Of course the teams are very different but the idea that just having lots of winter content is a hoax. It has to be of quality. 4 top 25 teams is possible for the Big East. 6-7 is a serious stretch.
Disagree. New Big East will still have high quality basketball and 4 BE teams in top 25 will be an average year. Here are the stats:
Top 25 and also receiving votes:
2012: 4 Top 25, 2 receiving votes
2011: 3 Top 25, 4 receiving votes
2010: 1 Top 25, 1 receiving votes (Ugly year!)
2009: 5 Top 25
2008: 5 Top 25, 1 receiving votes
2007: 4 top 25
2006: 4 top 25, 1 receiving votes
2005: 4 top 25
2004: 4 top 25, 5 receiving votes.
Says the man predicting Houston will be the next Big East power...Won't we all find out in weeks ... I LOVE these shoot-from-the-hip Hedge Fund kings here on the Boneyard.
the A-10 is also still weighted down by woeful programs like LaSalle, Duquense, Fordham, URI, and St. Bonaventure that bring absolutely positively nothing to the table in terms of market value.
It's like 375k a team. It may as well be zero.
Which is why when people say the Big East will get $5 million a team for basketball, I say nonsense. The league is good but not that good and could be replaced with an A-10 type league with a major marketing effort and a slight raise and you'd still be ahead of the game.
I don't understand your point. If it's more than the A Ten had been getting, which it is, and the A Ten has consistently been able to compete with the lower tier BCS conferences, which it has, why may it well as be zero? If less money hasn't kept them from fielding competitive teams and programs, why would more money do so?
Well they had been competing with all the BCS Conference teams, but now the BCS conferences all just signed $16-$22M media rights deals? That's a huge gap.
So the $0 to $12M gap was no sweat, but $0.5M to $20M keeps you from competing? Why?
I don't understand your point. If it's more than the A Ten had been getting, which it is, and the A Ten has consistently been able to compete with the lower tier BCS conferences, which it has, why may it well as be zero? If less money hasn't kept them from fielding competitive teams and programs, why would more money do so?
My point is that college basketball generates very little in television revenue for the schools. A constant refrain on the Boneyard is that networks want a high quantity of content. I like the A-10 and think it's a pretty good league - their quantity of content generated income that is a rounding error in a budget. Much of the content the Big East will generate in the future is similar to the quality of the A-10. The idea that someone is going to blow the Big East away with a huge offer because of the quantity of basketball generated with so many teams is a joke. The A-10 has a lot of bottom feeders who generate no incremental revenue - so does the Big East.
"Similar to the quality ..."
You just haven't been paying attention ... nor gone to MSG in March ... nor seen what the BE label has done for Program after Program. Including the dearly departed WVU & ND. It's a BOOST for each of these. And you either compete at a very high level ... or you get embarassed.
That's NOT what I see from the A-10. Some of those Programs are dishwater rinse.
What has the Big East label done for Providence, Seton Hall, Rutgers, USF and DePaul? The bottom half of the Big East is going to generate a parade of games that no one wants to watch.
When you lose Syracuse, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame - your label is no longer your label. It's like Mountain West trying to pretend they are the same league without Boise and TCU.
There seems to be an idiotic contradiction at play on this board. The NNBE is still some great league, UConn is a great basketball brand - but somehow there is no way that there would have been legitimate candidates for the head coaching job and there was no choice but Ollie. How are all three of those things true?
Your characterization of the Ollie situation is overly simplistic. I think many people's opinion, including mine, is that Manuel's public pissing match with Calhoun is a bad idea, not that Ollie is the program savior, and that Manuel's approach is just about the stupidest way to handle the coaching situation that anyone could come up with.
Houston has more Final Four's in my lifetime than Pitt, WVU and ND combined. Temple and Memphis are very high level programs in cities that generate tons of top hoop talent. UCF and SMU are completely dead weight, although I seem to remember UCF scoring a pretty big win over a top program in a hotel conference room recently. Marquette, Villanova and Georgetown are pretty good programs.