If they want 12 but only sure on 11?

by **SMUfan** » April 17th, 2017, 8:00 pm

Just for discussion sake.

Say the MVC takes Valpo and Murray State. Belmont turns the MVC down. But the league wants 12.

Who would be the non talked about selection?

How about UALR?

How about Wright State?

How about NKU?

etc.................

**Sponsor**

by **Jsnhbe1Birds** » April 17th, 2017, 8:09 pm

The MVC is run by idiots whom like to be red-headed stepchildren so they'll stick with 11 teams and play a round robin 20 conference games to decrease the chance for the amount of quality games possible (in the committee's eyes) because they're clueless and truly believe they're an 8.5 even though they're a 4.5.

by **SMUfan** » April 17th, 2017, 8:21 pm

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:The MVC is run by idiots whom like to be red-headed stepchildren so they'll stick with 11 teams and play a round robin 20 conference games to decrease the chance for the amount of quality games possible (in the committee's eyes) because they're clueless and truly believe they're an 8.5 even though they're a 4.5.

That answer is not allowed for this discussion.

Seems like every league's fans says their league is run by idiots. They have to be pretty smart to get where they are at.

by **Rambler63** » April 17th, 2017, 9:04 pm

SMUfan wrote:Seems like every league's fans says their league is run by idiots. They have to be pretty smart to get where they are at.

Yep.

If there's a need beyond Valpo and Murray State (and Belmont declines), I'd go with Denver, Milwaukee, and UALR.

Forget Northern Kentucky-- their budget in 2016 ranked 242nd, almost a quarter of a million dollars behind the worst spender in the league, Indiana State. If you want to improve the damn conference, the place to start is spending the cash for coaching expertise, assistants, recruiting budgets, travel, paying for home games, marketing, etc.

In 2015-16, Grand Canyon University, a for-profit school, had a basketball budget of $4.3 million. That's $1.2 million more than the highest budget of the remaining MVC schools. With the management of the corporation having a fiduciary duty to manage that money wisely, isn't that some reasonable proof that there's a solid cost-benefit upside to spending some competitive money on athletics?

by **tribecalledquest** » April 17th, 2017, 9:19 pm

Jsnhbe1Birds wrote:The MVC is run by idiots whom like to be red-headed stepchildren so they'll stick with 11 teams and play a round robin 20 conference games to decrease the chance for the amount of quality games possible (in the committee's eyes) because they're clueless and truly believe they're an 8.5 even though they're a 4.5.

Do you think the MVC coaches would choose harder or easier opponents for games 19 and 20 against someone like Valpo or Murray State?

by **Jsnhbe1Birds** » April 17th, 2017, 9:28 pm

Rambler63 wrote:
SMUfan wrote:Seems like every league's fans says their league is run by idiots. They have to be pretty smart to get where they are at.

Yep.

If there's a need beyond Valpo and Murray State (and Belmont declines), I'd go with Denver, Milwaukee, and UALR.

Forget Northern Kentucky-- their budget in 2016 ranked 242nd, almost a quarter of a million dollars behind the worst spender in the league, Indiana State. If you want to improve the damn conference, the place to start is spending the cash for coaching expertise, assistants, recruiting budgets, travel, paying for home games, marketing, etc.

In 2015-16, Grand Canyon University, a for-profit school, had a basketball budget of $4.3 million. That's $1.2 million more than the highest budget of the remaining MVC schools. With the management of the corporation having a fiduciary duty to manage that money wisely, isn't that some reasonable proof that there's a solid cost-benefit upside to spending some competitive money on athletics?

Not question in my mind you are right about grand Canyon being the best possible get but travel is a problem. The MVC doesn't step out of its footprint, although I wish they would. Logically if youre okay with grand Canyon then you might as well add Gonzaga, St. Mary's, VCU, and Dayton along with GCU to get to 14 teams, 2 division while crating your own mini super conference...you know since travel isn't a problem...

by **uniftw** » April 17th, 2017, 9:54 pm

Rambler63 wrote:
SMUfan wrote:Seems like every league's fans says their league is run by idiots. They have to be pretty smart to get where they are at.

Yep.

If there's a need beyond Valpo and Murray State (and Belmont declines), I'd go with Denver, Milwaukee, and UALR.

Forget Northern Kentucky-- their budget in 2016 ranked 242nd, almost a quarter of a million dollars behind the worst spender in the league, Indiana State. If you want to improve the damn conference, the place to start is spending the cash for coaching expertise, assistants, recruiting budgets, travel, paying for home games, marketing, etc.

In 2015-16, Grand Canyon University, a for-profit school, had a basketball budget of $4.3 million. That's $1.2 million more than the highest budget of the remaining MVC schools. With the management of the corporation having a fiduciary duty to manage that money wisely, isn't that some reasonable proof that there's a solid cost-benefit upside to spending some competitive money on athletics?

For arguments sake NKU is in their first year as a full D1 member. Their budget, and resources, will continue to grow.

Go look at their facilities. Seriously, go look. It'll make even Loyola fans question their facilities that they upgraded and used as selling points.

by **TheAsianSensation** » April 17th, 2017, 9:57 pm

If you absolutely have to, you can have an 11 team conference and 18 conference games. It's clunky to make the schedule for it, but it's doable.

by **Chuck_A** » April 17th, 2017, 11:00 pm

SMUfan wrote:Just for discussion sake.

Say the MVC takes Valpo and Murray State. Belmont turns the MVC down. But the league wants 12.

Who would be the non talked about selection?

How about UALR?

How about Wright State?

How about NKU?

etc.................

Just for discussion's sake. If the Valley gets Valpo and Murray State...why not UIC? The Flames were the choice 4 years ago until one of the expansion committee members pushed for a private. UIC is still head and shoulders above all other choices and even the product on the court has improved and will continue to do so. We've got the facilities and are in our 10-year master plan that includes a new Pavilion and new soccer stadium. Does it matter that we would share Chicago with Loyola?

Our baseball and softball teams are in first place, respectively. Men's Soccer won the HL Tourney and a trip to the NCAAs. We've got good and improving Olympic sports. In reality, the MVC could do a lot worst than UIC.

For the record, unlike four years ago, I'd prefer the Flames stay in the HL because I think it'll be better...even without Valpo. But this is just for discussion's sake.

by **MissouriValleyUnite** » April 18th, 2017, 12:05 am

SMUfan wrote:Just for discussion sake.

Say the MVC takes Valpo and Murray State. Belmont turns the MVC down. But the league wants 12.

Who would be the non talked about selection?

How about UALR?

How about Wright State?

How about NKU?

etc.................

First, I hope the MVC adds Murray and Valpo. Those are the two non-negotaible adds IMO. I'd prefer to stay at 11.

But if 12 is a must, I'd be fine with Arlington, Little Rock, Oral Roberts, UIC, Wright St, NDSU, SDSU, Oakland, or Northern Kentucky. I vehemently oppose Milwaukee and Omaha. Ditto UMKC, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in driving several hours to see that arena.

But any expansion to 12 that excludes either Murray or Valpo is a failure to me. Include them both, and I could bite the bullet on the 12th as long as it isn't Omaha.