Belmont Loses, Is Expansion Decision Soon?

My mistake. I spoke too soon. Murray State is still playing. They are still alive in the Collegeinsider.com Tournament (CIT). Maybe the Horizon League waits until Murray is done playing.

The Summit League intrigues me. They improved in rpi up to 16 this season with NDSU and Fort Worth moving up a notch and of course Denver being added. Oral Roberts is coming back next season. They could be quite aggressive and extend invitations (they could invite NKU for all we know). While the HL sits back the SL and Valley could be proactive.

Whenever I start typing "Fort" it usually ends up "Worth". I usually spell check it, but this time I overlooked it. If Belmont could be convinced or themselves believe, that being in the HL would guarantee a better chance of making the Dance because of multiple bids, then I think they make the move. If and it's a huge IF, the HL somehow brings in Belmont, Murray and either Evansville or Lipscomb, then you'd have to divide the HL into divisions and then the southern and northern divisions would only have to make the long treks just every other year.

If people want to think small then they will achieve small results. The overall athletic budget numbers are a pointless reference. All that matters for this conversation is should HL teams be able to afford one or two more flights per year for basketball, that is the sport we are trying to compete in. We aren't talking about adding extra games so budgets for hotel rooms and food should not be impacted. For some of the teams they can bus south the same as any other regional road game. Flying men's and women's hoops maybe two extra times per year should cost somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 per year per school. If any of the member schools are sweating over 100,000 that is terrible.

To my point before members of those other leagues wouldn't sweat that. They would find a way to make it happen. If Mary Ellen Gillespie can't raise a 100,000 for that she should be fired from GB. Why is it that Marquette, Xavier, Butler, St. Louis and Dayton play big time hoops and Evansville, Loyola and Detroit don't? Twenty five years ago they were all on equal footing in the MCC. The schools that didn't flinch over money have eventually separated themselves from the pack over the schools that did flinch.

Divisions make less sense for the schedule in a 12 team league when the divisions likely won't have 6 teams of equal measure. That would be 10 games in a round robin format and then 6 games in a home or away vs. the other division. There is no way the league is going to 12 teams to only play 16 games. For sure they go to 18, possibly go to 20 like the MAAC or Big Sky and maybe they could be daring and just play 22 games and really eliminate the issue of non con scheduling. In that scenario each team only needs to come up with 9 good non con games. The expanded league would need to schedule on a yearly basis regardless of divisions to make sure the best perceived teams are playing more times in a 18 game schedule. That is what would build the RPI. The old Big East didn't have divisions and was a monster conference. I don't think the ACC has divisions and is considered by many to be top notch. They can do divisions for soccer, volleyball, softball or baseball but there is no point in men's hoops. Going to divisions to lower travel costs in men's hoops only makes it harder to make sure the best teams are playing as many times as possible.

I can't write it enough. If they expand the league it is not the time to be stubborn, cheap, stuck in the past or coming up with excuses. It is the time to think big collectively and make sure that a smallish amount of money isn't keeping the best teams from playing more often in the flagship sport. The best teams playing is what creates a product worthy of being paid to be on tv, creates alumni donation interest, sells advertising/tickets/concessions/team merchandise and in the long term helps the HL close the financial gap for other sports.

Saying those other teams are in better conferences which is why they can spend more is the equivalent of defining a word with the word itself. The question isn't why they can spend more, the question should be what did they do differently to elevate their programs to other conferences with money that other schools didn't do? Based on the response I read it would seem a subtle admission that Dayton is just a bigger and better school that in fact should look down its nose at WSU. If that isn't the case then how does WSU implement some of what Dayton does? How does Milwaukee copy some of what Marquette does?

If the league should charge for the HLN to create revenue then why aren't member schools trying to charge seat licenses or ramp up donations to get better seats? In GB I paid $296 for 2 seats to 8 games. My seats are 6 rows off the floor near center court. I hear HL members talk about value for the dollar. I live in Milwaukee and have never once heard or read anyone from Marquette talking about value and affordability. So many of the schools are concerned about protecting the little nut that they have but truth be told you could implement some fee and maybe you lose people. If total cost doubled and sales dropped by 50% the program is still even. I am confident there is a number where net revenue could still increase even with fewer people. Many HL schools must not think their product is good or they are afraid to ask because they give it away. If it is good people won't be afraid to pay for it.

Speaking of the HLN I am actually curious how many people view on the site. I really don't know. What I do know is that most broadcasts have very few commercials. Is that because they aren't trying to advertise on there or is it because there is not enough viewers that anyone will pay to advertise on there? Is it left to the school level or could the league actually get some national accounts on there and drive revenue?

Back on task, there are only 7 league sponsored sports that play a standings style competition (m/w hoops, m/w soccer, volleyball, softball and baseball. The rest play whoever/wherever and then have a conference championship meet). Only hoops and baseball play round robin with the rest playing home or away but not both. League play accounts for 1/3 to 2/3 of the schedule. I have been down this road before and few if any of those teams are traveling same day to games. So adding teams doesn't change the food and lodging cost by much. It is changing the transportation cost. In baseball or softball I would suggest it doesn't change much because due to weather it is going from non conference games in California, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina etc. to conference games in Tennessee. In volleyball and soccer it is probably adding one flight every other year. If flying a team commercial is an average of $25,000 I would say the total additive cost for each program isn't more than $150,000 per year. Teams are already traveling and paying for it, we need to find the additive cost of switching out non conference games for conference games that are further south. This is also assuming that in the non revenue sports the teams play each other without some sort of cost reduction measure (divisions) in place. For example would anyone really care if GB women's soccer ever played Belmont or vice versa?

I appreciate the discussion. I just believe this expansion isn't as expensive as some think and I think this product is more valuable than some treat it. As such nothing good will happen until people believe it can happen. Instead of saying we are not comprised of large endowment schools (which most of that money is for education anyway) with big boosters; each fan, AD and league official should come to terms with what I think is an undeniable truth. This is a business and there has to be risk. The risk of spending a small amount of money on items like travel to try and make money that can then be spent on building the members and the brand.