Conference Realignment - May 1

[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?

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.

Believe it or not, I'm not talking about football at all.

I am talking about levels of financial commitment throughout the department, but in basketball especially. I think the conference should either set minimum investment standards or announce that it is happy being a one bid league like the Horizon. Once the true long term plan is set, the current members can decide if their goals match up with those in the conference. If they want higher goals, they could leave. If they can't meet the minimum requirements, they are asked to leave or booted. We used financial incentives several years ago to require teams to schedule better and it provided the conference's most successful years in recent history. We got away from those incentives and turned into a one bid league. We are being outflanked by other mid major conferences like the A10 and the WCC.

When Nebraska left the Big 12, they did it because they felt everything was being skewed toward the southern schools (Fb championship game was moved to Arlington permanently, league office was moved to Texas, etc.) I think we have that issue in the MVC right now. For example, the league just voted to have the baseball championship hosted in a facility that only seats a maximum of 1500 people! Why, when it has been shown that other venues can boast higher than 1500 in attendance at every session? The issue of even exploring a move of the basketball championship to KC sends certain eastern schools' fanbases into a tizzy fit. Why not simply make it an economic decision where the city that provides the best financial benefit to the conference gets to host (we could even require that basketball be in a venue without an MVC school)? The answer is simple: eastern schools don't want it that way. If we aren't going to base it on economics, can we at least base it on the nicest facilities? Right now we have no criteria at all and schools that actually invest in facilities don't get any reward for doing so. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever and actually serves as a discouragement for further investment.

Also, why are schools that don't even field a particular sports team allowed to vote on where that sport's championship is held? At best, they have no interest and at worst, it encourages a school to trade off its vote in a sport it doesn't have in order to get a vote in its favor for a sport it does have. Iowa schools shouldn't have any votes on baseball, Creighton shouldn't have any vote on track and WSU shouldn't have any vote on soccer. Eliminate the appearance of impropriety at least.

Prior to Nebraska's departure, everyone else in the Big 12 kept saying everything was fine. They ignored Nebraska's complaints. Ultimately, the level of satisfaction got so high that when Nebraska got an offer to leave, they did. Are we headed down the same road in the MVC? I don't know. What I do know is that there is at least one MVC school that has expressed its plans to move out in the future (Illinois St) and a couple of others that are openly shopping. Is the MVC going to strive to be more like the A10 or are we going to end up like the CAA, where most of the best programs left?

[TylerDurden]

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

Silly facts.

The Dallas Baptist thing was silly from the start. They don't fit in the MVC for a variety of reasons. Affiliate membership should only be used to maintain and keep secure NCAA auto-bid status. Baseball is not close to having any NCAA bid issues.

[LMS]

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

Silly facts.

The Dallas Baptist thing was silly from the start. They don't fit in the MVC for a variety of reasons. Affiliate membership should only be used to maintain and keep secure NCAA auto-bid status. Baseball is not close to having any NCAA bid issues.

It is 100% fact that the schools voted against offering DBU membership again after the WAC imploded. I also know for a fact that Creighton voted to add them. Why wouldn't you vote to add a member that is an all but lock to make the NCAA tournament every year and who is willing to make multiple annual road trips to our campuses? Our conference RPI was enhanced by DBU this year and Indiana St wouldn't have gotten in if not for beating DBU 2 out of 3 this season.

[TylerDurden]

When Nebraska left the Big 12, they did it because they felt everything was being skewed toward the southern schools (Fb championship game was moved to Arlington permanently, league office was moved to Texas, etc.)

Nebraska left for television revenue and academic association. Don't be misguided by bar stool chatter.

I think we have that issue in the MVC right now. For example, the league just voted to have the baseball championship hosted in a facility that only seats a maximum of 1500 people! Why, when it has been shown that other venues can boast higher than 1500 in attendance at every session? The issue of even exploring a move of the basketball championship to KC sends certain eastern schools' fanbases into a tizzy fit.

First, basketball and baseball are apples and oranges.

There isn't a location in the league that draws 1,500 per session for the baseball tournament. You're likely referring to Wichita, but if you've been there during the tournament you know there aren't 1,500 people there during non-WSU games. No dispute about drawing well for the WSU games, but the other games are the same as everywhere else.

You mentioned schools showing commitment to sports, but when one does and bids for the baseball tournament and gets it, you criticize it. You can't have it both ways.

Why not simply make it an economic decision where the city that provides the best financial benefit to the conference gets to host (we could even require that basketball be in a venue without an MVC school)? The answer is simple: eastern schools don't want it that way. If we aren't going to base it on economics, can we at least base it on the nicest facilities?

Just talking basketball, that's exactly what happened when they put it up for bid; they made an economic decision. STL was far superior from a dollars perspective and KC, for instance, wasn't close. Perhaps that will change on a second bid. Who knows?

Right now we have no criteria at all and schools that actually invest in facilities don't get any reward for doing so. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever and actually serves as a discouragement for further investment.

This is incorrect. There are criteria for championship selection and the baseball vote you mentioned reflects investment being rewarded.

