(04-14-2013 10:37 AM)MSUBear42 Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 10:20 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I just read where Loyola hasn't been a top 100 RPI in over 20 years. And I think I read they've had something like 4 winning seasons during that time. And it's not like the Horizon is some juggernaut. They've had some good teams, but if you can't get over .500 while in that conference a little more regularly....

The poor sisters of this conference obviously love having a place they don't have to spend any money to get to. They seem to care more about that than quality basketball and that shows by how little most of them invest. I think that some of them were afraid to add a school that would push them farther down the pecking order of the MVC.

No offense to the other schools, but Bradley is the only one I see being able to build up and maintain basketball at a highly competitive level. The others will continue to either suck or go through the typical cycles where they'll have one or two good years followed by three or more bad years.

And before you MSU fans jump on me, I think you have the potential to if you were willing to dedicate more to basketball but I get the feeling that you're trying to prioritize football. Maybe I'm wrong. And if so, I beg of you to prove it over the next 5-10 years.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by dedicate more?

Our $67 million arena is only 3 years old, we have a $2 million basketball-only practice gym and weight room, and we are building a new $2 million locker room, lounge, film, and office facility.

I don't think many non-bcs programs around the country have committed that much.

WE ARE. MO STATE

All Wichita fans care about is what we pay Lusk. That is their definition of support. They think we should have offered him what we offered Zo before he took off to Knoxville.

(04-14-2013 10:20 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  No offense to the other schools, but Bradley is the only one I see being able to build up and maintain basketball at a highly competitive level. The others will continue to either suck or go through the typical cycles where they'll have one or two good years followed by three or more bad years.

Bradley is the poster child of cycles. You better go check your facts Shocker boy.

As I've said many times about the MVC, there isn't anyone that even approaches the quality and fan base of Creighton out there. Virtually any school that the MVC could realistically add would drag down the conference's RPI. So, when I see MVC fans complaining about this move, I'm not sure what they were going to expect. The #1 off-the-court problem for the MVC was demographics by a wide margin. The league's markets are AWFUL. I can't state that enough and that's why the A-10 is higher than the MVC on the conference realignment pecking order. Focusing on RPI in the immediate term is short-sighted - the MVC, if it wants long-term stability, needs to be in a place like Chicago. (And Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market, so the fact that the MVC already has Bradley, Illinois State and SIU doesn't bring Chicago. I see a lot of MVC fans complain about the number of Illinois teams, which is completely misguided.) It also can't be understated how much more massive the Chicago market is even compared to places like Denver and Nashville, not to mention the amount of basketball talent that the region produces (which is more important than any TV market issues). The MVC has been fortunate that its demographics problem has been kept in check the past few years, but going forward, it was going to rear its head in a bad way.

It's not about whether Loyola can "deliver" the Chicago market. It's about the fact that absolutely no one that the MVC could have realistically added could "deliver" any market worth anything (including Denver and Belmont, who also have tepid interest in their hometowns) and the ones that could supposedly deliver their own markets like the Dakota schools and Murray State covered population numbers that are literally smaller than individual neighborhoods in Chicago. So, a lot of MVC fans are overstating the qualifications of the other candidates. The MVC presidents likely saw all of these schools as relatively equal, so if that was the case, then there's very little reason to NOT take a school that's directly located in Chicago over the others.

(04-14-2013 01:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've said many times about the MVC, there isn't anyone that even approaches the quality and fan base of Creighton out there. Virtually any school that the MVC could realistically add would drag down the conference's RPI. So, when I see MVC fans complaining about this move, I'm not sure what they were going to expect. The #1 off-the-court problem for the MVC was demographics by a wide margin. The league's markets are AWFUL. I can't state that enough and that's why the A-10 is higher than the MVC on the conference realignment pecking order. Focusing on RPI in the immediate term is short-sighted - the MVC, if it wants long-term stability, needs to be in a place like Chicago. (And Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market, so the fact that the MVC already has Bradley, Illinois State and SIU doesn't bring Chicago. I see a lot of MVC fans complain about the number of Illinois teams, which is completely misguided.) It also can't be understated how much more massive the Chicago market is even compared to places like Denver and Nashville, not to mention the amount of basketball talent that the region produces (which is more important than any TV market issues). The MVC has been fortunate that its demographics problem has been kept in check the past few years, but going forward, it was going to rear its head in a bad way.

