Updated 1/6/18: MVC Expansion Poll

[VUGrad1314]

I sure hope Elgin doesn't allow Robert Morris to take a spot in the MVFC at the expense of Murray State eventually getting in. (Yes I know they're separate entities.) That would be disappointing. I hope they'd go to 14 if and when Murray State joins up.

[bleach]

Despite what people would like to think, the problem with finding a quality ADD is that they generally don't benefit that much from moving up to a conference like the MVC at least if the measure is getting into the NCAA Tourney. Nor does a conference like the MVC generally gain bids as a result. If a conference is already an established multi-bid league[ 3+] then yeah it's a benefit like Creighton and WSU were able to do. But a team joining the MVC will not make the MVC jump up a bid or two, and that team if they are used to going to the Tourney fairly often, will see that number drop in all likelihood. There's all kinds of historical precedence to support this. Yes occasionally a team like UNI over years will rise to the upper level of a new conference and benefit from that move. But more often a team getting an invite has been dominant in where they've been, and have been getting fairly regular Tourney appearances, and usually now being in more competition for the same 1-2 bids, their opportunities drop and the conference doesn't jump up in bids because of their addition. That's why a Belmont or a SDSU might hesitate. They fairly regularly are able to garner the one bid in their league; that would become less a standard in the MVC.

Agree COMPLETELY!!
I'm not against expansion if there is a quality ADD (Murray could be) but not because it increases our chances at more bids.......it just doesn't. We could add 10 more teams of Valley level and not get 2 bids the way they are dolled out. The selection committee just isn't interested in adding non P5 teams.

[BEARZ77]

Agree COMPLETELY!!I'm not against expansion if there is a quality ADD (Murray could be) but not because it increases our chances at more bids.......it just doesn't. We could add 10 more teams of Valley level and not get 2 bids the way they are dolled out. The selection committee just isn't interested in adding non P5 teams.

Yeah, I'm fine with expansion, would be great with Murray State and have always pushed for SLU to get sane again. But this folly of any expansion we could generate regardless of the names bumping our bids up isn't happening. There will be occasional opportunities if everything goes right in a couple teams noncon schedules to have two in the mix just as we have had in the past; three would take two teams having extremely good credentials and a third winning the MVC Tourney. But as things are trending, that's less likely every year. There simply is no way even if we have multiple teams in the top 50, to come close to being able to schedule enough top 50 and top 100 win opportunities compared against what will naturally occur in the schedules of the power 5+1 leagues. I said it all last year; they've finally found the perfect criteria that has the appearance of objectivity in measure, but because of the issue of available opportunity, systematically eliminates most mids most years from being able to match even the lower level teams in the p-5+1. All a 8-12 place team in a p-5 league has to do is get a couple decent noncon wins and then play .500 level ball at home, not overall, just in home games in conference and they will have at least 5-6 top level wins. Add maybe one in the conference tourney and you have a total most mids can't get close to.

Consider MTSU this year, RPI 30, 3-4 in Q-1 games. They could have played both Texas and Oklahoma in a noncon Tourney, beat them both , and guess what. Texas and Oklahoma both finished sub .500 in conference, had losing records in their last 10 games and were 50+ in RPI. So beating both on a neutral site would not have been Q-1 wins for MTSU and not improved their 3-4 record while OKlahoma was 6-10 in Q-1 and would have still made it over them. Tht's how slanted it is.

[MOST]

Lots of verbiage around about what MMs have to do to get more NCAA tournament bids: better scheduling against top ranked teams is the most quoted thing to do. Conference expansion, with hopefully better teams, is the second most often quoted. Realistically, for the MVC to add a Murray State, a Belmont, North Kentucky, or Milwaukee will not garner more tournament bids. Those are all teams from the mid to lower conference RPI range. And, SLU will not accept an invite to join the MVC. Gonzaga and/or BYU are quality teams and moving to the MTN West should get the MTN West one or two additional at large bids.

Only two things will increase bids to the MM conferences: auto bids to both the conference regular season and conference tournament champions for the number seven through number 12 ranked RPI conferences; or the NCAA restricting/limiting the number of at large bids to the P5+1 conferences. Anything else is simply blowing hot air. Seven, eight, or nine bids to the top 2 or three conferences is ridiculous.

Can and should see some improvement as the number 13, 14 and higher RPI ranked conference fight to get into the top 12. There are several RPI conference ranking metric systems out there. One, or a combination of systems, can be used by the NCAA to declare the top 12 conferences. Then we can sit back and listen to the "but, but buts" from the fans, coaches, ADs and conference administrators from outside the top 12. So, accept it--nothing will ever be perfect

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

Lots of verbiage around about what MMs have to do to get more NCAA tournament bids: better scheduling against top ranked teams is the most quoted thing to do. Conference expansion, with hopefully better teams, is the second most often quoted. Realistically, for the MVC to add a Murray State, a Belmont, North Kentucky, or Milwaukee will not garner more tournament bids. Those are all teams from the mid to lower conference RPI range. And, SLU will not accept an invite to join the MVC. Gonzaga and/or BYU are quality teams and moving to the MTN West should get the MTN West one or two additional at large bids.

