Toggle sidebar

My thoughts on Big East expansion

PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
Stimulus Progression_rivals said:
If you think UConn would be as successful in the ACC as they currently are in the Big East, there’s nothing much I can say.
Click to expand...
What does the Big East offer them that the ACC doesn't have? How much more would the school receive in football revenue from the ACC? And why was it a well known fact then prior to accepting a new Big East invite that UConn had been shopping around for years practically begging for a power football conference invite?
 
N

NCAAsorBust

Senior
Jan 14, 2026
501
413
63
PirateBlue08 said:
Apples and bowling balls. Horrible argument, really. SPU has not achieved sustained success over the past 20 years, and is not anywhere near the level of the three schools mentioned. If you can't tell the difference between SPU and VCU, you are not the target audience of my article. No offense.

Sharp as a cueball this guy. Butler had a HOF level coach you may have heard of. His name was Brad Stevens and he left after 2013. I think there might be a correlation.
Click to expand...
Butler was in the tournament 5 of the 10 previous years before Stevens took over. It's not like they were a joke of program then this HOFer came in and took chicken **** and turned into chicken salad and it's gone back to chicken **** after he left. None of the teams you mentioned would've done any better than 10-10 Seton Hall in the big east this year. None of these programs are taking kids away from Big East schools because of NIL money. Do you have the same confidence that VCU could come into the big east and compete the same way Creighton could? You're an idiot if you think that. No offense.
 
Stimulus Progression_rivals

Stimulus Progression_rivals

All-American
Nov 26, 2018
1,796
5,859
47
PirateBlue08 said:
What does the Big East offer them that the ACC doesn't have? How much more would the school receive in football revenue from the ACC? And why was it a well known fact then prior to accepting a new Big East invite that UConn had been shopping around for years practically begging for a power football conference invite?
Click to expand...
Jennifer Lawrence Ok GIF
 
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
NCAAsorBust said:
Butler was in the tournament 5 of the 10 previous years before Stevens took over. It's not like they were a joke of program then this HOFer came in and took chicken **** and turned into chicken salad and it's gone back to chicken **** after he left. None of the teams you mentioned would've done any better than 10-10 Seton Hall in the big east this year. None of these programs are taking kids away from Big East schools because of NIL money. Do you have the same confidence that VCU could come into the big east and compete the same way Creighton could? You're an idiot if you think that. No offense.
Click to expand...
Before Stevens they had Thad Matta and Todd Licklitter who was national coach of the year in 2007. He was a great "system" coach whose approach fit perfectly with a developmental mid-major program much better than a major power-conference school for a handful of reasons, which is why he then failed at Iowa. But the point is they had a string of great coaches even prior to Stevens.

Creighton may not be the same Creighton that we knew when they came in. Remains to be seen. What I do know is these three schools are definitely at least on par with Xavier and Butler when we took them. And all have had recent March success, while half of the current Big East has been useless in March for 20 years.

And yes, I do think all three would be competitive in the Big East. All three might end up having better teams than Creighton next season. And if rumors are true, their NIL will rival many Big East schools. SLU coach Josh Shertz is regarded as one of the best up and coming coaches in the country and SLU recently signed him to a long term contract. Yes, they would be competitive.
 
F

Fishjam

All-Conference
Mar 27, 2016
666
2,331
93
The problem with the Big East isn't the number of teams, its the number of teams that are under performing.

Outside UConn and St.Johns the rest of the league needs to schedule smarter OOC. Find revenue-producing games and games that help the SOS.

4 of our 11 teams don't spend enough money to compete at the BE level. Adding teams without adding revenue just worsens that. SH, Butler, DePaul and Xavier need to spend more in this era to win. Can't have that % of your league below average in NIL/Rev Share. If they can't afford to make the investment, they should consider if they belong in the BE.

2 of our teams have been screwed by Cooley
Georgetown - despite spending a fortune is a disgrace.
Providence - despite spending a fortune has underachieved with a terrible coach. Lets see how this one does, conditions are good to succeed.

