MVCfans.com

RoyalShock wrote:If you think CU getting into the tournament nearly every year, occasionally winning a game, was a net-negative for the league, I think you're too close to the situation to see it clearly. While they may not be remembered the way WSU is (Final Four, undefeated, 1-seed), the average fan knows CU was a perennial tournament team with decent seeds, and that reflected well on the Valley.

I think it reflected well for Creighton, but not so much for the MVC.

RoyalShock wrote:If you think CU getting into the tournament nearly every year, occasionally winning a game, was a net-negative for the league, I think you're too close to the situation to see it clearly. While they may not be remembered the way WSU is (Final Four, undefeated, 1-seed), the average fan knows CU was a perennial tournament team with decent seeds, and that reflected well on the Valley.

The average fan also assumed MVC teams can't compete against tournament-level teams. The two are related.

SubGod22 wrote:

RoyalShock wrote:If you think CU getting into the tournament nearly every year, occasionally winning a game, was a net-negative for the league, I think you're too close to the situation to see it clearly. While they may not be remembered the way WSU is (Final Four, undefeated, 1-seed), the average fan knows CU was a perennial tournament team with decent seeds, and that reflected well on the Valley.

I think it reflected well for Creighton, but not so much for the MVC.

I agree. That said, we all had the chance to beat CU in STL and routinely could not.

I disagree, mainly because WSU, SIU, UNI and BU were doing damage, allowing CU's reputation for getting in to the tournament to help the league's profile and reputation. If it were only CU getting in, decent seeds or not (even though I don't believe they were often favored in their first-round matchups), then yes, it wouldn't have been a positive reflection on the league.

Hence, I think many MVC fans were too close to the situation to see it from an outsider's perspective.

Cdizzle wrote:

RoyalShock wrote:If you think CU getting into the tournament nearly every year, occasionally winning a game, was a net-negative for the league, I think you're too close to the situation to see it clearly. While they may not be remembered the way WSU is (Final Four, undefeated, 1-seed), the average fan knows CU was a perennial tournament team with decent seeds, and that reflected well on the Valley.

The average fan also assumed MVC teams can't compete against tournament-level teams. The two are related.

To me that's it exactly. I have friends that are fans of teams from the power conferences that know I'm a fan of msu and the mvc and I would hear that very thing (poor mvc teams just can't compete with the big boys) from them every time Creighton would flame out which was usually in the 1st game.

RoyalShock wrote:Hence, I think many MVC fans were too close to the situation to see it from an outsider's perspective.

I disagree. I'm surrounded by P5 fans that constantly talked about this. And that was during the mid-2000s when defending the quality of the league had merit and was worth some effort.

UNI also sustained post coaching change...McDermott for Jacobson.

The SIU to WSU transition was a good one (especially for WSU) for the league. It's possible Bradley could make and sustain the transition to top tier following a Shocker departure. It's also possible that WSU Luke remain in the league with a better UNI, ISU, and improved BU.

Cdizzle wrote:

RoyalShock wrote:Hence, I think many MVC fans were too close to the situation to see it from an outsider's perspective.

I disagree. I'm surrounded by P5 fans that constantly talked about this. And that was during the mid-2000s when defending the quality of the league had merit and was worth some effort.

I could be wrong but most of those years that Creighton won the auto bid they weren't a one seed. So they weren't our best team and then they underperformed in the NCAA. No shock.

The only bigger mystery than why they won so often is why the Shox never won in St Louis when CU was in the Valley.

We don't exactly own St. Louis now that they're gone either. No mystery, curse gonna curse.

bigdawg wrote:The only bigger mystery than why they won so often is why the Shox never won in St Louis when CU was in the Valley.

Mysterious indeed. I'm glad there's other conspiracy theorists out there also.