Welcome Loyola

[unipanther99]

I really hope adding a baseball team is not a condition the Valley is requesting for membership. I would much rather the money be put into the sport that drives this conference.

[Sir Sci]

I really hope adding a baseball team is not a condition the Valley is requesting for membership. I would much rather the money be put into the sport that drives this conference.

Money IS going to basketball, that's a given. Baseball is rather important in this conference, though.

[TheAsianSensation]

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.

Very solid perspective. In retrospect, my view slanted toward the idea of accepting that our demographics are bad and working on the other aspects of the conference instead.

What I'm curious to your thought on is the next step - we make the commitment to Chicago, but what's the next step, or is there a next step to, furthering the fix. As great as the Chicago market is to demographics, I don't think it's enough on its own to fix the problem, making this move feel more like a band-aid.

[lurkingdog]

You reposted that flatulence in two different threads? You were gassy enough all by yourself. Please take a long vacation.

[frankthetank]

Very solid perspective. In retrospect, my view slanted toward the idea of accepting that our demographics are bad and working on the other aspects of the conference instead.

What I'm curious to your thought on is the next step - we make the commitment to Chicago, but what's the next step, or is there a next step to, furthering the fix. As great as the Chicago market is to demographics, I don't think it's enough on its own to fix the problem, making this move feel more like a band-aid.

Well, that's a good question and it's somewhat unanswerable. The MVC can address demographic issues via expansion on paper. That might mean hyperfocusing on the Chicago market even further (e.g. UIC and Valpo) and/or looking toward other options in good sized markets (e.g. Denver, Belmont, Detroit). This is all fairly tangible. What no one can really tell you is the secret sauce into how quickly (or if it will ever) translate into success on-the-court. Facilities are a tangible way of *attempting* to project future success, although it's not a guarantee. Fan base size is also another indicator. The overarching point is that past on-the-court/field records are generally highly overrated by fans in conference realignment while factors like market size, academics and cultural fit are typically underrated. Just like any business looking to acquire a company, a conference is looking at future potential of success more than past performance (although past performance is certainly a factor).

Another angle to this: expectations simply have to be adjusted for every conference outside of the 5 power football conferences and the Big East. What you have seen is a consolidation of the best football and basketball programs into those 6 leagues. There are a handful of outliers (e.g. Gonzaga, UConn), but they are spread out among different leagues. As a result of that consolidation, EVERY conference besides those 6 leagues is going to be worse in basketball going forward. So, the thought that the MVC can really improve upon over what it was over the past 5 seasons or even match it is simply an unrealistic proposition. People need to give up thinking that can happen. It doesn't matter who the MVC adds right now - whoever it is will pale in comparison to Creighton. Therefore, the focus should really be on how the MVC can maintain its position *relative* to the other midmajor conferences. Remember that the leagues behind the MVC are going to get worse, too. S**t rolls downhill in conference realignment. The sky might feel like it's falling, but the MVC can take solace that, as of now, it's a bit further up the hill than everyone other than the 6 power conferences and maybe the MWC and A-10.

For on-the-court performance, the best potential for the MVC isn't through expansion, but rather the well-funded programs like Bradley and SIU starting to play up to their potential again. If that can happen, then that maximizes the advantage of having access to the brighter lights in Chicago (or maybe Denver or Nashville down the road).

[Western4Life]

It is disappointing not to see quality option into the Twin Cities market to add. The comments regarding demographics are dead on which is a huge obstacle as a Western fan. Peoria doesn't sell any better nationally but it can sustain a solid mid major like most of the MVC cities.

12 members allows for DU to get in the mix without adding baseball IMO. I really like them as an addition but aside from asking for cash considerations for travel (SL didn't need to do that) I think baseball is a major stretch in Denver.

With the choice of one school addition addressed (quality choice) it seems the MVC won't be making any more moves until the Big East finishes moving. That would be best and seeing what the eastern BE schools want for additions will be interesting versus the Mid-West schools. I read Georgetown mentioned as wanting a Richmond or another eastern option. If that would free up the chance to add Dayton or SLU (I'd think they both go to the BE but never say never) DU would be fine to add without baseball in combination. DU is a solid option that competes nationally, they can use their brand to have success in hoops IMO. Campus is legit and pot is legal in CO.

