Thoughts on an MVC - MAC Challenge

[BillsBelleChick]

was just having a convo with a friend about realignment and MVC conference going the same way as the big east. there are obv some strong basketball teams in the conf that would maybe do well to go their own way. does anyone else think joining up with the MAC or OVC would help MVC.

[squirrel]

I have long advocated for some type of hybrid A10/Valley basketball specialty league.

But the more likely scenario is Illinois St and Missouri State make the jump to FBS and join the MAC, rather than any sort of merger. The MAC and Valley schools, largely, have nothing in common athletically.

In soccer, a MAC-Valley merger would be interesting, but with WVU leaving, it's less intriguing.

[Mikovio]

The MAC schools devote most of their budget to football and their basketball suffers. See Northern Illinois. Their basketball loads up on buy games to help fund their athletic dept. The MVC schools either don’t have football or spend less on football because they value the benefits of good basketball. At the midmajor level you can’t have both. If Missouri State or Illinois State want to switch their priorities it’s not an unreasonable call but the grass is always greener. A basketball Sweet 16 is worth more than a minor bowl win at the G5 level and it isn’t close.

[BEARZ77]

Tougher to do both, but to say you can't as a MM is silly. UNI has been a quality program in both , South Dakota State has been, just two examples in our own back yard. Is it easier when you focus most of your resources in 1 area, of course, but MVC state schools are more committed to a well rounded approach to athletics than the privates , hence why the last 20 or so All MVC Sports titles have gone to 3 schools , all state Universities. Missouri State is getting closer to what they can be in both , making the NIT in MBB and the FCS playoffs last year, while also making the NCAA tourney in baseball, softball, men's soccer and WBB. It can be done, but the biggest challenge in my view is retaining coaches once you get there .

[squirrel]

Tougher to do both, but to say you can't as a MM is silly. UNI has been a quality program in both , South Dakota State has been, just two examples in our own back yard. Is it easier when you focus most of your resources in 1 area, of course, but MVC state schools are more committed to a well rounded approach to athletics than the privates , hence why the last 20 or so All MVC Sports titles have gone to 3 schools , all state Universities. Missouri State is getting closer to what they can be in both , making the NIT in MBB and the FCS playoffs last year, while also making the NCAA tourney in baseball, softball, men's soccer and WBB. It can be done, but the biggest challenge in my view is retaining coaches once you get there .

Yes, but you're not taking into account relationship vs. the field. The MAC is competing against the SEC and B1G in football. The Valley is competing against the Southland and A-Sun in football. Huge difference.

I've seen a similar argument that it's tough for schools to do both hockey and basketball at a high level. Denver is the most prime example there, because that school is loaded financially, and they can't figure out basketball. But if you look at the few schools that can do multiple at a high level, they are usually the P5s that were already doing at that level for a long time.

[unipanther99]

The MAC is competing against the SEC and B1G in football. The Valley is competing against the Southland and A-Sun in football. Huge difference.

The MAC is a heck of a lot closer to the MVC than they are to the SEC/B1G. Yes, they have to pay for more scholarships than we do, but that doesn't necessarily make them more competitive.

(Realtime RPI from end of last year)
Rank Conference (Teams) All Non-Conf Index Sos Sos Rk

1 Southeastern 14 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 34.16 44.23 2
2 Big 12 10 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 28.71 44.30 1
3 Big Ten 14 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 27.92 44.22 3
4 Atlantic Coast 14 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 26.78 43.08 4
5 Independents 7 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 22.85 41.48 5
6 Pacific-12 12 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 22.04 41.30 7
7 Mountain West 12 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 21.62 41.22 8
8 American Athletic 11 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 21.36 41.32 6
9 Sun Belt 15 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 16.49 39.86 11
10 Mid-American 12 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 14.40 39.48 14
11 Conference USA 11 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 14.32 38.70 16
12 Missouri Valley 10 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 9.24 40.75 9
13 Atlantic Sun 6 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 8.30 38.27 17
14 Big Sky 11 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 7.77 37.04 18
15 Southern 9 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 6.92 39.49 13
16 Ivy League 8 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 6.56 40.29 10
17 Colonial 13 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 6.33 39.66 12
18 Southland 7 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 5.49 31.68 24
19 Western Athletic 8 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 5.32 34.00 22
20 Southwestern Athletic 12 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 4.79 36.85 19
21 Ohio Valley 7 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 4.74 39.45 15
22 Patriot League 7 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 4.07 35.09 21
23 Big South 4 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 3.48 36.05 20
24 Northeast 9 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 3.40 31.16 25
25 Pioneer League 12 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 3.17 33.17 23
26 Mid-Eastern Athletic 7 0-0 (0%) 0-0 (0%) 2.63 28.67 26

[squirrel]

My use of "compete" was solely in reference to the division in which they play, not in the actual sense that they are competitive. Like it or not, it is a completely different sphere of competition. Yes, the upper crust of the FCS can hold its own against the bottom third of FBS, but when you are talking about aligning basketball, football on the FBS side of things is always going to be the driver of influence, because that is their meal ticket. They may go 1-11 in football and lose $20M, but that is what will always give them a priority seat at the table.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

Tougher to do both, but to say you can't as a MM is silly. UNI has been a quality program in both , South Dakota State has been, just two examples in our own back yard.

The difference here is UNI/SDSU don’t have G5 football diverting money that would otherwise be used on MBB. FCS financing allows them to balance their budget better.

Take the FBS moveups over the past 15 years and you’ll see every non-Liberty school with the exception of Georgia St either regressed in MBB or is a non-factor.

FIU - non-factor
FAU - non-factor
WKU - regressed (tons of history - S16+R32 right before moving up)
South Alabama - regressed (at-large a few years before moving up)
Texas St - non-factor
UMass - non-factor
UTSA - non-factor
Appalachian St - non-factor
Georgia St - improved
Georgia Southern - non-factor
Old Dominion - regressed (frequent NCAAT team before moving up)
Charlotte - regressed
Coastal Carolina - regressed (although a bottom-5 Big South likely padded their wins)
Liberty - improved

If you have an AAC/MWC/Liberty-level athletic budget, it’s much easier to be good in both. But schools moving up to FBS without AAC/MWC/Liberty financial structures almost always see their MBB regress or continue to be a non-factor. It’s not impossible by any means - but the odds are overwhelmingly against consistently being good in both.

You’ll see the same effect with non-P6/Ivy schools who have both MBB and hockey - almost none of them are ever simultaneously good in both MBB/Hockey.

[BEARZ77]

The statement was not about teams that moved up, it was that you couldn't be competitive as a midmajor in both football/basketball. I mentioned a couple teams at our level, but if it's only fbs football you want to look at , then you can't omit teams like BYU, Boise St, UCF, Memphis, Cinn. etc. Now some of those schools are moving up, but all have been in MM conferences the last decade or so.

But my bigger point and it's one I've made before , schools like MSU and ISU don't have to "move up"so to speak as the non p-5 FBS teams are more likely being left behind and a new second level will emerge that more looks like FCS than FBS.

[RacerJoeD]

Villanova is the only one I can think of that has had sustained success with basketball and football at those levels