by MidWestMidMajor » March 27th, 2017, 8:49 pm
I think the decision to replace Wichita is MORE important than the decision to replace Creighton. Why? The first decision was to replace a school. This decision will signal a vision for the conference that schools will rally around... or take as a cue to seek the exits.
Jeff Kolpack's article points out that mid-major conferences chasing markets (ex. Loyola ...or maybe UMKC) is chasing after a bubble. He says, "A good mid-major league is more about a good core of schools that have some resources behind them." Todd Golden's article has this insightful quote: "The MVC should survive and could thrive again if there's a unified vision in the league."
So what is that unified vision? When the National Collegiate Hockey Conference (NCHC) was formed during the chaos of realignment in hockey, their vision was clear: We want schools that will make BIG commitments to their hockey program. I believe their criteria were budget, coaches, and facilities. Notice that 2 of 4 teams in the "Frozen Four" are from the NCHC (Denver and UM-Duluth).
What could that mean for MVC 2.0? A team to replace Wichita has to have a big time commitment to success in basketball as measured by overall budget, coach's salary, and quality of facilities. They should also have some recent success not just the "potential of success".
My first choice is Murray State, my #2 is Valpo (because they are waiting for a call from the A10). The OVC is #24 in rpi; Horizon is #18, the MVC is #12. That leap up could be enticing. If Belmont is not interested, my #3 is Denver; I think they bring a lot to the table and would love to be in a conference with quality private schools, and the MVC has that. (And I just wish Las Cruces NM was closer.)