Welcome Loyola

[Baabaabooee]

I can tell you that Denver wanted into the Valley but not under the terms that were laid out in the initial conversations. Those included paying a fee that would offset travel there and starting baseball. I am looking out my window just outside Denver watching the snow fall and can say with a pretty high level of certainty that the weather here is not conducive to having a successful baseball program.

But DU is probably more successful in the sports they sponsor than any current Valley program. They have won two hockey championships in the past 10 years and are currently 3rd in the nation in Lacrosse. I think they have 28 National titles in all. Their priority over the past several years has been to build their basketball program. I think they are the most attractive potential member out there.

[frankthetank]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

[Sir Sci]

I can tell you that Denver wanted into the Valley but not under the terms that were laid out in the initial conversations. Those included paying a fee that would offset travel there and starting baseball. I am looking out my window just outside Denver watching the snow fall and can say with a pretty high level of certainty that the weather here is not conducive to having a successful baseball program.

But DU is probably more successful in the sports they sponsor than any current Valley program. They have won two hockey championships in the past 10 years and are currently 3rd in the nation in Lacrosse. I think they have 28 National titles in all. Their priority over the past several years has been to build their basketball program. I think they are the most attractive potential member out there.

That's really interesting that the Valley requested Denver to start a baseball team (and you're right that it would make no sense for Denver to do so). That makes me wonder if Loyola will be starting a baseball team.

[TylerDurden]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

This might be the best first post ever on this site.

[DUShock]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

This might be the best first post ever on this site.

I agree.

Go Valley!

Go Shocks!!

[Sir Sci]

Thanks frank, that's a very insightful post and I appreciate it.

[flybird1]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

Agreed, if we want to be a power in the midwest, having a presence in Chicago is a no-brainer. There is no doubt this strengthens the conference longterm. Wise and insightfull post, I think that even our freinds in Wichita see merit in this.

[TheDrake]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

Great post. Thanks for the perspective.

[Dean Wormer]

I'm a fairly neutral visitor here as someone that writes a blog focused on conference realignment (Frank the Tank's Slant). To the extent I have any personal connection to the MVC candidates, it's that my parents attended UIC. However, I'm an Illinois alum and Big Ten guy, so that's where my viewpoint is really rooted. So, here are some outside thoughts on what I observe with the MVC:

(1) Demographics, demographics, demographics - Perusing this message board over the past few weeks, I don't know if a lot of MVC fans quite realize that the #1 problem for their conference is NOT about replacing Creighton on-the-court, but rather addressing its demographics problem off-the-court. Sure, if there was a school like Creighton with legitimately top tier basketball success out there that sold 15,000 seats per game, then you grab that school even if it's located in North Dakota. However, that candidate never realistically existed for the MVC. As a result, the single most glaring problem for the MVC is its demographic footprint: it's AWFUL to the point that it might be the worst in all of Division I sports besides possibly the Big Sky. I'm not exaggerating. It's effectively the same footprint that forced the Big 8 to add Texas/A&M/Baylor/Texas Tech in the 1990s due to demographic concerns that were already rearing its head back then and why the Big 12 got raided first to kick off the nationwide conference realignment changes. A Midwestern conference that doesn't even include Chicago or Minneapolis (the two areas in the middle of the country that are actually adding population at a decent clip) cannot work going forward. That has nothing to do with whether the MVC fan bases are good or not (generally speaking, they're actually very good compared to most other conferences), but simply the demographics of the league are unsustainable long-term.

This isn't just about TV deals. I see a lot of criticisms that Loyola doesn't get any TV coverage in Chicago, which is a valid concern. However, it's much deeper than that. It's about basketball recruiting for the long-term. Even bigger, it's about where the non-athlete students that are paying tuition are coming from. Think about it this way: the state of Illinois is the #2 exporter of students to out-of-state colleges in the country after New Jersey, and most of those students happen to be from the Chicago area specifically. You don't think the university presidents that are facing budget crunches are looking at that? Further to that...

(2) Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago - I've seen several comments about how Loyola is another "Illinois" school, which is perplexing to me as a native. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market except in the case of the University of Illinois (which is the flagship school). Otherwise, there are effectively two states: Chicagoland and Downstate Illinois. Illinois State, Bradley and SIU have a lot (if not a majority) of their students coming from and alumni living in the Chicago area (which is a good thing as I'll get to in a moment), but they are not actually located in the Chicago market, which puts a limit as to how much coverage they (and by extension, the MVC) could ever receive there. Loyola gives that direct presence, which is important because...

