Majors @ Mid-Majors

[Lurking Dog]

See sidebar:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=whelliston_kyle&id=3044505

[Lurking Dog]

DePaul @ Creighton, Nov. 9

Georgia Tech @ Tennessee State, Nov. 11

Alabama @ Mercer, Nov. 13

South Florida @ Buffalo, Nov. 13

Iowa State @ Bradley, Nov. 14

Oklahoma State @ North Texas, Nov. 14

Texas Tech @ Sam Houston State, Nov. 14

USC @ The Citadel, Nov. 15

Stanford @ Siena, Nov. 17

Oregon @ Portland, Nov. 17

Oregon @ Saint Mary's, Nov. 20 (ESPNU)

Georgetown @ Ball State, No. 21

South Florida @ Florida International, Nov. 26

California @ Nevada, Nov. 28

Georgetown @ Old Dominion, Nov. 28

Seton Hall @ Princeton, Nov. 28

Indiana @ Southern Illinois, Dec. 1

Michigan @ Harvard, Dec. 1 (ESPNU)

Seton Hall @ Saint Mary's, Dec. 1

Texas Tech @ Centenary College, Dec. 1

Tennessee @ UT-Chattanooga, Dec. 4 (ESPNU)

Michigan State @ Bradley, Dec. 4 (ESPNU)

North Carolina @ Penn, Dec. 4 (ESPN2)

Georgia Tech @ Georgia State, Dec. 5

Washington State @ Gonzaga, Dec. 5 (ESPNU)

Iowa @ Northern Iowa, Dec. 5

Iowa State @ Drake, Dec. 5

Pittsburgh @ Duquesne, Dec. 5 (ESPNU)

South Florida @ Richmond, Dec. 5

Oregon State @ Cal-Davis, Dec. 7

Cincinnati @ Illinois State, Dec. 8

Northwestern @ Western Michigan, Dec. 8

Oregon State @ Cal State Bakersfield, Dec. 11

Wisconsin @ UW-Milwaukee, Dec. 12

Cincinnati @ Xavier, Dec. 12 (ESPN2)

LSU @ Wichita State, Dec. 19

West Virginia @ Radford, Dec. 19

Baylor @ Southern, Dec. 21

Tennessee @ Xavier, Dec. 22 (ESPN)

Oregon @ Oakland (Mich.), Dec. 22 (ESPNU)

DePaul @ Detroit, Dec. 29

Pittsburgh @ Dayton, Dec. 29 (ESPN2)

Kansas State @ Xavier, Dec. 31 (ESPNU)

Virginia Tech @ Richmond, Jan. 3

Northwestern @ Chicago State, Jan. 16

[Aegyptus]

Allow me to help Kyle out a little, he seemed to be confused about some of those games:


Major at Mid-Major

Georgetown @ Ball State, No. 21

Georgetown @ Old Dominion, Nov. 2

Oregon @ Saint Mary's, Nov. 20 (ESPNU)

Michigan State @ Bradley, Dec. 4 (ESPNU)

Wisconsin @ UW-Milwaukee, Dec. 12

LSU @ Wichita State, Dec. 19

Tennessee @ Xavier, Dec. 22 (ESPN)

Pittsburgh @ Dayton, Dec. 29 (ESPN2)


These other games fall into the following categories.


Major at Major:

California @ Nevada, Nov. 28

Indiana @ Southern Illinois, Dec. 1


Mid-Major at Major

DePaul @ Creighton, Nov. 9

Washington State @ Gonzaga, Dec. 5 (ESPNU)


Mid-Major at Mid-Major

Iowa State @ Bradley, Nov. 14

Seton Hall @ Princeton, Nov. 28

Iowa @ Northern Iowa, Dec. 5

South Florida @ Richmond, Dec. 5

Cincinnati @ Illinois State, Dec. 8

Northwestern @ Western Michigan, Dec. 8

Iowa State @ Drake, Dec. 5

Cincinnati @ Xavier, Dec. 12 (ESPN2)

Kansas State @ Xavier, Dec. 31 (ESPNU)

Virginia Tech @ Richmond, Jan. 3


Major at Low-Major

Georgia Tech @ Tennessee State, Nov. 11

Alabama @ Mercer, Nov. 13

Oklahoma State @ North Texas, Nov. 14

Texas Tech @ Sam Houston State, Nov. 14

USC @ The Citadel, Nov. 15

Stanford @ Siena, Nov. 17

Oregon @ Portland, Nov. 17

Texas Tech @ Centenary College, Dec. 1

Tennessee @ UT-Chattanooga, Dec. 4 (ESPNU)