It's not about whether Loyola can "deliver" the Chicago market. It's about the fact that absolutely no one that the MVC could have realistically added could "deliver" any market worth anything (including Denver and Belmont, who also have tepid interest in their hometowns) and the ones that could supposedly deliver their own markets like the Dakota schools and Murray State covered population numbers that are literally smaller than individual neighborhoods in Chicago. So, a lot of MVC fans are overstating the qualifications of the other candidates. The MVC presidents likely saw all of these schools as relatively equal, so if that was the case, then there's very little reason to NOT take a school that's directly located in Chicago over the others.

I think the only people that really dislike the Loyola add are Shocker fans that wanted to add Belmont/Denver, largely out of the fear that Gregg Marshall would consider leaving if the MVC deteriorated to a 1-bid conference. Don't get me wrong; the MVC doesn't have options. It has been relatively stable over the last 20 years because the schools in the MVC didn't have anywhere to go, not because the league offered anything incredible to members.

I think Wichita State would start to consider a move to the A10, especially if the Big East decides not to add SLU or Dayton. Even if they do, being in conference with VCU, Richmond, and La Salle is better than the MVC (I think other MVC schools would also make the move). While the conference RPI would be similar, the A10 would still be able get a team an at-large bid. The two conferences were roughly equal because the MVC's bottom schools were considerably better than the A10's, but low level additions change that.

Basically, the MVC is affirming that it wants to be regional, mediocre basketball only conference. The poor MVC schools are largely okay with this, but Wichita State has entirely different goals. Most of the bitching has been from Wichita State fans that don't want to see their efforts to improve after the Final Four grow to waste in a bad conference with no room for growth.

(04-14-2013 01:39 PM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 01:27 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  As I've said many times about the MVC, there isn't anyone that even approaches the quality and fan base of Creighton out there. Virtually any school that the MVC could realistically add would drag down the conference's RPI. So, when I see MVC fans complaining about this move, I'm not sure what they were going to expect. The #1 off-the-court problem for the MVC was demographics by a wide margin. The league's markets are AWFUL. I can't state that enough and that's why the A-10 is higher than the MVC on the conference realignment pecking order. Focusing on RPI in the immediate term is short-sighted - the MVC, if it wants long-term stability, needs to be in a place like Chicago. (And Downstate Illinois is NOT Chicago. There is no such thing as an "Illinois" market, so the fact that the MVC already has Bradley, Illinois State and SIU doesn't bring Chicago. I see a lot of MVC fans complain about the number of Illinois teams, which is completely misguided.) It also can't be understated how much more massive the Chicago market is even compared to places like Denver and Nashville, not to mention the amount of basketball talent that the region produces (which is more important than any TV market issues). The MVC has been fortunate that its demographics problem has been kept in check the past few years, but going forward, it was going to rear its head in a bad way.

It's not about whether Loyola can "deliver" the Chicago market. It's about the fact that absolutely no one that the MVC could have realistically added could "deliver" any market worth anything (including Denver and Belmont, who also have tepid interest in their hometowns) and the ones that could supposedly deliver their own markets like the Dakota schools and Murray State covered population numbers that are literally smaller than individual neighborhoods in Chicago. So, a lot of MVC fans are overstating the qualifications of the other candidates. The MVC presidents likely saw all of these schools as relatively equal, so if that was the case, then there's very little reason to NOT take a school that's directly located in Chicago over the others.

I think the only people that really dislike the Loyola add are Shocker fans that wanted to add Belmont/Denver, largely out of the fear that Gregg Marshall would consider leaving if the MVC deteriorated to a 1-bid conference. Don't get me wrong; the MVC doesn't have options. It has been relatively stable over the last 20 years because the schools in the MVC didn't have anywhere to go, not because the league offered anything incredible to members.

I think Wichita State would start to consider a move to the A10, especially if the Big East decides not to add SLU or Dayton. Even if they do, being in conference with VCU, Richmond, and La Salle is better than the MVC (I think other MVC schools would also make the move). While the conference RPI would be similar, the A10 would still be able get a team an at-large bid. The two conferences were roughly equal because the MVC's bottom schools were considerably better than the A10's, but low level additions change that.

