What if Creighton was still in the Valley...

[Wufan]

You're right KC. Thanks for sharing. Here's a nice pat on your back, and now this nice young lady is going to take you back to your room. Thanks for the $5.00 in the birthday card and we'll come visit real soon.

ANOTHER SOPMORE'S COMMENT.

If you can't refute or debate intelligently why waste your time making dumb comments.

WuFan. Just who is your team. I always assumed i'ts WSU--you know Wu--Wichita University. If so, why are you knocking me. If not a Shocker, then I will overlook your frequent dumb comments!

I am a Shocker fan. You make absolutely no sense. I have been totally ignoring your ignorant and asinine comments from the moment that you claimed that NAIA basketball was "good" basketball. From the time you stated that the Valley was never a good conference. You are either an idiot or a troll. I have nothing further to say to you.

[glm38]

KC Fan you are talking like WSU is some huge perennial power in the MVC? They are not. They have been very good over the last couple of years but they have had down years and once almost a whole decade of being mediocre.

They are currently the class of the MVC. No guarantee they stay there though and continue the level of dominance they currently have. And they haven't ever won St Louis so they aren't taking the auto bid.

And It's totally asinine to want them to leave even if they continue to dominate. They bring national attention, ncaa tournament $$, and even better attendance at the other Valley home games. If WSU left the Valley would survive but we would be greatly diminished.

[KC MVC FAN]

GLM38:

You are not reading what I wrote, or at least not understanding. I am not trying to hurt the MVC. Creighton out grew the MVC and moved on to a better conference. Certainly for the foreseeable future WSU is going to dominate, and hurt, the MVC. All other MVC teams can not afford for this domination to continue---the conference as a whole will go into freefall. The best move for the MVC, and for WSU, is for WSU to be gone (like Creighton). MVC could then offer membership to any number of good schools: maybe Valpo, Belmont, several other midwest teams,??????? . The MVC could rebuild, Loyola can build, a new school will bring new blood and the MVC could probably be back to a #11or 12 conference ranking in 2 years--with an automatic and highly possible at-large NCAA bids.

As for WuWuFAn, although I am an MSU fan, I have always supported WSU. I think every school in the MVC
(except maybe WSU (don't know what WSU was in the 40s, 50s etc.), was at one time a special NAIA/Small College/D2 basketball team, power, and champion. If you didn't do it (NAIA BB, played or a fan)don't 'knock it. Aren't you the guy who said he played an NAIA sport. A little confusing: you played a sport that the NAIA played, or you played on an NAIA school team in some sport. I think you said you did not play BB. If you did not play BB, you sure act like an expert). Me, I didn't play either---but I don't pretend to be an expert!

[glm38]

No kc fan I don't think I'm misunderstanding. I'll ask again: Why do you think WSU will continue to dominate the MVC? They have only dominated the last few years. SIU had a period of dominance and fell. WSU fans have a lot to be proud of but I'm sure most of them realize it won't last forever. WSU dominance simply isn't anything to worry about. At least not long term.

And no I didn't play b-ball at the college level. You have me mixed up with someone else.

[TheAsianSensation]

kc fan, your entire argument hinges on the concept that you can get at-large bids out of the #11 or 12 rated conference.

That's not gonna work. Historical trends make it pretty clear there's not enough quality wins available in that kind of conference.

[SHOXMVC]

I will agree with KC fAN on one regard...the NAIA does play quality sports period. I coached on that level, not basketball, and enjoyed my time greatly.

He is all wet in most all his other assessments, however. With the level of play WSU has displayed over the past few years, if they were all of a sudden gone, the MVC would not even almost be in a good situation to garner more than one spot in the dance.

[rlh04d]

How are people still reading KC's comments? I just auto skim past them. Everything he posts is insane.

[rlh04d]

I actually think WSU is in good shape against Florida because the SEC as a whole is in trouble. And I think 'Zone could legit run the table, but we'll set that aside for now.

I think your general mistake is you're doing the math from the perspective of the losses. That's part of the battle, but the other part is the quality wins. A Michigan St with 3 or 4 losses would mean they would have a treasure chest of quality wins. Same with Wisky.

If I had to guess who the 1 line will be, I'd put my money on a 31-2 Arizona, 29-4 Michigan St, 27-6 Kansas and....31-2 Wichita still. But they'll have to hold off Syracuse, any Big 12 team that emerges as a clear #2, any B1G team that emerges as a clear #2, or an outside run from Kentucky or Louisville which causes everyone to lose their sanity briefly.

Anyway, back to adult conversations ...

I think we can safely ignore Wisconsin for the one line for a while. They certainly don't look like one now.

Obviously the losses are only part of it, but I think the biggest impact on WSU will be their losses. They're going to have far more quality wins than us ... That's just insurmountable for WSU. We need to rely on a larger gap in losses. An undefeated season just doesn't happen, and I still think all hope for a one seed relies on it.

As for Arizona, they can certainly go undefeated, but I think it's important to note their schedule is backloaded with away games. They've only played four road games, winning three by single digits and two by four points or less. Meanwhile they have another seven road games in their last 12. Ucla is out of the way, and they miss Washington on the road, but they still have every other team in the top 10 of the conference to play. They have a long way to go against good competition still.

[DoubleJayAlum]

What happens if at the end of the season, WSU only has one top 50 win (SLU)? With BYU continuing to tank, this could actually happen (InSu and Tennessee keep bouncing right around the 50 mark).

I'm not the bracketologist that many of you are, but what is the highest seed a team with only one top 50 win has ever had? It would almost seem unprecedented for a protected seed team to only have one such win. Perhaps Murray St was somewhat similar?

[TheAsianSensation]

Anyway, back to adult conversations ...

I think we can safely ignore Wisconsin for the one line for a while. They certainly don't look like one now.

Obviously the losses are only part of it, but I think the biggest impact on WSU will be their losses. They're going to have far more quality wins than us ... That's just insurmountable for WSU. We need to rely on a larger gap in losses. An undefeated season just doesn't happen, and I still think all hope for a one seed relies on it.

As for Arizona, they can certainly go undefeated, but I think it's important to note their schedule is backloaded with away games. They've only played four road games, winning three by single digits and two by four points or less. Meanwhile they have another seven road games in their last 12. Ucla is out of the way, and they miss Washington on the road, but they still have every other team in the top 10 of the conference to play. They have a long way to go against good competition still.

I actually think WSU needs to play the Eye Test card the next couple of months. That'll be the biggest impact. Having the polls have them as a top 4 team is critical. The committee is more likely to throw all the metrics out the window if the polls have them on the 1 line.

The problem with relying on a gap in losses is who the losses are to. It's highly unlikely any of the 1 seed contenders will absorb a loss as bad as Wichita's loss against anyone left on their schedule. That reduces the gap a bit.