Also, why are schools that don't even field a particular sports team allowed to vote on where that sport's championship is held? At best, they have no interest and at worst, it encourages a school to trade off its vote in a sport it doesn't have in order to get a vote in its favor for a sport it does have. Iowa schools shouldn't have any votes on baseball, Creighton shouldn't have any vote on track and WSU shouldn't have any vote on soccer. Eliminate the appearance of impropriety at least.

Schools don't vote on championship sites for sports they don't have. Some sports rotate and aren't bid for.

Prior to Nebraska's departure, everyone else in the Big 12 kept saying everything was fine. They ignored Nebraska's complaints. Ultimately, the level of satisfaction got so high that when Nebraska got an offer to leave, they did. Are we headed down the same road in the MVC? I don't know. What I do know is that there is at least one MVC school that has expressed its plans to move out in the future (Illinois St) and a couple of others that are openly shopping. Is the MVC going to strive to be more like the A10 or are we going to end up like the CAA, where most of the best programs left?

Completely different situations.

[valleychamp]

I am talking about levels of financial commitment throughout the department, but in basketball especially. I think the conference should either set minimum investment standards or announce that it is happy being a one bid league like the Horizon. Once the true long term plan is set, the current members can decide if their goals match up with those in the conference. If they want higher goals, they could leave. If they can't meet the minimum requirements, they are asked to leave or booted. We used financial incentives several years ago to require teams to schedule better and it provided the conference's most successful years in recent history. We got away from those incentives and turned into a one bid league. We are being outflanked by other mid major conferences like the A10 and the WCC.

When Nebraska left the Big 12, they did it because they felt everything was being skewed toward the southern schools (Fb championship game was moved to Arlington permanently, league office was moved to Texas, etc.) I think we have that issue in the MVC right now. For example, the league just voted to have the baseball championship hosted in a facility that only seats a maximum of 1500 people! Why, when it has been shown that other venues can boast higher than 1500 in attendance at every session? The issue of even exploring a move of the basketball championship to KC sends certain eastern schools' fanbases into a tizzy fit. Why not simply make it an economic decision where the city that provides the best financial benefit to the conference gets to host (we could even require that basketball be in a venue without an MVC school)? The answer is simple: eastern schools don't want it that way. If we aren't going to base it on economics, can we at least base it on the nicest facilities? Right now we have no criteria at all and schools that actually invest in facilities don't get any reward for doing so. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever and actually serves as a discouragement for further investment.

Also, why are schools that don't even field a particular sports team allowed to vote on where that sport's championship is held? At best, they have no interest and at worst, it encourages a school to trade off its vote in a sport it doesn't have in order to get a vote in its favor for a sport it does have. Iowa schools shouldn't have any votes on baseball, Creighton shouldn't have any vote on track and WSU shouldn't have any vote on soccer. Eliminate the appearance of impropriety at least.

Prior to Nebraska's departure, everyone else in the Big 12 kept saying everything was fine. They ignored Nebraska's complaints. Ultimately, the level of satisfaction got so high that when Nebraska got an offer to leave, they did. Are we headed down the same road in the MVC? I don't know. What I do know is that there is at least one MVC school that has expressed its plans to move out in the future (Illinois St) and a couple of others that are openly shopping. Is the MVC going to strive to be more like the A10 or are we going to end up like the CAA, where most of the best programs left?

The only "tizzy fit" being thrown on here comes from you. I'd say the vast majority of people are completely indifferent, or even are in favor of a change of the MBB championship venue to KC.

As for the "non-revenue" championships, does it really matter if the MVC spreads the championships around at least every once and a while? I mean seriously, money-wise this has very little affect to the conference anyhow, this is a silly argument. The schools that have the best baseball facilities available to host (MSU, WSU, and CU most likely) are still going to host 90% of the time. Who cares if a ISU or SIU or whatever is thrown in there once a decade? Same goes with Volleyball, Track, Softball, ect.

As to the expansion talk, its pretty simple really. I am so sick of this "We have to expand!, We have to be pro-active!, Fire Elgin!!, the sky is going to fall!!!" talk. There is literally NO incentive to expand our conference unless there is some monetary benefit. None. That is what ALL of the conference realignment has been about throughout the last few years. Its always about money. And in the MVC, that is always going to come from MBB. Unless you are bringing in a school that you know can make it to the NCAA tournament and inherently strengthen the league (tournament money, TV money, publicity), there is no point in expanding whatsoever. In fact, if that is not the case, it just turns into a negative and it turns out costing everybody more money.

[DoubleJayAlum]

The only "tizzy fit" being thrown on here comes from you. I'd say the vast majority of people are completely indifferent, or even are in favor of a change of the MBB championship venue to KC.

Champ, you are way off base in this area. Check around at the other boards. Heck, we even had people here say they wouldn't go if it moves. Uni fans may not care one way or the other but at places like SIU, Bradley, IlSU, etc, it is a very big deal.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Also, why are schools that don't even field a particular sports team allowed to vote on where that sport's championship is held? At best, they have no interest and at worst, it encourages a school to trade off its vote in a sport it doesn't have in order to get a vote in its favor for a sport it does have. Iowa schools shouldn't have any votes on baseball, Creighton shouldn't have any vote on track and WSU shouldn't have any vote on soccer. Eliminate the appearance of impropriety at least.

