Conference Realignment - May 1

[TheAsianSensation]

I don't care who's on what side, but any argument built on the foundation that CBI and CIT bids have significant value to the WCC or MVC is kind of ridiculous.

The A-10 and WCC is not light years better than the MVC. They are MODESTLY better. But that does mean they ARE better at the moment. WCC's more arguable as Gonzaga has left the biggest imprint out of the 20 teams. If MVC has a weakness, it's that it hasn't been able to keep a dominant team up for more than about 2-3 years at a time. It's a bit too cyclical. Good for everyone in the league, bad for national perception.

[havoc]

Now you are just being stupid. The point of the question is would just trade a good team in a bad market for a bad team in a good market? I'll take a team that wins games and makes NCAAs tournaments in a smaller market over a mediocre team from a large city in a heartbeat.

Pardon me. I thought the point of the question was trading for a big market team that was a secondary or third tier focus of their respective community.

No offense, but Evansville had a losing record last year, hasn't made the NCAA tourney in a long, long time and over the last decade has frequently been a play-in game participant. Calling them a "good team" in a bad market seems to be a bit of a stretch by any metric one chooses to utilize. Perhaps you can see how I misunderstood your point considering the examples you used?

Please show me where I called UE a "good team" Please show me where I ever even mentioned UE. You are the only one to bring up UE. My examples were Illinois State/Chicago State and Indiana State/IUPUI.

[PantherSigEp]

I don't care who's on what side, but any argument built on the foundation that CBI and CIT bids have significant value to the WCC or MVC is kind of ridiculous.

I have to agree with this. It's nice to be able to see your team play a few more games but other than that I have little interest in a tournament besides the NIT or NCAA's.

[Khan4Cats]

I don't care who's on what side, but any argument built on the foundation that CBI and CIT bids have significant value to the WCC or MVC is kind of ridiculous.

I have to agree with this. It's nice to be able to see your team play a few more games but other than that I have little interest in a tournament besides the NIT or NCAA's.

Fine, we won't use the post-season tournaments. We can use teams in each conference at or near .500 records.

The MVC had 8 of 10 with .500 or near (Evansville and MSU were 1 game under in Division 1 games)
The A-10 had 10 of 14 at or above .500 (2 right at .500 and none in the 'near' range)
The WCC had 5 of 9 above .500 and the others not close.

So, MVC had 80% of teams competitive/winning, A-10 had 71%, the WCC 55%. I guess you can be half-full and say we are competitive with many qulaity programs or you could say we are all mediocre. Guess it depends on how elite you really feel.

Like I said, what we need is not more competitive teams to make us more like the A-10 and WCC, we need more dregs to step on. Let's add Chicago State and IUPUI to gain those markets as a start. After all, it's about opening up recruiting opportunities. Maybe Houston Baptist as well. New Jersey Tech would be a good market, too. Heck, that should be an easy 8 wins for the top teams and at least 6-7 more wins for everyone else. 5 bids here we come!!!

[DoubleJayAlum]

So what? And a few years before that, the Valley had many more bids than they did. Think their members wanted to close up shop and find a different conference 5-10 years ago when they didn't measure up to the Valley?

Nope. Rather than closing up shop, they put together a plan to improve the conference. They just went out and grabbed BYU to immediately make their conference better. They also negotiated a new TV contract that actually generates revenue for the conference. I don't see the MVC doing any of these things, do you?

I don't see why you have such a problem with a team wanting to join a better conference. Did you think it was such a bad idea back when UNI joined the MVC? Should UNI have stayed put because their previous conference could just improve itself? Of course not.

Answer me this - what exactly is the MVC doing right now to improve itself? We've thrown out the scheduling mandate, which has led to worse schedules across the board. We are now the only true mid major conference still in bracketbusters , surrounded by one bid leagues (CAA, MWC and A10 aren't in it). As far as I can see, the things that made the conference strong 5 years ago are all gone and nobody is making any movement to bring them back. Your whole thesis is that the MVC will get better, but you can't point a single concrete thing to show what the conference is doing to improve. Not one.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I don't care who's on what side, but any argument built on the foundation that CBI and CIT bids have significant value to the WCC or MVC is kind of ridiculous.

I agree. CBI and CIT bids do not show a conference's strength. They are a nice opportunity for a team to extend their season and maybe start building for the next year, but that is all. The highlights from these games appear nowhere (except on the local news of the cities where the participants are from) and nobody cares nationally.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I'm still awaiting DJA's evidence as it pertains to MVC teams shying away from competition due to finances, and to Creighton's vastly superior non-conference scheduling...

Reading comprehension is a real deficiency for you. I never claimed that Creighton's scheduling was superior to anyone. Another reason why joining the A10 or MWC is preferable to the mVC: teams in those conferences are able to get home and homes with BCS schools regularly. MVC schools are not because the conference is not perceived as strong nationally.