Only two things will increase bids to the MM conferences: auto bids to both the conference regular season and conference tournament champions for the number seven through number 12 ranked RPI conferences; or the NCAA restricting/limiting the number of at large bids to the P5+1 conferences. Anything else is simply blowing hot air. Seven, eight, or nine bids to the top 2 or three conferences is ridiculous.

Can and should see some improvement as the number 13, 14 and higher RPI ranked conference fight to get into the top 12. There are several RPI conference ranking metric systems out there. One, or a combination of systems, can be used by the NCAA to declare the top 12 conferences. Then we can sit back and listen to the "but, but buts" from the fans, coaches, ADs and conference administrators from outside the top 12. So, accept it--nothing will ever be perfect

Agree 100%. Try for Dayton and St. Louis and if they say no stay at 10 for now and wait and see what happens. The AAC could get pilfered by the P5's in the future and the AAC might take an A-10 team like VCU or Rhode Island. In that case the league is damaged and if the MVC continues to be the 8th rated conference Dayton and SLU may eventually come if the Big East goes with UCONN.

[TheAsianSensation]

The focus on being a Top X conference in conference RPI is good talking points (and one that I use often), but it's important to recognize that conference ranking is irrelevant towards at-large resumes.

Now, conference ranking is highly influenced by having legit at-large contenders, sure. But look at the Valley this year. Why did we rank 8th? Mostly because we had zero, absolutely zero, deadweights. But we only had 1 team in the Top 70 RPI, qualifying as a potential Group 1 game. So even though we had a CRPI of 8, we were in much, MUCH worse position to produce an at-large team than the A-10, which ranked below us at 9. Because the A-10 produced two teams in the Top 50 RPI.

This is ultimately one big goal of expansion. Increasing the raw number of teams in the Top 30/50/70. More teams, more chances. (the other goal is finding ways to reduce Group 3/4 games for at-large contenders, and increasing Group 1/2 games) Increasing CRPI should not be the goal; it should be the obvious side effect as a result of achieving a more profitable goal.

[VUGrad1314]

The focus on being a Top X conference in conference RPI is good talking points (and one that I use often), but it's important to recognize that conference ranking is irrelevant towards at-large resumes.

Now, conference ranking is highly influenced by having legit at-large contenders, sure. But look at the Valley this year. Why did we rank 8th? Mostly because we had zero, absolutely zero, deadweights. But we only had 1 team in the Top 70 RPI, qualifying as a potential Group 1 game. So even though we had a CRPI of 8, we were in much, MUCH worse position to produce an at-large team than the A-10, which ranked below us at 9. Because the A-10 produced two teams in the Top 50 RPI.

This is ultimately one big goal of expansion. Increasing the raw number of teams in the Top 30/50/70. More teams, more chances. (the other goal is finding ways to reduce Group 3/4 games for at-large contenders, and increasing Group 1/2 games) Increasing CRPI should not be the goal; it should be the obvious side effect as a result of achieving a more profitable goal.

THIS is precisely why I keep beating the drum for Murray State and Belmont. They should provide 2-4 extra Q1 games and raise everyone's collectively metrics. It may not be a guarantee of extra bids but I like our chances better with them in the fold. Obviously Dayton and SLU is the dream but that'll be a hard sell without additional strengthening by the MVC and weakening of the A10 through realignment. One of the best things that could possibly happen from the MVC's point of view would be VCU or URI being called up to the AAC.

[uniguy]

I look at it like this. Teams get bids, not conferences. The best way for us to get multiple bids is to have two teams that have really good years (like UNI and Wichita in 2014-15), or one that has a really good year and another that wins the tourney (like UNI and Wichita in 2015-16). If we have more teams, and we add quality teams like Murray State that have a commitment to winning and tournament aspirations....we have a better chance to have multiple good teams with resumes good enough to warrant a spot in the dance.

In addition, teams like Murray State are less likely to bottom out (like Drake likely will next year with the start of the rebuild), and drag down our metrics. Even if we are only a one-bid league, we'd rather that one bid have a shot at a decent seed and not be stuck with the 14 seed come March. That matters too. Plus more Q1 and Q2 games don't hurt. And, with 12 teams you can manipulate the league schedule so the teams expected to do the best will play fewer games against the bottom teams (like the WCC is doing).

To me, that is the argument for expansion. More good teams doesn't hurt us, except that we have to split the revenue a little bit more. But if it leads to having an extra NCAA tourney game or two, either by virtue of getting an extra team in at some point over the six-year period, or by virtue of having a better seed that allows a team to make a run, that is cancelled out as well.

[uniguy]

Also, one other possibility for the MVFC's 12th member would be Northern Colorado joining the Summit and MVFC.

[MOST]

Also, one other possibility for the MVFC's 12th member would be Northern Colorado joining the Summit and MVFC.

Agree!! I posted a few days ago that the Summit should invite Northern Colorado. Other than N. COL and UMKC not many D1s east of the Rockies in the northern plains to poach. Need one or 2 D2s in Minnesota to grow into D1s: maybe Mankato State and St Cloud St. Both in the 14-15 K enrollment, good, high level D2 FB that could build to D1 FSC. Hopefully the same for their BB programs.

OR, the NCAA should permit D1/D2 mixed conferences: like a school D2 in FB and D1 in BB, or a mixed set of D1/D2 teams by gender (mens' D1 and womens' D2).