MVCfans.com

Make MVC Great Again wrote:It is. But we also have the Loyola Clowns who can't run an athletic department.

mvcfan wrote:The MVC will never again be a multi bid league. You'll be fortunate to get a bid to the NIT. Too bad for the few teams who really care. UNI, etc.

shocktheheart wrote:

uniftw wrote:

Blers wrote:
Also two genuine questions: Thoughts on Deep Dish? And where'd you snag those Complete sports numbers, I believe em, just curious!

1. I didn't like Loyola from the very start. That's never been a secret. It is because they were/are a horrible athletic department and they represent everything wrong with this conference.

2. Deep dish if you want it. IDGAF either way. Give me carbs, cheese, meet, and sauce any way you want and I'll eat it.

3. Numbers are straight from the MVC website with standings for each sport.

Loyola's finishes by sport (most recent first
M Basketball 5 8 6 10 of 10
M Cross Country 5 6 7 2 of 9
M Golf 9 9 7 9 of 9
M Soccer 1 5 5 4 of 5
M I T&F 8 6 3 6 of 7
M O T&F TBD 8 5 4 of 8
W Basketball 10 5 9 8 of 10
W Cross Country 6 4 6 4 of 10
W Golf 7 6 7 9 of 10
W Soccer 6 2 6 3 of 7
Softball 8 10 9 7 of 10
W I T&F 8 9 9 4 of 9
W O T&F TBD 9 9 7 of 9
Volleyball 6 6 7 7 of 10

One regular season championship in four years in all sports? And that was this year! Eight top half finishes in Fifty-Four tries? When is Loyola going to dip into the large endowment to actually be competitive in this conference?

VUFWAlum wrote:An endowment consists of money or income producing property given to an organization, such as a hospital or university, for a specific or restricted purpose such as research or scholarships. Generally, the endowed asset is required to be kept intact and only the income generated by it is consumed.

uniguy wrote:

Rambler63 wrote:.........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.

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree when you say scheduling mandates are meaningless. If it worked like it did in 2006 and 2007 (when we got 4 and 3 bids), then it isn't so much about having high RPIs as it is about sort of beating them at their own game. That year it was all about the record against the top 50. That year we ended up with six teams in the top 50 of RPI. Because of that, each team had 10 RPI top 50 games built into their schedule. It wasn't because we played an overwhelming amount of power 5 teams. We just played a lot of very good teams, kept that RPI high, and when EVERYONE did it, it just sort of fed on itself.

So this year for example (and I am just using this as an example), had perhaps SIU, MSU and Bradley scheduled a little better and ended up in the top 75, that is three more Q1 games for everyone and we don't even have to get a power 5 team to schedule us. If there was a mandate and EVERYONE had to schedule a little better, there would be a cumulative effect, and we would beat them at their own game. It isn't so much about the RPI itself as a metric, but finding our own way into the quadrant game. Sure, they'd probably move the goalposts again, but that is how we did it then.

Taking into account wins AND losses would also make a huge difference for sure. I think USC's coach put it best today when he said "If you are only going to look at your one or two best wins then why are we even playing?" But the whole idea of, "who are your best wins against" stacks the deck against mid-majors so insanely much it just isn't even worth it anymore. But we can do our best to play the game by their rules, and frustrate them to the point that they have to change the rules again.

shocker3 wrote: Another change that would help the non-power conferences if the selection committee would just add one more requirement: you have to be .500 or better in your own conference to get an at large bid. I doubt if the committee is going to do that anytime soon, so scheduling up is the best thing that could be done right now.