MVCfans.com

TheAsianSensation wrote:NIT at-large bids earned by Valparaiso this year: 1
NIT at-large bids earned by MVC teams this year: 0 (ISU auto-bid)

Obviously the bar is lowered for the NIT, but still. It's a sign they're pretty decent.

Lowered how ? (I mean, beyond the autobid part), because to get an at-large for the NIT, you still pretty much have to have a NCAA-level resume (at least between RPI 55-80.) Getting an NIT at-large these days is generally pretty significant.

squirrel wrote:

TheAsianSensation wrote:NIT at-large bids earned by Valparaiso this year: 1
NIT at-large bids earned by MVC teams this year: 0 (ISU auto-bid)

Obviously the bar is lowered for the NIT, but still. It's a sign they're pretty decent.

Lowered how ? (I mean, beyond the autobid part), because to get an at-large for the NIT, you still pretty much have to have a NCAA-level resume (at least between RPI 55-80.) Getting an NIT at-large these days is generally pretty significant.

It's only a modest difference, but a difference nonetheless. It's just because this year we had a weird situation with the power 5 conferences where the number of teams they had eligible for the NIT was down a bit.

I'm sure the school presidents will look at other things
The schools offer besides just basketball.

municup14 wrote:I'm sure the school presidents will look at other things
The schools offer besides just basketball.

If they do, they're idiots. Basketball makes the world go round financially in this league. You need teams that both now and into the future can compete for tournament bids.

The best answer is taking Valpo, Murray and Belmont and continuing to play an 18 game schedule with 7 home and homes and 4 single plays and scheduling strategically so that the top teams are only subject to playing the bottom teams once.

That can be a little dicey; I'd hate to be a team battling for a title and the team in contention with me got to play 6 games against lesser teams while I got 3, and then the only time I played them was on their home court. I still don't see if we reinstitute the non con scheduling expectations, that then playing more conference games is a bad thing given how hard scheduling is. Just don't schedule any sub 200 teams; if the conference mandates scheduling levels, unless you get stuck in a tourney you should at least avoid too much of a hit. That said , if we go to 12, I doubt we play 22 conference games, but I could live with 20.

If 12 teams split into 2 divisions - play a Round Robin in your division for 10 games and each team of the other division once for 16 games. Then seed the tourney with the top two in each division getting byes and then E3 vs W6, E4 vs W5, E5 vs W4 and E6 vs W3 on Day 1. Thus 4 PIG games on Day 1.

Then you are down to 8 teams and proceed as normal - it makes the regular season even a little more important with only 4 byes (33%) instead of 6 (60%).

UEACES80 wrote:If 12 teams split into 2 divisions - play a Round Robin in your division for 10 games and each team of the other division once for 16 games. Then seed the tourney with the top two in each division getting byes and then E3 vs W6, E4 vs W5, E5 vs W4 and E6 vs W3 on Day 1. Thus 4 PIG games on Day 1.

Then you are down to 8 teams and proceed as normal - it makes the regular season even a little more important with only 4 byes (33%) instead of 6 (60%).

That seems like the best plan to me as well.

The problem with that it adds 2 more non con games to have to schedule and most teams struggle to fill their schedules now with enough quality teams. Unless we can get agreements with another couple solid midmajor leagues for inter league challenges on a yearly basis to fill the void, I don't want to see conference games any less in number.

Go all out to schedule American Conference teams to mess with minds of the WSU fans.

I can't imagine anyone is ready to reduce the number of league games. I think we'll continue to play 18 regardless of the number of teams. Hell, the ACC is going to 20 the year after next...