North Carolina @ Penn, Dec. 4 (ESPN2)

Georgia Tech @ Georgia State, Dec. 5

Pittsburgh @ Duquesne, Dec. 5 (ESPNU)

West Virginia @ Radford, Dec. 19

Oregon @ Oakland (Mich.), Dec. 22 (ESPNU)


Mid-Major at Low-Major

South Florida @ Buffalo, Nov. 13

South Florida @ Florida International, Nov. 26

Oregon State @ Cal-Davis, Dec. 7

Oregon State @ Cal State Bakersfield, Dec. 11

Baylor @ Southern, Dec. 21

DePaul @ Detroit, Dec. 29

Northwestern @ Chicago State, Jan. 16



-----

Seriously, I am tired of being lumped in with these other schools on this list. Stop it Kyle. For god's sake leave us alone. Spend your time worrying about Centenary, Southern, Detroit, et al. - Leave the Valley alone!!!!

[WSUbballer]

So only two teams in the Valley get the inclusion of being called a "major"? :no:

Interesting..

Also, on a side note, you listed Washington State as a mid-major.. because they reside in the Pac-10, was a No.3 seed in the NCAA's last year, and they're a consensus Top 10 team this year?? :ermm:

[Nyghtewynd]

Strangely enough, I don't think the guy who's spent more time, money, and effort covering college basketball in the past three years than most network guys have in their lifetime needs any help. Maybe you should research what his terms mean before you go slagging off on his work.

[DawgieStyle]

So only two teams in the Valley get the inclusion of being called a "major"? :no:

Interesting..

Also, on a side note, you listed Washington State as a mid-major.. because they reside in the Pac-10, was a No.3 seed in the NCAA's last year, and they're a consensus Top 10 team this year?? :ermm:

interesting debate....

is gonzaga a major team from a low major conference?

now take that and apply it to the MVC.

Not as clear cut. If you looked at Drake would you think they were a "major" program? How about Evansville?

How do you determine who is major and who is not?

What's the criteria? Conference affilliation? past success? National titles?

It's a big mess in my opinion...and it doesn't really matter what they call you as long as you win.

[MoValley John]

So only two teams in the Valley get the inclusion of being called a "major"? :no:

Interesting..

Also, on a side note, you listed Washington State as a mid-major.. because they reside in the Pac-10, was a No.3 seed in the NCAA's last year, and they're a consensus Top 10 team this year?? :ermm:

Actually, I believe that they are a consensus top 9.5.

[bcg]

interesting debate....

is gonzaga a major team from a low major conference?

now take that and apply it to the MVC.

Not as clear cut. If you looked at Drake would you think they were a "major" program? How about Evansville?

How do you determine who is major and who is not?

What's the criteria? Conference affilliation? past success? National titles?

It's a big mess in my opinion...and it doesn't really matter what they call you as long as you win.

Budgets seems to be the main criteria. There are exceptions, but like everything else, it comes down to $$$.

[WSUbballer]

interesting debate....

is gonzaga a major team from a low major conference?

now take that and apply it to the MVC.

Not as clear cut. If you looked at Drake would you think they were a "major" program? How about Evansville?

How do you determine who is major and who is not?

What's the criteria? Conference affilliation? past success? National titles?

It's a big mess in my opinion...and it doesn't really matter what they call you as long as you win.

Good questions..
I can't give you a definitive answer yet. I guess it's all a matter of opinion, but I was just curious how Aegyptus came to his conclusions about singling out his selections on what's hot and what's not.

[WSUbballer]

Actually, I believe that they are a consensus top 9.5.
This is true, using the Saluki calculator of course..

[DawgieStyle]

Budgets seems to be the main criteria. There are exceptions, but like everything else, it comes down to $$$.

That's probably true....the more I Think about it...I wonder if having a d-1 football program is the requirement for some of these knuckle heads. Because you know, kicking field goals has anything to do with a jump shot.

on the brighter side, I just got my season tickets 20 minutes ago...sweet.

[WSUbballer]

That's probably true....the more I Think about it...I wonder if having a d-1 football program is the requirement for some of these knuckle heads. Because you know, kicking field goals has anything to do with a jump shot.


Just for the record, Marquette, Villanova, and Georgetown don't have D-1 football programs.

[Brave2001]

If Creighton is a major with 0 sweet 16 appearances in the last 20 years, then Bradley and WSU are freaking high majors. For crying out loud give me a break.

You can not honestly sit there and tell me that SIU and CU are leaps and bounds ahead of BU and WSU at the current moment. Yes they are better programs over the last 10 years, but not so much that you could classify them as major and the others mid. I guess Drake and Evansville should just reapply for DIV-II.

