MVCfans.com

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:
That's small time thinking. That's the problem. Youre absolutely correct in the short term. Eventually teams will get better recruits with really good quality schedules and they wont get crushed. Think long term because we all are in the MVC long term. Face that fact. It's just like business phrase, if you don't spend money, you don't make money. If the conference doesn't put in the work and face the immediate negative effects then they'll never gain the long term effects. The MVC is actually worse than their 12th rated RPI now that WSU left. They'll remain around the 15th rated conference in RPI and be an annual one bid, 13 seed league without drastic measures.

Screw the wins versus 175 and beyond. The committee has spoken. 175 should be the worst game on an MVC schedule within five/ten years.

None of this post makes sense, especially in regards to how it's reacting to what I posted.

I'll simply say - you're wrong because...I don't know what you were trying to say.

UNIFanSince1983 wrote:Ask Dan Muller, Ben Jacboson, Gregg Marshall, et al and they will tell you how easy it is to get games against the top 150 for our league.

You literally don't get it. Being in the MVC WSU could hardly get games against the big dogs. It was a lose-lose for the team they would play no matter how good WSU was. You can guarantee it will be much easier now that they are in the AAC. UNI does their best and had some good games. ISUr tried but are struggling to get these games. I get what you are saying everyone should just be playing great teams all the time. However, the logistics of that just don't always work out. Especially because as hard as it is to get those games it is even harder to get them to come to your stadium. So unless they want to be straight road warriors it just isn't feasible or likely.

You think I don't know as a birds fan. I see Dan Mullers tweets. I say put up or shut up. Do whatever it takes. And, maybe business will come into it quite literally. Take buy games without money if that's what it takes. If it's going to help long term do it...As long as its legal, that is. Everyone wants to hit a home run like VCU and Gonzaga or have two $40-billionaires like Wichita State. Fact is either of those are not likely to happen. You have to pave your own road. Do whatever is needed. And sure, if that means you have to play 8 or 9 non conference games on the road for several seasons to gain long term benefits then that's what you do and take a hit in income. It's time to grow up and put on big boy pants and it's time for these MVC schools to stop acting like red headed step children. These are all universities who have decent amount of money so I don't want to hear the money aspect. I'm not saying build a $250-million stadium like Louisville did just about a hit to their ncome, nothing crippling.

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:Do whatever is needed. And sure, if that means you have to play 8 or 9 non conference games on the road for several seasons to gain long term benefits then that's what you do and take a hit in income.

There are teams that do this. Most of them share leagues. If MVC teams follow suit, they will end up being a similar league. They are leagues like the SWAC and the MEAC.

One thing the Valley has had going for it, relative to weak leagues, are relatively large and supportive fanbases. If you start having 11 home games a year, say goodbye to the money those fans bring. And once that is gone, you are stuck taking those 8 buy games every year because you need the money to function. Your proposal is much, much more likely to lead the MVC into low-major 16-seed land then mid-major potential multi-bid league territory.

Cdizzle wrote:

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:Do whatever is needed. And sure, if that means you have to play 8 or 9 non conference games on the road for several seasons to gain long term benefits then that's what you do and take a hit in income.

There are teams that do this. Most of them share leagues. If MVC teams follow suit, they will end up being a similar league. They are leagues like the SWAC and the MEAC.

One thing the Valley has had going for it, relative to weak leagues, are relatively large and supportive fanbases. If you start having 11 home games a year, say goodbye to the money those fans bring. And once that is gone, you are stuck taking those 8 buy games every year because you need the money to function. Your proposal is much, much more likely to lead the MVC into low-major 16-seed land then mid-major potential multi-bid league territory.

Disagree. Those conferences don't have the facilities the MVC has. Some of those schools play on high school style gyms. Also, I've admitted a hit on income will happen. But, long term I think it will be advantage. Fans are fickle. They'll come back if they leave. Plus, the attendance in the MVC is pathetic as is. Let's not pretend we're north Carolina and losing 10000 per game. Average attendance in the MVC is around 5000 and the average stadium is about more than 8000. Stadiums are already at 60% capacity. Lose some more for long term gain is a plus.

You don't get any long term by taking a bunch of buy games to get your ass beat on the road. This is really stupid.

Play Angry wrote:You don't get any long term by taking a bunch of buy games to get your ass beat on the road. This is really stupid.

If the goal is to become the SWAC, I can't think of a much faster path.

