How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Discuss the MVC hoops season here.

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby BirdsEyeView » April 6th, 2017, 3:41 pm

Play Angry wrote:
BirdsEyeView wrote:
Play Angry wrote:
I imagine it had as much to do as fan bases at most other schools with comparable attendance and financial support. A terrific percentage of our programs are funded by that fanbase, so, yes, it certainly plays a significant role.

Why so combative this week?


I'm really not trying to be, I just hate when fans assume they had a helping hand in things or are the "know-it-alls" on how to be a good basketball program.

I have strong beliefs that Football has very little impact on their basketball programs
I have strong beliefs that MVC schools all understand what it takes to become consistently good, but just make erroneous hires that set them back many years

That's all.


I understand the pro-FCS football argument and think that for certain schools, football serves as a strong compliment to the other programs in the athletic department and is a true asset to the university. Other schools probably should consider cutting bait depending on their financial situation, fan support, mission and a myriad of other issues. No real one-size-fits all there.

I don't really disagree that MVC schools understand what it takes to become consistently good - there are so many blueprints out there, I think everyone can see what successful programs have in common. I do disagree that erroneous hires are the primary factor holding some schools back.

Bradley is probably the example that best supports your point. They generally do all the "right" things (sufficient budget, good fan support, etc.) but have been submarined by a mediocre Les hire and a bad Ford hire. Totally agreed there - this is a program whose long-term expectations should be much, much higher than what they've recently put on the court.

It's not that certain schools don't want to be good. Instead, they've prioritized their budget allocations and development/redevelopment projects on their campuses in a way that (i) makes it harder to catch lightning in a bottle to begin with since that school is not viewed as much of a destination from a facilities/fan support/budget/etc. standpoint, thereby attracting a less competitive (this is poorly worded but I think the point still works) candidate for a position, and (ii) makes it harder to swiftly reallocate their budget resources to pay what it takes to keep that coach if they do catch lightning in a bottle since the reallocation to line items would be incredibly drastic. It's just sort of the nature of the beast.

The programs operating on a shoestring would love to dance every year, and some of them put a decent product on the court considering those limitations, so in a sense they are "trying." In another sense, until the President and AD at those schools prioritize those programs to a degree that substantially raises their chances for success, both short-term and long-term, they aren't fully committed and could be characterized as "not trying."

Luck and chance always play into it too, and that's a big part of what makes sports fun - otherwise everything would just go to the highest bidder. I do think there is a lot that some MVC schools could be doing that would further their causes for athletics. I also understand when enrollment, state budgets and other factors necessitate otherwise.


Well stated and level-headed response. I can't disagree with literally any of it. :Cheers:
BirdsEyeView
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 1205
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 12:51 pm

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby Stickboy46 » April 6th, 2017, 3:43 pm

uniftw wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:Not the point. Any team can get in with a really good OOC schedule. The point is the MVC isn't really selling at-large bids to people.

It kind of is the point though. ISUr was one of the first four 8. They were right there.

What kept them out? A loss to Murray State was was 14-17 and had an RPI of 230.

Their OOC schedule was RPIs of
67
86
94
132
132
164
178
201
218
230
299

They were 1-2 against the top 100. 2-4 against the top 163.

Their issue wasn't the MVC. Their issue was that they played a pretty bad OOC schedule, didn't beat the teams at the top of it and lost to the second worst team they played. They don't lose to Murray State, they are in. They beat TCU they are in. They beat San Francisco they are likely in. They don't lose to WSU by a billion points twice? They are in.

Hell, even with everything the way it was, if they don't lose to WSU by 20 in the conference title game, they are in.

Yes, I would agree the window for error is smaller. The at-large possibility is there. Yes. It's going to take a top 2/3 finish in the conference. It will take not flopping in "must win" type games in the OOC. It's still possible.


