Welcome Loyola - Part 2

[frankthetank]

Denver said no a long time ago.

What I've heard is that Denver said no because the Valley wanted to force them to start up baseball (it's almost May and still snowing in Denver ...) and pay for travel costs for the conference. If an offer of membership was made to Denver on the same rules it was made to Loyola, they likely would not have said no. If that discussion we had with Denver is true, that's insulting and I wouldn't blame Denver for never wanting to talk to the Valley again about membership.

Your argument is essentially that the Valley isn't good enough to attract those programs I just mentioned, other than ORU. If we're now at the point where we can't take programs from the Summit League or the Ohio Valley, that says a lot about this conference.

The MVC was certainly good enough to attract those programs, but the problem is that you're *vastly* overstating those schools' values in the conference realignment game. I know it's tough for fans to do this, but you HAVE to think of what value a candidate would bring when they are playing terrible basketball as opposed to when they're hitting on cylinders. Too many fans look at the latter criteria as the be all end all, when it's very much just a piece (and maybe even a small piece) of the puzzle. University presidents don't want anything to do with a school like Murray State - it's the exact opposite of addressing the MVC's demographics problem. Belmont and Denver were more justifiably intriguing, but it's not as if though these were slam dunks compared to Loyola and the metrics that matter in conference realignment: academics, TV market, facilities, student demographics, and interrelation with existing members of the conference.

There really weren't better realistic options for the MVC. From a university president's standpoint, Loyola was absolutely more valuable in the conference realignment game than the other schools that were mentioned: bigger market with more MVC alums with better academics and new facilities. I understand that fans want the on-the-court performance above all else, yet it's simply a vastly overrated factor in conference realignment in terms of what university presidents are looking for. It's a heck of lot easier to change your basketball program's outcome than it is to change your academic reputation (and it's obviously impossible to change your TV market and physical campus location), so that's what the powers that be focus upon.

[m-v-c]

Denver said no a long time ago.

What I've heard is that Denver said no because the Valley wanted to force them to start up baseball (it's almost May and still snowing in Denver ...) and pay for travel costs for the conference. If an offer of membership was made to Denver on the same rules it was made to Loyola, they likely would not have said no. If that discussion we had with Denver is true, that's insulting and I wouldn't blame Denver for never wanting to talk to the Valley again about membership.

Your argument is essentially that the Valley isn't good enough to attract those programs I just mentioned, other than ORU. If we're now at the point where we can't take programs from the Summit League or the Ohio Valley, that says a lot about this conference.

The MVC was certainly good enough to attract those programs, but the problem is that you're *vastly* overstating those schools' values in the conference realignment game. I know it's tough for fans to do this, but you HAVE to think of what value a candidate would bring when they are playing terrible basketball as opposed to when they're hitting on cylinders.

Exactly. People make the assumption that everyone is going to win in a conference; they're not, and that's something even the new Big East will find out. Two years ago when Denver was 13-17 or so with 1500 fans going to a game, nobody here would've wanted Denver-no one. If Belmont came into the MVC and suddenly finished 5th-6th or worse every year, would everyone think they were a great addition then? We all know the answer to that, but few want to look that far ahead. There were no perfect candidates. They could've gone for candidates with good records last few seasons, location (market size) and nobody watching them (Belmont, Denver) or they could've gone for candidates with location, nobody watching teams, but at least the hope that if a team gets better that people will actually watch them. They chose the latter, and can't really blame the league.

[CBB_Fan]

The MVC was certainly good enough to attract those programs, but the problem is that you're *vastly* overstating those schools' values in the conference realignment game. I know it's tough for fans to do this, but you HAVE to think of what value a candidate would bring when they are playing terrible basketball as opposed to when they're hitting on cylinders. Too many fans look at the latter criteria as the be all end all, when it's very much just a piece (and maybe even a small piece) of the puzzle. University presidents don't want anything to do with a school like Murray State - it's the exact opposite of addressing the MVC's demographics problem. Belmont and Denver were more justifiably intriguing, but it's not as if though these were slam dunks compared to Loyola and the metrics that matter in conference realignment: academics, TV market, facilities, student demographics, and interrelation with existing members of the conference.

There really weren't better realistic options for the MVC. From a university president's standpoint, Loyola was absolutely more valuable in the conference realignment game than the other schools that were mentioned: bigger market with more MVC alums with better academics and new facilities. I understand that fans want the on-the-court performance above all else, yet it's simply a vastly overrated factor in conference realignment in terms of what university presidents are looking for. It's a heck of lot easier to change your basketball program's outcome than it is to change your academic reputation (and it's obviously impossible to change your TV market and physical campus location), so that's what the powers that be focus upon.

One thing to consider is that my school, Wichita State, does NOT get the same benefits from Loyola that the Illinois schools do. We don't have a large alumni base in Chicago. Our frequent flier miles are going to go up, not down. We don't draw many students from in and around Chicago.

