Stay at 9?

[m-v-c]

No doubt it's a delicate balance. Not sure if just following the money is the best long-term solution though, lot of leagues have fallen apart by trying to chase the money and jumping way out of their comfort zones. Most likely the big boys, whether its the whole BCS or a subset group of schools within it (how much do Ohio State and Washington State really have in common?), are going to break off and form their own association, either under the NCAA or outside it. Or else the entire college sports model is going to get blown up if the NCAA loses the Ed O'Bannon case. A whole lot of schools and administrators in college sports would be wise to think long-term with their decisions, not just trying to position for pie-in-the-sky best-case scenarios or for the next couple years. But not sure there are enough people who have the patience to do that.

And I'm sure the Valley has been telling itself this for a very long time. Just sit back and scoff at everyone else chasing the money and argue that they're just not thinking long-term. We're thinking long-term. Apparently really, really long-term, because it hasn't paid off for the last 40 years.

It sounds like you're making a vague illusion to Creighton's departure and WSU's fans wanting a departure. Here's the truth: It doesn't matter if Creighton's move fails. It doesn't matter if WSU leaves for a less stable conference and it falls apart. Because the Valley will always be here, and always take us back. What, we're going to add UMKC this season and if Creighton comes back with their tail between their legs we're going to go "Nope, you had your chance, should have thought more long term?" Creighton will always be able to return to the MVC, and if WSU wants to leave, they'll always be able to return. Just like Tulsa, or Louisville, or any of the other major programs that left would be able to return if they wanted to. The Valley is a safety net that exists for the sake of existing for the most part, and if taking a risk fails ... the safety net is still there.

The only ones not thinking long-term are the Valley's leadership. Patience is one thing, but a stubborn refusal to evolve isn't patience. It's the thinking of dinosaurs that go extinct.

You don't become a success without taking risks. And not taking risks has been the Valley's mindset for decades. What was the last real risk that the Valley took ... integration?

Ask the WAC or Conference USA-two conferences on a similar plane with the MVC-how their risks worked out. Risks do not automatically equal evolving, sometimes risks are just foolishness.

If the Valley has been sitting back for 40 years, then who gets credit for 4 teams in the NCAAs a couple years ago? Who gets credit for raising this league from an also-ran in the late 80s into a league that is now regularly competing for Sweet 16s and can even make a Final 4? This league has evolved and it IS a success. The Valley has been as stable as any conference in the country the past 15 years, it has been a consistent top 10 conference, and it is doing this without football and without east coast media behind it. That's because the league has a core of schools that makes sense, and because it hasn't been expanding just for the sake of expansion. One would think a lot of other conferences would be paying attention to the MVC's model if they actually want to exist 20 years from now.

Not making any reference to Creighton or WSU fans, referencing college sports in general. The conferences that have succeeded are the ones who have stayed true to their philosophies and haven't made snap judgments just to appease people who want snap judgments. The MVC would be silly to, for instance, merge with the Atlantic 10 and become a 20-team conference stretching from Wichita to Rhode Island because a conference like that will never last. History has proven numerous times that far-flung conferences do not last. Sure, there's some uncertainty for the MVC, but there's uncertainty absolutely everywhere right now. This is the environment the schools and conferences have chosen, and for many of them it has flopped. If the MVC wants to choose a different path, it has been around more than 100 years, not going to argue with it.

[rlh04d]

Ask the WAC or Conference USA-two conferences on a similar plane with the MVC-how their risks worked out. Risks do not automatically equal evolving, sometimes risks are just foolishness.

You're looking at this from a conference perspective. I don't care about the conference. The conference exists to facilitate the programs that are members of the conference, not the other way around. I could care less what happened to the WAC and C-USA. What happened to the teams that were driving those conferences? The risks worked out for them. What name is on the conference is irrelevant to the long-term success of their institutions. Really, what the hell is the difference between C-USA and this new AAC other than a name-change and being slightly better than they were before?

If the Valley has been sitting back for 40 years, then who gets credit for 4 teams in the NCAAs a couple years ago?

Who gets the blame for being a one-bid conference in 2011, then? 2010? 2009? 2008? We went four years as a one-bid conference, and you're still trying to give the MVC credit for being a 4-bid conference once seven years ago? (Not a couple years ... seven)

One would think a lot of other conferences would be paying attention to the MVC's model if they actually want to exist 20 years from now.

