Goal #1: Become Multi-Bid Conf. Again

[PurpleAcesFootball]

The rest of the conference? It doesn’t look like anyone else will make the postseason. (Pay did play C-level notwithstanding.)

That is not a good sign at all. That is the profile of a low-major conference. Hopefully it’s a one-year blip and will not repeat.

I'm fairly confident this is the norm now for the MVC. There's just not a way to get enough "quadrant 1" wins here.

Keep in mind most pundits (Jerry Palm, etc) seemed to think Loyola was on the wrong side of the NCAA bubble if they lost to Illinois State last weekend, with an RPI in the high 20s but a KenPom in the low 40s.

I agree with you.

It's great to have the 8th rated RPI conference, but if we end up with ONE team in the NCAA/NIT postseason, that is bad.

[Rambler63]

There are a number of rules and incentives and policies in effect now that are essentially creating a two-tier system and wiping out what used to be considered mid-major territory.

The quadrant system has its cutoffs set to the exact number of teams in the P5+BE. There are 75 teams in the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and Pac 12. The cutoff for a Q1 road win is 75. The cutoff for a Q2 home win is 75. It couldn't be more clear that the committee doesn't consider a win against any team below the top 75 to have much merit.

Only Q1/Q2 wins matter, and the losses don't matter at all. A team with a combined 6-13 record against Q1/Q2 teams is in better shape for at large and seedings than a team that's 4-3 against Q1/Q2.

There should have been a downside to conference consolidation, but there isn't. Under .500 teams in P5+BE conferences are now welcome with open arms into the at large conversation, pushing out 14-4 and 13-5 teams from the MWC, A10, MVC, and West Coast.

Teams outside P5+BE conferences are held responsible for scheduling up, but P5+BE teams have no incentive or disincentives to ever schedule a mid-major team ever again. Big 12 had a total of 14 non-conference road games among their 10 teams this year. Syracuse had one true road game, and they chose Georgetown. The fragile and fungible MTE patchwork system is the only way mid-majors have to encounter P5+BE at all.

[Cdizzle]

There are a number of rules and incentives and policies in effect now that are essentially creating a two-tier system and wiping out what used to be considered mid-major territory.

The quadrant system has its cutoffs set to the exact number of teams in the P5+BE. There are 75 teams in the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, and Pac 12. The cutoff for a Q1 road win is 75. The cutoff for a Q2 home win is 75. It couldn't be more clear that the committee doesn't consider a win against any team below the top 75 to have much merit.

Only Q1/Q2 wins matter, and the losses don't matter at all. A team with a combined 6-13 record against Q1/Q2 teams is in better shape for at large and seedings than a team that's 4-3 against Q1/Q2.

There should have been a downside to conference consolidation, but there isn't. Under .500 teams in P5+BE conferences are now welcome with open arms into the at large conversation, pushing out 14-4 and 13-5 teams from the MWC, A10, MVC, and West Coast.

Teams outside P5+BE conferences are held responsible for scheduling up, but P5+BE teams have no incentive or disincentives to ever schedule a mid-major team ever again. Big 12 had a total of 14 non-conference road games among their 10 teams this year. Syracuse had one true road game, and they chose Georgetown. The fragile and fungible MTE patchwork system is the only way mid-majors have to encounter P5+BE at all.

The Quadrant system is a move in a better direction, and one that is actually beneficial to MVC teams relative to the Top50 bucket of yesteryear. It starts to give credit for tough road games (which you get in the MVC), and decreases the value of games against marginal teams at home. It's still a dumb way to look at a rating system, because if you are willing to trust the rating system well enough to group teams like this, you should just use the actual rating.

I agree with most of your other comments. Particularly, I would like to see teams have to have AT LEAST a .500 league record to get an at-large. If you are 8-10, guess what, you can win your conference's auto-bid. Good luck.

Also, I would much rather see a 26-4 mid with decent numbers that didn't have a chance to prove themselves than a 18-14 Syracuse that had a dozen opportunities (half at home) in which they DID demonstrate they weren't that good.

Good luck to LUC in the dance, so long as we don't run in to you!

[VUGrad1314]

We need a stronger top of the conference and better scheduling. Multiple conferences with lower ratings than us are getting multiple bids. The MWC and WCC will get two each the A10 will get three in a terrible year. The MVC had a great renaissance and will still only get one. Here's what needs to happen:

Missouri State needs a better coach and more aggressive scheduling
UNI needs to act like conference play matters and not just show up to play whenever they feel like it
Valpo Bradley Loyola Southern Illinois and Evansville need to schedule better
Illinois State needs to do a better job holding on to the talent they bring in.

EVERYONE needs to keep getting better

We need to drop this defeatist "it's all about Arch Madness" attitude that I have heard WAY TOO MUCH from TOO MANY coaches and administrators who should know better.

Murray State NEEDS to be added. If there is no suitable 12th that's fine. Tell the non revenue sports to deal with it. This is a BASKETBALL conference. BASKETBALL drives the bus.

When is the last time the #8 conference was a one bid league? This shouldn't happen, and we need to work hard to make sure it never happens again.

[MOST]

A very good MVC season. But doubt the MVC will get an NCAA at-large selection---nor probably a high NIT seed.

TOO MUCH PARITY! NO #2 or #3 standout teams to grab the selection committees' attention.