UConn & St John's are elite

Nova, Creighton and Marquette should be perennial NCAAT teams, 2 have new coaches and a poor year for Marquette. They are good programs that have resources and should be fine.

I've also said in the past that the Big East needs to play a better brand of basketball. Zero teams in KenPom's Top 25 in Offensive Efficiency, last year there was 1. Too many games are grind it out, physical, foul-fests. Offense is improving across NCAA every year for the last 7 years but the BE consistently performs poorly on the offensive side. Puts them at a disadvantage in OOC and NCAA games (UConn being the exception).

Talking about the last 20 years has no bearing.. The game has been changed the last 3-4 years and thats the only timeline that's pertinent.

There are no meaningful benefits in adding these 3 teams.
1) It immediately takes money out of every team's earnings. Our Media deal is for $80M per year and we will get $20M this year in NCAA credits that then get decreased by the House settlement. Media deals are what drives revenue. March success is important but its an 80-20 issue.

2) Doesn't help scheduling much overall either. It only slightly helps the Eastern teams but hurts the other half of the league who lose games with UConn, StJohn's, Nova, etc.

3) Does it help the BE make more money in March? This might create 1 more bid per year, but until you address the current teams who are underperforming, I'm not sure it does and if so the money earned would then be diluted by 14. You would need minimum 3 additional NCAAT games to match the money divided by 14 instead of 11.

PirateBlue08 said:
I used to think like this. Although I address in the article the reasons why I don't consider this "logic" valid. There are far too many downsides/risks to not expanding to make this objection legitimate. And far too many benefits to adding these three teams.

Also, you say they won't "move the needle" but these teams routinely earn at-large bids out of a weaker conference. That itself DOES move the needle, as all that really matters in the end is March success. It also provides existing teams with stronger scheduling in conference which helps existing teams resumes. Expands Big East footprint to several new major cities with tv markets and rabid fanbases and great venues. And helps with NCAA credits which replaces or exceeds any lost revenue due to splitting tv contract earnings. Also solidifies league for future tv contracts.

These three teams have had 100 times the March success of existing schools like ourselves, Depaul, SJU (until this year), et al in the past 20 years. There are no Dukes or Kentuckys that are joining the Big East, so waiting for someone on that level to "move the needle" just guarantees you stagnate and slip farther behind.

Doing nothing keeps us behind, and if we can reasonably expand with teams that do fit our league profile and benefit us in all of these ways, honestly it's a no-brainer to me. These three from what I can see, fit our profile perfectly. 11 teams can't keep competing for NCAA credits against conferences with 18 teams or however many. It is a guaranteed recipe for losing forever.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halldan, Garyshu1971, lloyde dobler and 1 other person
N

NCAAsorBust

Senior
Jan 14, 2026
501
413
63
PirateBlue08 said:
What I do know is these three schools are definitely at least on par with Xavier and Butler when we took them.
Click to expand...
Do your research. None of these teams have been to final 4's in the last 5 years like BU when we took them. None of these teams had a string of sweet 16's like X. You're making up crap to defend your dumb AI nonsense.
 
R

radecicco

All-Conference
Jun 24, 2013
772
1,188
93
I know the question was if we DID expand, but it’s meaningless. The only way the BE will get more than three bids to the NCAAT is to schedule and win meaningful OOC games. Not adding mid major teams that will dilute payouts to the existing schools. An AI summary really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHall87 and BobbieSolo
A

Anon1774390042

Redshirt
Mar 24, 2026
13
14
3
Stimulus Progression_rivals said:
And UConn is never leaving. They don’t care about football, obviously. In the ACC, they would be just another basketball program. Their dominance would be over, and they know it.
Click to expand...
Very foolish and uninformed view.
UCONN absolutely does care about football. They made bowl games 3 out last 4 years.
They had a 1st All American WR, Skylar Bell, on the team. They just hired head coach of Tolefo, best MAC program for a decade.
They are big winners in everything they do.
I understand that you don't want UCONN to leave as they are the best program in the country. However, it will happen. Maybe next year, maybe in 3 or 5 years. But it will happen.
We need to prepare NOW for their exit in order to soften the blow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silkcity Pirate, PirateBlue08 and HallGuy2323
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
Fishjam said:
The problem with the Big East isn't the number of teams, its the number of teams that are under performing.

