Conference Realignment - May 1

[DoubleJayAlum]

Ultimately, the only real long term, sustainable option is for sports only leagues. For example, a basketball only league where schools willing to spend at high levels compete against schools with comparable levels of commitment, while olympic sports are in their own geographic/regional conferences. This would allow essentially nationwide conferences for the money making sports because the travel costs for the olympic sports wouldn't be so financially devastating.

It is an interesting proposal but how realistic do you think that to be? It would essentially mean forming minor-leagues using the colleges for the professional ranks. In the current conference structure the schools can at least pretend to be academic in nature and maintain their non-profit status. If they move to a revenue/expenditure based alliances, will they be able to maintain that charade?

I don't see it being that big of a deal. There are plenty of teams that are in different conferences for different sports. The MAC has schools in that conference for FB only. The MVC has schools in for soccer only. UNI has to be in a different conference for wrestling since the MVC doesn't support wrestling, right?

I do agree it isn't realistic, albeit for an entirely different reason: The BCS schools would never go along with such an idea because they lose the control that they currently have.

[gtmoBlue]

2 quick points and a MVC Rant...

1) The dust has temporarily settled and the BE, MWC, and C-USA lost. According to Luke Winn of SI,
the ACC, SEC, and A-10 made member gains. The Big 10 and MVC gained by standing pat. The A-10
held at #9 within conference rankings, even with gains.

http://cnnsi.com/2012/writers/luke_winn ... t=cb_wr_a2


2) The Football schools keep spending...creating a greater gap, not just between Non-BCS & BCS, but ironically also within their own ranks. Texas, of course, is playing the Pied Piper of the spending tune.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2012/5/15 ... s#comments

Realignment and increased spending will be the death knell to collegiate sports as they have been known up to this point. Someone above refered to soccer and mini pro-type leagues...unfortunately, it may well end up that way. Let us hope not. However, in the meantimes...

Now is the time for Commissioner Elgin to rise from his seat and ACT. Now is an excellent time for the MVC to be proactive and strike with its' own expansion activities. No need to wait any longer. Realignment is already out in the weeds (CAA, C-USA, A-10, WCC, MWC, etc.)

The Missouri Valley Conference should boldly expand to a 14-team league:

Rescue Tulsa from the dregs of C-USA.
Invite both Loyola-Chicago* and Wisc-Milwaukee* of the Horizon League to join.
And although I looked long and hard at both Colorado State and Wyoming, neither bring any consistent upside to the table...therefore, as a 4th new accession invite the best team of: the Dakota schools or the brand new Div 1 team - Nebraska- Omaha, as the 14th team.

Although many favor adding St Louis to the mix, their President and Board do not share the Basketball Coachs' enthusiasm for the MVC. The St Louis TV market would enhance our bargaining position for media contracts, however it appears they "don't want to be here".

* Adding Chicago and Milwaukee to our market share will boost our media contracting position, and while not as optimal as say Chicago/St Louis, will still provide a revenue boost for the MVC and an additional potential Tourney site in Chicago.

This is a very opportune window in which Elgin should begin gunning for new members.

[jwa123]

Blue,

Nice post with a lot of food for thought. I do have some disagreement, however, with some of your thoughts on MVC expansion.

I am curious as to why you think Tulsa wants to be rescued from C-USA? They have a 30,000 capacity football stadium and generally do nicely with their football program. This past season they were the 35th ranked football team in the country in the Sagarin rankings. What would you have them do with their football program than no doubt generates more revenue than bball?

I sort of somewhat see the potential of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. On the other hand, what have they done athletically to deserve MVC attention? Ah yes, market potential some would say. My concern is that Milwaukee is a NBA town, has Marquette and is 90 miles from the University of Wisconsin. Do we really think the good folks of Milwaukee really give a tinker's damn about Wisconsin-Milwaukee athletics? So far they havn't.

Loyola - Chicago is a professional sports town beyond a doubt. We love our Bears. We love the Bulls. Some of us love our Cubs and some of us love our White Sox. We pay some attention to the U of I and Notre Dame. Many of us still remember the glory years of DePaul bball and they are in the Big East afterall. The Big East has it's problems but the bball schools in that league will be forming their own conference within the next 5 years so no big deal. Look long and hard in the Chicago Tribune for any coverage of Loyola basketball; it isn't there. I would bet many in Chi-town have no idea who the bball coach is at Loyola.

Nebraska Omaha?

I think the head of the MAC conference has it right when he recently said that as for expansion BRAND means more than market. As for brand, I throw out Murray State. Close travel partner with SIU and Evansville and not that bad for MSU or ISUb. Nice brand that has more than regional name recognition. Known for their academics and they have a football program that some in the conference might like to participate with.

[Red]

The only way the Valley expands is if we can add teams that consistently make the NCAA tournament. There aren't many of those out there. Otherwise it's a net loss.