Basically, the MVC is affirming that it wants to be regional, mediocre basketball only conference. The poor MVC schools are largely okay with this, but Wichita State has entirely different goals. Most of the bitching has been from Wichita State fans that don't want to see their efforts to improve after the Final Four grow to waste in a bad conference with no room for growth.

I understand that mentality. The issue, though, is that it's not about what Wichita State wants despite their on-the-court success (which is likely how Shocker fans are approaching this). As you've noted, the MVC has been stable largely because no one could move even if they wanted to, but the thing is that this largely applies to Wichita State, too. They just don't have any bargaining power in the conference realignment game even with the A-10, much less the MWC or AAC. That's not a knock on what Wichita State has been able to do performance-wise (which has been outstanding), but rather facing the reality of conference realignment factors of market size, demographics, national brand name, academics, and what a school brings to the table even when they're 0-18 in conference play (not just when they make it to the Final Four).

Wichita State "considering the A-10" implies that they have any real choice in the matter, which they don't really have. It's all about whether the A-10 would want Wichita State as opposed to, say, George Mason, Siena and/or Davidson. There's no question in my mind that Wichita State should take an A-10 invite if it's ever offered, but the school has almost no control over whether that offer will come. The geography of Wichita State (which is also a demographic problem) is simply a negative no matter how well the school might perform in the NCAA Tournament. (Look at Gonzaga and their long-term record of success and national TV appeal - they don't have any realistic choice outside of the WCC because of geographic limitations, as well.) So, if the A-10, Big East and any league that plays FBS football like the MWC and AAC are all off the table for Wichita State, where else can they go that's not a downgrade from the MVC even without Creighton? I don't see a better option. I have great respect for Wichita State and what they've done on the court, but in the conference realignment game off-the-court, they are essentially in the same realm of George Mason with a much worse location, so the conference options are going to reflect that.

Next ? is I wonder who they add if missouri state ever left for cusa? Wichita really wouldn't like it but probably want somebody from the western side. Yet, the options aren't so hot, UNO, UMKC, UALR...could take all 3 but doubt they go really west with denver. The other move would be to double up in chicago with UIC or hit wisconsin with Milwaukee.

(04-14-2013 02:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I understand that mentality. The issue, though, is that it's not about what Wichita State wants despite their on-the-court success (which is likely how Shocker fans are approaching this). As you've noted, the MVC has been stable largely because no one could move even if they wanted to, but the thing is that this largely applies to Wichita State, too. They just don't have any bargaining power in the conference realignment game even with the A-10, much less the MWC or AAC. That's not a knock on what Wichita State has been able to do performance-wise (which has been outstanding), but rather facing the reality of conference realignment factors of market size, demographics, national brand name, academics, and what a school brings to the table even when they're 0-18 in conference play (not just when they make it to the Final Four).

Wichita State "considering the A-10" implies that they have any real choice in the matter, which they don't really have. It's all about whether the A-10 would want Wichita State as opposed to, say, George Mason, Siena and/or Davidson. There's no question in my mind that Wichita State should take an A-10 invite if it's ever offered, but the school has almost no control over whether that offer will come. The geography of Wichita State (which is also a demographic problem) is simply a negative no matter how well the school might perform in the NCAA Tournament. (Look at Gonzaga and their long-term record of success and national TV appeal - they don't have any realistic choice outside of the WCC because of geographic limitations, as well.) So, if the A-10, Big East and any league that plays FBS football like the MWC and AAC are all off the table for Wichita State, where else can they go that's not a downgrade from the MVC even without Creighton? I don't see a better option. I have great respect for Wichita State and what they've done on the court, but in the conference realignment game off-the-court, they are essentially in the same realm of George Mason with a much worse location, so the conference options are going to reflect that.

That is a large part of what Wichita State mad. We WANT to be nationally relevant. We want to play in a conference full of teams with similar goals. We are willing to invest, and have as good a program as any mid-major (going forward).

And yet, we might as well be Grambling State from a conference realignment standpoint. No control, even over the teams added to our conference. We have to hope that some conference is willing to overlook our geographic problems because of our programs, but we have no guarantees.

That is a big reason why Wichita State fans are angry over this move. They see their conference getting weaker and weaker, and they can do nothing to stop it. The other schools in conference want to be "safe," but Wichita State wants to be good. Ultimately, it isn't Loyola we are angry about but our future. We don't want to be stuck in an also-ran conference, which is what the MVC has been struggling to become for decades now, but we can't really stop it from happening.