As to scheduling discussion, maybe you can explain to me why there were so D2 and D3 games appearing on MVC schedules last year? Are you really saying that this wasn't done for monetary purposes? You do realize that paying those teams costs less than buying other D1 programs right? You do realize that the higher the quality of team, the more you have to pay, right?

Earlier you said that teams with money problems take buyout games with huge payouts like games at Syracuse. Well, show me these games on MVC schedules last year because I'm not seeing them. That would seem to destroy your argument.

[DoubleJayAlum]

The ENTIRE basis of your argument is that the Valley is a drag on an amazing program like Creighton, and that the weak teams in this league have inherently damaged Creighton their basketball program, especially their ability to make the NCAA's. The numbers and rankings say otherwise.

No, my position has nothing to do with Creighton; each MVC team is in the same situation. The position is that MVC wins don't impress pundits or the NCAA selection committee because we don't have enough top ranked teams. The numbers and rankings do not say otherwise. You completely ignored my examples of teams that got into the NCAA tournament almost entirely upon the wins they got within their own midmajor conference. The fact is that if you are in the MVC you do not have the opportunity to get many resume building, top 50 wins (or even top 100 wins for that matter) within the conference. That isn't opinion - that is fact!

I'm convinced that you really have no idea how teams are selected for the NCAA tournament. I hate to break it to you, but the selection committee does not say, "well the MVC is the #8 RPI conference, so they automatically get X number of bids." The committee doesn't give a crap about conference RPI rating. They want to know what other good teams a particular team beat and where those games were played.

[valleychamp]

Nope. Rather than closing up shop, they put together a plan to improve the conference. They just went out and grabbed BYU to immediately make their conference better. They also negotiated a new TV contract that actually generates revenue for the conference. I don't see the MVC doing any of these things, do you?

I don't see why you have such a problem with a team wanting to join a better conference. Did you think it was such a bad idea back when UNI joined the MVC? Should UNI have stayed put because their previous conference could just improve itself? Of course not.

Answer me this - what exactly is the MVC doing right now to improve itself? We've thrown out the scheduling mandate, which has led to worse schedules across the board. We are now the only true mid major conference still in bracketbusters , surrounded by one bid leagues (CAA, MWC and A10 aren't in it). As far as I can see, the things that made the conference strong 5 years ago are all gone and nobody is making any movement to bring them back. Your whole thesis is that the MVC will get better, but you can't point a single concrete thing to show what the conference is doing to improve. Not one.

The WCC didn't "go out and grab BYU". BYU grabbed them. They needed a place to toss their other sports after football went independent, and they reached out to them. WCC had almost nothing to do with that.

I don't have any problem with a school wanting to join a better conference. As long as it is actually a significantly better conference, and makes sense geographically and monetarily. I don't see the singnificant value in a midwestern school going from the Valley to other some other mid-major east coast league.

What has the MVC done? It has continued to improve within. I think you have seen better scheduling the last couple years. We have hired good coaches. We have built some fantastic facilities. We have recruited some great young players.

[valleychamp]

Reading comprehension is a real deficiency for you. I never claimed that Creighton's scheduling was superior to anyone. Another reason why joining the A10 or MWC is preferable to the mVC: teams in those conferences are able to get home and homes with BCS schools regularly. MVC schools are not because the conference is not perceived as strong nationally.

As to scheduling discussion, maybe you can explain to me why there were so D2 and D3 games appearing on MVC schedules last year? Are you really saying that this wasn't done for monetary purposes? You do realize that paying those teams costs less than buying other D1 programs right? You do realize that the higher the quality of team, the more you have to pay, right?

Earlier you said that teams with money problems take buyout games with huge payouts like games at Syracuse. Well, show me these games on MVC schedules last year because I'm not seeing them. That would seem to destroy your argument.

No, my reading comprehension is just fine. Anyone with a brain can see exactly what you were saying. You said some schools in this conference weren't financially committed to making good schedules. (not as committed as the great Creighton) I would like to see some examples of these great home/homes that A10 teams are getting that MVC teams are not. BCS teams have trouble getting home/homes with BCS teams...

There are D2/D3 games on schedules here and there because its difficult to get teams to come in and play the good teams in the MVC, in their arenas that are tough to play in. Its hard to get decent programs to come play on our courts because we have such good teams. Some just use a D2 school to fill and empty spot on their home schedules. I can absolutely say they aren't done for monetary reasons. It is done because playing a D2 school does not affect RPI, which is to the benefit of everyone in this conference!!! Playing Kennesaw State is a drag on a teams RPI, and affects everyone in the league negatively. If "school A" scheduled a D1 school like Alabama A&M or whomever, you would be ragging on them for scheduling such a crappy RPI school!

UNI played at Syracuse two years ago, UNI has home/home with St Marys, Indy St played at Vandy last year, Ill St is playing at Louisville next year. Evansville played home/home with UNC and Butler. That's just off the top of my head without looking anything up. I'm sure there are numerous others. Meanwhile Creighton is playing Kennesaw St, and has awesome home/homes with powerhouses Nebraska and Northwestern who have a combined 0 NCAA wins in their entire histories.