(3) Network Effects - Loyola doesn't have to "deliver" Chicago to be effective for the MVC. Instead, its role is to be a vessel for all of those MVC alums from ISU, Bradley, SUI, Drake, UNI, etc. that disproportionately live in the Chicago area. The MVC won't ever be as popular as Illinois/Big Ten or DePaul in the Chicago market, but it can absolutely be as popular as the Atlantic 10 is in the Philadelphia market, which is worth a LOT LOT LOT more than chasing after a short-term RPI buoy in a tiny market (e.g. Murray State) or even going after schools in good sized markets that don't give you the network effects of other preexisting MVC fans/alums (e.g. Belmont or Denver).

(4) Take a step back - When you take a step back and understand the MVC's demographic disadvantages, you start realizing why the options for the league aren't going to be the same as they are for the Atlantic 10 (which was able to "backfill" with two pretty good programs in George Mason and Davidson). Even if SLU doesn't get a Big East invite, for instance (which, IMHO, is just a matter of time), the A-10's demographic and academic profile is so much farther ahead of the MVC that no university president that's looking at his/her school as a whole would realistically choose the MVC over the A-10. What the MVC has to guard against is that, in 10 years, it's not just the A-10 that has the advantage among the midmajor conferences. If leagues like the Colonial, Southern and Atlantic Sun that are in much faster growing footprints and more direct access to top basketball talent start passing the MVC by, then *that's* the real danger. This means the MVC needs to get into a megamarket like Chicago if it wants any chance of moving further eastward long-term (where there are a lot more quality non-FBS basketball schools in desirable locations compared to the west).

(5) Don't worry about what Wichita State wants - This might seem strange to say considering that they just made the Final Four, but the demographic issue of the MVC overall also applies to Wichita State at a micro level. I see a lot of "This is going to make Wichita State mad!" concerns.

Here is the first reality: if Wichita State were to get an invite to the MWC, AAC or A-10, they would leave. There is no realistic addition to the MVC that would prevent that from occurring. Heck, I'm sure Wichita State is actively calling around to those leagues as we speak.

However, here is the second reality: none of those conferences want Wichita State. No FBS conference is going to voluntarily become a hybrid again (with the exception of the ACC's deal with Notre Dame because it's freaking Notre Dame) and the A-10's choices of Davidson and George Mason show that it knows that, at the very least, SLU is going to be gone in the long-term and that they're not going further west. It's doesn't matter what Wichita State wants - they have very little control over their conference destiny despite the Final Four run. From a conference realignment standpoint, they are going to be looked at as a George Mason-type school in a much worse location. That might not be fair, but that's the reality when demographics aren't in your favor.

You've seen me say demographics about a gazillion times in this post, but as someone that has studied and written about conference realignment for the past several years from the very top (the Big Ten and SEC) down to the lowest leagues on the totem pole, it is the #1 factor in expansion as a general matter. Once again, if you get a legit football power like Nebraska or a top tier basketball fan base like Creighton (interestingly enough located very close to each other), then you can overlook a small market. By and large, though, university presidents don't see much difference between the RPIs of, say, Murray State versus Loyola, so they're judged on a relatively equal playing field. All things being equal, you virtually always take the school that's located in the best market.

This might be the best first post ever on this site.

No might, it WAS the best first post ever...thanks for bringing some intelligence to this conversation. Please come back.

[frankthetank]

Thanks for the positive comments. And look, I completely understand any consternation over a school like Loyola as a sports fan. We don't pay to buy tickets to watch accountants compare athletic department income statements and balance sheets. Similarly, exchanging Ohio State football and Indiana basketball games for Rutgers coming to town isn't thrilling as an Illini fan. However, part of what makes a conference strong for fans in the long-term is ensuring that there are continued pipelines to talent, which generally means that you need to move to where the population bases are moving. The worst thing that any conference can do is make decisions based on short-term performance because that's the most highly variable factor of them all. Location is the one thing that never changes. If you're a university president, you have to think about whether a candidate still brings value when it has an 0-18 conference record (not just when it has Sweet Sixteen or Final Four runs). Every program, even the greatest ones like Kentucky, Indiana and UCLA, will have down periods, so the floor value of a school means just as much (if not more) as the ceiling.