Outside UConn and St.Johns the rest of the league needs to schedule smarter OOC. Find revenue-producing games and games that help the SOS.

4 of our 11 teams don't spend enough money to compete at the BE level. Adding teams without adding revenue just worsens that. SH, Butler, DePaul and Xavier need to spend more in this era to win. Can't have that % of your league below average in NIL/Rev Share. If they can't afford to make the investment, they should consider if they belong in the BE.

2 of our teams have been screwed by Cooley
Georgetown - despite spending a fortune is a disgrace.
Providence - despite spending a fortune has underachieved with a terrible coach. Lets see how this one does, conditions are good to succeed.

UConn & St John's are elite

Nova, Creighton and Marquette should be perennial NCAAT teams, 2 have new coaches and a poor year for Marquette. They are good programs that have resources and should be fine.

I've also said in the past that the Big East needs to play a better brand of basketball. Zero teams in KenPom's Top 25 in Offensive Efficiency, last year there was 1. Too many games are grind it out, physical, foul-fests. Offense is improving across NCAA every year for the last 7 years but the BE consistently performs poorly on the offensive side. Puts them at a disadvantage in OOC and NCAA games (UConn being the exception).

Talking about the last 20 years has no bearing.. The game has been changed the last 3-4 years and thats the only timeline that's pertinent.

There are no meaningful benefits in adding these 3 teams.
1) It immediately takes money out of every team's earnings. Our Media deal is for $80M per year and we will get $20M this year in NCAA credits that then get decreased by the House settlement. Media deals are what drives revenue. March success is important but its an 80-20 issue.

2) Doesn't help scheduling much overall either. It only slightly helps the Eastern teams but hurts the other half of the league who lose games with UConn, StJohn's, Nova, etc.

3) Does it help the BE make more money in March? This might create 1 more bid per year, but until you address the current teams who are underperforming, I'm not sure it does and if so the money earned would then be diluted by 14. You would need minimum 3 additional NCAAT games to match the money divided by 14 instead of 11.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the meaningful response, although I think some of your statements are non-sequiturs or gloss over without being substantive. Saying "the game has changed so 20 years is irrelevant" is an empty statement. I don't see how that is an argument against adding teams with SUSTAINED success that is STILL successful today. It's not like I'm throwing out teams that were doing well 15 years ago and are not today. The most significant part of my point is they are successful TODAY, but I include 20 years to show that these are not flash in the pan programs. They have been successful over time, which shows the school's commitment to basketball excellence, which is what we want.

I totally agree that 4 of the 11 teams are drags in the Big East. That is not an argument against expansion to include teams that are and have had both recent and sustained success IN MARCH.

You keep bringing up dilution of TV revenue, but that is not an argument that stands for all of the reasons I listed. 11 teams cannot keep competing against 18-team conferences for bids. We need to add competent programs that have had success in March and share our profile and commitment to basketball without being driven by football. Clustering together in strength of numbers is one way to survive. And getting more teams into the tournament and having March success winning games is how the conference grows revenue-wise, tv contract-wise, and national perception-wise. You band together with those of like profile. That's why we expanded to bring in Xavier, Creighton, Butler, and UConn and obviously we are better off for it.

I agree totally with enhancing our brand of basketball to not be grind-it-out foul-fests, which is why I am critical of our coach. But that is not a reason not to expand and bring in teams that are doing well and all evidence would indicate would continue to thrive.
 
