frankthetank wrote: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.
I know Murray State is an easy example of a anti-Loyola, but I think other schools could be the best of both worlds. I probably should have spent less time rambling and more time on this. Basically, you have Loyola. Good historical success, big market, and lots of money, but lacking in fan support and success in most of the modern era of basketball. I'll ignore the whole "they just add more Illinois schools" angle and go straight to the chase.
The schools that would have been perfectly acceptable additions were Denver, Belmont, and probably Valparaiso. You could even argue for UIC or Detroit. But let's focus on Denver, Belmont and Valparaiso.
Denver doesn't have historical basketball success. They just don't. 0 NCAA bids in school history. So historically, they have nothing on Loyola. They do have significant success in other sports, but those are not sponsored Valley sports. However, their recent performance (21-9 this year, decent RPI) and success in other sports, along with continued improvement make me believe they will be able to compete. From the human capitol standpoint, they bring basically the same package that Loyola would bring in a state that we don't have any member schools in.
Belmont, on the other hand, is a team with 6 NCAA tournaments in the last decade. They've improved as a program significantly in that time, and their 5 year RPI would be third in the league (with a big jump to fourth). They also bring a big market in a new state.
Finally, Valparaiso. Sweet 16 in 98, 8 NCAA tournaments in the last 17 years. They probably don't draw much from the Chicago market (1 hour away), but I they'd at least deliver some of the same benefits.
Basically, what I'm saying is that there ARE options between Murray State and Loyola-Chicago. These schools would be met with open arms and happiness, because many would feel they would immediately improve the Valley to where it could be competitive with the A10. The big advantage of Belmont and Denver, in particular is that it would broaden the conference base instead of focusing it in the Is (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa). That means schools would spend more on travel, but the conference would have a broader recruiting base and could potentially have more range in finding other schools if we keep seeing defections.
I don't know whether those schools truly considered the MVC or not. They may still be options, for all I know. I just saying that we feel those schools would represent Loyola's main advantage AND have significantly better basketball. The fact the Loyola is in the MVC and the others are not seems to say that Loyola's other advantage outweighed the basketball. What other incentive? Travel.
And that is part of the reason the addition seems cheap. Our travel budgets are apparently so small, we can't afford to pay for good basketball AND good markets, so we sacrificed basketball to gain a few hundred miles of travel. That may or may not be true, but that part of the perception of the Loyola hire.
Again, I don't know if the MVC is done or not. If we get Belmont and Denver as well, it would more than make up for the problems that Loyola brings on the basketball court. Don't get me wrong; the 5-year RPIs suggest the A10 will still be significantly stronger (.5386 to .5197), but at least we'd feel a little more separation between us and the Horizon League/C-USA. There is no reward for being the best 1-big conference, so we'll have to have members that can at least get bids. With Belmont, the MVC would have 3 programs that are all within the top 60 teams over a 5-year period. Denver would be another program like Illinois State, MSU, or Bradley (could win the conference on a good year). That way we wouldn't need Loyola to be successful for the conference to stay relatively strong, and they could join Bradley and SIU in the "big potential if they get their s*** together" depths of the conference.
So from Wichita State's perspective, we'd be fine with certain schools that could immediately help us and raise the level of basketball in the conference. Yes, that will help us keep our coach and perhaps will keep our profile high enough to leave the conference. However, those schools will help keep the Valley competitive regardless of whether Wichita State leaves or not, and don't want to be left in the Horizon League v2.