The common thought before the Loyola hire was that Wichita State would decline the A-10, even if they offered. Now, we are starting to see that the MVC isn't going to be competitive in the future, and the A10 would be better even with the lower end teams.

(04-14-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Next ? is I wonder who they add if missouri state ever left for cusa? Wichita really wouldn't like it but probably want somebody from the western side. Yet, the options aren't so hot, UNO, UMKC, UALR...could take all 3 but doubt they go really west with denver. The other move would be to double up in chicago with UIC or hit wisconsin with Milwaukee.

I'd like WSU and Missouri State to go CUSA together as non-football schools (at least until we finish our stadium). FYI

WE ARE. MO STATE

(04-14-2013 02:35 PM)MSUBear42 Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 02:14 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Next ? is I wonder who they add if missouri state ever left for cusa? Wichita really wouldn't like it but probably want somebody from the western side. Yet, the options aren't so hot, UNO, UMKC, UALR...could take all 3 but doubt they go really west with denver. The other move would be to double up in chicago with UIC or hit wisconsin with Milwaukee.

I'd like WSU and Missouri State to go CUSA together as non-football schools (at least until we finish our stadium). FYI

WE ARE. MO STATE

That's nice to think, but there just isn't any indication of that being on the table. Until further notice, the realistic assumption is that no FBS conference is going to take any non-FBS schools as members. Leagues are moving *away* from hybrids as opposed to moving toward them. That's why schools like Wichita State and Missouri State are in a tough spot. When you look at non-FBS Division I leagues, the Big East and the A-10 are the 2 leagues that are clearly better than the MVC, but they probably aren't interested in either WSU and MSU. So, as much as it might be painful for a school like Wichita State that has greater aspirations, there probably isn't a better non-FBS option available for them. They have to hope that FBS leagues start wanting hybrid leagues again, which is something that there has been no indication of at all.

(04-14-2013 02:48 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's nice to think, but there just isn't any indication of that being on the table. Until further notice, the realistic assumption is that no FBS conference is going to take any non-FBS schools as members. Leagues are moving *away* from hybrids as opposed to moving toward them. That's why schools like Wichita State and Missouri State are in a tough spot. When you look at non-FBS Division I leagues, the Big East and the A-10 are the 2 leagues that are clearly better than the MVC, but they probably aren't interested in either WSU and MSU. So, as much as it might be painful for a school like Wichita State that has greater aspirations, there probably isn't a better non-FBS option available for them. They have to hope that FBS leagues start wanting hybrid leagues again, which is something that there has been no indication of at all.

And the funny thing about the hybrid leagues is that the Big East split is what killed them. And what caused the Big East split? Football schools continually leaving the conference.

And yet, FBS conferences don't want hybrid members, and the most commonly stated reason is instability! Of course, you can argue that non-football members don't carry their own weight from a monetary standpoint, but I still think it is ironic that football members are blaming basketball schools for other football schools leaving.

I just don't think the A-10 makes any sense for WSU. Do you really want to take your teams to Olean NY to take on St. Bonaventure for non-revenue sports? Creighton could do this because of the Fox money was 10x as much. A-10 basketball deal sucks only slightly less then the Valley and WSU would probably lose money overall due to travel expenses. If the AAC wanted to go hybrid again and added VCU and WSU, that would be ideal. Maybe they would once UCONN and Cincy leave but then would you really want to join then?

(04-13-2013 06:14 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I guess the private schools wanted to keep it 6-4 public-private. If the Valley goes to 12, this should make adding a public school more palatable.

It would be interesting to see the Horizon's repsonse now that they are down two schools. Loyola does not play baseball, so the Horizon still only needs one school that plays baseball to get back to six teams. Men's soccer will have seven after Loyola leaves, and Belmont (independent) could be brought on as an affiliate even if they don't join for all sports.

I'd think the Horizon League would have to look at the following:

Oakland (does play baseball, but HL is already in the Detroit market)
IPFW (does play baseball; close to Detroit and Valparaiso)
IUPUI (no baseball)
Western Illinois (plays baseball, but not much of a native market; also plays FCS football)
SIU-Edwardsville (does play baseball, offers a toehold in St. Louis market)
Evansville (would they leave the MVC?)

