Welcome Loyola

[rlh04d]

I can understand why WSU fans would be upset about adding a team that isn't close to them and isn't a similar institution. However, the other options that exist aren't really good matches with WSU except for ORU (which is private, but whatever). Denver's basketball program is insignificant, it fits outside of the Valley's geographic footprint, and they are private. Belmont and Valpo would have been decent options, but it's not like they are close to Wichita either and they are also private. UIC is public and doesn't offer football, but their basketball program isn't any better than Loyola's and has less history and tradition too. Murray State would have been an excellent option as well, but they also are not geographically close to WSU and do offer football.

I understand not thinking Loyola is the ideal candidate, because they aren't, but I do not understand being upset about Loyola but then being happy about a hypothetical Denver. I am also much happier with Loyola instead of ORU or UIC.

I, like most WSU fans, wanted whatever program has already shown a commitment to basketball, would be able to contribute to the conference immediately (RPI wise and competitively), had a demonstrated fanbase, was NOT the third or fourth program in a state we already have a presence in, etc.

The difference between the five I mentioned and Loyola in that criteria is absurdly large.

Of course none of them are perfect. Of course every school we could have added was going to have warts. But I know what I was looking for, and those schools meet about 75% of what I'm looking for in a conference-mate. Loyola meets about 15%. (UMKC probably would have been 3%).

I stated numerous times that I would have been perfectly happy with a project school being added were we to go to 12 and add at LEAST one program that could compete in the Valley in the near-future.

I am not complaining for the sake of complaining. I have laid out exactly the criteria I would have considered a success for the Valley given limitations, and exactly the schools that I would have been happy with adding. Dismissing that because "no option is perfect" is "laughable."

[SDSUFan]

Welcome Loyola and GOODBYE DAKOTA PEOPLE!

I wouldn't call it good-bye....we'll still be around to kick your arss in football!

[KC MVC FAN]

/quote]Of course none of them are perfect. Of course every school we could have added was going to have warts. But I know what I was looking for, and those schools meet about 75% of what I'm looking for in a conference-mate. Loyola meets about 15%. (UMKC probably would have been 3%).

I stated numerous times that I would have been perfectly happy with a project school being added were we to go to 12 and add at LEAST one program that could compete in the Valley in the near-future.

I am not complaining for the sake of complaining. I have laid out exactly the criteria I would have considered a success for the Valley given limitations, and exactly the schools that I would have been happy with adding. Dismissing that because "no option is perfect" is "laughable."[/quote]


Disagree about UMKC. Think the Roos could be as competitive as soon as Loyola. UMKC a very good University; growing like a weed, big construction program. The biggest endowment if I read one of the posts correctly/if the post was correct, a great facility at municipal, and I believe a potential fan base in KC bigger than any other MVC member. Kansas City is and always has been a college basketball town--NCAA, NAIA, Big 6, Big 8, Big 12 history all started in KC. KC has hosted more national and conference tournaments/championship games (NCAA and NAIA since the 1930s). Plus, the intangibles of Kansas City far outweigh all other candidates. KC is the second biggest city in the traditional MVC footprint (smaller than St. louis); big but not too big (Chicago is way too big---MVC will get lost in the Chicago ground clutter); small but not too small---2 million population and all the amenities of a much bigger town: pro baseball, pro FB, men and womens pro soccer, pro hockey, great restaurants, theater, etc, etc. AND, a short drive for all the western most MVC fans (WSU, UNI, Drake, MSU) to follow their team to away games. (don't ever forget the fans).

The MVC belongs in Kansas City and Kansas City belongs in the MVC!!!

If Loyola is the 10th team, MVC needs to add two more to make a 12 school conference. The eleventh school added should be UMKC. Number 12, lots of decent regional schools out there: SLU, ORU, Denver, Detroit, NMSU, Valpo, Arkansas State-----------. Take your pick!

[Sir Sci]

What I was referring to had to do with endowment size. That's why I quoted a comment that laid out the endowment size of all of the schools in the conference. Did Loyola's endowment size change recently?

You are correct, they have had this large of an endowment for a while. However, it is illogical to make the assertion that because they had an endowment that was large and didn't dedicate funds to athletics in the early 2000s that therefore they cannot be expected to make a dedicated effort to finance athletics now. It is, in fact, the opposite. Loyola had the large endowment, but the school was doing poorly financially everywhere else. I read an article out of Chicago talking about how only 2,000-4,000 students were applying each year, leading to a rapid decrease in tuition money. Now approximately 15,000 students apply each year. In the early 2000s Loyola was in the red $30 million in their actual operations. Now they are not. Because things have improved they can now spend money, and they already are. They just recently renovated their (admittedly small) basketball arena and are building new academic buildings as well.

