Conference Realignment - May 1

[valleychamp]

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.

Like I said "IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR", yes you are correct. It has not always been, nor will it always remain that way. And as I pointed out earlier, heading into conference play several schools had very good RPI's. I think UNI had a top 10 RPI or something heading in. It was only after we started playing each other and accumulating losses that RPI started to fall.

Oh, the committee doesn't give a crap about conference RPI? They don't give a crap about strength of the conference? Then what the hell is your hangup about joining the A10 solely for RPI and strength of conference reasons???

[DoubleJayAlum]

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.

Are you saying the scheduling was better last year than the year before? Document that please. I think it has been about the same ever since the conference removed the scheduling rules. And now that we've lost the MVC-MWC challenge, an event which single handedly provided most of the best noncon opponents in the last three years, schedules will probably be weaker without those good games going forward. Add to that the fact that the CAA is no longer in bracketbusters and it looks like we'll lose a few more solid games there going forward as well. How exactly is the scheduling getting better again?

The rest of what you said is just fluff. Essentially you are saying that one of the reasons the conference has slumped since 2007 was that everybody hired bad coaches, but now we've all hired good coaches? Everybody thinks they've hired good coaches at every school in every conference. Are we hiring coaches across the board that are soooo much better than other midmajor conferences? Probably not. For the most part, the coaches in the one bid years were the same coaches as in 2007.

You are grasping at straws. Most of the facilities in the conference go back to at least 2006 (yes, I know Evansville and MSU opened new arenas and there are a few other new facilities), but it isn't like everybody just started putting in a bunch of new stuff and we are immediately better. In fact, the two teams that were in the NCAA tournament last year have had their same arenas and other facilities since before 2006.

Be real specific - what has the conference done to make itself better recently? What is the conference's plan for improvement going forward? Do we even have one? And, if we do, why don't we all know what it is? When we had a scheduling mandate, it was public knowledge.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Oh, the committee doesn't give a crap about conference RPI?

Nope, they don't. They have even said as much in interviews after the selection show aired. They evaluate teams based on who they played, who they beat and where the games are played. When a conference is full of teams with RPIs over 100, that means each members only chances for "good" wins (e.g., wins against the top 50 schools in the country) come in the noncon.

Was the MVC one of the best conferences last year? I think it had two really good teams, but the rest of the conference was pretty mediocre, evidenced by the fact that the gap between the second place team and third place team was 5 wins. We also had two really, really bad teams with Rpis of over 250.

[valleychamp]

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.

Are you saying the scheduling was better last year than the year before? Document that please. I think it has been about the same ever since the conference removed the scheduling rules. And now that we've lost the MVC-MWC challenge, an event which single handedly provided most of the best noncon opponents in the last three years, schedules will probably be weaker without those good games going forward. Add to that the fact that the CAA is no longer in bracketbusters and it looks like we'll lose a few more solid games there going forward as well. How exactly is the scheduling getting better again?

The rest of what you said is just fluff. Essentially you are saying that one of the reasons the conference has slumped since 2007 was that everybody hired bad coaches, but now we've all hired good coaches? Everybody thinks they've hired good coaches at every school in every conference. Are we hiring coaches across the board that are soooo much better than other midmajor conferences? Probably not. For the most part, the coaches in the one bid years were the same coaches as in 2007.

You are grasping at straws. Most of the facilities in the conference go back to at least 2006 (yes, I know Evansville and MSU opened new arenas and there are a few other new facilities), but it isn't like everybody just started putting in a bunch of new stuff and we are immediately better. In fact, the two teams that were in the NCAA tournament last year have had their same arenas and other facilities since before 2006.

Be real specific - what has the conference done to make itself better recently? What is the conference's plan for improvement going forward? Do we even have one? And, if we do, why don't we all know what it is? When we had a scheduling mandate, it was public knowledge.

How is it fluff? Its no more fluff than the stuff that you have said to pump up the A10. The only thing the A10 has done is add a few members, and part of that is because they LOST some members. Explain to us, DJA, what exactly would you like to see the MVC do to appease you?

And I must say, you have a tremendous ability to cherry pick parts of people's posts, and ignore the parts that you can't answer to.

[cpacmel]

Oh, the committee doesn't give a crap about conference RPI? They don't give a crap about strength of the conference?

The committee has been very clear about Conference RPI.

http://www.kentucky.com/2009/02/11/690551/slive-says-ncaa-wont-consider.html

Teams are supposed to be judged independent of their league, with their entire body of work looked at.

"Conference affiliation carries no weight when discussing the merit of a team," he said.

[DoubleJayAlum]

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.

