If Wichita Left.... (RPI Talk)

[SubGod22]

I like the foe option. There have been a couple of yahoos that simply speak out of their ass too much for me. Sadly, they get quoted from time to time and I still have to get through the BS.

[RoyalShock]

I get why the original research was done with RPI. It's readily available and often used when discussing conference rank. The thing is, conference rank really has no bearing on anything except fodder for fan discussion. The RPI isn't meant to rank conferences anyway. Some sites just average each league member's individual RPI's to come up with a ranking. With the NCAA progressively minimizing the rating's value and bringing other metrics into the picture it's difficult to use numbers as a projection, particularly if the NCAA tournament is used as a way to value teams and conferences.

Thus, if we're going to really discuss what losing a top conference member will mean for the future, that should revolve around the NCAA tournament, and more specifically, at-large bids. So, let's begin with Creighton. Has anyone "replaced" their position in the conference with respect to the NCAA tournament? I say no. WSU has maintained it's position as a consistent at-large candidate. UNI has been at-large worthy off-and-on. I would say that this year, Illinois St. has taken the UNI position, leaving CU's spot still unfilled.

That leads me to the conclusion that the MVC was generally a conference with 2-3 at-large candidates (CU, WSU, UNI). Since CU left, the MVC has had 1-2 at-large candidates (WSU, UNI/ISU), and one more who had an outside shot at winning the auto-bid.

While three years of post-CU isn't the largest sample size, I don't see evidence that any remaining or new MVC members have or are in position to claim the spot CU left. And I don't see evidence any of them are in position to replace the hole WSU would leave. It would become a league with an at-large bubble team plus one or two others who could grab the auto bid. Basically, last season's NCAA bids/seeds would be the typical ceiling.

That said, if UNI can get closer to their 2015 selves, ISUr can reload to be more like their 2017 selves on a consistent basis, and a couple of other teams can make incremental improvements. then maybe the MVC won't drop much from an NCAA perspective.

Since this is not a quantitative analysis and more of an "eye test", feel free to ignore it. It's just another perspective.

[glm38]

I get why the original research was done with RPI. It's readily available and often used when discussing conference rank. The thing is, conference rank really has no bearing on anything except fodder for fan discussion. The RPI isn't meant to rank conferences anyway. Some sites just average each league member's individual RPI's to come up with a ranking. With the NCAA progressively minimizing the rating's value and bringing other metrics into the picture it's difficult to use numbers as a projection, particularly if the NCAA tournament is used as a way to value teams and conferences.

Thus, if we're going to really discuss what losing a top conference member will mean for the future, that should revolve around the NCAA tournament, and more specifically, at-large bids. So, let's begin with Creighton. Has anyone "replaced" their position in the conference with respect to the NCAA tournament? I say no. WSU has maintained it's position as a consistent at-large candidate. UNI has been at-large worthy off-and-on. I would say that this year, Illinois St. has taken the UNI position, leaving CU's spot still unfilled.

That leads me to the conclusion that the MVC was generally a conference with 2-3 at-large candidates (CU, WSU, UNI). Since CU left, the MVC has had 1-2 at-large candidates (WSU, UNI/ISU), and one more who had an outside shot at winning the auto-bid.

While three years of post-CU isn't the largest sample size, I don't see evidence that any remaining or new MVC members have or are in position to claim the spot CU left. And I don't see evidence any of them are in position to replace the hole WSU would leave. It would become a league with an at-large bubble team plus one or two others who could grab the auto bid. Basically, last season's NCAA bids/seeds would be the typical ceiling.

That said, if UNI can get closer to their 2015 selves, ISUr can reload to be more like their 2017 selves on a consistent basis, and a couple of other teams can make incremental improvements. then maybe the MVC won't drop much from an NCAA perspective.

Since this is not a quantitative analysis and more of an "eye test", feel free to ignore it. It's just another perspective.

You are right in that no one has yet stepped up and replaced Creighton as far as getting consistent bids to the Ncaa tourney. BUT it was kind of a mixed bag with Creighton wasn't it? I mean they consistently made the tournament but they NEVER made a run.

As a long time fan of the mvc I always found that somewhat embarrassing.

[Stickboy46]

I get why the original research was done with RPI. It's readily available and often used when discussing conference rank. The thing is, conference rank really has no bearing on anything except fodder for fan discussion. The RPI isn't meant to rank conferences anyway. Some sites just average each league member's individual RPI's to come up with a ranking. With the NCAA progressively minimizing the rating's value and bringing other metrics into the picture it's difficult to use numbers as a projection, particularly if the NCAA tournament is used as a way to value teams and conferences.