Play Angry wrote:You don't get any long term by taking a bunch of buy games to get your ass beat on the road. This is really stupid.

At least I'm providing an option. The thread was posed as a question. Let's here your idea to enhance the MVC. Or is this Doug Elgin? Content just barely wading above mediocrity? I'm not. I'm sick of our ten schools acting like the little sisters. And, that's what we are, sisters. A bunch of p****** too afraid to better ourselves because we might lose some games and money in the beginning.

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:

Play Angry wrote:You don't get any long term by taking a bunch of buy games to get your ass beat on the road. This is really stupid.

At least I'm providing an option. The thread was posed as a question. Let's here your idea to enhance the MVC. Or is this Doug Elgin? Content just barely wading above mediocrity? I'm not. I'm sick of our ten schools acting like the little sisters. And, that's what we are, sisters. A bunch of p****** too afraid to better ourselves because we might lose some games and money in the beginning.

I just think you misunderstand the impact of your suggestion on RPI and other metrics. Here is the best case scenario if you are a team that takes a bunch of checks to go on a circuit of beatdowns in November and December, in a league full of peers who do the same: http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2017/ ... s-Southern Non-WSU schools went 2-52 vs. the RPI Top 50 last year, and a reasonable number of those games were at home (WSU and ISU x 9 each) and neutral courts. A road heavy slate against top teams is a recipe for disaster.

The best path for the MVC is for schools to invest more aggressively in their basketball programs (i.e., not just increasing spending, but increasing spending at a rate greater than peer institutions are increasing theirs). This is really hard to do at a time when some member schools are facing major cutbacks in their state subsidies and declining enrollment, so it's not a likely outcome for all. It will take unified commitment among the school presidents to exert the proper pressure on those who are reluctant.

Strong leadership, fan bases who are willing to revert to their peak levels of support from the last twenty years, and significant investment at great financial cost (hopefully with corresponding future benefits) are what is needed in the long-term.

Play Angry wrote:

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:

Play Angry wrote:You don't get any long term by taking a bunch of buy games to get your ass beat on the road. This is really stupid.

At least I'm providing an option. The thread was posed as a question. Let's here your idea to enhance the MVC. Or is this Doug Elgin? Content just barely wading above mediocrity? I'm not. I'm sick of our ten schools acting like the little sisters. And, that's what we are, sisters. A bunch of p****** too afraid to better ourselves because we might lose some games and money in the beginning.

I just think you misunderstand the impact of your suggestion on RPI and other metrics. Here is the best case scenario if you are a team that takes a bunch of checks to go on a circuit of beatdowns in November and December, in a league full of peers who do the same: http://warrennolan.com/basketball/2017/ ... s-Southern Non-WSU schools went 2-52 vs. the RPI Top 50 last year, and a reasonable number of those games were at home (WSU and ISU x 9 each) and neutral courts. A road heavy slate against top teams is a recipe for disaster.

The best path for the MVC is for schools to invest more aggressively in their basketball programs (i.e., not just increasing spending, but increasing spending at a rate greater than peer institutions are increasing theirs). This is really hard to do at a time when some member schools are facing major cutbacks in their state subsidies and declining enrollment, so it's not a likely outcome for all. It will take unified commitment among the school presidents to exert the proper pressure on those who are reluctant.

Strong leadership, fan bases who are willing to revert to their peak levels of support from the last twenty years, and significant investment at great financial cost (hopefully with corresponding future benefits) are what is needed in the long-term.

In a perfect world you are right. But, this isn't a perfect world. Like you said, some institutions can't increase their budgets from 2.5 to 7 million like wichita state did. They Lee have to prove it on the court. I'm a Redbird fan and 9,500, near sellout, came out to see WSU play at Redbird arena. When the drakes and indians states came? 5000. Nobody wants to watch bad basketball. We can schedule the crap universities to come play here in non conference too but nobody shows up because nobody cares. So, go on the road, prove your worth for however long it takes and make it pay dividends.

But I just showed you it doesn't pay dividends. Look at Texas Southern. That is your best case scenario under your plan. Long Beach State in 2015 and 2016 is another best case outcome. Those both suck for best case outcomes.

You haven't shown any support for your claim that everybody going 2-9 (worse perhaps? again, 2-52 vs. RPI Top 50 last year) in the OOC vs. a really hard schedule is somehow going to reap long term gains, and we've shown you how your logic is wrong. Provide some support (examples, facts, not just "I think...") for your claims.