MVCfans.com

I’ll add to that- a couple years ago, Murray started the season 23-0 and finished the regular season with one loss and went into the NCAA tournament 12th in the AP poll. They were “rewarded” with a 6 seed and a second round matchup with a 3 seed in the second round. That year, the 3 seed was Marquette came into the tournament ranked 11th in the AP poll.

Unless we can get SLU and Murray State, I'd rather we stay at 10. NKU would be fine I guess, but they've only been a D1 school since 2013.

RacerJoeD wrote:You guys are missing something. It isn’t only about bids. It’s about seeding. The swag gets a bid, but it is usually a 16. If your conference, by virtue of being perceived as a better conference and therefor the winner as a better team, gets a better seed, there is more chance of a favorable matchup in the tournament. The money in the tournament isn’t in bids, it’s in wins, because the money goes up with every round. The chances of winning go up with the better seed, and therefore the money goes up with the perception of the conference. Adding highly respected and nationally competitive teams to your conference, done correctly, makes more money per school despite the need to divide by more teams.

In a perfect world you could get more money per team. I highly doubt the committee is gonna say ISUR should have been in last year if Murray or NKU had been in the league. I highly doubt WSU would have been seeded higher. I know the shares would have been less valuable with more teams to split it between.

ptownbraves wrote:Unless we can get SLU and Murray State, I'd rather we stay at 10. NKU would be fine I guess, but they've only been a D1 school since 2013.

This, but I would accept Belmont with SLU or Murray State. I have no real interest in anyone else for 11/12.

I am getting irrationally mad about the concept that you can't schedule for an 11-team league.

Either way, 11 or 12 is better. Ask Wichita St how their resume is being enhanced in a 12-team league with creative scheduling to avoid having to play bad teams twice. Works, doesn't it?

Whatever add we make, we have to do it with the short-term in mind. We don't have time in the changing landscape to wait for programs to grow naturally. We need a winning program, or at least a program who can throw money at the problem.

Of course, none of the prospects are powerhouse programs. So I reluctantly vote for Northern Kentucky, who we can at least rely on to throw money and resources at the problem to keep up with the rest of the league. There's no such assurances on the others from a budget standpoint. I don't trust Milwaukee or Oakland to spend long-term, and I don't trust any Dakota school, especially NDSU, given their football.

I don't understand how anyone can look at this list of programs and vote for Denver or Milwaukee (especially Denver) but that's just me.

lime wrote:

ptownbraves wrote:Unless we can get SLU and Murray State, I'd rather we stay at 10. NKU would be fine I guess, but they've only been a D1 school since 2013.

This, but I would accept Belmont with SLU or Murray State. I have no real interest in anyone else for 11/12.

I'd take a closer look at NKU before you say that.

VUGrad1314 wrote:

lime wrote:

ptownbraves wrote:Unless we can get SLU and Murray State, I'd rather we stay at 10. NKU would be fine I guess, but they've only been a D1 school since 2013.

This, but I would accept Belmont with SLU or Murray State. I have no real interest in anyone else for 11/12.

I'd take a closer look at NKU before you say that.

TheAsianSensation wrote:I am getting irrationally mad about the concept that you can't schedule for an 11-team league.

Either way, 11 or 12 is better. Ask Wichita St how their resume is being enhanced in a 12-team league with creative scheduling to avoid having to play bad teams twice. Works, doesn't it?

Whatever add we make, we have to do it with the short-term in mind. We don't have time in the changing landscape to wait for programs to grow naturally. We need a winning program, or at least a program who can throw money at the problem.

Of course, none of the prospects are powerhouse programs. So I reluctantly vote for Northern Kentucky, who we can at least rely on to throw money and resources at the problem to keep up with the rest of the league. There's no such assurances on the others from a budget standpoint. I don't trust Milwaukee or Oakland to spend long-term, and I don't trust any Dakota school, especially NDSU, given their football.

I've been there for weeks. We're the only league that is making inconvenient VB and WBB scheduling a deal breaker. Oh No!! We might have to play a WBB game on a Tuesday and somebody won't have a travel partner!!!!

Do you know how much we could help the top MBB teams by only having them have to play two of the Thrusday teams once instead of twice? 8 double plays and 2 single plays is not a difficult schedule by any means.

Oh and in the poll, give me Arlington and New Mexico State..

Hello - long time listener, first time caller (Redbirdfan regular)....

I would be all in on NKU - but it seems like the Valley is trying to find schools in big tv markets. While NKU IS in the Cincy market (#34) and doesn't have to compete with the NBA like others would (Denver, Milwaukee) - they DO have to compete with two bigger colleges (Cincy and Xavier). Will that be the case in a decade? Will their fanbase and program grow that big if they get picked up by a bigger conference? Who knows...would the Valley want to take that risk? Dope arena, though!

I would go with SLU first and foremost (if that is a possibility) - prestige, fan base, success, tv market, location all play a role.
Murray State would be my second option - while it isn't in a big tv market (Who covers them? Paducah?), they have the prestige and the name.
Belmont would be third. Big tv market with a struggling P5 school to compete with for tv time, prestige and success.
If you get one of the Dakotas, you'd have to get them all IMO. If that were to happen, then I think the Valley would start taking a serious look at merging with MVFC.