Would likely want Oakland but as you said can't add unless Detroit Mercy leaves. Out of the others SIU E gives them the best potential. In a large market area that loves hoops and only 1 other D1 university is within 100 miles. It would take a facilites upgrade for SIUE to be competitive but their enrollment is growing while Carbondale and many other schools their size are dropping.

(04-14-2013 12:05 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I think the MVC just signed its death warrant. Not that they really had much of a choice. They are no longer a Top 10 conference. That means it will be very hard to get at-large bids, and that could be death for a basketball conference.

For one, it means that Wichita State will probably start considering a move to the A10. Right now, the A10 would be the 9th best conference by RPI with .5397, while the MVC would be the 11th with a conference RPI of .5315. If Wichita State left, the A10 would jump to the 7th best conference while the MVC would be closer to C-USA and Horizon League. The #1 concern for Wichita State is being in a strong basketball conference so they can keep their coach, and they WILL leave if they think it would help them get tournament invites.

Also, at least three MVC schools are considering moves to FBS conference (MSU, Illinois State, and UNI). If Wichita State leaves, they would accelerate the jump. Though it may happen regardless.

Either way, I think the 2nd oldest conference in America has fallen to the level of the 1-bid conferences. If enough teams leave at once, it may cease to exist at all, though that probably will not happen.

MSU< ISU & UNI may be considering FBS moves but the MAC won't take them and if the MAC doesn't who else will, the Belt?

The A10 would a heck of a travel schedule for Wichita. UMass, URI, Pittsburgh(Duquesne). With St Louis, Dayton, Xavier & Butler leaving the A10 for the Big East; the nearest program to Wichita will be hundreds of miles if not 1000 miles away.

Loyola's recruiting will improve greatly moving up to the MVC and they did beat DePaul last year for the first time in about 10 years. Not that DePaul is any great shakes but they are in the BE

(04-14-2013 12:38 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 12:05 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I think the MVC just signed its death warrant. Not that they really had much of a choice. They are no longer a Top 10 conference. That means it will be very hard to get at-large bids, and that could be death for a basketball conference.

For one, it means that Wichita State will probably start considering a move to the A10. Right now, the A10 would be the 9th best conference by RPI with .5397, while the MVC would be the 11th with a conference RPI of .5315. If Wichita State left, the A10 would jump to the 7th best conference while the MVC would be closer to C-USA and Horizon League. The #1 concern for Wichita State is being in a strong basketball conference so they can keep their coach, and they WILL leave if they think it would help them get tournament invites.

Also, at least three MVC schools are considering moves to FBS conference (MSU, Illinois State, and UNI). If Wichita State leaves, they would accelerate the jump. Though it may happen regardless.

Either way, I think the 2nd oldest conference in America has fallen to the level of the 1-bid conferences. If enough teams leave at once, it may cease to exist at all, though that probably will not happen.

Even taking the UMass question into consideration, isn't the MAC basically free from poaching since Temple is gone? Do they really need to reach 14/15 by adding Illinois State and UNI?

If the MAC adds anybody they will look east first and if there is no mutual fit the first team they will look to going west has to be NDST for football only. When you can grab a 2 time defending national champion that has to be your first pickl

(04-14-2013 07:16 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 12:13 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 09:33 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  Interesting that the Valley which has basketball as it's most important sport is adding a team that hasn't made the tourney since the 80s.......they did win the NCAA Championship in 1963 though!

The valley really doesn't need Loyola to be good when it has Wichita State in the conference at the top.

Disagree, if you want the Valley to be a top 10 conference, you need to have more than 1 good team in the conference. The Valley now is looking more like the Horizon was with Butler. One really good team and then a bunch of other teams. Loyola does nothing but make this worse. Loyola probably wasn't the worst pick but there were probably 3-4 better teams to pick from. I think the Valley just went from being a top 10 conference to a top 15 conference.

Oakland would have been a better choice; better attendance, won their conference 3 times since 05 and went to the 2nd rd in 10, also gives the MVC a Detroit presence which has to boost recruiting. Public, schmublic what about picking the best overall program

(04-14-2013 04:00 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 07:16 AM)Jet915 Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 12:13 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 09:33 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  Interesting that the Valley which has basketball as it's most important sport is adding a team that hasn't made the tourney since the 80s.......they did win the NCAA Championship in 1963 though!