You know what....stay that way.....SIU, CU, and WSU can have pissing matches with each other all year, while we quietly go about our business and hopefully win the whole damn thing. You won't notice till its to late because you are congratulating yourselves or telling each other how much bigger you are than the other.

[DawgieStyle]

Just for the record, Marquette, Villanova, and Georgetown don't have D-1 football programs.

oh i know...but there are always exceptions. My feelings are that the media don't even know what anyone is, and if you ask a different media guy, you'll get a different opinion.

So why have the labels in the first place? Don't we all play D-1 basketball? And have a shot at the same tourney and same title?

You don't see the bowl division of football calling any of their members mid major, although many of them could be I suppose.

its just a marketing tool in my opinion to create interest and controvesery among teams and ultimately used to "sell" the underdog line in March, so people will clamor to watch CBS for a month.

[DawgieStyle]

If Creighton is a major with 0 sweet 16 appearances in the last 20 years, then Bradley and WSU are freaking high majors. For crying out loud give me a break.

You can not honestly sit there and tell me that SIU and CU are leaps and bounds ahead of BU and WSU at the current moment. Yes they are better programs over the last 10 years, but not so much that you could classify them as major and the others mid. I guess Drake and Evansville should just reapply for DIV-II.

You know what....stay that way.....SIU, CU, and WSU can have pissing matches with each other all year, while we quietly go about our business and hopefully win the whole damn thing. You won't notice till its to late because you are congratulating yourselves or telling each other how much bigger you are than the other.

and what exactly has bradley accomplished, minus one sweet 16, in the last 10 years to be included in that conversation?

[MoValley John]

If Creighton is a major with 0 sweet 16 appearances in the last 20 years, then Bradley and WSU are freaking high majors. For crying out loud give me a break.

You can not honestly sit there and tell me that SIU and CU are leaps and bounds ahead of BU and WSU at the current moment. Yes they are better programs over the last 10 years, but not so much that you could classify them as major and the others mid. I guess Drake and Evansville should just reapply for DIV-II.

You know what....stay that way.....SIU, CU, and WSU can have pissing matches with each other all year, while we quietly go about our business and hopefully win the whole damn thing. You won't notice till its to late because you are congratulating yourselves or telling each other how much bigger you are than the other.

Wow!!!! We get a Dawgiestyle type tyrade out of the generally more levelheaded and subdued Brave2001. Nice post, I like it! I guess you did drink a little bit of the amniotic fluid that you and your twin brother shared.

[Brave2001]

Wow!!!! We get a Dawgiestyle type tyrade out of the generally more levelheaded and subdued Brave2001. Nice post, I like it! I guess you did drink a little bit of the amniotic fluid that you and your twin brother shared.

I just had to break up the monotony of

:shockers: :chair: :salukis:
:salukis: :chair: :shockers:

:shockers: :chair: :jays:
:jays: :chair: :shockers:

:jays: :chair: :salukis:
:salukis: :chair: :jays:

[WSUfan]

and what exactly has bradley accomplished, minus one sweet 16, in the last 10 years to be included in that conversation?
More than Creighton. Two wins in a row in the NCAA tourney. One more win in a row than CU has obtained in the NCAA tourney in its history. Good enough?

[DawgieStyle]

More than Creighton. Two wins in a row in the NCAA tourney. One more win in a row than CU has obtained in the NCAA tourney in its history. Good enough?

I find it more impressive that a team makes the dance consistently, than say once every 10 or 20 years and makes a quasi deep run.

Stability and consistency make good programs....one dance in 15 years, makes you a really good team. you choose which you want to be.

[WSUfan]

I find it more impressive that a team makes the dance consistently, than say once every 10 or 20 years and makes a quasi deep run.

Stability and consistency make good programs....one dance in 15 years, makes you a really good team. you choose which you want to be.

Different opinions. No problem.

[DawgieStyle]

Different opinions. No problem.

but mines right....:naughty:

[WSUbballer]

I find it more impressive that a team makes the dance consistently, than say once every 10 or 20 years and makes a quasi deep run.

Stability and consistency make good programs....one dance in 15 years, makes you a really good team. you choose which you want to be.

I would think the ultimate goal every year for every team is to win in the NCAA Tournament, not to just "get there". That sounds like a line from the 1990's Buffalo Bills motto handbook.

[Aegyptus]

Yes, I feel SIU & CU are the only two programs in the Valley that can presently be considered major programs. Wichita is probably next, followed by Bradley and then down the line. Yes, the sweet 16 appearance is nice, but consistency is better. SIU & CU have consistency in performing at a different level. Sorry. I know that will tick people off, but oh well.