Again, you're making the argument that the purpose of a conference is to exist. The goals and direction of the individual schools should be subservient to the conference's goal of stability. From where I'm standing, the individual schools are the ones doing ALL of the work. They are the ones that pay for scholarships for student athletes, facilities, pay for ADs, pay for coaches, put the product on the floor. The only thing the conference exists for is to provide a common set of rules for the teams to compete under and a common scheduling arrangement.

We are not subservient to this conference. This conference is subservient to us. It's not about the MVC or Conference USA surviving, it's about WSU, and Creighton, and Indiana State, and Tulsa, and Memphis, and on and on and on THRIVING. The existence of a conference that contributes essentially nothing is irrelevant. If every team in this conference quit and formed a new conference the same day, it would have a different name and leadership, but nothing else would change. Because it's the schools involved that matter.

The existence of the conference is the end goal for you, I get that. I'm not so sure Conference USA wasn't a more successful conference than the MVC, though, despite the instability, because it put its teams in a position to be successful more than the Valley has. And that's the real purpose of a conference ... not to exist for its own sake, but to better its programs and make them stronger for having been in the conference than they would have been outside of it. When that is no longer the case, the conference is failing its obligation to its members.

[laxrx]

Ask the WAC or Conference USA-two conferences on a similar plane with the MVC-how their risks worked out. Risks do not automatically equal evolving, sometimes risks are just foolishness.

You're looking at this from a conference perspective. I don't care about the conference. The conference exists to facilitate the programs that are members of the conference, not the other way around. I could care less what happened to the WAC and C-USA. What happened to the teams that were driving those conferences? The risks worked out for them. What name is on the conference is irrelevant to the long-term success of their institutions. Really, what the hell is the difference between C-USA and this new AAC other than a name-change and being slightly better than they were before?

If the Valley has been sitting back for 40 years, then who gets credit for 4 teams in the NCAAs a couple years ago?

Who gets the blame for being a one-bid conference in 2011, then? 2010? 2009? 2008? We went four years as a one-bid conference, and you're still trying to give the MVC credit for being a 4-bid conference once seven years ago? (Not a couple years ... seven)

One would think a lot of other conferences would be paying attention to the MVC's model if they actually want to exist 20 years from now.

Again, you're making the argument that the purpose of a conference is to exist. The goals and direction of the individual schools should be subservient to the conference's goal of stability. From where I'm standing, the individual schools are the ones doing ALL of the work. They are the ones that pay for scholarships for student athletes, facilities, pay for ADs, pay for coaches, put the product on the floor. The only thing the conference exists for is to provide a common set of rules for the teams to compete under and a common scheduling arrangement.

We are not subservient to this conference. This conference is subservient to us. It's not about the MVC or Conference USA surviving, it's about WSU, and Creighton, and Indiana State, and Tulsa, and Memphis, and on and on and on THRIVING. The existence of a conference that contributes essentially nothing is irrelevant. If every team in this conference quit and formed a new conference the same day, it would have a different name and leadership, but nothing else would change. Because it's the schools involved that matter.

The existence of the conference is the end goal for you, I get that. I'm not so sure Conference USA wasn't a more successful conference than the MVC, though, despite the instability, because it put its teams in a position to be successful more than the Valley has. And that's the real purpose of a conference ... not to exist for its own sake, but to better its programs and make them stronger for having been in the conference than they would have been outside of it. When that is no longer the case, the conference is failing its obligation to its members.

This is a very thought out response and after think long and hard you are correct....what is not important is the conference itself but the schools that make up a conference.We can all name Conferences that are no longer with us (Great Midwest, SWC, Metro and Now Big East) but many of these conference helped it's members build success and take steps up in the basketball world. The Big East did a lot for it's schools and most teams benefited greatly financially. The destruction of the Big East has more to do with the success of Football and the differnces between BCS football schools and the basketball only institutions. Here in the Valley none of our Schools are BCS D-1 so we are more homogeneous...more like A10

[rlh04d]

This is a very thought out response and after think long and hard you are correct....what is not important is the conference itself but the schools that make up a conference.We can all name Conferences that are no longer with us (Great Midwest, SWC, Metro and Now Big East) but many of these conference helped it's members build success and take steps up in the basketball world. The Big East did a lot for it's schools and most teams benefited greatly financially. The destruction of the Big East has more to do with the success of Football and the differnces between BCS football schools and the basketball only institutions. Here in the Valley none of our Schools are BCS D-1 so we are more homogeneous...more like A10

Exactly.

The Big East as we knew it doesn't exist anymore ... but does not existing make it a failure?