In regards to your other post, I DO understand the qualms about Loyola. Low attendance, a lack of a winning basketball record, and no baseball team are all problems I have with their addition. I just have a hard time understanding being opposed to Loyola while being happy with the hypothetical Denver.

Also, I agree with you. UMKC would have been the worst option. Absolutely no positives go along with the Roos.

[AndShock]

Laughable.

I don't know if it's laughable, all including Loyola have "warts". I'm fine with the addition of Loyola but would have probably been fine with any addition. When it was first looking like CU was going to leave I was liking certain schools over others, then not wanting another school to be added, etc. About a month ago I came to the the conclusion that the Valley was going to take an immediate hit regardless so I stopped caring. I agree Loyola has lots of potential and may very well be up and running very quick. All the potential candidates had positives and negatives.

Like I said to Loyola fans at the start of this thread. Welcome and congrats.

***Below is a rant I suppose or just thoughts, not meant as a complaint rather a pathetic stab at where some of the disappointment may be coming from***

I would like to point one thing out, I'm sure if Wichita was part of the Chicago Solar system like so many schools in the Valley are it would be swallowed a little bit easier by many. Wichita is not however, in fact Wichita really doesn't have much in common with anyone else in the Valley, location wise, only public without football, not part of the Upper Midwest. Missouri State kind of but even that match up is full of differences. Unfortunately Wichita State without football and without ability to transport it's campus to one of the coasts has no conference with schools that are similar institutionally/athletically. So I think most shocker fans are looking at this thru one perspective and thats how good is the schools basketball right now, not saying thats right, just saying that might be the thought process.

I can understand why WSU fans would be upset about adding a team that isn't close to them and isn't a similar institution. However, the other options that exist aren't really good matches with WSU except for ORU (which is private, but whatever). Denver's basketball program is insignificant, it fits outside of the Valley's geographic footprint, and they are private. Belmont and Valpo would have been decent options, but it's not like they are close to Wichita either and they are also private. UIC is public and doesn't offer football, but their basketball program isn't any better than Loyola's and has less history and tradition too. Murray State would have been an excellent option as well, but they also are not geographically close to WSU and do offer football.

I understand not thinking Loyola is the ideal candidate, because they aren't, but I do not understand being upset about Loyola but then being happy about a hypothetical Denver. I am also much happier with Loyola instead of ORU or UIC.

Denver averages over double the amount of people that Loyola does. Denver's program may be "insignificant" but at least people come to watch it.

[Western4Life]

I am embracing Loyola because they have what it takes to win. Money, name (mostly academic), market...

I hear people complain about those not taken, they wouldn't be able to afford what is required to compete on a high level no matter past success. KS doesn't offer another schools so what can the WSU fans really complain about? Ft. Hayes State isn't an option so chill. Why add a team that won't spend to hang realistically? Valpo can't keep up nor could ORU in comparison. A private was going to be added.

Regarding UMKC they are not on par athletically in D1, it is a fine school but we are talking about the MVC. The Dakotas are far superior to UMKC (they proved it in the SL, along with everyone else...) but they are too far away. Oklahoma City University (NAIA power) would beat UMKC in ever sport they sponsor IMO including basketball right now. I expect UMKC to improve but what on earth besides from several NCAA trips (from a horrible WAC) and a new facility would merit them even being mentioned? Also, that endowment is for the entire University of Missouri system. That money is certainly not going to link with a priority in Roos athletics.

Loyola will spend cash dollars chedda scratch pesos rubles etc. to get caught up and all it take in hoops is a few recruits. I don't think they will be great next year but it won't be embarrassing. Every schools has a down turn (often a leadership focused away from sports) and the Ramblers have clearly made competing a future priority. Everyone needs to focus and step it up across the board, Loyola included.

Here is hoping that when the jump to 12 is done DU can add baseball and join (worth the travel, nice western add for WSU). Also, it will be very interesting to see what the OVC teams do. They seem to love the travel and pecking order established, why rock that boat to maybe get worked in the MVC (see EU). Hopefully Belmont and DU will join a cash rich Loyola. That would be a great situation for the future of the MVC.

