The Fellowship of the Mid-Majors

by **jsaluki080** » June 18th, 2018, 5:21 am

I hear the horizon leauge is now planning on scheduling like the sun belt and conference USA. Where the top progroms schedule other conferences top programs, or something like that, in effort to increase MM bids. Should the MVC jump on this bandwagon, and lend their axe?

(I think another thread briefly touched upon this before losing focus)

**Sponsor**

by **BCPanther** » June 18th, 2018, 7:48 am

The Valley, A10, Mountain West and WCC (minus Gonzaga who will never agree) need to band together for a scheduling alliance. F the Power 6 and tell them we aren't taking buy games and you can either play us H-H or go ahead an load up on low majors.

Structure it so everybody gets 3 home games and 3 road games from that pool every year. Play 14 league games and then play H-H with everybody that finishes in the same slot in the other leagues (1 v 1s, 2 v2s, etc) to get to a total of 20 (league tournament seeding set in the first 14.)

So every Valley schedule would look like:
MTE-3 or 4 games
3 home pool games
3 road pool games
2 Low Major/DII/DIII buy games
14 league games (strategically scheduled)
6 'Seeding' games

League tournament

by **jsaluki080** » June 18th, 2018, 8:27 am

BCPanther wrote:The Valley, A10, Mountain West and WCC (minus Gonzaga who will never agree) need to band together for a scheduling alliance. F the Power 6 and tell them we aren't taking buy games and you can either play us H-H or go ahead an load up on low majors.

Structure it so everybody gets 3 home games and 3 road games from that pool every year. Play 14 league games and then play H-H with everybody that finishes in the same slot in the other leagues (1 v 1s, 2 v2s, etc) to get to a total of 20 (league tournament seeding set in the first 14.)

So every Valley schedule would look like:
MTE-3 or 4 games
3 home pool games
3 road pool games
2 Low Major/DII/DIII buy games
14 league games (strategically scheduled)
6 'Seeding' games

League tournament

Ooowwww,

I like that idea! I’m excited thinking about it. Lol :dance:

by **Salukimadness86** » June 18th, 2018, 8:02 pm

I really like this idea as well. The only drawback I could see would be the travel expenses heading out West. However, I really like the concept. Mid majors has to work together to have a shot at the big boys down the road.

by **VUGrad1314** » June 18th, 2018, 8:38 pm

Who else should be brought in? The MAC? The CAA? The WAC? The Summit?

by **Jsnhbe1Birds** » June 18th, 2018, 8:51 pm

VUGrad1314 wrote:Who else should be brought in? The MAC? The CAA? The WAC? The Summit?

God, no.

by **VUGrad1314** » June 18th, 2018, 9:08 pm

I agree that there should be tiers of this with the first tier being comprised of multibid or near multibid MM leagues. The original cutoff point looks good but would have to be reworked after the next phase of realignment. I think the WCC would be more attractive with GCU and possibly Seattle in there but after the way they bent over backwards for Gonzaga I would guess that expansion is a tough sell for them.

by **BCPanther** » June 19th, 2018, 7:57 am

VUGrad1314 wrote:Who else should be brought in? The MAC? The CAA? The WAC? The Summit?

You're making the same mistake they made with BracketBusters. You can't invite anybody and everybody, you make it exclusive. Only the top 4 'Mid-Major' leagues. What good does it do the Valley champion to be locked into two games at the end of the year with champions of low major leauges.

Look at last year, if Loyola would have gotten 6 games with St Mary's, Nevada and Rhode Island to end the year it would have made a world of difference in their at large resume.

by **MissouriValleyUnite** » June 19th, 2018, 9:19 am

BCPanther wrote:
VUGrad1314 wrote:Who else should be brought in? The MAC? The CAA? The WAC? The Summit?

What good does it do the Valley champion to be locked into two games at the end of the year with champions of low major leauges.

A lot. Buffalo, Charleston, New Mexico St, & South Dakota St all would’ve represented better games than the 18 Loyola got in the Valley last year. Buffalo would’ve been a T1 game even at Gentile, NMSU/SDSU T1 games on a neutral court, and Charleston a T1 game on the road.

The problem isn’t playing the champions or contenders of those leagues - the problem is playing the NIU’s, Elon’s, UTRGV’s & Denver’s.

by **TheAsianSensation** » June 19th, 2018, 9:09 pm

If doing this, the A-10 and MWC are exactly the two conferences we should be partnering with. Many conferences have quality #1 teams. Very few have quality 2 through 5 teams.

Partnering with the two conferences closest to breaching the Power 7 is an obvious strategy. Don't overthink it; don't associate with lesser conferences. This is one tactic we can use to put the league on the right side of the perceived mid-major dividing line.

The WCC can't be part of it. First, Gonzaga will refuse, and the rest of the league is just too marginal. I don't trust St Mary's long-term.

The other option of the scheduling manipulation like they do in CUSA or the Fun Belt....sure, the MVC can do it. Just gotta sacrifice round robin. I'm sure everyone would be on board with that. :buddies: