Improving the MVC

[rlh04d]

This is probably much more controversial than the scheduling mandate, but I'd also like a coaching mandate: a guaranteed minimum contract of $400,000-$500,000 for every newly signed MVC coach. Yes teams can be successful for less, but it is hard to stay consistently successful if your coach immediately leaves for greener pastures every time they have a good season.

High salaries do not equal success. Sure, it can help, but is by no means a guarantee. The second highest paid coach in the MVC is playing on Thursday night for the 3rd straight year.

I agree to an extent. But MVC teams need to be able to pay their coaches more.

If you can be pay your coach $200k and get a 3 seed, and the other team can pay $700k but play on Thursday night, you're definitely coming out ahead in the short term. But when you're looking at the next coach, a history of paying well will make coaches more likely to be interested in you. Saving money can hurt your program long term, regardless of what it looks like in an individual year.

And yes, there needs to be a scheduling mandate. If you aren't helping the conference get NCAA tournament bids because you'd rather win 3 games than 0, fine. But you don't get NCAA shares then. Money should be distributed to teams helping the conference.

[TheAsianSensation]

It's as simple as non-con SoS.

I'm not saying everyone has to be top 100. Just top 225 is enough. Just get to 225. Avoid 275, avoid 325. Just get to 225.

225 still seems low.

175 seems reasonable....

175 is the top half of all D-1. If everyone is average or better there are no problems at all. But it's ok to be a little below average. Way below average is what kills.

The reason I say 225 is because you can still get a lot of cupcake wins. Once you creep up into the 100s you start taking swing games that can cause issues.

[Aargh]

Scheduling doesn't matter if you lose all the games. SIU, Loyola, Bradley and Evansville had no business playing a top 50 schedule. An 0-13 Saluki team going into conference play does nothing to help the conference and it hurts the teams growth. I would expect the top 3-5 teams to schedule better but I don't expect it from the bottom.

This. +1,000,000

You don't schedule top-50 teams when you are potentially a top-150 team. Scheduling has to be done to give your team some hope and optimism going into league play. The conference doesn't become "better" just because the teams schedule tougher opponents, unless Valley teams beat those tougher opponents.

A commitment to excellence is required from top to bottom. It starts with the President, Chancellor, or whatever you call the guy on top. It extends down to the person who does the team laundry. It has to extend to alumni, boosters, and especially people willing to put their money behind their commitment to excellence.

It's an attitude that success in athletics leads to publicity for the school, which leads to more students being aware of the school, which leads to more applications for admission, which leads to higher enrollment, which leads to more resources for academics. Unless Valley administrators understand that athletics promote their academic programs, the resources for athletics may not ever be developed.

The President and Athletic Director at MSU should be out glad-handing and shaking down influential alumni for the $$ to keep Lusk around after the Bears have some success. Lusk really looks like a coach the Bears want long-term. Admins can't wait until he has success to raise the money to retain him. It's too late then. I fear MSU may lack an administrative commitment to athletic excellence.

I don't mean to pick on MSU. It's just that they've got the really obvious example of how to build a successful program - that could then schedule tough OOC games, but may be unable to sustain the coaching stability they would need to stay competitive, instead of being competitive from time to time with revolving door coaching staffs.

[rlh04d]

You don't schedule top-50 teams when you are potentially a top-150 team. Scheduling has to be done to give your team some hope and optimism going into league play. The conference doesn't become "better" just because the teams schedule tougher opponents, unless Valley teams beat those tougher opponents.

The point wasn't to schedule top-50 teams. It was to have a top-50 schedule.

Which is still far more than I'd expect. The point should be if you are potentially a top-150 team, you should be scheduling other top-150 teams. You shouldn't be scheduling 300+ RPI teams for a significant portion of your nonconference schedule. That's simply stupid and detrimental to the conference as a whole.

[havoc]

This is probably much more controversial than the scheduling mandate, but I'd also like a coaching mandate: a guaranteed minimum contract of $400,000-$500,000 for every newly signed MVC coach. Yes teams can be successful for less, but it is hard to stay consistently successful if your coach immediately leaves for greener pastures every time they have a good season.

