Valley looking to improve scheduling - new Bracketbusters?

by **MVCfans** » July 12th, 2013, 6:19 am

On espn today:

Missouri Valley commissioner Doug Elgin said there is no commitment from the Mountain West conference to renew the MWC-MVC challenge. The Valley needs a conference-wide challenge to lock in a quality nonconference game for every team (at least almost every squad). The Valley lost BracketBusters, which provided a significant chance at a quality power-rating game. Elgin said he's hopeful there will be something in its place in the near future (not next season), with some of the best teams from a smaller number of conferences than were in BracketBuster.

**Sponsor**

by **bigdawg** » July 12th, 2013, 7:04 am

Is there any way for the mvc to avoid a pretty substantial conference rpi drop this season? Losing good non conference games and Creighton departing is going to kill our league numbers.

by **LanceShock** » July 12th, 2013, 7:06 am

One thing that should help is that I doubt anyone will have the absolute train wreck of a nonconference schedule that Missouri State did last year. At least I hope not.

by **TheAsianSensation** » July 12th, 2013, 8:27 am

I'd like to hear definitive word on if we've pursued a WCC/MVC challenge. I could see Gonzaga completely balk at it and single-handidly hold it up, though. However, it's just so obvious to pair us together for a challenge. Our top teams get a good resume game and everyone else gets some exposure in a new place.

I hope we don't try a mini-BB where we involve a few other teams/conferences. That's what BracketBuster was originally - then everyone else wanted a piece, and it ballooned. Don't start a new challenge with more than one conference. Don't start a new challenge where only some teams from a conference are brought in. Otherwise, other teams start to knock on the door and demand in, and we end up with bloat.

by **RoyalShock** » July 12th, 2013, 9:37 am

TheAsianSensation wrote:I'd like to hear definitive word on if we've pursued a WCC/MVC challenge. I could see Gonzaga completely balk at it and single-handidly hold it up, though. However, it's just so obvious to pair us together for a challenge. Our top teams get a good resume game and everyone else gets some exposure in a new place.

I hope we don't try a mini-BB where we involve a few other teams/conferences. That's what BracketBuster was originally - then everyone else wanted a piece, and it ballooned. Don't start a new challenge with more than one conference. Don't start a new challenge where only some teams from a conference are brought in. Otherwise, other teams start to knock on the door and demand in, and we end up with bloat.

This. +1. x2. ^2. Infinity. Infinity x 2. Pickle roll.

by **Redbird23** » July 12th, 2013, 9:56 am

One thing I didn't like about the MVC/MWC was who played who.

by **agrinut** » July 12th, 2013, 10:20 am

Redbird23 wrote:One thing I didn't like about the MVC/MWC was who played who.

What do you mean who played who? You were unhappy with the games in general or just ISUr's opponents.

by **AngryWheat=FTW=** » July 12th, 2013, 4:17 pm

I would like to see us start a challenge with the A-10. It would be great exposure for Wichita State on the east coast. The east coast is where it's at.

by **Ace Dad** » July 12th, 2013, 4:21 pm

AngryWheat=FTW= wrote:I would like to see us start a challenge with the A-10. It would be great exposure for Wichita State on the east coast. The east coast is where it's at.

East coast is all about the media.

by **rlh04d** » July 12th, 2013, 5:50 pm

TheAsianSensation wrote:I'd like to hear definitive word on if we've pursued a WCC/MVC challenge. I could see Gonzaga completely balk at it and single-handidly hold it up, though. However, it's just so obvious to pair us together for a challenge. Our top teams get a good resume game and everyone else gets some exposure in a new place.

I hope we don't try a mini-BB where we involve a few other teams/conferences. That's what BracketBuster was originally - then everyone else wanted a piece, and it ballooned. Don't start a new challenge with more than one conference. Don't start a new challenge where only some teams from a conference are brought in. Otherwise, other teams start to knock on the door and demand in, and we end up with bloat.

I don't see the problem with a BB similar arrangement IF it's limited to the top teams. Whether teams knock on the door demanding in or not is irrelevant ... it's the opening up the door that's the problem. An arrangement between a number of conferences that limits participation to top 100 RPI teams as of a certain cut off date -- I can't imagine a problem with that. Is there any legal obligation to throw it open to everyone?

I'd be happy with a WCC challenge or an A-10 challenge.