Additionally, it adds another school to a group that tends to vote as a bloc (the Illinois/Indiana group), which means we will have less power in the conference (pretty much just us and MSU now). Also, they share common interest with the private schools in the MVC, another group with dissimilar goals.

The demographics you talk about are great bonuses to some of the schools in the MVC, but all we'll get is a slightly better chance of landing a Chicago recruit and maybe more TV views. In exchange, we get their basketball struggles, more travel, and continue to lose any power to affect conference decisions despite bringing in the most money (and dedicated the most money to continued success).

[frankthetank]

The MVC was certainly good enough to attract those programs, but the problem is that you're *vastly* overstating those schools' values in the conference realignment game. I know it's tough for fans to do this, but you HAVE to think of what value a candidate would bring when they are playing terrible basketball as opposed to when they're hitting on cylinders. Too many fans look at the latter criteria as the be all end all, when it's very much just a piece (and maybe even a small piece) of the puzzle. University presidents don't want anything to do with a school like Murray State - it's the exact opposite of addressing the MVC's demographics problem. Belmont and Denver were more justifiably intriguing, but it's not as if though these were slam dunks compared to Loyola and the metrics that matter in conference realignment: academics, TV market, facilities, student demographics, and interrelation with existing members of the conference.

There really weren't better realistic options for the MVC. From a university president's standpoint, Loyola was absolutely more valuable in the conference realignment game than the other schools that were mentioned: bigger market with more MVC alums with better academics and new facilities. I understand that fans want the on-the-court performance above all else, yet it's simply a vastly overrated factor in conference realignment in terms of what university presidents are looking for. It's a heck of lot easier to change your basketball program's outcome than it is to change your academic reputation (and it's obviously impossible to change your TV market and physical campus location), so that's what the powers that be focus upon.

One thing to consider is that my school, Wichita State, does NOT get the same benefits from Loyola that the Illinois schools do. We don't have a large alumni base in Chicago. Our frequent flier miles are going to go up, not down. We don't draw many students from in and around Chicago.

Additionally, it adds another school to a group that tends to vote as a bloc (the Illinois/Indiana group), which means we will have less power in the conference (pretty much just us and MSU now). Also, they share common interest with the private schools in the MVC, another group with dissimilar goals.

The demographics you talk about are great bonuses to some of the schools in the MVC, but all we'll get is a slightly better chance of landing a Chicago recruit and maybe more TV views. In exchange, we get their basketball struggles, more travel, and continue to lose any power to affect conference decisions despite bringing in the most money (and dedicated the most money to continued success).

I understand what you're saying from a purely Wichita State-centric perspective. However, UNI and Drake draw a lot of students from and send many grads to Chicago, as well. So, when you have 7 out of 9 schools in a conference with a clearly vested interest in the Chicago area specifically (which is a heck of lot more of an upfront consensus than the vast majority of conference realignment moves), it's hard to argue with that move when looking at the MVC as a whole. Whether it's fair or not, what Wichita State wants is likely irrelevant (or at least very low on the totem pole) to what the MVC does. They know that Wichita State would leave for the MWC or A-10 if they got the chance, but they also know that there's little chance of Wichita State garnering an invite from either of those leagues, so the rest of the league actually has little incentive to cater to what Wichita State wants. That's kind of weird to think that way considering that Wichita State is certainly the best program left in the MVC and is coming off of a Final Four run, but power on-the-court is not necessarily the same as power off-the-court in conference realignment.

[IllinoisState]

The MVC was certainly good enough to attract those programs, but the problem is that you're *vastly* overstating those schools' values in the conference realignment game. I know it's tough for fans to do this, but you HAVE to think of what value a candidate would bring when they are playing terrible basketball as opposed to when they're hitting on cylinders. Too many fans look at the latter criteria as the be all end all, when it's very much just a piece (and maybe even a small piece) of the puzzle. University presidents don't want anything to do with a school like Murray State - it's the exact opposite of addressing the MVC's demographics problem. Belmont and Denver were more justifiably intriguing, but it's not as if though these were slam dunks compared to Loyola and the metrics that matter in conference realignment: academics, TV market, facilities, student demographics, and interrelation with existing members of the conference.

There really weren't better realistic options for the MVC. From a university president's standpoint, Loyola was absolutely more valuable in the conference realignment game than the other schools that were mentioned: bigger market with more MVC alums with better academics and new facilities. I understand that fans want the on-the-court performance above all else, yet it's simply a vastly overrated factor in conference realignment in terms of what university presidents are looking for. It's a heck of lot easier to change your basketball program's outcome than it is to change your academic reputation (and it's obviously impossible to change your TV market and physical campus location), so that's what the powers that be focus upon.

One thing to consider is that my school, Wichita State, does NOT get the same benefits from Loyola that the Illinois schools do. We don't have a large alumni base in Chicago. Our frequent flier miles are going to go up, not down. We don't draw many students from in and around Chicago.

Additionally, it adds another school to a group that tends to vote as a bloc (the Illinois/Indiana group), which means we will have less power in the conference (pretty much just us and MSU now). Also, they share common interest with the private schools in the MVC, another group with dissimilar goals.

