If we go to 12 who do you want (choose 2) poll?

[mvfcfan]

I might be in the minority on this, but I'm actually starting to think that adding NDSU and SDSU is better for the MVC long term than adding Murray State plus X. I think the Dakota route is probably the way to go and then if anyone else ever leaves we could snatch up Murray State. The only way Murray State plus X is really better is if Belmont or St Louis wants in. Regardless Murray State is a way better back up plan than Milwaukee or Northern KY and the Dakota schools would be solid adds.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

I might be in the minority on this, but I'm actually starting to think that adding NDSU and SDSU is better for the MVC long term than adding Murray State plus X. I think the Dakota route is probably the way to go and then if anyone else ever leaves we could snatch up Murray State. The only way Murray State plus X is really better is if Belmont or St Louis wants in. Regardless Murray State is a way better back up plan than Milwaukee or Northern KY and the Dakota schools would be solid adds.

Add 4. NDSU, sdsu, Murray State, and nku.

[mvfcfan]

I might be in the minority on this, but I'm actually starting to think that adding NDSU and SDSU is better for the MVC long term than adding Murray State plus X. I think the Dakota route is probably the way to go and then if anyone else ever leaves we could snatch up Murray State. The only way Murray State plus X is really better is if Belmont or St Louis wants in. Regardless Murray State is a way better back up plan than Milwaukee or Northern KY and the Dakota schools would be solid adds.

Add 4. NDSU, sdsu, Murray State, and nku.

14 works in the Atlantic 10 and the CUSA, so I see no reason as to why it wouldn't work in the MVC. Three of the 4 are solid adds from the get go and Northern KY definitely has the potential to be a solid add. If we add three good schools I don't really see a problem with picking a program with risks, but yet has plenty of potential, like NKU.

[acepurple84]

I might be in the minority on this, but I'm actually starting to think that adding NDSU and SDSU is better for the MVC long term than adding Murray State plus X. I think the Dakota route is probably the way to go and then if anyone else ever leaves we could snatch up Murray State. The only way Murray State plus X is really better is if Belmont or St Louis wants in. Regardless Murray State is a way better back up plan than Milwaukee or Northern KY and the Dakota schools would be solid adds.

Add 4. NDSU, sdsu, Murray State, and nku.

Not a bad suggestion if you really think about it.

[Mikovio]

Most people seem to want NDSU because they beat MSU and have good FCS football.

Sure they beat MSU, but NDSU opened the season with an 85-66 loss to UC Santa Barbara. So, jury's still out there.

Second, there's no correlation between FCS success and basketball success. If anything it's a negative correlation. All of the best midmajor basketball teams DON'T play football, or if they do it's non-scholie. Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, Wichita, St. Mary's, Dayton, Rhode Island, Davidson, VCU, SLU. Makes sense, because they're not spending money on football.

Meanwhile, here's the FCS top 25 poll. A lot of really bad basketball teams.

1 James Madison (26) 650 10-0 1
2 Jacksonville State 618 9-1 2
3 Central Arkansas 572 9-1 3
4 Sam Houston State 558 9-1 4
5 South Dakota State 544 8-2 5
6 North Dakota State 535 9-1 6
T-7 North Carolina A&T 473 10-0 7
T-7 Wofford 473 9-1 8
9 Weber State 397 8-2 12
10 Western Illinois 387 7-3 13
11 Grambling State 385 9-1 11
12 Stony Brook 318 8-2 15
13 Samford 312 7-3 14
14 New Hampshire 307 7-3 16
15 Elon 269 8-2 9
16 South Dakota 257 7-3 10
17 Nicholls 217 8-2 17
18 Southern Utah 213 8-2 19
19 McNeese 199 8-2 18
20 Eastern Washington 138 6-4 21
21 Kennesaw State 136 9-1 23
22 Monmouth 135 9-1 22
23 Northern Arizona 77 7-3 24
24 Furman 73 7-3 NR
25 Illinois State 67 6-4 20

They add nothing to the recruiting footprint, they run their basketball program on the cheap and get coaches poached by Wright State. Not a wise bet for long term success on the hardwood.

[mvfcfan]

Here's the thing you don't seem to understand Mikovio. Most FCS teams play in garbage conferences in basketball, because most FCS programs are very small public schools. Most FCS programs in basketball are considered low majors because they are that small. The Missouri Valley Football Conference is a different level than your typical FCS conference and it has been showing every year in the (FCS) playoffs. A more accurate comparison is comparing the MVC and it's programs to the Mountain West and its programs. Both conferences are made of schools that are actually mid majors and have the ability to support both programs. The Dakota schools without a doubt would be mid majors. They can support both programs and be successful at both. Also most (but not all) MVFC schools could support FBS football, but choose not to. Most FCS programs would never be able to support FBS football. And honestly how much money do you really need to find 8 or so guys that can put a ball through a hole?

Too add to my point there are also a lot of mid major and low major programs that don't have football and are bad at basketball.