The valley really doesn't need Loyola to be good when it has Wichita State in the conference at the top.

Disagree, if you want the Valley to be a top 10 conference, you need to have more than 1 good team in the conference. The Valley now is looking more like the Horizon was with Butler. One really good team and then a bunch of other teams. Loyola does nothing but make this worse. Loyola probably wasn't the worst pick but there were probably 3-4 better teams to pick from. I think the Valley just went from being a top 10 conference to a top 15 conference.

Oakland would have been a better choice; better attendance, won their conference 3 times since 05 and went to the 2nd rd in 10, also gives the MVC a Detroit presence which has to boost recruiting. Public, schmublic what about picking the best overall program

A Chicago presence is worth a lot more to the MVC than a Detroit presence.

That said I would have taken UIC over Loyola.

(04-14-2013 03:55 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 12:38 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-14-2013 12:05 AM)College Basketball Fan Wrote:  I think the MVC just signed its death warrant. Not that they really had much of a choice. They are no longer a Top 10 conference. That means it will be very hard to get at-large bids, and that could be death for a basketball conference.

For one, it means that Wichita State will probably start considering a move to the A10. Right now, the A10 would be the 9th best conference by RPI with .5397, while the MVC would be the 11th with a conference RPI of .5315. If Wichita State left, the A10 would jump to the 7th best conference while the MVC would be closer to C-USA and Horizon League. The #1 concern for Wichita State is being in a strong basketball conference so they can keep their coach, and they WILL leave if they think it would help them get tournament invites.

Also, at least three MVC schools are considering moves to FBS conference (MSU, Illinois State, and UNI). If Wichita State leaves, they would accelerate the jump. Though it may happen regardless.

Either way, I think the 2nd oldest conference in America has fallen to the level of the 1-bid conferences. If enough teams leave at once, it may cease to exist at all, though that probably will not happen.

Even taking the UMass question into consideration, isn't the MAC basically free from poaching since Temple is gone? Do they really need to reach 14/15 by adding Illinois State and UNI?

If the MAC adds anybody they will look east first and if there is no mutual fit the first team they will look to going west has to be NDST for football only. When you can grab a 2 time defending national champion that has to be your first pickl

why would the MAC take a school all the way up in North Dakota when there are other schools much closer and fit the MAC style

So Oakland and ????? UMKC? or IPFW? to Horizon.

(04-14-2013 03:33 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  I just don't think the A-10 makes any sense for WSU. Do you really want to take your teams to Olean NY to take on St. Bonaventure for non-revenue sports? Creighton could do this because of the Fox money was 10x as much. A-10 basketball deal sucks only slightly less then the Valley and WSU would probably lose money overall due to travel expenses. If the AAC wanted to go hybrid again and added VCU and WSU, that would be ideal. Maybe they would once UCONN and Cincy leave but then would you really want to join then?

Eventually, you have to take chances. The MVC has been going downhill for at least 20 years (and arguably closer to 50), because they always make the "safe" choice. Wichita State DOES NOT want to sit back and watch their future disappear, which is what is happening with the MVC. Marshall isn't going to be here forever, even if he ends up retiring here.

If we don't leave before that happens, what does our future look like? It looks like a bunch of also-rans in an also-ran sport, competing for moral victories. Maybe Wichita State can build a program like Butler and consistently dominate the MVC, but historically the MVC has never been dominated by a single team, even when the other teams weren't very strong.

All told, we want to build a nationally relevant program. That is virtually impossible with the MVC of the future. Even the A-10 would give us a MUCH better chance to be successful in the future. If Dayton and SLU never get picked up by the Big East, our choice is obvious. If that happened, the A10 would have 5 programs with a 5-year RPI average above 100; the MVC would have 2.

The next 6 teams for the A10 would all average better 150, while the MVC would have 4 such teams. The bottom of the MVC would have averages of 178, 194, and 231, compared to 138, 165, 264.

In other words, the A10 would be better at the top, better in the middle, and better at the bottom. That is worth the risk, IMHO. I think you underestimate how much the MVC is going to decline.

(04-14-2013 05:46 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  So Oakland and ????? UMKC? or IPFW? to Horizon.

Northern Kentucky maybe.

Horizon does not want IUPUI or IPFW and UMKC makes no sense.