Is the Valley a 1-bid conference now?

[unipanther99]

Go back a quarter century and list all the teams that got at large bids from the Valley that will be members next year and not named Wichita State. SIU is going to have a few (because of Creighton mind you) and UNI has a couple. You can say it's about winning games but there are facts and there is hope. The facts are that every other program in the valley not named Wichita State doesn't invest in their program enough to develop a product that has anything more than a pie in the sky dream of getting an at large.

UNI received at large bids in 2005 and 2006, and definitely would have received an at large in 2009 and 2010 if they hadn't won the tournament championship. Drake definitely would have had an at-large in 2008 as well, if needed.

I don't buy this "nobody else invests in their program" line of thinking. New facilities have been built at UNI, MSU, and for Evansville. SIU has completed a complete renovation of theirs. Coaching salaries have increased significantly. Sure, Wichita State has a tremendous head start thanks to their funding, but just about every other Valley team has stepped it up in one way or another lately.

[TylerDurden]

For the record, here are the at-large bids since 1988 for members that will be in the league not named WSU. If I missed one, my apologies:

1996 Bradley
1999 Evansville, Missouri State
2000 Indiana State
2002 Southern Illinois
2003 Southern Illlinois
2004 Southern Illinois
2005 Southern Illinois, UNI
2006 Bradley, UNI
2007 Southern Illinois

Six different schools, not including WSU have earned at large bids during that time. Also for the record, WSU has at-large bids in 1988, 2006, 2012 and 2013. Those are the only NCAA bids during that time for WSU.

15 of the years since 1988 have been multi-bid years for the MVC, with every team in the league earning at least one NCAA berth.

Total NCAA bids by teams still in the league since 1988 (again, I may have missed one):

Bradley - 1988, 1996, 2006 (3)
Drake - 2008 (1)
Evansville - 1999 (1)
Illinois State - 1990, 1997, 1998 (3)
Indiana State - 2000, 2001, 2011 (3)
Missouri State - 1992, 1999 (2)
UNI - 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010 (5)
Southern Illinois - 1993, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 (9)
Wichita State - 1988, 2006, 2012, 2013 (4)

[shockem]

Thw Valley is very unique in that every team has been to the tournament in the near past. Not many conferences can say that. I don't think we're a 1 bid conference going forward. Hopefully WSU can stay at or near the top, but other teams will have their days and we all know WSU's history in St. Louis.

[Mikovio]

If he was arguing geography, he was lobbying for ORU, definitely not UMKC. It's embarrassing to this conference that UMKC was even considered.

Denver would also be significantly closer to Wichita than Chicago.

Oral Roberts would have easily been worse than UMKC. It would have gone belly up 5 years ago but for the Hobby Lobby founder stepping in to pay off their debt, and the tales of corruption coming out of that school the last few years have been bizarre.

Denver would have been a great choice, as would have UW-Milwaukee in my opinion. I'm left wondering why UW-M wasn't given serious consideration.

Not trying to pick on any one person or fan base, but this is stupid.

Of course programs want to get better. Wanting to do something and actually doing it are 2 entirely different things.

Go back a quarter century and list all the teams that got at large bids from the Valley that will be members next year and not named Wichita State. SIU is going to have a few (because of Creighton mind you) and UNI has a couple. You can say it's about winning games but there are facts and there is hope. The facts are that every other program in the valley not named Wichita State doesn't invest in their program enough to develop a product that has anything more than a pie in the sky dream of getting an at large.

If you count the $100 million Bradley has poured into athletics related facilities the last 3 or so years (including a dedicated mens basketball practice facility), BU is far and away investing the most into their program.

[Sir Sci]

Thw Valley is very unique in that every team has been to the tournament in the near past. Not many conferences can say that. I don't think we're a 1 bid conference going forward. Hopefully WSU can stay at or near the top, but other teams will have their days and we all know WSU's history in St. Louis.