Are you saying the scheduling was better last year than the year before? Document that please. I think it has been about the same ever since the conference removed the scheduling rules. And now that we've lost the MVC-MWC challenge, an event which single handedly provided most of the best noncon opponents in the last three years, schedules will probably be weaker without those good games going forward. Add to that the fact that the CAA is no longer in bracketbusters and it looks like we'll lose a few more solid games there going forward as well. How exactly is the scheduling getting better again?

The rest of what you said is just fluff. Essentially you are saying that one of the reasons the conference has slumped since 2007 was that everybody hired bad coaches, but now we've all hired good coaches? Everybody thinks they've hired good coaches at every school in every conference. Are we hiring coaches across the board that are soooo much better than other midmajor conferences? Probably not. For the most part, the coaches in the one bid years were the same coaches as in 2007.

You are grasping at straws. Most of the facilities in the conference go back to at least 2006 (yes, I know Evansville and MSU opened new arenas and there are a few other new facilities), but it isn't like everybody just started putting in a bunch of new stuff and we are immediately better. In fact, the two teams that were in the NCAA tournament last year have had their same arenas and other facilities since before 2006.

Be real specific - what has the conference done to make itself better recently? What is the conference's plan for improvement going forward? Do we even have one? And, if we do, why don't we all know what it is? When we had a scheduling mandate, it was public knowledge.

How is it fluff? Its no more fluff than the stuff that you have said to pump up the A10. The only thing the A10 has done is add a few members, and part of that is because they LOST some members. Explain to us, DJA, what exactly would you like to see the MVC do to appease you?

And I must say, you have a tremendous ability to cherry pick parts of people's posts, and ignore the parts that you can't answer to.

This, coming from a guy that completely ignored all of my comments about scheduling?

Practice what you preach sir, or simply shut up.

You inability to cite specifics about the MVC's improvement plan is because there is no such plan. Just a lot of hope. Hope that coaches Marshall and JAcobson and McDermott stay a long time. Hope that Hinson can turn it around at SIU. Hope that Lusk and Ford weren't mistakes. Hope that Drake doesn't end up with a Lowery situation where they can't afford to fire a bad coach if he can't get it turned around. Hope that the state of Iowa doesn't cut off all funding to UNI athletics. Hope that Illinois St doesn't leave to take their football team up a level. Hope that Creighton and WSU don't find a way to get out. Hope that member schools aren't forced to drop any more sports. Lots and lots and lots of hope. Meanwhile: (1) the money from the NCAA units earned during our multibid years continues to dwindle as the units age beyond the five year payout window; and (2) the money distributed from the league office to member schools lessens yearly. We've got hope though, just like the downtrodden that buy lottery tickets!

As to the A10, I've said several times that they not only added perhaps the two highest profile midmajors (outside of Xavier and Gonzaga), but they also have negotiated a TV contract that pays the conference revenues as opposed to the rinky dink deal the MVC has where we have to buy up almost all of the air time we get. The A10 hasn't saddled itself into a midmajor event with one bid leagues (bracketbusters), they don't participate in the "midmajor poll" that the MVC embraces and they openly correct any media member that refers to them as "midmajor." They act big. They have vision. Last year they had eight members with RPIs better than 100. They don't just sit pat and rely on hope. Hope is a great thing if it is accompanied by action, but it isn't a plan by itself.

[valleychamp]

This, coming from a guy that completely ignored all of my comments about scheduling?

Practice what you preach sir, or simply shut up.

WHAT? What did I ignore? I was the one that questioned you about scheduling.

You were the one that ignored the questions about scheduling.

As to the A10, I've said several times that they not only added perhaps the two highest profile midmajors (outside of Xavier and Gonzaga), but they also have negotiated a TV contract that pays the conference revenues as opposed to the rinky dink deal the MVC has where we have to buy up almost all of the air time we get. The A10 hasn't saddled itself into a midmajor event with one bid leagues (bracketbusters), they don't participate in the "midmajor poll" that the MVC embraces and they openly correct any media member that refers to them as "midmajor." They act big. They have vision. Last year they had eight members with RPIs better than 100. They don't just sit pat and rely on hope. Hope is a great thing if it is accompanied by action, but it isn't a plan by itself.

And I will ask you AGAIN. What do you think the MVC should do? What do you WANT them to do. You think the MVC should just add some schools just for the sake of adding them to have the appearance of "doing something!!!". We already have pretty decent TV deals with both ESPN and Fox. How is the Valley supposed to control some arbitrary 3rd party mid-major poll? You think the MVC has anything to do with that??

Your myopic viewpoint toward conference strength is staggering. You look at a small window of time and judge its entire history and future on that small sample.

[valleychamp]

Oh, the committee doesn't give a crap about conference RPI? They don't give a crap about strength of the conference?