The demographics you talk about are great bonuses to some of the schools in the MVC, but all we'll get is a slightly better chance of landing a Chicago recruit and maybe more TV views. In exchange, we get their basketball struggles, more travel, and continue to lose any power to affect conference decisions despite bringing in the most money (and dedicated the most money to continued success).

It keeps getting repeated that Wichita State is devoted to its sports and has the money to do what it takes. I don't see the traveling being a point to be made. Three picks that were mentioned by Wichita State fans were New Mexico State, Denver, and Oral Roberts. Travel-wise those don't help most schools. Wichita State also already does well with attendance so unless that's going to change any time soon and it's really thought that any of the three previously mentioned schools would help then I don't see a problem for them but do see a bonus for most of the MVC. And expanding into new markets helps, why do you think the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland over another AAU East coast team? If a conference of that size does it then it makes sense for the MVC to as well. And since Wichita State is probably looking around, and it's just good practice, why would the MVC take a school that may not be able to support itself in a few years or just fall flat as opposed to one that is dedicated to do what it takes?

[rlh04d]

And expanding into new markets helps, why do you think the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland over another AAU East coast team? If a conference of that size does it then it makes sense for the MVC to as well.

Exactly what markets does Illinois State, SIU, and Bradley add, then?

Why do we have three teams in this conference struggling to (together) deliver rural Illinois if we're concerned about markets?

As for your other points, I don't see the B1G being concerned about travel costs or attempting to benefit the weakest teams in the conference and telling Michigan and Ohio State that they don't need to worry about it because they're already doing well. I also don't see three teams in New Jersey or Maryland. The B1G comparison is quite poor.

[CBB_Fan]

I understand what you're saying from a purely Wichita State-centric perspective. However, UNI and Drake draw a lot of students from and send many grads to Chicago, as well. So, when you have 7 out of 9 schools in a conference with a clearly vested interest in the Chicago area specifically (which is a heck of lot more of an upfront consensus than the vast majority of conference realignment moves), it's hard to argue with that move when looking at the MVC as a whole. Whether it's fair or not, what Wichita State wants is likely irrelevant (or at least very low on the totem pole) to what the MVC does. They know that Wichita State would leave for the MWC or A-10 if they got the chance, but they also know that there's little chance of Wichita State garnering an invite from either of those leagues, so the rest of the league actually has little incentive to cater to what Wichita State wants. That's kind of weird to think that way considering that Wichita State is certainly the best program left in the MVC and is coming off of a Final Four run, but power on-the-court is not necessarily the same as power off-the-court in conference realignment.

I'm just saying that there are a large number of Wichita State fans on this board, so you are going to see a lot of objections to an addition like Loyola. This shows a disconnect between our goals and the goals of the conference, and it is one of the major non-basketball reasons we desire to leave. Despite the fact that we bring in the dough, have the highest consistent attendance of any remaining member and the most national recognition we have very little say in conference matters.

[iSASO]

Very soon, if not already, you will begin to see fans, professors and administrators of schools not named WSU hoping for the day that WSU leaves the MVC so that the pressure on them to keep pace is lowered. Back in the day when WSU was winning 14 straight conference titles in baseball, the desire for WSU's program to fall apart or be dismantled was palpable. WSU's exit from the conference would serve the same purpose, allowing lower-paid and lower-performing coaches to hang around longer and decreasing the commitment to higher recruiting budgets, charter flight travel budgets and assistant coach budgets.

[Wufan]

I understand what you're saying from a purely Wichita State-centric perspective. However, UNI and Drake draw a lot of students from and send many grads to Chicago, as well. So, when you have 7 out of 9 schools in a conference with a clearly vested interest in the Chicago area specifically (which is a heck of lot more of an upfront consensus than the vast majority of conference realignment moves), it's hard to argue with that move when looking at the MVC as a whole. Whether it's fair or not, what Wichita State wants is likely irrelevant (or at least very low on the totem pole) to what the MVC does. They know that Wichita State would leave for the MWC or A-10 if they got the chance, but they also know that there's little chance of Wichita State garnering an invite from either of those leagues, so the rest of the league actually has little incentive to cater to what Wichita State wants. That's kind of weird to think that way considering that Wichita State is certainly the best program left in the MVC and is coming off of a Final Four run, but power on-the-court is not necessarily the same as power off-the-court in conference realignment.

I'm just saying that there are a large number of Wichita State fans on this board, so you are going to see a lot of objections to an addition like Loyola. This shows a disconnect between our goals and the goals of the conference, and it is one of the major non-basketball reasons we desire to leave. Despite the fact that we bring in the dough, have the highest consistent attendance of any remaining member and the most national recognition we have very little say in conference matters.

Well said. WSU has majority fans and minority opinion on this matter.

[Drakey]

I haven't read most of the gibberish in this thread, but some WSU fans seem to feel that they are being persecuted by the conference and the other schools in the conference. To me this seems like nonsense. Do most WSU fans think this or is it just a few vocal wackos.