Last edited:
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
NCAAsorBust said:
Do your research. None of these teams have been to final 4's in the last 5 years like BU when we took them. None of these teams had a string of sweet 16's like X. You're making up crap to defend your dumb AI nonsense.
Click to expand...
Grandpa Simpson, AI was used to organize my thoughts efficiently and aggregate facts. It is a tool to do research. Obviously I've done my research. All have had recent and sustained success in March. All fit our profile perfectly. We can agree to disagree but it's not because I haven't "done my research."
 
Last edited:
H

halltheway

Senior
Jan 17, 2003
336
479
63
SPK145 said:
I can't believe I wasted my time reading this.

AI is really ******* stupid.

The only reason those 3 schools get NCAA tournament bids is because they play in a lesser conference. St. Louis attendance has been bad, LOL. I could go on but today is the day I'm rearranging my sock drawer.
Click to expand...
SPK...really made me laugh..thanks LOL
 
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
radecicco said:
I know the question was if we DID expand, but it’s meaningless. The only way the BE will get more than three bids to the NCAAT is to schedule and win meaningful OOC games. Not adding mid major teams that will dilute payouts to the existing schools. An AI summary really?
Click to expand...
Yes Grandpa Simpson, AI is now used as a helpful tool to do research, aggregate data and compose it in a logical way. That would have taken me hours or days to write and I did it in less than 20 minutes.

Yes, the current BE teams need to schedule better in the OOC. That is not an argument against expansion. They are two separate things. We cannot keep going 11 against 18. We need to add teams that fit out profile and mission, which is basketball excellence. It's the same reason we added the three teams after the split. These teams fit that exact profile.
 
Last edited:
N

NCAAsorBust

Senior
Jan 14, 2026
501
413
63
PirateBlue08 said:
Grandpa Simpson, AI was used to organize my thoughts efficiently and aggregate facts. It is a tool to do research. Obviously I've done my research. All have had recent and sustained success in March. All fit our profile perfectly. We can agree to disagree but it's not because I haven't "done my research."
Click to expand...
So tell me how these programs are on par with butler and X at the time they came in? You’re 20 year look back period is stupid to everyone but you internet tough guy with constant name calling.
 
S

SPK145

All-Conference
Jun 3, 2001
1,144
2,537
113
Adding those 3 programs would dilute all revenue 36%. And NCAA revenue is already being diluted 20% by the House settlement. And for what? Possibly 1 additional NCAA bid? Even 2 bids make no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUSource and Piratz
H

HallGuy2323

Senior
Jun 3, 2020
659
439
63
SPK145 said:
Adding those 3 programs would dilute all revenue 36%. And NCAA revenue is already being diluted 20% by the House settlement. And for what? Possibly 1 additional NCAA bid? Even 2 bids make no sense.
Click to expand...
And we’re never going to have enough money. That’s the problem. We are never going to make it with our money. We need to rely on strength in numbers(teams) to remain relevant.

A loss of a few hundred thousand isn’t making any kind of difference when we’re millions behind. Come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silkcity Pirate
S

SPK145

All-Conference
Jun 3, 2001
1,144
2,537
113
HallGuy2323 said:
And we’re never going to have enough money. That’s the problem. We are never going to make it with our money. We need to rely on strength in numbers(teams) to remain relevant.

A loss of a few hundred thousand isn’t making any kind of difference when we’re millions behind. Come on.
Click to expand...
A few hundred thousand? A 36% haircut would be almost $3m per program.
 
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
NCAAsorBust said:
So tell me how these programs are on par with butler and X at the time they came in? You’re 20 year look back period is stupid to everyone but you internet tough guy with constant name calling.
Click to expand...
No, I'm just responding to you with equal vitriol and demeaning language as yours are to me.

I retract my statement about them being on par with Butler and X. I forgot about Butler's 2017 Sweet 16. That was taking it too far.

Regardless, I still stand by my overall point that expansion is going to happen, Uconn is a ticking time bomb, and we need to expand to compete. And given that, the three teams mentioned are the cream of that crop that fit our profile perfectly.
 