The committee has been very clear about Conference RPI.

http://www.kentucky.com/2009/02/11/690551/slive-says-ncaa-wont-consider.html

Teams are supposed to be judged independent of their league, with their entire body of work looked at.

"Conference affiliation carries no weight when discussing the merit of a team," he said.

Right, I know. That was not the point I was trying to make.

In fact that strengthens my point that positive/negative affect of conference affiliation from one good mid-major to another is incredibly minimal.

[DoubleJayAlum]

WHAT? What did I ignore? I was the one that questioned you about scheduling.

And I answered the question. You ignored the answer because it doesn't fit with your agenda. I discussed losing the MVC-MWC challenge and being locked into a bracketbusters that no longer has CAA participation.

We already have pretty decent TV deals with both ESPN and Fox.

Really, what is so good about them? Do you even know what those deals consist of? I don't think you have any idea what you are even talking about. Have you not been paying attention to what I wrote? Our deals suck! For the most part, we have to PAY the network for the airtime instead of getting paid by the network! We then have to try to sell advertising on our own to recoup costs. Often we LOSE,money on broadcasts instead of banking money like lots of other conferences. Even the stinking CAA sans VCU has a better TV deal than we do!

How is the Valley supposed to control some arbitrary 3rd party mid-major poll? You think the MVC has anything to do with that??

Oh my God, you are absolutely clueless with how so may things work it is embarassing! Yes, the MVC chooses to participate; it is a voluntary poll. The conference encourages coaches to serve on the panel and embraces its existance. The A10, MWC, (and maybe CUSA) don't participate by their own choice! They told the group that runs the poll that they don't consider themselves to be midmajors and don't want to be included. Good grief man, your lack of knowledge is getting embarrassing! I don't think I've ever come across some one who is so fundamentally wrong/uninformed on the topic that they are choosing to debate about! You say the TV contract is pretty good even though you have no idea what the TV contract even is, then you make comments about a poll that you obviously know nothing about, but act like you know all about it. I guess ignorance is truly bliss! No wonder you don't think anything is wrong with the conference presently ---- one can't find anything wrong when they don't know what the hell is even going on!

Your myopic viewpoint toward conference strength is staggering. You look at a small window of time and judge its entire history and future on that small sample.

Small time frame? Tell me, when is the last time the A10 had fewer NCAA tourney bids than the MVC? How often has it happened this century? Which conference's teams have progressed farther in the tourney this century?

[valleychamp]

And I answered the question. You ignored the answer because it doesn't fit with your agenda. I discussed losing the MVC-MWC challenge and being locked into a bracketbusters that no longer has CAA participation.

Wrong. I questioned your completely and utter ridiculous accusations about scheduling and money. You said MVC schools didn't have the money to make quality schedules. The challenge games have nothing to do with it. I questioned you about the great games that Creighton is supposedly scheduling as well.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Have you not been paying attention to what I wrote? Our deals suck! For the most part, we have to PAY the network for the airtime instead of getting paid by the network! We then have to try to sell advertising on our own to recoup costs. Often we LOSE,money on broadcasts instead of banking money like lots of other conferences. Even the stinking CAA sans VCU has a better TV deal than we do!

So what? You are only talking about our own MVC-TV productions. We have that on top of the ESPN games which are separate. We are getting on TV, that's all that matters, and we are doing it more so than most mid-major leagues.

Where are you getting your information regarding the A10 and MVC TV deals anyhow, I sure as hell am not going to believe numbers or figures that come of your keyboard as you have a reputation of fabrication of facts. Please provide the links to the details of both TV deals, that you know so much about.

Oh my God, you are absolutely clueless with how so may things work it is embarassing! Yes, the MVC chooses to participate; it is a voluntary poll. The conference encourages coaches to serve on the panel and embraces its existance. The A10, MWC, (and maybe CUSA) don't participate by their own choice! They told the group that runs the poll that they don't consider themselves to be midmajors and don't want to be included. Good grief man!

Fine, I had no idea. I think this is a meaningless non-issue. Nobody cares or knows anything about this poll. Its not published anywhere other than some random website as far as I know. I could care less if someone calls us mid-major anyhow, that doesn't affect anything.

Small time frame? Tell me, when is the last time the A10 had fewer NCAA tourney bids than the MVC? How often has it happened this century?

I don't know. I know that more often than not the MVC has been a multi-bid league, and very good in its own right. The A10 is a good basketball conference and has been for a while, I have never disputed that.

You have yet to provide anything tangible as to how a school like Creighton would be greatly better off by being in a league like the A10. They already make the NCAA tournament regularly in the MVC (you could argue they would make it LESS in the A10). The MVC is already on TV. The MVC has already been proven to be a multi-bid league. The MVC has several proven basketball programs, players, coaches, ect.