Duquesne has potential but they've been totally irrelevant for so long, they add nothing to the A-10 except a warm body.

(04-12-2015 07:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:10 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  I would only expand for St Louis if I was the MVC. UAB and NMSU don't bring anything to the table that say Murray State or Valpo can't bring.

SLU is very unrealistic for the MVC. They are in a stronger league in the A-10, have explicitly stated that they want to be more eastward/East Coast-centric (which the A-10 provides) and are the short list for the Big East. (IMHO, SLU is already school #11 for the Big East. The difficulty is figuring out school #12.) UAB is a good addition if they are forced to leave C-USA, while Valpo also fits institutionally and provides additional Chicago market exposure. (The MVC is sort of like the Big 12 - the competitive product is good with great fan bases, but the long-term demographics are very poor.) UIC is another option - they're not as good on-the-court, but another Chicago location may be important media-wise. If the MVC can be to the Chicago market what the A-10 has been in the past to the Philly market (or what the WCC is to the Bay Area and LA markets), then that's a strong long-term position.

I see no good reason for a basketball conference to expand beyond a number that allows a full double round robin. They don't have the football CCG problem (or incentive, depending on how you view it).

For this reason, Frank, I think you may have this backwards. I believe the Big East would provide a home for Notre Dame if the ACC were to somehow implode. And having done so, they would then need a #12. St Louis fills that bill nicely.

(04-13-2015 10:44 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 07:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:10 PM)FargoBison Wrote:  I would only expand for St Louis if I was the MVC. UAB and NMSU don't bring anything to the table that say Murray State or Valpo can't bring.

SLU is very unrealistic for the MVC. They are in a stronger league in the A-10, have explicitly stated that they want to be more eastward/East Coast-centric (which the A-10 provides) and are the short list for the Big East. (IMHO, SLU is already school #11 for the Big East. The difficulty is figuring out school #12.) UAB is a good addition if they are forced to leave C-USA, while Valpo also fits institutionally and provides additional Chicago market exposure. (The MVC is sort of like the Big 12 - the competitive product is good with great fan bases, but the long-term demographics are very poor.) UIC is another option - they're not as good on-the-court, but another Chicago location may be important media-wise. If the MVC can be to the Chicago market what the A-10 has been in the past to the Philly market (or what the WCC is to the Bay Area and LA markets), then that's a strong long-term position.

I see no good reason for a basketball conference to expand beyond a number that allows a full double round robin. They don't have the football CCG problem (or incentive, depending on how you view it).

For this reason, Frank, I think you may have this backwards. I believe the Big East would provide a home for Notre Dame if the ACC were to somehow implode. And having done so, they would then need a #12. St Louis fills that bill nicely.

The Big East is sitting on a very nice TV deal and has no need for more teams. The MVC, on the other hand, doesn't have a great TV deal and has a relatively small geographic base.

I suppose it's debatable whether the best expansion for them is Nashville/Birmingham as opposed to say, finding good fits in Ohio or Michigan or Pennsylvania, but IMO it would be a reasonable strategy for them to expand their footprint.

I don't believe that any of the non-FBS conferences in Division I would look at the big picture (that is, the NCAAT implications) of expansion. But if a number of them followed a strategy of expanding their footprint, at some point consolidation would likely result in fewer conferences in D-I.

Fewer conferences would mean fewer automatic tourney bids, and more at large bids. History suggests those additional bids would go to P5 bubble teams, and not to mid-major conferences. It's likely that MVC expansion would, more often than not, result in splitting the same size revenue pie into smaller slices. It probably wouldn't increase the number of at large bids they get.

I don't know how big their media contracts are now. But there can't be many mid major schools that move the media needle enough to result in significantly improved per school revenues. Increases in footprint size also typically bring modest increases in travel costs, so net economic benefits should be minimal. Financial motives would have to be secondary in expansion decisions here.

Go to 12 with Creighton and Saint Louis.


:)

Creighton made a bad move going to the Big East. They are way on an island.

MVC doesn't need to expand.

They were one of only 11 conferences with multiple bids
Only the P5 + BE and WCC had a higher seeded team.

(04-13-2015 01:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Go to 12 with Creighton and Saint Louis.


:)

Creighton made a bad move going to the Big East. They are way on an island.

MVC doesn't need to expand.

They were one of only 11 conferences with multiple bids
Only the P5 + BE and WCC had a higher seeded team.

Some islands are nice places to be on.

(04-13-2015 02:03 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 01:37 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Go to 12 with Creighton and Saint Louis.


:)

Creighton made a bad move going to the Big East. They are way on an island.

MVC doesn't need to expand.

They were one of only 11 conferences with multiple bids
Only the P5 + BE and WCC had a higher seeded team.

Some islands are nice places to be on.

Others, not so much

(04-13-2015 12:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  I don't believe that any of the non-FBS conferences in Division I would look at the big picture (that is, the NCAAT implications) of expansion. But if a number of them followed a strategy of expanding their footprint, at some point consolidation would likely result in fewer conferences in D-I.

Fewer conferences would mean fewer automatic tourney bids, and more at large bids. History suggests those additional bids would go to P5 bubble teams, and not to mid-major conferences. It's likely that MVC expansion would, more often than not, result in splitting the same size revenue pie into smaller slices. It probably wouldn't increase the number of at large bids they get.

I don't know how big their media contracts are now. But there can't be many mid major schools that move the media needle enough to result in significantly improved per school revenues. Increases in footprint size also typically bring modest increases in travel costs, so net economic benefits should be minimal. Financial motives would have to be secondary in expansion decisions here.

The MVC might be to compact for a decent TV contract.
Why is the A10 so successful and they have 14 members.
The important thing is they are all basketball schools .
NMSU and UAB would grow in the MVC along with their travel partners.
Look at the A10 membership really not that great but they feed off each other .
They have some strong basketball members but even the week members are basketball schools.They would have to tie the membership of the travel partner to NMSU or UAB. The way the MAC did with Temple and UMass.

The stupidity of some of the comments in this thread are:



A lot of you don't know the history of UAB Basketball, glad MVC officials actually do know.

The MVC should add for quality if they expand, UAB has a solid program but who do you pair them with? Belmont?

I don't see them touching NMSU, the MVC doesn't like football schools. You can't really pair them with anyone decent either.

That said I don't see anything wrong with them sticking at 10, that is a great number for a basketball conference.

(04-13-2015 06:57 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The stupidity of some of the comments in this thread are:



A lot of you don't know the history of UAB Basketball, glad MVC officials actually do know.

I take it you are a UAB fan who feels as if somehow your favorite school is being "dissed" here. The question posed by the OP was about the MVC, not specifically UAB. The reality here is that, while UAB might need or want the MVC to play the White Knight for them, that's not the same as saying that the MVC needs to, or would benefit by, playing that role.

(04-13-2015 07:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:57 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The stupidity of some of the comments in this thread are:



A lot of you don't know the history of UAB Basketball, glad MVC officials actually do know.

I take it you are a UAB fan who feels as if somehow your favorite school is being "dissed" here. The question posed by the OP was about the MVC, not specifically UAB. The reality here is that, while UAB might need or want the MVC to play the White Knight for them, that's not the same as saying that the MVC needs to, or would benefit by, playing that role.

My responses have nothing to do with the feeling that some of you are lacking knowledge of UAB Basketball. The reality is the MVC has shown interest in UAB and vice versa.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ver_sports

al.com article Wrote:If UAB doesn't bring back football and is told to find a new conference home for 2016-17, a popular landing spot could be the Missouri Valley Conference. The Missouri Valley, which doesn't have football, has a strong basketball tradition and two burgeoning brands in Wichita State and Northern Iowa. There is some mutual interest between the two, but there are different hurdles to overcome.

This makes the rest of what you stated as idiotic because no one has implied UAB wants to play the White Knight, horse or whatever it is you're getting at. You got anything else to add ken d?

(04-13-2015 07:58 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 07:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:57 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The stupidity of some of the comments in this thread are:



A lot of you don't know the history of UAB Basketball, glad MVC officials actually do know.

I take it you are a UAB fan who feels as if somehow your favorite school is being "dissed" here. The question posed by the OP was about the MVC, not specifically UAB. The reality here is that, while UAB might need or want the MVC to play the White Knight for them, that's not the same as saying that the MVC needs to, or would benefit by, playing that role.

My responses have nothing to do with the feeling that some of you are lacking knowledge of UAB Basketball. The reality is the MVC has shown interest in UAB and vice versa.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ver_sports

al.com article Wrote:If UAB doesn't bring back football and is told to find a new conference home for 2016-17, a popular landing spot could be the Missouri Valley Conference. The Missouri Valley, which doesn't have football, has a strong basketball tradition and two burgeoning brands in Wichita State and Northern Iowa. There is some mutual interest between the two, but there are different hurdles to overcome.

This makes the rest of what you stated as idiotic because no one has implied UAB wants to play the White Knight, horse or whatever it is you're getting at. You got anything else to add ken d?

Clearly you aren't interested in discussing this rationally, and I'm not interested in responding to your emotions, so I'll let the insult slide. I get that you are upset, but I'm not a therapist.

(04-13-2015 08:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 07:58 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 07:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:57 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The stupidity of some of the comments in this thread are:



A lot of you don't know the history of UAB Basketball, glad MVC officials actually do know.

I take it you are a UAB fan who feels as if somehow your favorite school is being "dissed" here. The question posed by the OP was about the MVC, not specifically UAB. The reality here is that, while UAB might need or want the MVC to play the White Knight for them, that's not the same as saying that the MVC needs to, or would benefit by, playing that role.

My responses have nothing to do with the feeling that some of you are lacking knowledge of UAB Basketball. The reality is the MVC has shown interest in UAB and vice versa.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/...ver_sports

al.com article Wrote:If UAB doesn't bring back football and is told to find a new conference home for 2016-17, a popular landing spot could be the Missouri Valley Conference. The Missouri Valley, which doesn't have football, has a strong basketball tradition and two burgeoning brands in Wichita State and Northern Iowa. There is some mutual interest between the two, but there are different hurdles to overcome.

This makes the rest of what you stated as idiotic because no one has implied UAB wants to play the White Knight, horse or whatever it is you're getting at. You got anything else to add ken d?

Clearly you aren't interested in discussing this rationally, and I'm not interested in responding to your emotions, so I'll let the insult slide. I get that you are upset, but I'm not a therapist.

Rationally? What I bolded clearly states what would lie ahead of a possible UAB venture to the MVC. You're clearly confusing emotions for facts that I have presented to you. You on the other hand, are stating opinions with no substance. Maybe you're the one that is upset but like you, I'm no therapist.