[CBB_Fan]

Frank the Tank's perspective is a very interesting one. In regards to the power conferences (B1G, SEC, Pac 12, ACC, Big 12), it is absolutely spot on. The only problem I have is that I don't think it works as well if you try and extend the relationships down to the level of the MVC.

Most power conferences teams fit one of two profiles. They are either state flagship institutions, or very rich private schools. Large, population rich states tend to be able to support more power conference teams. Sometimes a state's population is so small that it cannot support a single power conference team (ie low population density states like Montana and small states like New Hampshire).

For universities, people are power. More precisely, people represent a form of human capital. One way this is expressed is through students. Domestic students can either come from in-state or from out of state. In-state students are hard to change because state power structures generally are fairly stable, and population growth cannot be changed by the university. Out of state students, on the other hand, can be directed to your school through your institutional profile (sports, majors available, private/public, religious affiliation, and areas of research). Student-athletes are also a big portion of that.

So yes, demographics are important. But I don't they work in the same way for power conferences and mid-majors. Yes, the demographics in the MVC suck. But the solution is not to try to capitalize on all the untapped markets by adding Loyola, UMKC, IUPUI, Detroit, and Nebraska-Omaha. Yes, those schools represent an untapped market of 5 million people in largest metropolitan areas of the Midwest, but those schools do not have the resources to adequately utilize that human capitol.

The MVC doesn't have options that have great basketball, great academics, large populations, and strong utilization of their human capitol (ie, can attract students/athletes, increase student body size, get large donations from the alumni-base, etc.). So you have to pick your poison. Adding Loyola does help demographics from a sheer population standpoint, but it yet to be seen whether they can utilize the Chicago advantage or help other MVC schools utilize it.

However, if the MVC adds schools without the basketball prowess necessary to compete in the conference you directly impact the basketball futures of every team in the conference. The MVC has been the "small markets, decent teams" conference for the better part of the last 50 years, as many big market teams left the conference (Louisville, Memphis State, and Cincinnati most notably). If you hurt the basketball standing of the conference, you knock out its only really calling card, and instead of being bad markets, good teams, it is bad markets, bad teams. It isn't that simple, but that is the general idea.

Large, flagships institutions have no such barriers to entry. They utilize nearly 100% of their available human capitol, which is why that human capitol is so important. But for smaller schools and conferences, the question of utilization becomes a big factor in these realignment circumstances. No school in the MVC is going to capture the majority of its local market, generate huge TV audiences, or dominate recruiting beds in MVC areas. So adding a team that gives you extra human capitol can give you much smaller results than you are expecting. Even in regards to the smaller conferences, the MVC has relied much more on basketball success and optimum utilization of human resources than the other small conferences.

On a different note, I find it strange that you consider Creighton so different from the other teams in the MVC (specifically, Wichita State). Wichita State has 100+ consecutive games with over 10,000 in attendance, and in all likelihood makes nearly as much money from ticket sales (and related costs) as Creighton does because of the much higher cost per ticket (most of which comes from required donations to SASO to get season tickets).

[matter_of_fact]

"but the MVC can take solace that, as of now, it's a bit further up the hill than everyone other than the 6 power conferences and maybe the MWC and A-10."

The American Athletic Conference (old Big East) loses DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Syracuse and Villanova for next BB season. I don't think the addition of Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, S.M.U. and Temple will be enough to keep that as one of the “power” BB conferences.

[MVCfans]

"but the MVC can take solace that, as of now, it's a bit further up the hill than everyone other than the 6 power conferences and maybe the MWC and A-10."

The American Athletic Conference (old Big East) loses DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Providence, St. John’s, Seton Hall, Syracuse and Villanova for next BB season. I don't think the addition of Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, S.M.U. and Temple will be enough to keep that as one of the “power” BB conferences.

They do return the national champion, however. At least for 1 more year.

[frankthetank]

Frank the Tank's perspective is a very interesting one. In regards to the power conferences (B1G, SEC, Pac 12, ACC, Big 12), it is absolutely spot on. The only problem I have is that I don't think it works as well if you try and extend the relationships down to the level of the MVC.

Most power conferences teams fit one of two profiles. They are either state flagship institutions, or very rich private schools. Large, population rich states tend to be able to support more power conference teams. Sometimes a state's population is so small that it cannot support a single power conference team (ie low population density states like Montana and small states like New Hampshire).