Yet again, non-conference schedule can be done by anyone. The question is how you sell the valley. Do you sell the Valley - "Hey, if you schedule really really good in November and December and not slip up while your team is still trying to figure it out, you can MAYBE get an at large bid"

ISUs Conference RPIs
32 (WSU)
32 (WSU)
145
145
162
162
182
182
188
188
209
209
220
220
233
233
314
314

So take WSU out of there and you have a highest RPI of 145 that was provided to WSU. That sure helped seal that at-large. Great selling point.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 662
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby BCPanther » April 6th, 2017, 3:55 pm

Stickboy46 wrote:
uniftw wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:Not the point. Any team can get in with a really good OOC schedule. The point is the MVC isn't really selling at-large bids to people.

It kind of is the point though. ISUr was one of the first four 8. They were right there.

What kept them out? A loss to Murray State was was 14-17 and had an RPI of 230.

Their OOC schedule was RPIs of
67
86
94
132
132
164
178
201
218
230
299

They were 1-2 against the top 100. 2-4 against the top 163.

Their issue wasn't the MVC. Their issue was that they played a pretty bad OOC schedule, didn't beat the teams at the top of it and lost to the second worst team they played. They don't lose to Murray State, they are in. They beat TCU they are in. They beat San Francisco they are likely in. They don't lose to WSU by a billion points twice? They are in.

Hell, even with everything the way it was, if they don't lose to WSU by 20 in the conference title game, they are in.

Yes, I would agree the window for error is smaller. The at-large possibility is there. Yes. It's going to take a top 2/3 finish in the conference. It will take not flopping in "must win" type games in the OOC. It's still possible.


Yet again, non-conference schedule can be done by anyone. The question is how you sell the valley. Do you sell the Valley - "Hey, if you schedule really really good in November and December and not slip up while your team is still trying to figure it out, you can MAYBE get an at large bid"

ISUs Conference RPIs
32 (WSU)
32 (WSU)
145
145
162
162
182
182
188
188
209
209
220
220
233
233
314
314

So take WSU out of there and you have a highest RPI of 145 that was provided to WSU. That sure helped seal that at-large. Great selling point.


That's actually a better situation than any candidate school currently has...
BCPanther
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 786
Joined: August 8th, 2010, 9:10 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby Stickboy46 » April 6th, 2017, 4:04 pm

BCPanther wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:
uniftw wrote:It kind of is the point though. ISUr was one of the first four 8. They were right there.

What kept them out? A loss to Murray State was was 14-17 and had an RPI of 230.

Their OOC schedule was RPIs of
67
86
94
132
132
164
178
201
218
230
299

They were 1-2 against the top 100. 2-4 against the top 163.

Their issue wasn't the MVC. Their issue was that they played a pretty bad OOC schedule, didn't beat the teams at the top of it and lost to the second worst team they played. They don't lose to Murray State, they are in. They beat TCU they are in. They beat San Francisco they are likely in. They don't lose to WSU by a billion points twice? They are in.

Hell, even with everything the way it was, if they don't lose to WSU by 20 in the conference title game, they are in.

Yes, I would agree the window for error is smaller. The at-large possibility is there. Yes. It's going to take a top 2/3 finish in the conference. It will take not flopping in "must win" type games in the OOC. It's still possible.


Yet again, non-conference schedule can be done by anyone. The question is how you sell the valley. Do you sell the Valley - "Hey, if you schedule really really good in November and December and not slip up while your team is still trying to figure it out, you can MAYBE get an at large bid"

ISUs Conference RPIs
32 (WSU)
32 (WSU)
145
145
162
162
182
182
188
188
209
209
220
220
233
233
314
314

So take WSU out of there and you have a highest RPI of 145 that was provided to WSU. That sure helped seal that at-large. Great selling point.


That's actually a better situation than any candidate school currently has...

No every school in D1 has that situation. Schedule a bunch of Top 50 schools in the non con and win, then go 17-1 in any conference and you get in. Valley isn't offering anything special there.
Stickboy46
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 662
Joined: April 21st, 2015, 9:24 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby TheAsianSensation » April 6th, 2017, 8:23 pm

The selling point is increased relevancy and increased exposure.