Schools don't vote on championship sites for sports they don't have. Some sports rotate and aren't bid for.

Tyler, unless Paul Sullentrop's article is wrong, one of the Iowa schools voted on the locale of next year's baseball tourney (the other abstained). (The link was provided previously by WSU posters).

I live in Nebraska. I am well aware of why Nebraska left as it was the biggest story in the state in probably the last five years and front page news for well over a month. The absolute number one reason they left was the "Texas shift." That isn't barroom chatter; that is a direct quote from the man in charge that never wanted the Big 8 to merge with the SWC schools in the first place. Reason number two was fear of being left without a viable conference if Texas and Oklahoma bolted. The reasons you cite were much further behind in the pecking order (Nebraska isn't exactly known as an academic powerhouse by the way...) and helped to justify the move, but were not necessary to cause the move to happen.

I'd point out other errors, but I don't have the time right now.

[TylerDurden]

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

Silly facts.

The Dallas Baptist thing was silly from the start. They don't fit in the MVC for a variety of reasons. Affiliate membership should only be used to maintain and keep secure NCAA auto-bid status. Baseball is not close to having any NCAA bid issues.

It is 100% fact that the schools voted against offering DBU membership again after the WAC imploded. I also know for a fact that Creighton voted to add them. Why wouldn't you vote to add a member that is an all but lock to make the NCAA tournament every year and who is willing to make multiple annual road trips to our campuses? Our conference RPI was enhanced by DBU this year and Indiana St wouldn't have gotten in if not for beating DBU 2 out of 3 this season.

They voted against DBU as an affiliate at least three times.

There is no doubt DBU has a nice baseball program, but they still don't fit as an affiliate member. They aren't a full DI athletics program. They aren't playing with the same rules as the rest of the MVC or WAC for that matter. They specialize in baseball and don't have to worry about fielding a DI team in any other sport. That's a huge competitive advantage, especially when you consider their warm-weather location against the MVC cities.

[TylerDurden]

Also, why are schools that don't even field a particular sports team allowed to vote on where that sport's championship is held? At best, they have no interest and at worst, it encourages a school to trade off its vote in a sport it doesn't have in order to get a vote in its favor for a sport it does have. Iowa schools shouldn't have any votes on baseball, Creighton shouldn't have any vote on track and WSU shouldn't have any vote on soccer. Eliminate the appearance of impropriety at least.

Schools don't vote on championship sites for sports they don't have. Some sports rotate and aren't bid for.

Tyler, unless Paul Sullentrop's article is wrong, one of the Iowa schools voted on the locale of next year's baseball tourney (the other abstained). (The link was provided previously by WSU posters).

I live in Nebraska. I am well aware of why Nebraska left as it was the biggest story in the state in probably the last five years and front page news for well over a month. The absolute number one reason they left was the "Texas shift." That isn't barroom chatter; that is a direct quote from the man in charge that never wanted the Big 8 to merge with the SWC schools in the first place. Reason number two was fear of being left without a viable conference if Texas and Oklahoma bolted. The reasons you cite were much further behind in the pecking order (Nebraska isn't exactly known as an academic powerhouse by the way...) and helped to justify the move, but were not necessary to cause the move to happen.

I'd point out other errors, but I don't have the time right now.

There aren't any other errors to point out. Schools don't typically vote when they don't field a team. They can, but they often don't.

Edit: I found Paul's article. It said it was a 6-3 vote - so not a swing vote, if that even matters.

As for Nebraska, its fans can think how they want to about why they left, but it was about money and how the Big 12 distributed it and what it allowed with TV. It wasn't about hurt feelings.

[MoValley John]

Nebraska left for television revenue and academic association. Don't be misguided by bar stool chatter.

Tyler, you are wrong, in fact the reasons you cited are exactly that, bar stool chatter. Nebraska was actually in favor of the money distribution in the Big 12, they were a winner in the money distribution. The fact of the matter is that Nebraska argued for equal distribution of money only as a distraction and to polarize themselves with the "have nots" against Texas.

Nebraska did not leave for academic association, they were close to the last school in Big 12 academically, they are clearly the bottom feeders in the B1G.

Nebraska was essentially forced out of the Big 12. Colorado left, that was okay, but the rumors were very credible that Texas and Oklahoma were bolting for the Pac. Mizzou all but announced that they were leaving for the Big 10, if any of these dominoes fell, Nebraska was doomed. Dan Beebe tried to force Nebraska's hand into staying in the Big 12 by forcing them to sign away their third tier rights for the next decade. At that point, Nebraska countered by saying that they would sign away their third tier rights if Texas would do the same. Beebe and Texas refused. At this point, Nebraska was between a rock and a hard place, they had no guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma would stay, noise from Missouri was getting very loud. Nebraska had no bargaining power in the Big 12 and if Texas, Oklahoma and Mizzou bolted, Nebraska was screwed, they did what they had to do.