They are supposed to be talking to UAB and NMSU tried to get in two years ago.
Find travel partners for each and go to fourteen to rival the A10.
They were twelfth last year behind the MWC the A10 was seventh.
UAB and NMSU would help and if two travel partners were added with potential it would be a strong conference.
They remain mostly a bus league with a couple long trips .
Benson has mentioned the SBC wants twelve all sports members.
UTA and NMSU could be travel partners along with UALR and UAB.
The less pedigreed basketball programs still have great facilities potential and are basketball schools.
I don't pull for any of these teams but would like to see NMSU and UAB find situations their happy with.Both would be happy in C- USA but that is not happening for different reasons.
I mentioned UALR because a Missouri State fan likes them for a travel partner for UAB.
NMSU just doesn't have many basketball options close enough for a travel partner.
My first two years of school were at Bradley, then I transferred to UConn. If I remember right, NMSU was in the MVC back in the early 1980's when I was in Peoria.
Why water down the product? Granted UAB and to a lesser extent NMSU have some history but their current core is geographically compact, have for the most part been playing each other for decades and are doing just fine, Why go way out of the footprint to add schools who may add a little but can't be counted on for much more?
(04-12-2015 01:03 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]I mentioned UALR because a Missouri State fan likes them for a travel partner for UAB.
NMSU just doesn't have many basketball options close enough for a travel partner.
How is Little Rock a travel partner for UAB? They're closer to every other member of the conference or about as close.
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.
Exactly and though its a slight drop in prestige, St. Louis would have been better off going to the MVC from C-USA. It's a better geographical fit and is always capable of being a multi-bid conference. If SLU had come, maybe Creighton doesn't leave.
The MVC could do worse than Valpo and St. Louis.
Valpo? They could do better than that.
If you look at creating conferences that make sense geographically there is a large empty stripe that goes down the middle of the country that separates 28 FBS teams in the West from the rest, I think those teams should form 2 conferences with divisions of 7 teams in relative proximity. The 4 divisions could look like this-
Cali- UCLA, Stanford, Cal, San Diego St, San Jose St, Fresno St, USC
Pacific- Hawaii, Oregon, Oregon St, Washington, Washington St, Idaho, Boise St
Plains- Wyoming, Colorado, Colorado St, Air Force, Utah, Utah St, BYU
Desert- Nevada, UNLV, Arizona, Arizona St, New Mexico, New Mexico St, UTEP
Of course something sensible cannot in exist in FBS, the most blatantly corrupt sports league this side of FIFA, because if the conference was labeled a G5 conference it would have received between $13M-$17M last year from the CFP, and if it was deemed worthy of being a P5 it would have receive between $58M-$87.5M. But because we allow these wholly unethical distribution of league revenue amongst its members sensible conference constructions cannot be considered.
Yeah, all of those Pac teams would play with schools they feel are beneath them.
(04-12-2015 02:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, all of those Pac teams would play with schools they feel are beneath them.
Forget about anyone being beneath anyone else. Why would these athletic programs give up the money they make today and the popular rivalries they now have? Just because someone thinks every college football, basketball, baseball, soccer, or volleyball team must compete in a conference composed solely of the closest other schools that field a team in the same sport?
Anyone who believes that needs to tell Notre Dame that they have to give up their current affiliations and play in an all-Indiana athletic conference. Then they can come back here and tell us all how they convinced Notre Dame that they would make more money and have more prosperous athletic programs in the All-Indiana Conference.
I know you weren't taking it in that direction but the fact that Notre Dame is in Indiana doesn't matter. They could be in Bangor, ME and have the same fan base just like the academies.
Anyone find it ironic that the most famous/storied football program is in Indiana, the most basketball crazed place in he world (yes, including New York City)?
(04-12-2015 01:10 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2015 01:03 PM)MJG Wrote: [ -> ]I mentioned UALR because a Missouri State fan likes them for a travel partner for UAB.
NMSU just doesn't have many basketball options close enough for a travel partner.
How is Little Rock a travel partner for UAB? They're closer to every other member of the conference or about as close.
Yeah it wasn't my idea
I was thinking UAB and NMSU are up for grabs.
They would need travel partners though.
(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 have a feeling the Big East may be the one going to 14 by adding St. Louis, Dayton, Richmond and Duquesne. Dayton brings recent success, St. Louis brings the big market, Duquesne gets the Big East back in Pittsburgh, and Richmond provides a close rival for Georgetown, not to mention breaks up the A-10/ACC duopoly.
Duquesne? Really? They haven't made the Dance since the Carter administration. What does Richmond add? You don't add just for the sake of adding. You think of how the school fits in with the group of schools, if they are geographically compact, how good they'll be in their first year and how good they'll be in their 20th year. In some cases, TV and potential fanbase also factors in, especially in the past five years.
I think 14 for the MVC is pushing it, perhaps even going beyond 10.
I know NMSU and UAB have had nice results but the conferences they currently are located in (WAC and CUSA) are conferences any decent basketball school can win.
(04-12-2015 11:32 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Duquesne? Really? They haven't made the Dance since the Carter administration. What does Richmond add? You don't add just for the sake of adding. You think of how the school fits in with the group of schools, if they are geographically compact, how good they'll be in their first year and how good they'll be in their 20th year. In some cases, TV and potential fanbase also factors in, especially in the past five years.
Yeah, Duquesne won't be added because they have been a total dog on the court, which is a shame since they do fit the market and institutional needs of the Big East. Richmond, though, is viable since they're a geographic fit with great academics and a solid basketball history. The school that's really rising up is Davidson - elite academics, Charlotte market, and a lot of historical basketball success.