Loyola to Valley

[Drakey]

I am assuming this choice is made based on a commitment to the future. Loyola is certainly in a better position than most Valley schools to succeed if they really want to. Lots of money and lots of alumni, many of whom are no doubt in the Chicago area. This might be the best choice out there if you base it on something other than recent basketball success. I would guess that attendance will increase immediately and that recruiting will pick up too.

With this addition of another Illinois team, I think we should go for 12 and try to get Denver and Belmont.

[Valleyball]

I am assuming this choice is made based on a commitment to the future. Loyola is certainly in a better position than most Valley schools to succeed if they really want to. Lots of money and lots of alumni, many of whom are no doubt in the Chicago area. This might be the best choice out there if you base it on something other than recent basketball success. I would guess that attendance will increase immediately and that recruiting will pick up too.

With this addition of another Illinois team, I think we should go for 12 and try to get Denver and Belmont.

Ditto to everything you said except I wouldn't hold my breath on attendance except other Valley foes that show up to watch the opponent. Maybe some day they can get better crowds. But I think Chicago is a Professional sports city.

[m-v-c]

Interesting addition. Gut feeling was the MVC really wanted someone in Chicago. As another said, would assume the MVC is doing this with the expectation that Loyola is going to be putting $ into their athletics. 20 years ago Loyola was on the same level of the MVC, but it has been stagnant since. Not inconceivable that they can get to the level again...they won't capture Chicago like Creighton did Omaha, but they can make some noise.

Those who are concerned about it, can definitely understand that. But there weren't any slam-dunk additions. Think often the Recency Bias figures into people's thoughts on conference realignment way too much...two years ago when Denver was 13-17, pretty sure everyone would've thought they're a terrible fit. Loyola doesn't have much recent history, that's for sure, but if they sink some money in and become good the MVC will look like geniuses. Willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Definitely could flop...for those who have wanted the MVC to take chances, this absolutely qualifies.

[TNMSUFAN]

Good read from the IN State beat writer

tribstar.com/sports/x2094911505/Second-City-in-the-Valley-Loyola-joins-the-MVC

“It’s a real deal and it’s happening,” ISU Director of Athletics Ron Prettyman said Sunday.

“The details are being worked out, but Loyola has accepted an invitation to join the Missouri Valley Conference. Most of the members are excited about that. I think they’ll be a good member. It opens us up to the Chicago market. They have a very nice campus. There’s a strong financial commitment to improve their programs,” Prettyman added.

“There’s certainly some concern about their current strength of program, but with the commitment they’ve made financially and with a new, strong administration, I feel confident their programs will improve and they’ll contribute to the strength of the Valley,” said Prettyman, who noted that Loyola shared its five- and 10-year plan with the search committee.

“The [MVC] presidents, after consulting with their AD’s, their FAR’s [faculty athletic representatives] and senior women administrators who were on the visits feel strongly that Loyola is going to step up their program and contribute significantly,” Prettyman added.

[Wufan]

Senior women administrators? Who are they and why do they get a say?

[TNMSUFAN]

Smart: Loyola a unanimous choice

http://blogs.news-leader.com/msu/2013/0 ... he-valley/

“I had never been to that campus before we went on our site visit. It is incredibly impressive,” Smart said of Loyola, on Chicago’s north side with Lake Michigan nearby. “The school is extremely strong academically and they had by far the best athletic facilities of any school we looked at.”

Smart said Loyola is showing a renewed commitment to its basketball program with hiring of Porter Moser – a former head coach at Illinois State – before last season. The school made a splash over the weekend by hiring former Sheryl Swoopes, a former All-American at Texas Tech and star WNBA player, as its new women’s basketball coach.

“They were more financially committed to putting money into athletics than any other school we looked at and have a plan to do that,” Smart said. “In the next three years, they plan to have an athletic budget of $15 million, which is more than ours.”

[frankthetank]

Here are my thoughts from the "Welcome to Loyola" thread, but they're applicable here, as well:

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

[Dean Wormer]

Thought I'd toss out this post I found on the Loyola board. If they invest it could be a good pick. If they don't it will be a bad one.