For universities, people are power. More precisely, people represent a form of human capital. One way this is expressed is through students. Domestic students can either come from in-state or from out of state. In-state students are hard to change because state power structures generally are fairly stable, and population growth cannot be changed by the university. Out of state students, on the other hand, can be directed to your school through your institutional profile (sports, majors available, private/public, religious affiliation, and areas of research). Student-athletes are also a big portion of that.

So yes, demographics are important. But I don't they work in the same way for power conferences and mid-majors. Yes, the demographics in the MVC suck. But the solution is not to try to capitalize on all the untapped markets by adding Loyola, UMKC, IUPUI, Detroit, and Nebraska-Omaha. Yes, those schools represent an untapped market of 5 million people in largest metropolitan areas of the Midwest, but those schools do not have the resources to adequately utilize that human capitol.

The MVC doesn't have options that have great basketball, great academics, large populations, and strong utilization of their human capitol (ie, can attract students/athletes, increase student body size, get large donations from the alumni-base, etc.). So you have to pick your poison. Adding Loyola does help demographics from a sheer population standpoint, but it yet to be seen whether they can utilize the Chicago advantage or help other MVC schools utilize it.

However, if the MVC adds schools without the basketball prowess necessary to compete in the conference you directly impact the basketball futures of every team in the conference. The MVC has been the "small markets, decent teams" conference for the better part of the last 50 years, as many big market teams left the conference (Louisville, Memphis State, and Cincinnati most notably). If you hurt the basketball standing of the conference, you knock out its only really calling card, and instead of being bad markets, good teams, it is bad markets, bad teams. It isn't that simple, but that is the general idea.

Large, flagships institutions have no such barriers to entry. They utilize nearly 100% of their available human capitol, which is why that human capitol is so important. But for smaller schools and conferences, the question of utilization becomes a big factor in these realignment circumstances. No school in the MVC is going to capture the majority of its local market, generate huge TV audiences, or dominate recruiting beds in MVC areas. So adding a team that gives you extra human capitol can give you much smaller results than you are expecting. Even in regards to the smaller conferences, the MVC has relied much more on basketball success and optimum utilization of human resources than the other small conferences.

On a different note, I find it strange that you consider Creighton so different from the other teams in the MVC (specifically, Wichita State). Wichita State has 100+ consecutive games with over 10,000 in attendance, and in all likelihood makes nearly as much money from ticket sales (and related costs) as Creighton does because of the much higher cost per ticket (most of which comes from required donations to SASO to get season tickets).

Interesting points. I think the major factor is that in the scheme of things, the gaps between the realistic MVC candidates in terms of "basketball prowess" was relatively small compared to the gaps on other factors such as demographics, TV market size and facilities. As I've said before, if there was a school that was clearly far and away going away the best basketball program, then that would have been an easier decision. That just wasn't the case, though. Would Murray State (and I don't mean to pick on them, but they come to mind as kind of the anti-Loyola here) have truly improved the long-term (not just short-term) basketball standing of the MVC? Are they so much better than Loyola that you can overlook their tiny market? Maybe or maybe not, but conference decisions can't simply be made on who had the best RPI last year or even the past 5 years. That would apply to either the power conferences or the midmajor leagues.

At the same time, you're correct that the "human capital" aspect is critical. The thing is that you have much more access to the human capital that you're most concerned about (basketball prowess) in larger markets, and that's actually becoming increasingly the case (as more people move out of rural and even smaller urban metros and are concentrating themselves in the largest metros). We see it very directly applied to basketball - there are likely more Division I basketball recruits in the Chicago area alone than pretty much the rest of the MVC footprint combined. Being able to sell a recruit on being able to play a game at home at least once per year has long been an effective tool to attract talent. At the same time, when a lot of young people avoided going to college in cities 3 decades ago, a league like the MVC could use its non-urban locales almost to an advantage. Now, though, it's a distinct disadvantage as students (whether athletes or just the general student population) increasingly want to live in urban environments. That's a cultural shift that's accelerating and by the time it becomes a big-time problem visible to the average person, it's too late to change it. The university presidents already know it's coming - they see where their current students come from and know which schools they are losing students to.

So, I don't see basketball prowess and the demographic issues of the MVC as being mutually exclusive. Maybe it won't be evident in the next year or two, but sooner rather than later, those demographic issues (if not corrected) would directly affect that basketball prowess.