[Mikovio]

Here's the thing you don't seem to understand Mikovio.

Wow.

Most FCS teams play in garbage conferences in basketball, because most FCS programs are very small public schools.

They play in garbage conferences, not just in basketball. Conferences which are peers to the MVFC. Which is why I'm cool on efforts to merge the MVC and MVFC.

Most FCS programs in basketball are considered low majors because they are that small. The Missouri Valley Football Conference is a different level than your typical FCS conference and it has been showing every year in the (FCS) playoffs. A more accurate comparison is comparing the MVC and it's programs to the Mountain West and its programs. Both conferences are made of schools that are actually mid majors and have the ability to support both programs. The Dakota schools without a doubt would be mid majors. They can support both programs and be successful at both. Also most (but not all) MVFC schools could support FBS football, but choose not to. Most FCS programs would never be able to support FBS football.

Sorry but the numbers just don't bear that out.

The MVFC includes schools like MSU and Illinois State, which yes, can support healthy programs in both. But it also has WIU and Youngstown which can't. Now, is NDSU more like MSU and ISU than WIU and Youngstown? In terms of overall revenue, yes, but the problem is all their revenue goes into FCS football. Again, their basketball coaches are getting poached by Horizon and MAC schools.

No, the MWC isn't a peer. The MWC has schools which are generally the biggest in their states and/or major cities, or close to it, and can support healthy programs in both.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

San Diego State had $56 million in revenue in 2016
UNLV $47 million
Boise State $47 million
Fresno State $45 million
New Mexico $43 million
Colorado State $40 million
Wyoming $37 million
Utah State $32 million
Nevada $31 million
San Jose State $31 million

All MVFC schools earn less revenue than all MWC AD's.

Illinois State $27 million
Missouri State $26 million
North Dakota State $25 million
North Dakota $25 million
SIU $23 million
UNI $18 million
South Dakota State $17 million
South Dakota $16 million
Indiana State $15 million
Youngstown $15 million
WIU $13 million


San Diego State can pay a Rocky Long and a Steve Fisher and have $10 million left over, but no MVFC programs have that luxury. My point is that, when you get below a certain point, you need to make a choice-- do we want to put more resources into football or basketball? NDSU is an example of a school which, while earning revenue near the top of the MVC, will starve its basketball to prop up its football.

And honestly how much money do you really need to find 8 or so guys that can put a ball through a hole?

That'd make a great slogan for Chicago State. But in the real world, what you spend on basketball matters. You can hire good coaches, but if you don't pay them, they'll bolt. And yeah, you can hire the assistant and he might keep the train running, but if you don't pay him either he'll bolt. Eventually your luck will run out. See: SIU circa 2000-2010.

Too add to my point there are also a lot of mid major and low major programs that don't have football and are bad at basketball.

Alright, let's break this down. Of the 351 Division I schools,

130 are FBS programs (85 scholarships).
124 are FCS programs
--105 of which offer scholarships (63 scholarships)
--19 of which are non-scholarship (Pioneer and Ivy)
97 are I-AAA (no football)

Now, you've got 109 full-scholarship FCS programs, and 116 schools which are either non-scholie FCS or non-football altogether. About the same number. Yet the best midmajor basketball programs (Butler, Gonzaga, Creighton, Wichita, St. Mary's, Dayton, Rhode Island, Davidson, VCU, SLU) are disproportionately NOT full-scholie FCS. If anything, adding a school with a good FCS program is a bad idea because it encourages them to spend more in that sport-- a sport with very limited returns.

[usmcsaluki]

Murray State & Belmont are the only two I would vote for

[Drakey]

Mikovio's analysis is so correct it isn't even debatable. I know it doesn't sit well this those schools that support FCS football, but it is absolutely correct. Hopefully the commissioner can see this and attempt to move in the right direction. With some foresight, that would have been done years ago and we would have a conference with teams like Butler, Dayton, Creighton and WSU.,

[VUGrad1314]

Personally I don't think anything would have prevented Butler and Creighton ending up in the Big East but the right moves could have at least given Wichita State serious pause before leaving for the AAC and made Belmont and SLU more amenable to joining. That said, it's still very likely that the MVC is in more or less the same position it is now in terms of membership and rumored targets for expansion; except the perception of the conference is likely stronger than it presently is, and the conference would likely have had more tournament bids over the years and would still be looked upon as a surefire 2-3 bid league every year. Often a conference that struggles with whether it wants to be football or basketball-centric without picking a path fails to realize its highest possible heights in either sport. To a degree, the MVC has been a success story in managing both paths though. I think the critical mistake was made by not taking the chance to take the lead on the issue of realignment and scheduling presented by the departure of Tulsa and embracing the 11 team 20 conference game schedule by admitting both Evansville and Butler (who was a finalist and the program was beginning to rise) then not going to 12 after Creighton and Butler leave for the Big East by adding Murray State Belmont and SLU who were all coming off strong periods in their respective programs' histories.