"1. We are the largest enrollment Jesuit school in the nation... larger than Georgetown, Creighton, Boston College, Gonzaga, San Francisco, Holy Cross, or any other. There are 41 (?) Jesuit colleges in the US.
2. Creighton was the MVC's highest endowed school at $375 million endowment, more than twice as much as the average of the other nine MVC schools. Loyola's endowment is currently $389 million. Loyola has assets of $1.2 Billion and averages $159 million in donations per year. They also average $10 Million per year on investments in dividends and interest. By comparison, Creighton had $853 million in assets, $64 million in donations.
3. Loyola is in the Chicago metropolitan area, a TV market of approximately 9 million people.
4. Loyola is located closer on average to every other MVC market than Creighton.
5. Loyola is currently ranked highest in the Horizon League for its competitive finishes in every sport. http://www.horizonleague.org/blog/loyol ... ships.html
6. Loyola is ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the 106th top National University in their survey.
7. Loyola has played college basketball at the highest level for 100 years. We have played more than 150 games against current MVC members. Our rivalries with Bradley and other schools date back to the 1920s.
8. Loyola has 1 NCAA National Championship, two NIT national runner-up finishes, two Sweet 16s, 1 NBA #1 overall draft pick, and one of the top 10 college basketball scorers of all time. Two Hall of Fame inductees.
9. Over our past 12 games against MVC foes we are 6-6, including 2-1 against eventual NCAA Tournament participants.
10. Our alumni include several congressmen, Bob Newhart, the creator of the TV show "Glee," CEOs of McDonalds and many other Fortune 500 companies, the former Secretary of Commerce and White House Chief of Staff, and the rhythm guitarist of the band Smashing Pumpkins. And me, proudly."

The large endowment and high population of Jesuits is nice and all, but the fact Bob Newhart is an alum seals the deal for me. The original Bob Newhart show may be one of the best TV shows of all time IMO. Definitely one of the best theme openings.

[rlh04d]

Here are my thoughts from the "Welcome to Loyola" thread, but they're applicable here, as well:

First off, I agree with almost absolutely everything you said about demographics.

Secondly, as a WSU fan, none of that makes me feel any better. Honestly, most of us don't care what's in the long term best interests of the Valley in this sense. We care what's in the best interests of the Valley for the next ten years, because we don't have a choice in leaving right now (because geography f'ing hates us), and the fact that we're going to be very good for as long as Marshall is here means we want whatever will keep him here the longest.

I fully admit that I and most WSU fans are looking at this entirely different from how the Valley is looking at this. I'm being incredibly short-sighted about my opposition to this move, and don't care in the least

Also, my point about Illinois isn't that we shouldn't have a team in Chicago ... absolutely we should. But can we at least kick out Illinois State when we add Chicago? The problem I have with Illinois isn't really that this is the fourth team in Illinois -- it's that we have three teams in non-Chicago Illinois that really do nothing for us at all. I can forgive SIU because they've been an excellent basketball program in recent history, and I'll even forgive Bradley because they seem like they should be good to me at some point ... but really, Illinois State? >=)

I will disagree with your point about demographics to one degree, however: I'm a Florida State alumni. Tallahassee is not a good TV market. Neither is Gainesville, for the University of Florida. The only major market in Florida that is relevant in sports itself is Miami, and Miami's attendance figures are a joke compared to both FSU's and UF's. If demographics are such a factor, the teams in Florida that are in big markets should be in a very good position moving forward: USF in Tampa, UCF in Orlando, anyone in Jacksonville, etc. And they're not. Neither FSU or UF will ever be knocked off the temple of Florida sports by the schools in big markets. Florida State's growth was not based on history, market size, demographics, or anything else other than winning. Because winning grows a fan base, regardless of what market you're in. And that's why FSU and UF have a hundred times as many fans in Orlando or Tampa as UCF and USF do, and thousands of times more fans than any school in Jacksonville. We're one of the biggest television draws in the entire country, and it has zilch to do with Tallahassee being an important market. If FSU was a mid-major team, we'd never be on anyone's radars.

Simply arguing demographics simplifies things to a very large degree that does not account for the long-term growth of many very important sports programs. For every school that's been able to capitalize on its demographic presence to become a power, I can show you a dozen that haven't, and three that have become powers in that same time period despite terrible demographic constraints.

Looking at this from an ACC perspective: Boston College, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Miami, and Georgia Tech should be the major programs (based on either their own market size or being very close to a major market). Florida State, Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech should be small-time programs. In fact, outside of UNC, I would say that the ACC is pretty much completely counter to that in which teams are good and which are bad. And, interestingly, it's the programs from the smallest areas that generally draw the greatest television ratings. Theoretically those first 8 schools have great "long-term potential," but if I was to put money on it I would say that the schools from the smallest regions (except for Wake -- Wake will never be good) will be the ones that are the most successful over the next several decades, draw the greatest crowds, draw the biggest TV audiences, and have the most success. Even when the teams in big markets have been good, they've been unable to truly capitalize with their "potential" fan base.

I would say that most successful college programs are not in major cities. I think the B1G has done very well with their markets in creating a very significant TV network that will likely be incredibly successful long term ... but I also expect the SEC to make more money for the forseeable future, despite the fact that their markets suck. So to argue that demographics trump winning is, to me, a bit concerning. I would never doubt for a second that a great program in a great city is going to be better than a great program in a crappy city ... but I will argue that a great program in a crappy city will always be better than a crappy program in a great city. I know that gets out of the range of talking about Loyola, but, again, I still like the idea of a decent team in a very good city (Denver) over the idea of a terrible team in a great city (Chicago).

But at the end of the day, my real problem is with only adding Loyola. I would be whole-heartedly for adding Loyola as part of a 12 team conference. I just want to add teams that will win immediately as well. Quite frankly, the Valley has not become irrelevant despite demographic disadvantages because of the quality of our programs. I think CBB_fan said this in the other thread. If we lose what has kept us relevant to this point for the possibility of doing something that theoretically will fix our demographic situation someday, we risk becoming irrelevant before that potential ever has a chance to pay off. We already know that we can do pretty well for ourselves as a conference without demographics ... but there are a lot of basketball conferences (which you named) that have great demographics and pathetic basketball that have never been able to capitalize on that advantage to pass us.

[frankthetank]

Here are my thoughts from the "Welcome to Loyola" thread, but they're applicable here, as well:

First off, I agree with almost absolutely everything you said about demographics.

Secondly, as a WSU fan, none of that makes me feel any better. Honestly, most of us don't care what's in the long term best interests of the Valley in this sense. We care what's in the best interests of the Valley for the next ten years, because we don't have a choice in leaving right now (because geography f'ing hates us), and the fact that we're going to be very good for as long as Marshall is here means we want whatever will keep him here the longest.

I fully admit that I and most WSU fans are looking at this entirely different from how the Valley is looking at this. I'm being incredibly short-sighted about my opposition to this move, and don't care in the least

Also, my point about Illinois isn't that we shouldn't have a team in Chicago ... absolutely we should. But can we at least kick out Illinois State when we add Chicago? The problem I have with Illinois isn't really that this is the fourth team in Illinois -- it's that we have three teams in non-Chicago Illinois that really do nothing for us at all. I can forgive SIU because they've been an excellent basketball program in recent history, and I'll even forgive Bradley because they seem like they should be good to me at some point ... but really, Illinois State? >=)

I will disagree with your point about demographics to one degree, however: I'm a Florida State alumni. Tallahassee is not a good TV market. Neither is Gainesville, for the University of Florida. The only major market in Florida that is relevant in sports itself is Miami, and Miami's attendance figures are a joke compared to both FSU's and UF's. If demographics are such a factor, the teams in Florida that are in big markets should be in a very good position moving forward: USF in Tampa, UCF in Orlando, anyone in Jacksonville, etc. And they're not. Neither FSU or UF will ever be knocked off the temple of Florida sports by the schools in big markets. Florida State's growth was not based on history, market size, demographics, or anything else other than winning. Because winning grows a fan base, regardless of what market you're in. And that's why FSU and UF have a hundred times as many fans in Orlando or Tampa as UCF and USF do, and thousands of times more fans than any school in Jacksonville. We're one of the biggest television draws in the entire country, and it has zilch to do with Tallahassee being an important market. If FSU was a mid-major team, we'd never be on anyone's radars.