Do you think schools are paying less than $400,000 because they want to? If some of the lower budget schools in the conference could pay $400,000 for a newly signed coach, they would.

Also, how is every school in the MVC going to be consistently successful? It is unfortunate, but I do not see how every school can do well every year. Someone has to finish last.

[uniftw]

This is probably much more controversial than the scheduling mandate, but I'd also like a coaching mandate: a guaranteed minimum contract of $400,000-$500,000 for every newly signed MVC coach. Yes teams can be successful for less, but it is hard to stay consistently successful if your coach immediately leaves for greener pastures every time they have a good season.

Do you think schools are paying less than $400,000 because they want to? If some of the lower budget schools in the conference could pay $400,000 for a newly signed coach, they would.

Also, how is every school in the MVC going to be consistently successful? It is unfortunate, but I do not see how every school can do well every year. Someone has to finish last.

Someone does have to finish last - but they don't have to do so finishing OOC with 5 or less wins against a 250+ SOS. Finishing last is about conference record - not overall.

A team isn't going to be great every year - Wichita State will eventually have a couple rough years. On the flip side a program doesn't need to finish every season in the top 25, have a S16 or deeper run every year, etc... to be a good/respected program. UNI has now locked up yet another year of avoiding the PIG - 11 years now. Average finish of like 4th or 5th during that time (looking at a 3rd place finish this year in a very disappointing year for UNI). A couple titles, a couple NCAA's, an NIT, a S16, ranked a couple weeks, average loss in the NCAAs by less than 5 points (Actually all but 1 loss in the NCAAs has been by 5), 10 straight seasons of 18+ wins (likely stopped after this season though as it sounds like we'd turn down a CIT/CBI invite). To say that UNI is a top 2-3 program in the MVC over the last decade is about right. Because of all of that UNI always is in the national writers minds until it's clear that UNI is completely out of everything.

Someone has to finish last, but you don't have to finish at the bottom so often that the PIG night gets renamed after you...Drake...or finish at the bottom so often that other than PIG night called Drake night it's called Illinois night...

A finish near the bottom is expected every once in a while - but when we have programs that we can pen (not just pencil) in for Thursday before the season with 99% certainty on a nearly yearly basis something needs to change somewhere.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

This is probably much more controversial than the scheduling mandate, but I'd also like a coaching mandate: a guaranteed minimum contract of $400,000-$500,000 for every newly signed MVC coach. Yes teams can be successful for less, but it is hard to stay consistently successful if your coach immediately leaves for greener pastures every time they have a good season.

Do you think schools are paying less than $400,000 because they want to? If some of the lower budget schools in the conference could pay $400,000 for a newly signed coach, they would.

Also, how is every school in the MVC going to be consistently successful? It is unfortunate, but I do not see how every school can do well every year. Someone has to finish last.

I think Missouri State absolutely can afford to if/when the administration quits diverting so many funds to the dream of joining the FBS purgatory conference that sent only 2 of its 7 bowl-eligible teams to a bowl game this year and has never sent a team to the Top-25.

Missouri State should be a top 10 non-BCS/BE/AAC Basketball program if the administration quits chasing the Dream to Nowhere.

[shockem]

This is probably much more controversial than the scheduling mandate, but I'd also like a coaching mandate: a guaranteed minimum contract of $400,000-$500,000 for every newly signed MVC coach. Yes teams can be successful for less, but it is hard to stay consistently successful if your coach immediately leaves for greener pastures every time they have a good season.

Do you think schools are paying less than $400,000 because they want to? If some of the lower budget schools in the conference could pay $400,000 for a newly signed coach, they would.

Also, how is every school in the MVC going to be consistently successful? It is unfortunate, but I do not see how every school can do well every year. Someone has to finish last.

If teams want to emulate WSU, here's what you have to do:

1. Drop the money sucking football program.
2. Use funds to hire a good coach and continue to pay to keep him.
3. New coach to hire good recruiters.
4. Schedule against decent to good non-conf teams
5. Be patient and build on success

Not everyone will follow this formula. Those that don't will be in the bottom more often than not. However, we can have 4-5 teams competing every year and put 3-4 teams in the dance.

[havoc]

A team isn't going to be great every year - Wichita State will eventually have a couple rough years. On the flip side a program doesn't need to finish every season in the top 25, have a S16 or deeper run every year, etc... to be a good/respected program. UNI has now locked up yet another year of avoiding the PIG - 11 years now. Average finish of like 4th or 5th during that time (looking at a 3rd place finish this year in a very disappointing year for UNI). A couple titles, a couple NCAA's, an NIT, a S16, ranked a couple weeks, average loss in the NCAAs by less than 5 points (Actually all but 1 loss in the NCAAs has been by 5), 10 straight seasons of 18+ wins (likely stopped after this season though as it sounds like we'd turn down a CIT/CBI invite). To say that UNI is a top 2-3 program in the MVC over the last decade is about right. Because of all of that UNI always is in the national writers minds until it's clear that UNI is completely out of everything.

Someone has to finish last, but you don't have to finish at the bottom so often that the PIG night gets renamed after you...Drake...or finish at the bottom so often that other than PIG night called Drake night it's called Illinois night...

A finish near the bottom is expected every once in a while - but when we have programs that we can pen (not just pencil) in for Thursday before the season with 99% certainty on a nearly yearly basis something needs to change somewhere.

If the teams that are historically on the bottom begin to rise, there is no other outcome than for the teams on the top to fall. UNI would not be able to have an average finish of 4th or 5th and avoid the PIG for 11 years straight if the teams at the bottom start to consistantly finish higher.

What does it matter if the same few teams finish 7-10 every year. Sure it is not great for fans of those schools (which I admit I am), but how does it hurt the conference as a whole? I'd buy it would be benefitically for the teams at the bottom to improve their RPI and SoS, but I do not see how having Drake, Evansville, and Illinois State swap spots in the standings with Wichita State and UNI every few years improves the standing of the conference as a whole.

[uniftw]

A team isn't going to be great every year - Wichita State will eventually have a couple rough years. On the flip side a program doesn't need to finish every season in the top 25, have a S16 or deeper run every year, etc... to be a good/respected program. UNI has now locked up yet another year of avoiding the PIG - 11 years now. Average finish of like 4th or 5th during that time (looking at a 3rd place finish this year in a very disappointing year for UNI). A couple titles, a couple NCAA's, an NIT, a S16, ranked a couple weeks, average loss in the NCAAs by less than 5 points (Actually all but 1 loss in the NCAAs has been by 5), 10 straight seasons of 18+ wins (likely stopped after this season though as it sounds like we'd turn down a CIT/CBI invite). To say that UNI is a top 2-3 program in the MVC over the last decade is about right. Because of all of that UNI always is in the national writers minds until it's clear that UNI is completely out of everything.

Someone has to finish last, but you don't have to finish at the bottom so often that the PIG night gets renamed after you...Drake...or finish at the bottom so often that other than PIG night called Drake night it's called Illinois night...

A finish near the bottom is expected every once in a while - but when we have programs that we can pen (not just pencil) in for Thursday before the season with 99% certainty on a nearly yearly basis something needs to change somewhere.

If the teams that are historically on the bottom begin to rise, there is no other outcome than for the teams on the top to fall. UNI would not be able to have an average finish of 4th or 5th and avoid the PIG for 11 years straight if the teams at the bottom start to consistantly finish higher.

What does it matter if the same few teams finish 7-10 every year. Sure it is not great for fans of those schools (which I admit I am), but how does it hurt the conference as a whole? I'd buy it would be benefitically for the teams at the bottom to improve their RPI and SoS, but I do not see how having Drake, Evansville, and Illinois State swap spots in the standings with Wichita State and UNI every few years improves the standing of the conference as a whole.

I'm not saying that need to switch places with WSU and UNI. However, having Drake/Bradley/ISU push for a top 3 finish every couple years isn't a bad thing.