I debated about Washington State, but again, consistency mattered to me. They seem to be peaking, but if they are still this good 5 years from now, then they can be a major program.

I almost put Drake in the low major category, but I figured DUBulldog would have a fit about it.

I don't have some magic formula, and it did it pretty quickly, so there may be some mistakes, but I am just ticked that Whelliston is considering everything south of the Big 12 as a "Mid-Major" and is lumping us in with some extremely crappy programs.

A game like Michigan State at Bradley, which I considered a true Major at Mid-Major game is entirely different than Baylor at Southern, which in all reality is a mid-major playing a low-major, and thus an extremely meaningless game. Also, whether or not you agree with all of my choices exactly, you do have to acknowledge that there are more games that are Majors at Low-Majors than games that are Majors at Mid-Majors, meaning the Major programs are not really risking that much. But, articles like Whelliston's seem to give cover to major programs. Whelliston's job is to cover "mid-majors," which in ESPN's mind is everything that is not a power conference. They have only assigned 1 reporter to this beat, and even he is not full time. So, Whelliston makes these extremely broad generalizations because he feels he has to cover the entire non-power conference D-I field.

Anyway, there is simply no reason whatsoever for this article. Let me point out a few quotes:

But many of these major-at-mid matchups involve top-tier squads playing at teams from one-bid leagues.

If that is the case, why not title the article major schools playing at one-bid leagues.

Sure, the idea of The Citadel's beating USC on any court in America might seem a total impossibility. Two years ago, Indiana lost to Indiana State 72-67 in Terre Haute, the first of seven road losses in what turned out to be Mike Davis' last season in Bloomington.

It is a total impossibility for all practical purposes, while teams from the Valley (or WAC, MWC, etc) beating these teams is not.

"They tell us that we have to play nonconference road games," said Floyd, coming off an NCAA No. 5 seed and tournament wins over Arkansas and Texas. "They look at your schedule, and if you're loaded up with low-RPI games at home, that's a problem. In my opinion, a game like [at The Citadel] should help in terms of the selection committee rather than hurt. … Road wins, no matter where they're played, are viewed as a positive."

But how much of a positive? Is it more advantageous for a team with serious NCAA aspirations to play low-RPI teams like The Citadel on the road, or is it better to keep them off the schedule altogether?

"In ratings terms, it's better to have played the game on the road, but not [by] a whole lot," said RPI expert Jerry Palm, longtime proprietor of the collegerpi.com Web site. "It's a game that can only hurt their tournament chances though. A big win is to be expected. Anything else could be a negative in the committee's eyes. … A loss would be a disaster."

Thus, you play a road game at the lowest major possible (in Alabama's case, Mercer).


The point is, there are huge distinctions between the Valley (and WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and all these other one-bid leagues. That is why they are a one-bid league and the we are not. Everything about these middle tier conferences is more major than the one-bid leagues (better salaries, better facilities, better recruits, better TV contracts ...). There needs to be a distinction. Because of this article by Whelliston, every power conference coach is relaxing a bit knowing that the heat is off them because Alabama is playing at Mercer. That is a disaster for the Valley. We need the committee to pressure power conference teams to play the TRUE mid-majors (Valley, WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and not get off easy by playing road games at TRUE Low-Majors like Mercer.

This is why I continue to advocate for the conferences mentioned at TRUE mid-majors to band together in some fashion to create an additional tier in the minds of the national media, and more importantly the selection committee.

[DawgieStyle]

I would think the ultimate goal every year for every team is to win in the NCAA Tournament, not to just "get there". That sounds like a line from the 1990's Buffalo Bills motto handbook.

i agree, that should be the goal, for the upcoming year...

but when looking at past results, which is more impressive? one sweet 16 in 20 years, or 6 NCAA tourneys with losses before the sweet 16??

To me, its the latter. I've stated why earlier.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Yes, I feel SIU & CU are the only two programs in the Valley that can presently be considered major programs. Wichita is probably next, followed by Bradley and then down the line. Yes, the sweet 16 appearance is nice, but consistency is better. SIU & CU have consistency in performing at a different level. Sorry. I know that will tick people off, but oh well.

I debated about Washington State, but again, consistency mattered to me. They seem to be peaking, but if they are still this good 5 years from now, then they can be a major program.

I almost put Drake in the low major category, but I figured DUBulldog would have a fit about it.

I don't have some magic formula, and it did it pretty quickly, so there may be some mistakes, but I am just ticked that Whelliston is considering everything south of the Big 12 as a "Mid-Major" and is lumping us in with some extremely crappy programs.