Simply arguing demographics simplifies things to a very large degree that does not account for the long-term growth of many very important sports programs. For every school that's been able to capitalize on its demographic presence to become a power, I can show you a dozen that haven't, and three that have become powers in that same time period despite terrible demographic constraints.

Looking at this from an ACC perspective: Boston College, NC State, UNC, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Miami, and Georgia Tech should be the major programs (based on either their own market size or being very close to a major market). Florida State, Notre Dame, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech should be small-time programs. In fact, outside of UNC, I would say that the ACC is pretty much completely counter to that in which teams are good and which are bad. And, interestingly, it's the programs from the smallest areas that generally draw the greatest television ratings. Theoretically those first 8 schools have great "long-term potential," but if I was to put money on it I would say that the schools from the smallest regions (except for Wake -- Wake will never be good) will be the ones that are the most successful over the next several decades, draw the greatest crowds, draw the biggest TV audiences, and have the most success. Even when the teams in big markets have been good, they've been unable to truly capitalize with their "potential" fan base.

I would say that most successful college programs are not in major cities. I think the B1G has done very well with their markets in creating a very significant TV network that will likely be incredibly successful long term ... but I also expect the SEC to make more money for the forseeable future, despite the fact that their markets suck. So to argue that demographics trump winning is, to me, a bit concerning. I would never doubt for a second that a great program in a great city is going to be better than a great program in a crappy city ... but I will argue that a great program in a crappy city will always be better than a crappy program in a great city. I know that gets out of the range of talking about Loyola, but, again, I still like the idea of a decent team in a very good city (Denver) over the idea of a terrible team in a great city (Chicago).

But at the end of the day, my real problem is with only adding Loyola. I would be whole-heartedly for adding Loyola as part of a 12 team conference. I just want to add teams that will win immediately as well. Quite frankly, the Valley has not become irrelevant despite demographic disadvantages because of the quality of our programs. I think CBB_fan said this in the other thread. If we lose what has kept us relevant to this point for the possibility of doing something that theoretically will fix our demographic situation someday, we risk becoming irrelevant before that potential ever has a chance to pay off. We already know that we can do pretty well for ourselves as a conference without demographics ... but there are a lot of basketball conferences (which you named) that have great demographics and pathetic basketball that have never been able to capitalize on that advantage to pass us.

Good viewpoints. One thing about demographics is that schools like Florida (public flagship) and Florida State (effectively the same status as a flagship like Texas A&M or UCLA) are able to go beyond their immediate market areas and legitimately deliver their entire home states. As you've noted, they deliver the Orlando market better than UCF ever could. University presidents and TV executives don't look at Florida State and say that they only deliver Tallahassee (small market), but rather that they deliver the entire state of Florida (massive market). The five power football conferences obviously focus the most on these types of schools plus a handful of key privates like Notre Dame and USC.

Pretty much all of the conferences outside of those five power conferences either don't have any realistic chances at getting those types of flagships or the ones that are available (e.g. the New Mexicos of the world) don't really add that much. So, once you get past that top flagship tier, you do see that immediate market size becomes much more important in conference realignment. It's the reason why the AAC (formerly known as the Big East) added schools like Memphis, Houston, SMU, UCF, Temple and even Tulane before breaking down and inviting East Carolina (a school with a great fan base in a small market - basically, the football version of Wichita State), who didn't even get a full membership invite until the Catholic members decided to break off. University presidents and TV executives generally give credit to flagships and flagship equivalents as delivering their entire home states, but non-flagships invariably get docked as being local and will only get credit for their immediate local markets. Whether any of this will end up being looked at as wise 10 years from now remains to be seen, but I'm just pointing out how university presidents are thinking right now. Granted, that's what they're paid to do. We, as fans, can afford to only worry about who we're going to play next year in games. University presidents are *supposed* to take the long view for their schools (and by extension, their conferences) because most fans don't think that way.