[unipanther99]

I don't know that making the NCAA tournament should be the primary factor. Obviously we would want someone with a strong basketball program that won't be a boat anchor... But isn't most of this conference reshuffling about branding? I think adding a school that is easily recognized and well respected is probably more important --- obviously that often comes with making the NCAA tournament, but not always. That said, I continue to be in the "wait and see" camp.

[Red]

I don't know that making the NCAA tournament should be the primary factor. Obviously we would want someone with a strong basketball program that won't be a boat anchor... But isn't most of this conference reshuffling about branding? I think adding a school that is easily recognized and well respected is probably more important --- obviously that often comes with making the NCAA tournament, but not always. That said, I continue to be in the "wait and see" camp.

We couldn't get enough votes to add Dallas Baptist in baseball because of the cost to travel to Dallas every other year. Do you really think schools are going to vote to reduce their NCAA share from 1/10 to 1/12 if the schools added don't bring cash with them in terms of NCAA berths?

[unipanther99]

I don't know that making the NCAA tournament should be the primary factor. Obviously we would want someone with a strong basketball program that won't be a boat anchor... But isn't most of this conference reshuffling about branding? I think adding a school that is easily recognized and well respected is probably more important --- obviously that often comes with making the NCAA tournament, but not always. That said, I continue to be in the "wait and see" camp.

We couldn't get enough votes to add Dallas Baptist in baseball because of the cost to travel to Dallas every other year. Do you really think schools are going to vote to reduce their NCAA share from 1/10 to 1/12 if the schools added don't bring cash with them in terms of NCAA berths?

Just bringing in someone who has been to the tournament a bunch doesn't guarantee we get an additional team in the tournament. In fact, they might just make it harder for your team or my team to get the one or two spots we are likely to get. If we had to expand, I'd want a team with the competative resume of something like Missouri State. Very solid, good numbers, good following, not going to be a RPI killer, but beatable and not likely to dominate the conference or take up the one or two NCAA spots we get in the MVC every year. Combine that kind of history with a name that the average sports fan across the country will know, and I think that's what we should be looking for.

[DoubleJayAlum]

We couldn't get enough votes to add Dallas Baptist in baseball because of the cost to travel to Dallas every other year. Do you really think schools are going to vote to reduce their NCAA share from 1/10 to 1/12 if the schools added don't bring cash with them in terms of NCAA berths?

Top shelf post.

There are SEVERAL schools in this conference that won't vote for ANYTHING that results in either lesser revenues or increased expenses (e.g., travel outside of the current MVC footprint). It is why the topic of finances is always relevant and directly has an impact on the conference as a whole.

Now that the NCAA units payout formula is full of years when the MVC only got one team in the tourney (and that team was often one and done), money is tighter than ever. The fact that this hits when some (a.k.a. - more than one) schools are having their greatest financial crises, only magnifies the problem.

When people complain about Elgin not being more aggressive about expansion, remember that he can only wield the power ceded to him by members of the conference. We have many schools that, for the reasons outlined above, won't vote for any expansion (unless it guarantees them more revenue).

As a conference, the MVC needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up. Right now we have many of the same issues that caused the Big 12 to almost blast apart, have put the Big East on life support and now have the ACC looking vulnerable. The MVC must decide what its overall goal is going to be in this new college sports environment. Once that is done, schools not fitting in with that plan will leave or should be expelled. Although we've had no change through realignment so far, I think the MVC is the more vulnerable than ever right now.

[TheAsianSensation]

Hmm, I always thought the Dallas Baptist thing was because the WAC accepted them.

[BirdmanBB]

We couldn't get enough votes to add Dallas Baptist in baseball because of the cost to travel to Dallas every other year. Do you really think schools are going to vote to reduce their NCAA share from 1/10 to 1/12 if the schools added don't bring cash with them in terms of NCAA berths?

The MVC must decide what its overall goal is going to be in this new college sports environment. Once that is done, schools not fitting in with that plan will leave or should be expelled. Although we've had no change through realignment so far, I think the MVC is the more vulnerable than ever right now.

What choices does the MVC have in deciding what it wants to be? Are you saying that the MVC should move away from putting basketball first? Have schools drop other sports to increase funding towards basketball? I know where you are going with this, but football is not a part of the MVC and it is already a basketball first conference that so happens to have schools who have football in the MVFC.

If the idea is to include schools who only focus on basketball (non-football), it seems that the valley has missed the boat. It could be argued that it would be better in the long term for those teams in the valley who do have football to excel in that area so it is a driver for other sports. Force schools who do not have football to start a program or get out and try to carry the entire conference into FBS. The potential reward 50 years down the road could be that much greater than a basketball only conference.

Regardless, I think it would be tough for the MVC to force schools out that play a sport they already do not sponsor.