Remember, this league has graduated two programs to better pastures in the Big Priest and AAC. If your endgame is being a power program, the MVC is a stepping stone.
http://bracketball.blogspot.com/ A national version of the world-famous TAS Bracketology. Spread the word
TheAsianSensation
MVCfans.com
MVCfans.com
 
Posts: 1056
Joined: April 6th, 2012, 7:23 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby bigdawg » April 7th, 2017, 5:30 am

TheAsianSensation wrote:The selling point is increased relevancy and increased exposure.

Remember, this league has graduated two programs to better pastures in the Big Priest and AAC. If your endgame is being a power program, the MVC is a stepping stone.

If our selling point is that you might eventually be able to leave us, we are screwed. The a10 lost two teams to the Big East and could lose additional teams at some point. Dayton or SLU could get picked up somewhere, whereas I don't see any of our teams going anywhere soon. And I'm not really sure we have increased exposure particularly not without Wichita.

If I am Valpo or Belmont, I'm not sure I would move if given the opportunity. I think the valley is in trouble.
bigdawg
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 644
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 11:44 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby Svoboda » April 7th, 2017, 8:16 am

TheAsianSensation wrote:The selling point is increased relevancy and increased exposure.

Remember, this league has graduated two programs to better pastures in the Big Priest and AAC. If your endgame is being a power program, the MVC is a stepping stone.

How much more consolidation do you actually see being done? Just thinking about that and how it relates to the Big Dance, there will be 0 extra bids for any of the mid-major conferences -- I don't consider the AAC or A10 mid-majors with the size of their basketball budgets.

There are 68 total openings when you have your 64 seeds and the 4 extra "first four" game opponents. There are 32 Division 1 hoops conferences so 68 participants minus 32 automatic qualifiers gives you 36 "at large" (might as well drop the at moniker) bids. Between the (what I consider) 8 (FBS P5, BE, AAC and A10) high major conferences, you have 100 total teams. This year, those conferences received 43 total bids. Subtract the 8 automatic qualifiers and that means 35 of the 36 available bids went to power conference schools. There was literally 1 bid up for grabs by mid-major conferences and it went to Saint Mary's, who was ranked the entire year going 28-4 and suffered 3 of those 4 losses to Gonzaga.

If you think there is going to be even more consolidation, there is absolutely no chance mid-major schools ever sniff an at-large again as the upper crust will have made sure that doesn't happen through their sheer force in numbers. Only possible scenario I could see stealing away a bid is a 30-1 season where you lose in your conference tournament final, had a high RPI/BPI/SOS and whatever other hoop the selection committee mandated you jump through for that particular year. That's pretty unrealistic scenario as a team rolling like that is probably going to squash their conference foes in the final, but whatever.

I'd say even without that we're already at that point. The 2017 tournament had 14 at-large teams with 10 or more losses and 31 at-large teams with 7 or more losses. The consolidation over the last decade has insulated power programs from having to schedule difficult OoC games and when they do, it's neutral court nonsense for the most part. IMO, college hoops has been broken out of the media contract realignment cash grab. I'm with Mark Adams in that there needs to be reform and some sort of scheduling mandate put forth by the NCAA to balance it out. Will that ever happen. Highly doubtful.
Sycamore Pride - http://www.sycamorepride.com
MVC News & Social Media Aggregator - https://www.mvctalk.com
Svoboda
MVC Bench Warmer
MVC Bench Warmer
 
Posts: 44
Joined: January 28th, 2014, 6:06 pm

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby Cdizzle » April 7th, 2017, 8:26 am

BCPanther wrote:
Stickboy46 wrote:
uniftw wrote:It kind of is the point though. ISUr was one of the first four 8. They were right there.

What kept them out? A loss to Murray State was was 14-17 and had an RPI of 230.