[Sir Sci]

Denver averages over double the amount of people that Loyola does. Denver's program may be "insignificant" but at least people come to watch it.

Denver's basketball program being insignificant isn't the only problem. I believe I pointed out other issues as well. Also, a Belmont team that consistently makes the tournament and has a strong team (but low attendance) is still preferable to a Denver team that has never once been a good enough team to make the tournament but still has people show up.

[rlh04d]

In regards to your other post, I DO understand the qualms about Loyola. Low attendance, a lack of a winning basketball record, and no baseball team are all problems I have with their addition. I just have a hard time understanding being opposed to Loyola while being happy with the hypothetical Denver.

Denver has a proven commitment to basketball, Loyola has a hypothetical one. Denver would contribute to the Valley in competition and RPI, Loyola would not. Denver has fans, Loyola does not. Denver is the best college in its city, Loyola is the third best team in the country named Loyola.

It's illogical to blindly assume that Loyola will make a commitment to basketball that hasn't existed since the 1980s.

[rlh04d]

Denver averages over double the amount of people that Loyola does. Denver's program may be "insignificant" but at least people come to watch it.

Denver's basketball program being insignificant isn't the only problem. I believe I pointed out other issues as well. Also, a Belmont team that consistently makes the tournament and has a strong team (but low attendance) is still preferable to a Denver team that has never once been a good enough team to make the tournament but still has people show up.

Denver averages 3000 fans a game more than Loyola and their stadium seats an extra 2500 or so. Their endowment is only $50m less than Loyola's, and would also be the largest in the Valley. It's in a state that we don't have access to yet, which expands the geographic footprint rather than having a fourth team in a single state, which aids in TV deals and recruiting. They're in a smaller TV market, but it would still be by far the largest market in the Valley, and would give us access to potentially anyone in Colorado, and with far less competition for attention in Denver.

They have a DOCUMENTED commitment to basketball, rather than simply a hypothetical one, with their RPI and wins total increasing in all but one year of the last seven. They've been a top 100 RPI team with 20+ wins the last two years, which I don't know the last time Loyola was able to do. Were Loyola to have a resume of improvement over the last few years behind them, I would have no problem with them.

Loyola not only doesn't have a resume of improvement, they are actually getting worse. Their last two RPIs were two of the worst three in the last seven years. Their combined record over the last two years is the worst two year stretch in recent memory at Loyola. Loyola's SOS has fallen for SEVEN STRAIGHT YEARS, from a 132 to 264. Every year their SOS has been worse than the year before it. Every year they schedule easier and STILL someone manage to do worse. Meanwhile, Denver's SOS has improved for five straight years, and I believe seven of the last eight. Every year they schedule harder and do BETTER.

If you draw a chart of every statistical measure that is important for a basketball team, Loyola is trending downwards, and Denver is trending upwards. The strengths of Loyola are also strengths of Denver (market size, endowment, etc.). Do you need me to continue? Literally, I will draw a chart for you if you need pictures >=)

I'm not being biased against them ... Wichita State was irrelevant from the late 80s until the early 2000s as well. Obviously not being relevant in basketball shouldn't be held against them. But even when Wichita was bad, we had statistical measures that documented our ability to eventually make a quick turnaround -- namely fan support. And even then it took a talented head coach who is now coaching at Maryland six seasons to make the turnaround. Loyola has nothing but a large endowment, which tons of very bad basketball schools also have, what appears to be a dedication to creating the weakest OOC schedule in the Valley and finding new and creative measures to make it even worse every single season, and a mediocre head coach who has already failed at one Valley school.

[Western4Life]

If I was a betting man I'd put $ on Denver joining. There are 8 baseball teams now with Loyola and CU swapping spots so the need for baseball wouldn't be there. It is clear DU cares about sports and I feel the MVC makes the most sense for them.

Ya know who may like the Loyola name... and addition... SLU and Dayton or even Detroit. While I believe they will go to the Big East the similarities are impossible to ignore. Why isn't Detroit being mentioned more? They weren't visited right? I see they don't offer baseball either just FYI (dropped it in 2004). I could see them adding it to address membership though.

Loyola... IN

12... Dreaming some SLU/Dayton... Contenders DU, Belmont... Others worth mentioning Detroit, UIC, Murray St., Valpo, & last + least ORU.... Bad joke UMKC