 10 who Fox isn't crazy about? Say No. 10 is Dayton, while 11-12 are picked out of VCU, SLU and Creighton.

If a 10-team league means 6 marquee teams, their double round robin gives you 30 Class A matchups (marquee vs marquee). A 12-team league with 8 marquee teams, 2 de facto divisions, you have 2 4-team double-round-robins for 12 "A" games, plus 16 "A" matchups across divisions. If you add two more games to the schedule, that means two home-and-homes across divisions. At least two of those would be marquee vs marquee, almost always more.

(02-19-2013 09:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:53 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:02 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 07:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  There was an article that specified that. Article could be wrong, but I remembered because yes, it's counterintuitive.

It goes to the theory that networks (especially Fox) are buying # of games/# of good matchups + # of games with good teams.

Haven't seen that, but if so, that article is the only one who has tied the membership numbers directly to those 2 dollar amounts. I'm thinking that the situation is too fluid to be that specific.

The other thing that seems strange is that the last 2 schools added could raise the value of the contract that much. Theoretically they're bring the least value of the new adds.

The other question is inventory. 10 teams = 18 game schedule = 90 games. How do they schedule 12? Normally 12 = 16 game schedule = 96 games with a loss of double round robin for some of the most attractive match ups. So, there's no significant increase in inventory unless they're going to some exotic scheduling model, but even that only adds 6 more games for each additional game in the schedule. If they go to a 17 game schedule, that brings them to 102 games. Are the extra 12 games worth millions more? Do they have room in their broadcast schedule for those extra games?

I figured out a 12-team, 18-game schedule when we were arguing divisions-or-not. Take the usual 12-team 16-game schedule and add two home and homes, on a three year rotation.

It adds a dozen games, and of those dozen games, around first-class matchups (Villanova vs Creighton), four second class matchups (Villanova vs SLU) and four lousy matchups (Seton Hall vs SLU).

Fox Sports 1 figures to have plenty of room on their schedule between college football Championship Saturday and whenever they start regular season baseball coverage. NASCAR gives you some Sunday nights, UFC gives you a couple of Saturday nights, Ultimate Fighter maybe covers Friday nights. That leaves Saturday and Sunday afternoons and 4 nights a week wide open.

They're in the TV programming business. So they might see some value in plugging in 3 games on Saturday, 3 on Sunday, 2 on Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday. Even if that means showing Depaul-Seton Hall to a national audience, your airtime is filled with live programming.

Bottom line is that it's still only 18 more games. Why would they be worth $10,000,000, or $555,555 per game when the first 90 @ $30,000,000 are only costing the network $333,333 per game? Especially when the additional 2 teams require divisional play and therefore reduce the number of attractive match ups. This would only make sense if the additional 2 teams brought additional value, which is obviously not the case.

Possibility--the presidents are stuck on a No. 10 who Fox isn't crazy about? Say No. 10 is Dayton, while 11-12 are picked out of VCU, SLU and Creighton.

If a 10-team league means 6 marquee teams, their double round robin gives you 30 Class A matchups (marquee vs marquee). A 12-team league with 8 marquee teams, 2 de facto divisions, you have 2 4-team double-round-robins for 12 "A" games, plus 16 "A" matchups across divisions. If you add two more games to the schedule, that means two home-and-homes across divisions. At least two of those would be marquee vs marquee, almost always more.

From what I've read, I think that Fox wants 12 teams, so we agree on that. My only question is how much they're willing to pay for it. I doubt that they're going to go to the full $40 million.

If it were just a matter of marquee match ups, they can get that by going to 10 with Butler, Xavier, and VCU. Those are the 3 marquee teams out there. Anyone added of that brings some value of course - especially Creighton & Dayton with their rabid followings. But do they bring enough value to bump the number up beyond $3 million per school? I doubt it.

(02-19-2013 06:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 01:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The final number including everything....TV would only be a part of it...

10 ways- if you make 30 million on everythign else, it's 3 million per school. So 3 million tv, 3 million everything else- 6 million total.
12 ways- 30 million on everything else, 2.5 million per school. 3.33 million tv, 2.5 million everything else 5.83 million total.

Except that teams will have more loses in a true round robin than if they play an 11 team schedule. That means less of a chance getting more teams in the NCAA.

No one is playing an 11 game schedule.

I said 11 teams not 11 games.

A round robin doesn't make a league "true" compared to one without a round robin.

Actually you would get more teams in NOT playing a round robin. Round robins mean your top teams will have more loses. #2 will have to play #1 twice, #3 will have to play #1 & #2 twice. That means more loses all around. That then hurts the lower teams even worse because they have to play all the top teams twice instead of maybe just once which keeps them down even longer. Yes, it's tough to get up from a 16 team league when it is as hard as the Big Eat has been, but that was the best conference ever assembled. We will not be that strong no matter who we add.

We are not going to 10. Many many people are reporting 12 or now possibly 14. So it looks like there is no chance of a small league.

There is a big disadvantage to a small league when everyone is going big. Harder to get a challenge with another conference. Makes the conference tournament smaller and shorter. If your top 2 teams have a down year it makes the whole conference suffer.

We are entering the age of the super conferences, this is not the time to be thinking in the past.

(02-19-2013 09:59 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 06:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 01:24 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 01:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  The final number including everything....TV would only be a part of it...