PirateBlue08

PirateBlue08

Junior
Jul 25, 2025
379
385
63
SPK145 said:
A few hundred thousand? A 36% haircut would be almost $3m per program.
Click to expand...
Let's say hypothetically UConn leaves in the next several years and the Big East needs to secure a new TV contract. Do you think that the league provides more value to a network as the current 10 minus UConn or those 10 with the three teams I mentioned? Especially assuming continued success reaching the tournament over the next few years.
 
S

SPK145

All-Conference
Jun 3, 2001
1,144
2,537
113
PirateBlue08 said:
Let's say hypothetically UConn leaves in the next several years and the Big East needs to secure a new TV contract. Do you think that the league provides more value to a network as the current 10 minus UConn or those 10 with the three teams I mentioned? Especially assuming continued success reaching the tournament over the next few years.
Click to expand...
On a per team basis, less. Adding UCONN didn’t add anything extra per team to the media revenue; losing 1 and adding 3 nondescript media market teams would result in less per team in media revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TommyD82
T

TheHall87

Senior
Jun 3, 2001
441
631
93
PirateBlue08 said:
Let's say hypothetically UConn leaves in the next several years and the Big East needs to secure a new TV contract. Do you think that the league provides more value to a network as the current 10 minus UConn or those 10 with the three teams I mentioned? Especially assuming continued success reaching the tournament over the next few years.
Click to expand...
The easy answer to your hypothetical is to figure out the ratings for SLU, Dayton and VCU for their televised games. NBC is already a partner to the A-10 so they'll have that information at the ready.

My guess is the games that air on USA, NBCSN and whatever other cable TV outlets NBC places those games don't draw enough eyeballs to make an appreciable difference. If they draw decent ratings, that would help, although it devalues their A-10 deal.

To me, Notre Dame is the only expansion candidate -- and they're locked in with the ACC until 2036-37. Even then, they would probably be taking less basketball money to move, and they would probably have better options while remaining an independent in football.

I don't hate the idea of adding SLU, Dayton and VCU as I think they could step into a diminished Big East and compete right away as established programs. I just don't see FOX, NBC and Turner adding much to the pot unless it's to offset extra inventory. I don't think those brands are driving traffic or revenue.

If our media partners aren't adding the current going rate for three additional teams, it's going to take a lot of NCAA Tournament credits to offset the $1.5 million or so a year that each team gives up to accommodate three more teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SHUSource
F

Fishjam

All-Conference
Mar 27, 2016
666
2,331
93
PirateBlue08 said:
Let's say hypothetically UConn leaves in the next several years and the Big East needs to secure a new TV contract. Do you think that the league provides more value to a network as the current 10 minus UConn or those 10 with the three teams I mentioned? Especially assuming continued success reaching the tournament over the next few years.
Click to expand...
The Math just isn't there which is why it hasn't happened. Many people have crunched the numbers and its just not a value-added proposition.

Just to give some context to the massive difference in value of Big East and A-10 in the Media Rights world, the Big East last year signed a 6 year deal worth $480 Million.

A-10 signed a year before that, a 5 year deal worth an estimated $40 Million.

So $80M per year vs $8M per year.

The A-10 currently headlined by those 3 teams is worth 1/10th so even if you say all $8M is attributed to those 3 teams, adding $8M to a future BE deal doesn't bring more value to the existing 10 teams.

Using your example and UConn leaves, if the money remained the same thats $80M for 10 teams or $8M per team per year. Even if you say UConn's exit diminishes the BE rights by $10M per year, now you are at $7M per team per year.

If we add the 3 A-10 teams and generously add about $8M in media rights value, a new deal would be worth $88M divided by 13 = 6.7M. If you take $10M off for UConn, its $78M / 13 = or $6M per team.

So in either scenario, the 10 BE teams lose between 1-$1.3M per year. Substantial revenue ($10-13M per year) that could only be recouped by 6 to 8 extra NCAAT games when you count the decrease from the House settlement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheHall87 and Hall1996
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom