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.................
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.................
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.................
Return to Missouri Valley Conference Basketball
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Oreo1 and 31 guests