This is true. Heck, even the Big Ten has Northwestern which has never been to the tourney (not that there aren't years they could have been in it). Sure, it's an academic powerhouse doesn't focus quite as much on athletics, but Stanford still manages to be successful.

[rlh04d]

If he was arguing geography, he was lobbying for ORU, definitely not UMKC. It's embarrassing to this conference that UMKC was even considered.

Denver would also be significantly closer to Wichita than Chicago.

Oral Roberts would have easily been worse than UMKC. It would have gone belly up 5 years ago but for the Hobby Lobby founder stepping in to pay off their debt, and the tales of corruption coming out of that school the last few years have been bizarre.

Denver would have been a great choice, as would have UW-Milwaukee in my opinion. I'm left wondering why UW-M wasn't given serious consideration.

Not denying your point about ORU, but also ... does it matter? If ORU came in and contributed in basketball for three years, and then went bankrupt, we just replace them. I don't really see the negative to the Valley. Obviously the Presidents would prefer long term programs, but I don't really see how it hurts us if they were only a member for a few years.

UW-Milwaukee would have been a decent choice. I'm not sure they'd be much better than Loyola, but they'd at least be a new market.

[rlh04d]

Regardless of who we have in the conference it is all about scheduling up and winning some games. People said the same thing when Tulsa left and here we are now with teams making Sweet 16 and Final Four runs. We will be fine...all about winning games.

Completely agree.

The MVC has plenty of programs that are capable of competing for at-large bids on a consistent basis. SIU and MSU both were a couple years ago. Programs just need to get better, and pretty sure that's the goal for all programs. There was a long time when Wichita State and Creighton weren't competing for at-larges...people need to step off the ledge, the league will be just fine.

Not trying to pick on any one person or fan base, but this is stupid.

Of course programs want to get better. Wanting to do something and actually doing it are 2 entirely different things.

Go back a quarter century and list all the teams that got at large bids from the Valley that will be members next year and not named Wichita State. SIU is going to have a few (because of Creighton mind you) and UNI has a couple. You can say it's about winning games but there are facts and there is hope. The facts are that every other program in the valley not named Wichita State doesn't invest in their program enough to develop a product that has anything more than a pie in the sky dream of getting an at large.

At-large bids is a poor measure. I'd just say teams that had NCAA tournament at-large resumes in general, whether they got the auto-bid or went to the NIT, because the standards for the tournament change from year to year based on competition.

SIU wins any comparison of the last 25 years, though, and it's not close.

[Wufan]

Here's my take:

The more you invest, the greater your chances of success and sustained success. I don't think many disagree.

For those that do not invest financially in their program, they have to hope that they capture lightening in a bottle (Keno Davis, Ben Jacobson, Steve Alford). In a conference, it is not infrequent, but as an institution it can be decades.

The key to the Valley's success is for WSU and Bradley to invest heavily to compete on a national stage. From there, we can hope that one of them is consistently in the top 50. Next, UNI needs to maintain BJ as he keeps them competitive. A fourth team (any one is as good as the next) needs to capture that next great coach and ride him for a few years.

If all of that occurs, then the Valley can maintain its status quo over the past 20 years (which was the last time the membership changed).

[siufan4life]

To all of the people worrying about Loyola ruining everyone's RPI. SIU played a dog crap non-conference schedule and still had a top 200 RPI.

[rlh04d]

To all of the people worrying about Loyola ruining everyone's RPI. SIU played a dog crap non-conference schedule and still had a top 200 RPI.

True, but Loyola's noncon SOS was still nearly 30 ranking spots worse than SIU's. Only MoSt is close, and Loyola was still worse. Loyola had the 5th worst noncon SOS in D1 basketball.

Although Loyola at least beat the teams on their terrible noncon schedule, unlike MoSt

The problem isn't with having an RPI as bad as they will. It's that it's compounded by swapping a top 25 RPI for an RPI around 200. Creighton and WSU had RPIs high enough to make up for SIU and MoSt's being terrible. If all of our teams but Loyola are top 150, it won't be a big deal ... but I'm not confident that happens.