Their OOC schedule was RPIs of
67
86
94
132
132
164
178
201
218
230
299

They were 1-2 against the top 100. 2-4 against the top 163.

Their issue wasn't the MVC. Their issue was that they played a pretty bad OOC schedule, didn't beat the teams at the top of it and lost to the second worst team they played. They don't lose to Murray State, they are in. They beat TCU they are in. They beat San Francisco they are likely in. They don't lose to WSU by a billion points twice? They are in.

Hell, even with everything the way it was, if they don't lose to WSU by 20 in the conference title game, they are in.

Yes, I would agree the window for error is smaller. The at-large possibility is there. Yes. It's going to take a top 2/3 finish in the conference. It will take not flopping in "must win" type games in the OOC. It's still possible.


Yet again, non-conference schedule can be done by anyone. The question is how you sell the valley. Do you sell the Valley - "Hey, if you schedule really really good in November and December and not slip up while your team is still trying to figure it out, you can MAYBE get an at large bid"

ISUs Conference RPIs
32 (WSU)
32 (WSU)
145
145
162
162
182
182
188
188
209
209
220
220
233
233
314
314

So take WSU out of there and you have a highest RPI of 145 that was provided to WSU. That sure helped seal that at-large. Great selling point.


That's actually a better situation than any candidate school currently has...

I haven't looked at all the candidates' situations. But I'll assume you're correct. What that really means is that the MVC is the most difficult 1-bid league to win. Not sure that's a good thing or a great selling point.

I think it has a lot to do with why WSU's kenPom numbers have been so good the past several seasons. The league hasn't been stellar, but it's not as bad as many think when they think of 1-bid leagues.
Cdizzle
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 2148
Joined: November 11th, 2010, 11:28 am

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby uniftw » April 7th, 2017, 8:32 am

Cdizzle wrote:I haven't looked at all the candidates' situations. But I'll assume you're correct. What that really means is that the MVC is the most difficult 1-bid league to win. Not sure that's a good thing or a great selling point.

I think it has a lot to do with why WSU's kenPom numbers have been so good the past several seasons. The league hasn't been stellar, but it's not as bad as many think when they think of 1-bid leagues.

Which is what makes finding the right replacement imperative and a catch-22.

The MVC, by our standards, is horrid. In the realm of the mid-major world? We are still pretty damn good.

There is a chance for an at-large out of the MVC, much more so than the Horizon and OVC. Remember that a 26 win Valpo and 28 win Belmont (maybe Murray State) team were left out of the NCAA tournament, and didn't even get seeded well (IIRC) in the NIT.

A good, top end, addition, can still make this the premier "true mid major" league. A league that can still get 2 bids, if the bottom of the league cleans up their act. The issue, when it comes to RPIs isn't the top 4-5 in the MVC (for the most part) now compared to about a decade ago. The issue is the bottom few teams have gone from 175-225 to 275+. That drags everyone's RPI down. It makes WSU and ISUr 32/33 rather than 15-20. It makes teams in the 50 range into teams in the 70 range, and so on. Get the bottom to fix their RPI situation and the entire league moves up in RPI rankings. Perception starts to move up. Bids happen
uniftw
MVC Hall Of Famer
MVC Hall Of Famer
 
Posts: 2268
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 9:01 pm

Re: How does the MVC sell itself to expansion candidates?

Postby squirrel » April 7th, 2017, 8:51 am

This was nearly 10 years ago (wow), but between 1998 and 2008 every single league member had been to the NCAA Tournament. 70% of the members had won at least 1 game in the tournament, and 40% of members had been to a Sweet 16 (and Creighton was one that had not, and UNI got there 2 years outside that window in 2010.)

So yes, it has been a meat grinder league and I'm sure in the past that was a deterrent for some schools. However, I doubt it has that same perception now.
squirrel
All MVC
All MVC
 
Posts: 529
Joined: August 4th, 2010, 11:49 am

Previous

Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests