Goal #1: Become Multi-Bid Conf. Again

[MissouriValleyUnite]

It is. But we also have the Loyola Clowns who can't run an athletic department.

What’s up Shoxcity, remember when you created this troll account but were caught copy/pasting your posts from ShockerNet onto here?

You and Loyola are now the talk of the tournament. congrats!

[mvcfan]

The MVC will never again be a multi bid league. You'll be fortunate to get a bid to the NIT. Too bad for the few teams who really care. UNI, etc.

[Mikovio]

The MVC will get multiple bids if multiple teams earn it, simple as that. If Custer didn't get injured and they drop 3 games in December, Ramblers would've been an at large easy. Shox complained about bad seeding last year, but the reason is they and ISUr dropped all games to top 50 teams except to each other. Shox will never get a 1 seed and F4 again in the American like they did the Valley.

[BirdsEyeView]

The MVC will never again be a multi bid league. You'll be fortunate to get a bid to the NIT. Too bad for the few teams who really care. UNI, etc.

Troll.

[VUFWAlum]

Also two genuine questions: Thoughts on Deep Dish? And where'd you snag those Complete sports numbers, I believe em, just curious!

1. I didn't like Loyola from the very start. That's never been a secret. It is because they were/are a horrible athletic department and they represent everything wrong with this conference.

2. Deep dish if you want it. IDGAF either way. Give me carbs, cheese, meet, and sauce any way you want and I'll eat it.

3. Numbers are straight from the MVC website with standings for each sport.

Loyola's finishes by sport (most recent first
M Basketball 5 8 6 10 of 10
M Cross Country 5 6 7 2 of 9
M Golf 9 9 7 9 of 9
M Soccer 1 5 5 4 of 5
M I T&F 8 6 3 6 of 7
M O T&F TBD 8 5 4 of 8
W Basketball 10 5 9 8 of 10
W Cross Country 6 4 6 4 of 10
W Golf 7 6 7 9 of 10
W Soccer 6 2 6 3 of 7
Softball 8 10 9 7 of 10
W I T&F 8 9 9 4 of 9
W O T&F TBD 9 9 7 of 9
Volleyball 6 6 7 7 of 10

One regular season championship in four years in all sports? And that was this year! Eight top half finishes in Fifty-Four tries? When is Loyola going to dip into the large endowment to actually be competitive in this conference?

If you think that you can just "dip" into an endowment then perhaps you don't understand the legalities of an endowment.

An endowment consists of money or income producing property given to an organization, such as a hospital or university, for a specific or restricted purpose such as research or scholarships. Generally, the endowed asset is required to be kept intact and only the income generated by it is consumed.

[pafan]

An endowment consists of money or income producing property given to an organization, such as a hospital or university, for a specific or restricted purpose such as research or scholarships. Generally, the endowed asset is required to be kept intact and only the income generated by it is consumed.

Sorta. I don't think there is a legal requirement that an endowment never spend its principal, rather it is a policy of certain institutions holding such endowments. For example, most of the Ivy League schools say they do not spend their principal. Their endowments are so enormous that the annual interest is sometimes measured in billions.

But LUC's Trustees decreed that the school could spend up to 5% of the cash value of the endowment annually, as long as the donors of that cash did not forbid such spending, without putting a restriction on the returns for the year.

[shocker3]

.........So "scheduling mandates" are meaningless until the selection committee starts counting Q1/Q2 LOSSES as carefully as wins. Why are teams that lose 60-70% of their Q1/Q2 games held in higher regard than 4-3 or 3-3 teams? And the RPI was adjusted to take road games into account, and the Q1/Q2 system basically tosses the RPI in the garbage. Finally, they have to stop giving at-large bids to teams with under-.500 conference records.

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree when you say scheduling mandates are meaningless. If it worked like it did in 2006 and 2007 (when we got 4 and 3 bids), then it isn't so much about having high RPIs as it is about sort of beating them at their own game. That year it was all about the record against the top 50. That year we ended up with six teams in the top 50 of RPI. Because of that, each team had 10 RPI top 50 games built into their schedule. It wasn't because we played an overwhelming amount of power 5 teams. We just played a lot of very good teams, kept that RPI high, and when EVERYONE did it, it just sort of fed on itself.

So this year for example (and I am just using this as an example), had perhaps SIU, MSU and Bradley scheduled a little better and ended up in the top 75, that is three more Q1 games for everyone and we don't even have to get a power 5 team to schedule us. If there was a mandate and EVERYONE had to schedule a little better, there would be a cumulative effect, and we would beat them at their own game. It isn't so much about the RPI itself as a metric, but finding our own way into the quadrant game. Sure, they'd probably move the goalposts again, but that is how we did it then.

Taking into account wins AND losses would also make a huge difference for sure. I think USC's coach put it best today when he said "If you are only going to look at your one or two best wins then why are we even playing?" But the whole idea of, "who are your best wins against" stacks the deck against mid-majors so insanely much it just isn't even worth it anymore. But we can do our best to play the game by their rules, and frustrate them to the point that they have to change the rules again.

You make good points about scheduling. I truly believe that the scheduling mandate is the key that allowed the Valley to get 4 bids in 2006. Some of the pundits said the Valley was gaming the system. It worked. The Valley easily could have had 6 bids in 2006, but only got 4. Another change that would help the non-power conferences if the selection committee would just add one more requirement: you have to be .500 or better in your own conference to get an at large bid. I doubt if the committee is going to do that anytime soon, so scheduling up is the best thing that could be done right now.

[PurpleAcesFootball]

Another change that would help the non-power conferences if the selection committee would just add one more requirement: you have to be .500 or better in your own conference to get an at large bid. I doubt if the committee is going to do that anytime soon, so scheduling up is the best thing that could be done right now.

Not necessarily directed at you - but I wish people would stop with this "you have to be .500" talk. The NCAA could also go back to the rule that first year players are ineligible to play. Neither one of those is going to happen.

So I agree with you. MVC schools can either complain and try to get a rule passed or work within the system by scheduling better. Which means scheduling is the only option.

Hopefully, UE's 11 year self-imposed tournament ban is coming to an end.

[VUFWAlum]

An endowment consists of money or income producing property given to an organization, such as a hospital or university, for a specific or restricted purpose such as research or scholarships. Generally, the endowed asset is required to be kept intact and only the income generated by it is consumed.

Sorta. I don't think there is a legal requirement that an endowment never spend its principal, rather it is a policy of certain institutions holding such endowments. For example, most of the Ivy League schools say they do not spend their principal. Their endowments are so enormous that the annual interest is sometimes measured in billions.

But LUC's Trustees decreed that the school could spend up to 5% of the cash value of the endowment annually, as long as the donors of that cash did not forbid such spending, without putting a restriction on the returns for the year.

Certainly I believe that there are exceptions as written into the legalities of an endowment such as was passed by the LUC Trustees in 2013. That is why I used the word "Generally" and not "Always". The purpose of my post was to show that just "dipping" into an endowment is not an easy thing to do and I think your example shows that the principle of an endowment in many cases is protected (as the LUC endowment was until 2013) and will be scrutinized even as it still is by the responsible financial entities of LUC in the 2013 change to the potential use of the LUC endowment.

[squirrel]

Did some number crunching earlier this week:

Since 1994, the Valley has had a changing membership involving 13 total schools.

Former member Tulsa left after 1996 and was not replaced, while Creighton and Wichita were replaced by Loyola and Valparaiso, respectively.

During that 24-year period, 12 of its 13 members (92.3%) have participated in the NCAA Tournament as a league member (with first-year member Valparaiso the only exception, but owning 9 appearances of their own from two separate leagues, including 1 Sweet Sixteen, during the same timeframe).

During that 24-year period, 7 of its 13 members (53.8%) have reached the Sweet 16 (with 11 total appearances). Five of those programs are currently in the league.

10 of its 13 members (76.9%) have won at least 1 NCAA tournament game, with 12 total appearances in the round of 32, not counting the 11 Sweet Sixteen teams (which would bring that total to 23). Eight of those members are currently in the league. Again, these numbers do not count Valpo's 1998 run as they were not Valley members at the time.

Evansville, Drake and Missouri State are the only programs that have gone only one time.

Between the 10-year period of 1998-2008:

100% of its members went to the NCAA Tournament
70% of its members had won at least one game in the tournament (UNI, Drake and Evansville only members that hadn't. UNI won one in 2009, however.)
40% participated in the Sweet 16 (Creighton is a notable member that never made it that far. And still haven't since moving to the Big East.)