A game like Michigan State at Bradley, which I considered a true Major at Mid-Major game is entirely different than Baylor at Southern, which in all reality is a mid-major playing a low-major, and thus an extremely meaningless game. Also, whether or not you agree with all of my choices exactly, you do have to acknowledge that there are more games that are Majors at Low-Majors than games that are Majors at Mid-Majors, meaning the Major programs are not really risking that much. But, articles like Whelliston's seem to give cover to major programs. Whelliston's job is to cover "mid-majors," which in ESPN's mind is everything that is not a power conference. They have only assigned 1 reporter to this beat, and even he is not full time. So, Whelliston makes these extremely broad generalizations because he feels he has to cover the entire non-power conference D-I field.

Anyway, there is simply no reason whatsoever for this article. Let me point out a few quotes:



If that is the case, why not title the article major schools playing at one-bid leagues.



It is a total impossibility for all practical purposes, while teams from the Valley (or WAC, MWC, etc) beating these teams is not.



Thus, you play a road game at the lowest major possible (in Alabama's case, Mercer).


The point is, there are huge distinctions between the Valley (and WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and all these other one-bid leagues. That is why they are a one-bid league and the we are not. Everything about these middle tier conferences is more major than the one-bid leagues (better salaries, better facilities, better recruits, better TV contracts ...). There needs to be a distinction. Because of this article by Whelliston, every power conference coach is relaxing a bit knowing that the heat is off them because Alabama is playing at Mercer. That is a disaster for the Valley. We need the committee to pressure power conference teams to play the TRUE mid-majors (Valley, WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and not get off easy by playing road games at TRUE Low-Majors like Mercer.

This is why I continue to advocate for the conferences mentioned at TRUE mid-majors to band together in some fashion to create an additional tier in the minds of the national media, and more importantly the selection committee.

A good post. I share this opinion - Whelliston's article doesn't mean we should expect more BCS schools to suddenly add us to the schedule. If anything, it may mean we see even less as BCS schools opt to go on the road to very low level schools that they know they can beat instead of to MVC schools.

Aegyptus - in your classification system, how do you categorize the Nebraska @ Creighton game?

[Brave2001]

i agree, that should be the goal, for the upcoming year...

but when looking at past results, which is more impressive? one sweet 16 in 20 years, or 6 NCAA tourneys with losses before the sweet 16??

To me, its the latter. I've stated why earlier.

My point wasnt about which was better, my point was that SIU and CU being majors and WSU and BU not being is ridiculous.

I don't care what label you put on them, but those teams and most of the teams in the valley for that matter fall under that same label. I'm sorry I don't buy that CU and SIU are signifigantly better in talent, budget, facilities, or even performance (yes they have been to the dance consistently, but they still have lost to teams in the vally every year that are supposedly so much worse) to classify them in a different category. Name your category for measure and SIU and CU are not much higher (maybe 5% to 10%) or in most cases dont even lead the category. UGH! You are so full of yourselves.

[MoValley John]

i agree, that should be the goal, for the upcoming year...

but when looking at past results, which is more impressive? one sweet 16 in 20 years, or 6 NCAA tourneys with losses before the sweet 16??

To me, its the latter. I've stated why earlier.

I don't think either is partiucularly impressive. One Sweet 16 in 20 years could mean that you merely had a decent group of guys that got hot for a few weeks- once. If you make it to the dance almost every year, but don't do much when you get there, it could mean that you are only a pretty good program, not a premier program.

I guess if I was pressed to pick one, I'd take the latter simply because you are consistently "putting yourself in the position" to go deep. But even at that, some day you need to get over the hump.

[doinit salukistyle]

I call it a mid major at major...

and that major team needs to get revenge for their embarassment of last year...:jays: :jays:

[SiuCubFan8]

I would think the ultimate goal every year for every team is to win in the NCAA Tournament, not to just "get there". That sounds like a line from the 1990's Buffalo Bills motto handbook.

But you cannot win the NCAA if you do not get there.:yes:

[Aegyptus]

Aegyptus - in your classification system, how do you categorize the Nebraska @ Creighton game?

Mid-Major at Major ... easy. Creighton is the favorite in that game and if they lose, it should reflect poorly on them just as other home losses to mid-major schools should reflect poorly on major programs.

There are 3 tiers in college basketball in my view.

First, there is the power conference tier. In that tier, if a team is good, it is a major program. However, in that tier, even the crappiest teams are considered mid-majors. It is a perk of conference affiliation that you will never be lower than a mid-major.