MVC a better conference with no bully WSU or Creighton. Changed my opinion---Loyola was a good add. Hope Valpo becomes the same. Murray State will be competitive. Next 1 or 2 adds ???????

Too increase MM post season play there will have to be major NCAA tournament changes: limit the number of teams from the P5+1 conferences; delete auto tickets to the bottom ranked conference tournament champs; add a D1AA tournament for the MMs; a combination of all the above! NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Added: getting ready to watch the NCAA selection show. No I will not watch the selection show!! All ready know within 95% who already made it. Only question who is the last four in and the first four out. probably a 50/50 split among the 8 named teams. WHO cares---except those 8 teams. The selection show is nothing more than rah rah cheering show---means nothing--sells TV advertising space,

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

[uniguy]

We need a stronger top of the conference and better scheduling. Multiple conferences with lower ratings than us are getting multiple bids. The MWC and WCC will get two each the A10 will get three in a terrible year. The MVC had a great renaissance and will still only get one. Here's what needs to happen:

Missouri State needs a better coach and more aggressive scheduling
UNI needs to act like conference play matters and not just show up to play whenever they feel like it
Valpo Bradley Loyola Southern Illinois and Evansville need to schedule better
Illinois State needs to do a better job holding on to the talent they bring in.

EVERYONE needs to keep getting better

We need to drop this defeatist "it's all about Arch Madness" attitude that I have heard WAY TOO MUCH from TOO MANY coaches and administrators who should know better.

Murray State NEEDS to be added. If there is no suitable 12th that's fine. Tell the non revenue sports to deal with it. This is a BASKETBALL conference. BASKETBALL drives the bus.

When is the last time the #8 conference was a one bid league? This shouldn't happen, and we need to work hard to make sure it never happens again.

Yeah, UNI doesn't care about conference play. That's why they finished in the top half of the league 14 years in a row before this year.

What coaches and admins (particularly admins) said "Its all about Arch Madness"? Honestly asking. I never heard that.

I do agree the league needs to schedule better. A decade ago there was a scheduling mandate and it showed in our RPIs and the # of bids the league received. That has gone away and it has hurt the league.

The quadrant system is a pretty slick way to keep mid-majors out it seems. Just looking at the number of wins from a particular conference (and ignoring the losses) can make a team like OU and Syracuse look pretty good.

[Rambler63]

I do agree the league needs to schedule better. A decade ago there was a scheduling mandate and it showed in our RPIs and the # of bids the league received. That has gone away and it has hurt the league.

The quadrant system is a pretty slick way to keep mid-majors out it seems. Just looking at the number of wins from a particular conference (and ignoring the losses) can make a team like OU and Syracuse look pretty good.

It wasn't so much the "scheduling mandate" going away as the NCAA and the selection committee beginning to ignore RPI if it was inconvenient for getting 7-8-9 major conference teams with .500 or worse records into the tournament. You had Missouri State in 2006 being left out with a 21 RPI, win over Arkansas. Also in 2006, Hofstra had a 30. Air Force had a 30 in 2007 and was left out.

Meanwhile, there is no pressure on the P5 to "schedule well" in non-conference. They can play only cupcakes if they want. They can play 240 RPI teams at home every game through the non-con (maybe a showcase game or a MTE of their choosing mixed in). They will get their multiple chances at Q1 games in conference, and never have to play a mid-major on the road, or sometimes not ANY team on the road. Syracuse's only road game this year was at Georgetown (RPI in the 150s). Oklahoma (RPI 49) got a better seed an an at large than Loyola (RPI 22) as an auto bid, and they were under .500 in conference, 5-11 away from home, and 2-8 in their last 10. You've got 14-loss at large teams in the tournament now, while 6-loss teams go to the NIT.

There is no penalty for P5 schools refusing collectively to schedule mid-majors. In fact, the downsides are so clear that they don't do it anymore. NC State paid $175k to not play Loyola in Chicago, after Loyola lived up to their part of the bargain. Florida was one of the few teams to agree to play Loyola, and they probably won't take any more similar deals.

So "scheduling mandates" are meaningless until the selection committee starts counting Q1/Q2 LOSSES as carefully as wins. Why are teams that lose 60-70% of their Q1/Q2 games held in higher regard than 4-3 or 3-3 teams? And the RPI was adjusted to take road games into account, and the Q1/Q2 system basically tosses the RPI in the garbage. Finally, they have to stop giving at-large bids to teams with under-.500 conference records.

[MOST]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

CRAZY!! If you expand to 128 why have conferences or conference tournaments. Open play and open selection not realistic. But, it is laffable.

[Jsnhbe1Birds]

NOTE: INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TEAMS WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE MMs GETTING INVITES---THE BIGGER/MORE TEAMS JUST MEANS MORE TEAMS FROM P5+1 CONFERENCES.

Disagree. I think the NCAA Tournament should expand to 128. That's an extra round of revenue. The tournament could literally include every P5 and Big East teams, even the last place ones, and there would still be exactly 50 spots for mid/low majors. 26 of those go to conference winners. Still 24 at larges from mid/low majors.

CRAZY!! If you expand to 128 why have conferences or conference tournaments. Open play and open selection not realistic. But, it is laffable.

I'd be happy with no conference tournament if that means more mid-majors get in. That could be your team.