Should A10 Stay At 16 after 2012-2013?

Now that the A10 is officially at 16 for this season, what should the A10 do after this season? With Charlotte and Temple leaving should the A10 add two more teams and stay at 16? Or should the A10 let them walk and go back to 14?

The more the better...

It seems in this age of realignment it would behoove the A10 administration to have as many schools in the fold as possible to protect itself against any possible moves by current members.

That said we don't want quantity at the expense of quality. Any adds have to help our basketball profile and make sense for our members.

If George Mason, Creighton or any splitting Big East teams want in, absolutely. Otherwise, expansion may not be needed except to fill vacancies as they come along.

I'm fine with 14. Hell there was something to be said about 12. It's nice to have some teams in the conference where you play home-and-home and every season. Don't have strong feelings either way though and realize in today's climate more teams can be beneficial.

I hope either way some kind of division system is introduced to help foster rivalries, etc. Playing every team except for one only once is a bit disappointing.

Will Mason or Creighton add enough eyeballs to further improve the tv deal? If so, yes invite them. If not, what's the harm in keeping them in our back pocket for later?

Agreed, kinda kills the whole concept of a conference! As many are saying, any additions would really have to boost the profile of the conference like the VCU/Butler additions have done. Creighton or other MVC teams and GMU would be about all I would be interested in adding.

In this day and age, I think the conference should try to stay at 16 to have more bargaining power. At the same time, I think the conference should split into divisions, which would provide the avenue for regional rivalries that conferences used to provide before their membership spanned the entire continent. I'm really looking forward to Butler playing Dayton and SLU on a regular basis in addition to adding more fuel to the fire that the Butler/Xavier series has been over the past few years.

I have never liked the POD system of playing 3 schools twice and everybody else once. Therefore, I don't like the 14-team setup. A 16-member Conference would be even worse unless we went to a 16-game league schedule playing everybody once while playing a different member of one's own 8-team Division in every 7-year cycle a second time. Under those circumstances, while adding two members that would more evenly balance the league by having (roughly) 8 eastern and 8 midwestern members, a more workable divisional setup could facilitate the scheduling and transportation of the "olympic" (aka "non-revenue-producing") sports.

12 isn't ideal either, but at least it makes things relatively equal when compared to other members in one's own division. That would obviously require the necessity of two additional members opting to go to different Conferences. It could occur for FB consideration (a la Charlotte) or for seeking a more competitive home (which could be the case for the likes of Duquesne, LaSalle, and/or Fordham, none of which have ever won any kind of A-10 Conference Men's Basketball Championship).

A 15-member A-10 would solve much of the Brass's "relocation" problems described in the last paragraph. However, it would almost certainly necessitate an 18-game Conference schedule that would deviate from the (for some, "sacred") 16-game Conference schedule. It could also fine-tune the geographics of the league by creating more homogeneous Divisions (North, South, and West) and make adding a member like Creighton, less of a burden in terms of transportation. It would also have the benefit of producing three Divisional races each season instead of the one or two the A-10 has had in the past.

Nine is a perfect number of Conference members if a 16-game (8 home + 8 away) Conference schedule is considered essential. But how do you pare the League by five more teams after next season? In doing so you would lose a couple of very worthy current members and produce a situation where you could put the League in jeopardy should another Conference (or bloc of schools --- like the BB members of the Big East) come calling.

Realistically, we will become what is most convenient for the Powers That Be in the A-10's Headquarters. After 2012-2013, we will settle at 14 members and stay there until (or unless) UMass decides to take "all its balls" to the Big East, ACC, MAC, or wherever. The A10 Brass will simply never have the guts (or the authority) to pare the Conference of its underperforming members or the ingenuity to broker a pairing of its underperformers with Conferences more suited to their level of commitment and expertise.

The A-10 will continue to be the best basketball-centric Conference in the nation. Unfortunately, that isn't all it could be. But, as mentioned in the last paragraph, the League has proven through its prior 15-20 year history that it won't (or can't) take the steps necessary to consistently challenge for that 4th, 5th, or 6th best basketball conference standing in the Country that it could be through some gutsy, proactive (and, admitedly, self-serving) decisions.

George Mason and Siena. Go to four divisions. 18 game schedule. Home and home in your division, play the other 12 once each. All teams go to Brooklyn. The four divisional champions get byes for the first two rounds. The second place teams get byes for the first round.

North Division:
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Fordham
Siena
Rivalries: UMass-Rhode (regional, history), Fordham-Siena (NYC vs. Upstate)

Central Division:
Saint Joseph's
St. Bonaventure
Duquesne
LaSalle
Rivalries: SJU-LaSalle (regional, history), Duquesne-St. Bonaventure (history)

South Division:
George Washington
Richmond
Virginia Commonwealth
George Mason
Rivalries: everybody vs. everybody else, especially VCU-Richmond & GWU-GMU

West Division:
Xavier
Dayton
Saint Louis
Butler
Rivarlies: Xavier-Dayton

I think those who oppose an 18 game conference slate need to consider the fact that with the strength of the league, having those extra OOC games to schedule to boost your profile becomes less of a concern with the strong additions to the league....

We still need the extra home game to help pay for athletic department expenses.

Again, why should the Atlantic 10 Conference as a whole be catering to one or two schools who want a 16-game schedule? If 18 games makes the most sense for the vast majority of the league, then we should play 18 games. Adjust. Things change.

Edit: I should note that I don't prefer one option over the other, really. If 16 games is what's best, then so be it. However, I don't like the idea of Dayton and/or Xavier dictating this type of thing.

I don't give a rat's rear end which way it goes: 16 or 18. If it goes to 18 because we have better competition in the A-10 with Butler and VCU replacing Temple and Charlotte, I don't see the problem. Keep whatever number of games help to pay the frieght and cut the "buy" games by one or two. No one has ever adequately explained why an 18-game schedule (in the long run --- not as a sudden thing out of the blue in 2012-2013) would be damaging to any type of A-10 program: top-rung, middle-of-the-roader, or "bottom-feeders" as some refer to the less accomplished.

As I have said elsewhere on this board, I am not a fan of a larger A-10 Conference that creates a 16-game schedule solely by picking 3 teams for one reason or another to play each other H&A as part of a "pod" simply to get to 16. I much prefer real Divisions where there are races for Divisional Crowns and everyone in the Division has the same schedule. With the POD system, some members may wind up having to play two traditionally tough opponents while others may get to play two traditional patsies. With Divisional play, at least you'll get to play the same schedule as the others in your Division.

So if 16 games is the ticket, we should eventually try to get back to 12 teams and go to 2 Divisions. If nobody can give convincing evidence why a 16-game Conference schedule is essential, perhaps for the 2013-2014 season and beyond we should go to a 15- or 16-member A-10 and go to a 3- or 4-Division setup and an 18-game Conference schedule.

FIFTEEN-TEAM
EAST: Fordham, LaSalle, St. Joe's, UMass, and URI
MID-EAST: Duquesne, GW, Richmond, St. Bona's, and VCU
MID-WEST: Butler, Creighton, Dayton, SLU, and XU

SIXTEEN-TEAM
See post #12 by Hawkmaniac, above (or create your own --- it's fun --- even though it's a waste of time!)

Frankly, my reason for wanting a 16 game conference schedule is simple: I like to play different teams. I like to see Xavier play against teams of other conferences; Purdue, Vanderbilt, Gonzaga, etc. It interests me.

I know it sounds petty but I like to see my teams play random teams that they wouldn't usually play.

I do also. However, how would an 18-game conference schedule prevent playing the likes of Purdue, Vandy, Gonzaga, etc. especially if we have the chance of attracting better programs to the A-10?

I am not against going to an 18 game schedule for next year. My main reasons for this year was the fact that it would require a lot for teams to totally change around their schedules, and this late in the year that is not very feasable. You mentioned changing buy games, and with the way those are contracted, many of the A10 teams would still be on the hook for the money they owe them if they cannot find a replacement.

I like the idea of 3 divisions, but those are not competitively balanced at all. 5 of the top 8 teams in the league most years would be in the Mid-west. The East division, most years, is by far the weakest. I am not sure how I would change it without following the BIG format and just making balanced divisions. I could see the teams in the MID-WEST not being happy if they miss the A-10 tourney because they finished 5th in their division when they have a much better overall record and are clearly better than some of the teams that make it from another division.