Second, there is the Middle Tier, which we are in. Teams in this tier can be major, mid-majors or low-majors, depending on performance. Nevada, SIU, Memphis, Creighton, Utah, BYU and perhaps Air Force can be considered major programs as they regularly make the tournament and are consistently ranked in the top 25 (teams like Wichita, Bradley, Xavier, UMass, UAB, San Diego St. are all on the verge, but not quite there yet) . The majority of the Middle Tier are mid-majors and there are a few programs in these conferences (particularly C-USA) which may be considered low-majors because they are never really a threat (in the Valley, really only Evansville may fall into this category as we have very good depth).

Third, the low-majors are the 18-20 other one-big leagues. In these cases, the good teams are considered mid-majors (with the only exception being Gonzaga). Teams such as George Mason, Davidson, Old Dominion, Oral Roberts, Western Kentucky, Long Beach, Butler, UIC, Winthrop are all mid-majors and really have no hope of being majors because of conference affiliation.

[Maggie]

Mid-Major at Major ... easy. Creighton is the favorite in that game and if they lose, it should reflect poorly on them just as other home losses to mid-major schools should reflect poorly on major programs.

There are 3 tiers in college basketball in my view.

First, there is the power conference tier. In that tier, if a team is good, it is a major program. However, in that tier, even the crappiest teams are considered mid-majors. It is a perk of conference affiliation that you will never be lower than a mid-major.

Second, there is the Middle Tier, which we are in. Teams in this tier can be major, mid-majors or low-majors, depending on performance. Nevada, SIU, Memphis, Creighton, Utah, BYU and perhaps Air Force can be considered major programs as they regularly make the tournament and are consistently ranked in the top 25 (teams like Wichita, Bradley, Xavier, UMass, UAB, San Diego St. are all on the verge, but not quite there yet) . The majority of the Middle Tier are mid-majors and there are a few programs in these conferences (particularly C-USA) which may be considered low-majors because they are never really a threat (in the Valley, really only Evansville may fall into this category as we have very good depth).

Third, the low-majors are the 18-20 other one-big leagues. In these cases, the good teams are considered mid-majors (with the only exception being Gonzaga). Teams such as George Mason, Davidson, Old Dominion, Oral Roberts, Western Kentucky, Long Beach, Butler, UIC, Winthrop are all mid-majors and really have no hope of being majors because of conference affiliation.

Interesting posts.
Do you think that the MVC can ever join the first tier? If so, how? If not, why not?

[Brave2001]

Mid-Major at Major ... easy. Creighton is the favorite in that game and if they lose, it should reflect poorly on them just as other home losses to mid-major schools should reflect poorly on major programs.

There are 3 tiers in college basketball in my view.

First, there is the power conference tier. In that tier, if a team is good, it is a major program. However, in that tier, even the crappiest teams are considered mid-majors. It is a perk of conference affiliation that you will never be lower than a mid-major.

Second, there is the Middle Tier, which we are in. Teams in this tier can be major, mid-majors or low-majors, depending on performance. Nevada, SIU, Memphis, Creighton, Utah, BYU and perhaps Air Force can be considered major programs as they regularly make the tournament and are consistently ranked in the top 25 (teams like Wichita, Bradley, Xavier, UMass, UAB, San Diego St. are all on the verge, but not quite there yet) . The majority of the Middle Tier are mid-majors and there are a few programs in these conferences (particularly C-USA) which may be considered low-majors because they are never really a threat (in the Valley, really only Evansville may fall into this category as we have very good depth).

Third, the low-majors are the 18-20 other one-big leagues. In these cases, the good teams are considered mid-majors (with the only exception being Gonzaga). Teams such as George Mason, Davidson, Old Dominion, Oral Roberts, Western Kentucky, Long Beach, Butler, UIC, Winthrop are all mid-majors and really have no hope of being majors because of conference affiliation.

I'm just curious how many wins a label earns your team?

[Cdizzle]

I'm just curious how many wins a label earns your team?

It got KU one in the tournament last year.

:valley:

[WSUfan]

But you cannot win the NCAA if you do not get there.:yes:

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Tournament_Final_Four_Participants, Creighton and SIU have never played on the final weekend while Bradley, Drake and Wichita State have.

[WSUfan]

Since SIU is a MAJOR now (according to Aegyptus), their fans can start acting like "major" fans. Guess what? They are; the following post by a SIU fan on a sports board (not SalukiTalk) illustrates this fact:

The general thinking in Carbondale is that if SIU can put together any kind of a back court this year we can once again be really good. Look for Bryan Mullins to score the ball alot more this year, he has to. As far as the other two spots go, we will likely go with sophomore Josh Bone (an unproven shooter) and Junior Wesley Clemmons (a walking turnover.) There has been some speculation that at some point we could start 3 bigs, with Freshman Carlton Fay too good to bury behind shaw and Falker. If we can get any kind of back court play we will be in good shape.