10 ways- if you make 30 million on everythign else, it's 3 million per school. So 3 million tv, 3 million everything else- 6 million total.
12 ways- 30 million on everything else, 2.5 million per school. 3.33 million tv, 2.5 million everything else 5.83 million total.

Except that teams will have more loses in a true round robin than if they play an 11 team schedule. That means less of a chance getting more teams in the NCAA.

No one is playing an 11 game schedule.

I said 11 teams not 11 games.

A round robin doesn't make a league "true" compared to one without a round robin.

Actually you would get more teams in NOT playing a round robin. Round robins mean your top teams will have more loses. #2 will have to play #1 twice, #3 will have to play #1 & #2 twice. That means more loses all around. That then hurts the lower teams even worse because they have to play all the top teams twice instead of maybe just once which keeps them down even longer. Yes, it's tough to get up from a 16 team league when it is as hard as the Big Eat has been, but that was the best conference ever assembled. We will not be that strong no matter who we add.

We are not going to 10. Many many people are reporting 12 or now possibly 14. So it looks like there is no chance of a small league.

There is a big disadvantage to a small league when everyone is going big. Harder to get a challenge with another conference. Makes the conference tournament smaller and shorter. If your top 2 teams have a down year it makes the whole conference suffer.

We are entering the age of the super conferences, this is not the time to be thinking in the past.

Oops! Sorry about my misread on the 11 teams. My bad.

Football is driving super conferences, not basketball. Conferences like the Big Ten with their in house network are driving conferences to big numbers. This is not the model that the Big East is developing. IMO what the big football conferences are doing is completely irrelevant to what football conferences are doing.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I haven't seen any evidence to support what you're saying about size of conference related to number of teams getting in. I could easily mount an opposing argument, but what would be the point? We see it differently.

I really haven't seen much "reporting" on going to 14. I've seen a lot of speculating. The vast amount of the actual reporting has indicated 10 or 12. I agree that the consensus seems to be moving more toward 12 but 10 wouldn't surprise me.

I have no idea why a smaller league would suffer when it's top teams have a down year unless you assume that the top 2 teams are the only ones capable of national Providence. Before football, a smaller Big East so teams like Seton Hall and Providence rise up to compete on the national level. UConn became the league's premier team, but that certainly wasn't the case for at least the first 10 or 15 years.

And what is the problem with a smaller, shorter conference tournament? Seems like a good thing to me. 4 and 5 day tournaments only hurt the tournament winners who are exhausted upon completion of the tournament. UConn 2 years ago was the rare exception. Many more examples of teams that were one ad done in the NCAA after winning a lengthy tournament. Syracuse with gerry MacNamar, which won in 4 days, is a prime example. I've gone to many Big East tournaments with lots of empty seats for the first day or two. Nobody really likes those longer tournaments, which is why they don't show up.

What makes the big money in those conference tournaments are the semi's and finals. Whether you have 8 teams or 16 teams, it's the same money. With more teams participating, the money just has to be distributed more ways.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ources-say


The new league, yet to be formed, is expected to have 12-to-14 members. The most likely candidates to join the Catholic schools, sources have told ESPN, are Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Dayton, Saint Louis, Richmond and VCU.

(02-19-2013 08:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I really don't see Fox showing EVERY C7 game at all. I mean, they do have Pac 12 games(some are starting at 8:30 or 9pm on the east coast now).

Also, I think and hope we will continue to have a big time game on Monday night. It's otherwise a pretty quiet night so it's great for a big game to be shown.

I still think it is possibly because there will be a Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.

(02-19-2013 10:29 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 08:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I really don't see Fox showing EVERY C7 game at all. I mean, they do have Pac 12 games(some are starting at 8:30 or 9pm on the east coast now).

Also, I think and hope we will continue to have a big time game on Monday night. It's otherwise a pretty quiet night so it's great for a big game to be shown.

I still think it is possibly because there will be a Fox Sports 1 and Fox Sports 2.

Tonight, for example, on the SPEED channel, Fox has the NASCAR Whelen and K&R Pro series. I don't know what those are, but I'm pretty sure Fox would rather be showing C-7 basketball games. Wednesday and Thursday they have Sprint Cup Practice and Budweiser Duel 1 and 2--I have no idea if those would get more viewers than Depaul vs Providence because I don't know what they are. FUEL TV looks like the UFC Channel. And Fox Soccer has mostly Champions League reruns.

(02-13-2013 03:29 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  Networks will force it to 12. I would prefer 10 (arguably the perfect number for a basketball conference). As far as the future goes: who knows? Maybe teams become "must adds" and the conference grows to 14 or 16 teams. More likely, it will stay put at 12 for a long time, but you never know what will happen in the future.

This.

(02-19-2013 10:28 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...ources-say


The new league, yet to be formed, is expected to have 12-to-14 members. The most likely candidates to join the Catholic schools, sources have told ESPN, are Butler, Xavier, Creighton, Dayton, Saint Louis, Richmond and VCU.

Touche!

The Bud Duels would get more for sure- they are the entry races for the Daytona 500.

My thinking is Fox will acquire more than just the C7. They aleady have Pac 12 ball. Although thinking about it- not all that much they could go out and get.

Part of that is why I'm surprised they didn't make a push more for the Aresco league. Sure, it's not good for football, but would be decent filler for hoops in the winter time. It's a 7-8 place conference.