Virginia Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Boston College are now in the ACC. Louisville will be in a year. West Virginia is in the Big 12. Rutgers is going to the Big 10. All of those programs have a higher profile than when they joined the Big East. All of them make more money now than they did before. All of those programs, for all intents and purposes, are bigger athletic programs, more successful, and more important than before they joined the Big East.

The Catholic 7, despite being somewhat left behind, have been able to split away to form their own conference with like-minded institutions and grab an excellent television contract that gives them more than they were ever able to earn when associated with football. That TV contract could be huge for the future of basketball-only schools. They could very well be leading a revolution in the sport.

I would argue that of the teams in the Big East, only UConn and Cincinnati are in a poor position at this current moment, and both of those schools are front-runners for future major conference expansion. USF is pretty much in the same situation ... the BE didn't help them or hurt them, really, beyond maybe a bump in national prestige.

So is the Big East a failure because it doesn't exist anymore? I would argue that 15 teams associated with the Big East are better for having been members of it, two more will likely be better the next time expansion hits again, and one is kind of status quo. That's a huge percentage of teams that have been a member of that conference that improved dramatically thanks to their association in that conference. But they're a failure and the Valley is a success?

This conference needs to reevaluate what being successful means. I love the history of the conference, but at some point having so much tradition becomes self-defeating by keeping you from taking any chances that could potentially risk that tradition. There's a reason that established companies are run by older people, but new companies are started by young people ... as you get older, you focus on stability because you want to keep what you already have. When you're younger, you focus on success and are willing to take chances to achieve it, because you want more than what you have.

[rlh04d]

Just one other note since my other two posts were long:

Just about every single program that was in the Big East can say they are in a better position now than they were 10 years ago. They can all say they were on the way up in the world of college athletics. Not all of them had more wins this last year than they did 10 years ago, but they were better off overall.

How many programs in the MVC can honestly say the same? How many of us feel like our programs are moving up in the world?

Off the top of my head I'd say WSU and Evansville.

[C0|db|00ded]

[quote="laxrx"]So much turmoil in the conference world....so many choices but nothing seems like a home run. Big market or small market?? Basketball only school? I think the only answer can be when it comes to college sports these days is follow the money.[/quote]

There is nothing difficult about the choice. You pick the best basketball school period. Public/private is irrelevant, big/small market is irrelevant, basketball only is irrelevant.

You pick the best basketball school period.


T


...

[uniftw]

Just one other note since my other two posts were long:

Just about every single program that was in the Big East can say they are in a better position now than they were 10 years ago. They can all say they were on the way up in the world of college athletics. Not all of them had more wins this last year than they did 10 years ago, but they were better off overall.

How many programs in the MVC can honestly say the same? How many of us feel like our programs are moving up in the world?

Off the top of my head I'd say WSU and Evansville.

UNI is better off now than they were 10 years ago...

[pafan]

You pick the best basketball school period.

Which is why I'm expecting Illinois to join the MVC next week. Not sure how that dude in Green Bay thought they presidents were considering the regional campus in Chicago.

[C0|db|00ded]

[quote="pafan"][quote="C0|db|00ded"]
You pick the best basketball school period.
[/quote]

Which is why I'm expecting Illinois to join the MVC next week. Not sure how that dude in Green Bay thought they presidents were considering the regional campus in Chicago.
[/quote]

I should have said the best basketball school (you can) period.


T


...

[m-v-c]

Just one other note since my other two posts were long:

Just about every single program that was in the Big East can say they are in a better position now than they were 10 years ago. They can all say they were on the way up in the world of college athletics. Not all of them had more wins this last year than they did 10 years ago, but they were better off overall.

How many programs in the MVC can honestly say the same? How many of us feel like our programs are moving up in the world?

Off the top of my head I'd say WSU and Evansville.

UNI is better off now than they were 10 years ago...

Clearly Creighton was better off than they were 10 years ago, Jays likely never would've been in the new Big East 10 years ago. Drake has accomplished more in the past 10 yrs than it did before that (admittedly that's not saying much, but the program is still a fair amount better than it was). Wichita State, UNI are both far better off. Indiana State's program is overall more solid than it was 10 years ago-Waltman had some good teams, but Sycs weren't a team competing for postseason every year. Think they are at that point now.

Every one of these schools did it in the Valley. As far as 'moving up in the world'...if a fan's definition of success is jumping to better conferences every 10 yrs, they're almost never going to be happy with their team. (And several of the schools who have left the Big East only wish they could have the success now that they had before leaving. Boston College is flat-out lost in the ACC, and Miami football has stunk in the ACC. Maybe they make a little more money, but they traded success for money. As a fan, I could care less how much money the school makes-I want to see wins.)