Thus, if we're going to really discuss what losing a top conference member will mean for the future, that should revolve around the NCAA tournament, and more specifically, at-large bids. So, let's begin with Creighton. Has anyone "replaced" their position in the conference with respect to the NCAA tournament? I say no. WSU has maintained it's position as a consistent at-large candidate. UNI has been at-large worthy off-and-on. I would say that this year, Illinois St. has taken the UNI position, leaving CU's spot still unfilled.

That leads me to the conclusion that the MVC was generally a conference with 2-3 at-large candidates (CU, WSU, UNI). Since CU left, the MVC has had 1-2 at-large candidates (WSU, UNI/ISU), and one more who had an outside shot at winning the auto-bid.

While three years of post-CU isn't the largest sample size, I don't see evidence that any remaining or new MVC members have or are in position to claim the spot CU left. And I don't see evidence any of them are in position to replace the hole WSU would leave. It would become a league with an at-large bubble team plus one or two others who could grab the auto bid. Basically, last season's NCAA bids/seeds would be the typical ceiling.

That said, if UNI can get closer to their 2015 selves, ISUr can reload to be more like their 2017 selves on a consistent basis, and a couple of other teams can make incremental improvements. then maybe the MVC won't drop much from an NCAA perspective.

Since this is not a quantitative analysis and more of an "eye test", feel free to ignore it. It's just another perspective.

You are right in that no one has yet stepped up and replaced Creighton as far as getting consistent bids to the Ncaa tourney. BUT it was kind of a mixed bag with Creighton wasn't it? I mean they consistently made the tournament but they NEVER made a run.

As a long time fan of the mvc I always found that somewhat embarrassing.

While very true, It's also embarrassing to have teams have to go 17-1, 18-0 to have a chance to get an at large. Have to get in the tourney to make a run in the tourney.

[glm38]

Stickboy46 I agree.

[Cdizzle]

I long argued that Creighton continually getting auto-bids and continually flaming out in the NCAAs was a net-negative for the league.

[Redbirds4Life]

While very true, It's also embarrassing to have teams have to go 17-1, 18-0 to have a chance to get an at large. Have to get in the tourney to make a run in the tourney.

^That really sucks for the Birds and especially the Shox, because without a win Saturday, Wichita's at-large chances are done, and Illinois State's aren't too much better. What really hurts both is that the league has cannibalized itself outside of those two. If you are a Shox/Birds fan, you are praying for 2 of the 8 to get hot the rest of the way to give you a chance at a decent win.

As for the replacing Creighton talk, kind of an easy argument to make for this season with it's current state. One thing I haven't seen anyone bring up(if someone did, I apologize), but people forget that Wichita State hasn't always been the class of the league, there were some lean years for a while. The 90s weren't good to Wichita State. I am not saying things are the same today, but its probably not the end of the world if Wichita State leaves, because at some point there is a team that will step up like SIU of the mid 00s and WSU of the early 10s....

[TheObserver]

I agree with glm and cdizzle.

Creighton's flame-out reputation was an embarrassment to the league.

[Cdizzle]

As for the replacing Creighton talk, kind of an easy argument to make for this season with it's current state. One thing I haven't seen anyone bring up(if someone did, I apologize), but people forget that Wichita State hasn't always been the class of the league, there were some lean years for a while. The 90s weren't good to Wichita State. I am not saying things are the same today, but its probably not the end of the world if Wichita State leaves, because at some point there is a team that will step up like SIU of the mid 00s and WSU of the early 10s....

That is the hope. But it's not guaranteed. Even SIU of the mid-00s and WSU of the early-10s aren't all that similar. SIU became a good team, but when the coaching staff moved on, they cratered, and hard. And at the end of it, they had a couple league titles and a few NCAA wins to show for it, which is great, but they hadn't elevated the program. They still operate as a mid-major. The budget, travel, recruiting, scheduling, coaching hires, it's all still mid-major.

I'll hate on Creighton, but what they and WSU have done is a bit different. They've built up programs, and in so doing changed the way their programs operate for the better. Budgets, fan bases, facilities, travel, recruiting, have all improved. They've also both sustained a coaching change. I think the only program in the league that could do that right now is Bradley.

The rest of the league is going to tap out more in line with what UNI has done. Which is fine. That's a fine program. But it's going to lead to a lot of 1-bid years.

[RoyalShock]

If you think CU getting into the tournament nearly every year, occasionally winning a game, was a net-negative for the league, I think you're too close to the situation to see it clearly. While they may not be remembered the way WSU is (Final Four, undefeated, 1-seed), the average fan knows CU was a perennial tournament team with decent seeds, and that reflected well on the Valley.