As far as recruiting= immediate success, if that is true(its not necessarily) than the Valley will be in deep trouble come 2009. Torres Roundtree out of St. Louis re-committed to SIU, giving us our 3rd 3 star recruit along with Rivals number 29 (4 star) Anthony Booker. We do have one spot left over and we have offered that to Josh Crittle (3 star- rivals top 150) and Kyle Kuric(3 star). If neither of them accept we will likely roll it to 09. This is the best recruiting class the Valley has seen and hopefully will catapult us to the next level.

I like the "This is the best recruiting class the Valley has seen" part. I wish the Valley had once had good players but Larry Bird, Dave Stallworth and all the other Valley players who went to the NBA are just a footnote in Valley history.

[shocker3]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Tournament_Final_Four_Participants, Creighton and SIU have never played on the final weekend while Bradley, Drake and Wichita State have.


That is a very interesting list.

The Valley had 16 Final 4 appearances including 4 National Champions between 1945 and 1979. We have had 0 since then.

The Valley had 10 Final 4 apperances and 2 National Champions from 1960 to 1979. That is a very impressive 2 decades.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Valley had a team in the Final 4 50% of the time!!!

:valley::braves::shockers::bulldogs::sycamores::va lley:

[SiuCubFan8]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Tournament_Final_Four_Participants, Creighton and SIU have never played on the final weekend while Bradley, Drake and Wichita State have.

And SIU/CU still has a better program right now and over the past 10 years than those schools.

My point was to show the first thing you need to accomplish to win a NCAA Championship is get to the dance. How many times has WSU done that in the past 20 years?

[Aegyptus]

Interesting posts.
Do you think that the MVC can ever join the first tier? If so, how? If not, why not?

Nope, the Valley's best hope is to be in the second tier of conferences. The conference that has the capability to move up is the MWC/WAC if they ever figure out a way to get the good teams into one conference and the Utah State's into another, which would then become a 1 bid league. Pick up Gonzaga, maybe Pacific and that could be a power conference.

I limited the top tier to the power conferences, and there are only 6. ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big Twelve, Pac-10, SEC. There are 2 reasons the Valley can never be in the same classification as those school. First, football. Enough said. Second, academics. Power conference schools do not just get national recognition for their sports teams, they also get it for their research and writing.

Here is what I see happening in the world of college rankings, both for sports and for academics. If you noticed, the power conferences basically cover the country. If you were to make a map of the states with power conference schools, most states would be covered (the exception being the area from the Dakotas to Idaho down to New Mexico - thus the possibility that the MWC/WAC realignment could become a 7th major). So, pretty much every state has at least one power conference school. But, since there are so many more people going to college these days and so many more people cheering on college athletics, I see a second tier developing.

Let's take those conferences that are consistently ranked 7-12 in the college basketball conference rpi rankings and let's put them on that same map of the U.S.
(Here are the conferences: A-10, C-USA, Valley, MWC, WAC and there geographic representation).

A-10
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/61/A10USAmap.png/250px-A10USAmap.png

C-USA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/C-USA-USA-states.PNG/300px-C-USA-USA-states.PNG

Missouri Valley
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/MissouriValleyConferenceMap.PNG/250px-MissouriValleyConferenceMap.PNG

MWC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/MWC-USA-states.PNG/250px-MWC-USA-states.PNG

WAC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/WAC-USA-states.PNG/250px-WAC-USA-states.PNG

As you can see, there is a decent coverage of the U.S.

What I see as the next big alignment in college conference affiliations will concern solidifying a second tier of universities across the US. With the exception of the Big East, the power conferences are fairly set. The Big East is only the result of some Northeastern Second tier schools, such as Providence, trying to stay in the elites by bringing on schools like Louisville and Marquette that function like power conference schools in states that already have 1 power conference school.

I think within the next 20 years, there will be massive realignment in these second tier ranks as schools sort out who should be in the second tier, who might be better in the first tier (Memphis), and who is left to the third tier.

In terms of the second tier, not everyone is equal. Right now, I see the A-10, C-USA, and MWC as slightly above the rest. The A-10 has traditional relevance that still holds sway, the MWC is strong because many of their schools are the primary school in the state, and C-USA because of academics (Rice, Houston, SMU) and Memphis in sports.

At the moment, the Valley can be in the group solely because of our excellence in basketball, but really for few other reasons. And the WAC is sort of in no mans land because it has a couple relevant schools (Nevada, Hawaii & Boise St.) and then drops off.

If there is such a second tier developing across the US, then the Valley needs to consolidate its position as the Midwestern League of the second tier. But, there is competition for this position from the MAC and Horizon.

MAC
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Mid-American_Conference_map.png/250px-Mid-American_Conference_map.png

Horizon
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Horizon_League_map.png/250px-Horizon_League_map.png

Each of these conferences have some schools that are legitimate second tier schools that are in the Midwest. Also, the A-10 has Saint Louis, X, and Dayton, which may be second tier midwestern schools better associated with a midwestern league, while the A-10 picks up the remaining schools of the Big East after it implodes.

Anyway, to answer your question Maggie ... no, the Valley can never be a Tier I (power) conference. In fact, it is only because of our good sports that we are in the second tier at the moment. So, we need to assure our continued position as a second tier conference on par with the MWC, A-10 and C-USA. This is why I support adding schools like Saint Louis, UIC, X, etc. to consolidate our standing as the second tier conference in the midwest. It may get to the point where there is justification for 2 midwestern second tier conferences, such as there is justification for the Big 10 and the Big 12 North. But, either way, the Valley needs to be a part of it.

[DawgieStyle]

Since SIU is a MAJOR now (according to Aegyptus), their fans can start acting like "major" fans. Guess what? They are; the following post by a SIU fan on a sports board (not SalukiTalk) illustrates this fact:

The general thinking in Carbondale is that if SIU can put together any kind of a back court this year we can once again be really good. Look for Bryan Mullins to score the ball alot more this year, he has to. As far as the other two spots go, we will likely go with sophomore Josh Bone (an unproven shooter) and Junior Wesley Clemmons (a walking turnover.) There has been some speculation that at some point we could start 3 bigs, with Freshman Carlton Fay too good to bury behind shaw and Falker. If we can get any kind of back court play we will be in good shape.


As far as recruiting= immediate success, if that is true(its not necessarily) than the Valley will be in deep trouble come 2009. Torres Roundtree out of St. Louis re-committed to SIU, giving us our 3rd 3 star recruit along with Rivals number 29 (4 star) Anthony Booker. We do have one spot left over and we have offered that to Josh Crittle (3 star- rivals top 150) and Kyle Kuric(3 star). If neither of them accept we will likely roll it to 09. This is the best recruiting class the Valley has seen and hopefully will catapult us to the next level.

I like the "This is the best recruiting class the Valley has seen" part. I wish the Valley had once had good players but Larry Bird, Dave Stallworth and all the other Valley players who went to the NBA are just a footnote in Valley history.

it is one of the best, on paper.

and saying larry birds class was awesome, is easy, you have hind sight. What did they say about it 30 years ago, before he played a game.

Try to compare apples to apples.

[DoubleJayAlum]

I would think the ultimate goal every year for every team is to win in the NCAA Tournament, not to just "get there". That sounds like a line from the 1990's Buffalo Bills motto handbook.

I thought that all that really matters is where you are ranked on December 1. If you don't make the postseason it doesn't matter right? :ermm:

[Maggie]

[/QUOTE] Anyway, to answer your question Maggie ... no, the Valley can never be a Tier I (power) conference. In fact, it is only because of our good sports that we are in the second tier at the moment. So, we need to assure our continued position as a second tier conference on par with the MWC, A-10 and C-USA. This is why I support adding schools like Saint Louis, UIC, X, etc. to consolidate our standing as the second tier conference in the midwest. It may get to the point where there is justification for 2 midwestern second tier conferences, such as there is justification for the Big 10 and the Big 12 North. But, either way, the Valley needs to be a part of it.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you have put much more thought into this than I have and far be it for me to argue with your color coded maps of the country. :original:

In term of academics, I am not sure that plays such a large role in the classification of sports teams. The MVC has some fine academic institutions, equal to or better than, many of those in the 6 power conferences.

However, you are correct in pointing out that the sole reason the MVC would be considered a second tier conference is because of basketball. The only thing that really matters, sports wise, is basketball and to a larger extent football.

But why can't the MVC become known as a basketball conference and achieve first tier status in that sport only?

50 words or less please. :lol: Just kidding, of course.

[WSUbballer]

I don't think either is partiucularly impressive. One Sweet 16 in 20 years could mean that you merely had a decent group of guys that got hot for a few weeks- once. If you make it to the dance almost every year, but don't do much when you get there, it could mean that you are only a pretty good program, not a premier program.

I guess if I was pressed to pick one, I'd take the latter simply because you are consistently "putting yourself in the position" to go deep. But even at that, some day you need to get over the hump.

I totally agree.

[WSUbballer]

But you cannot win the NCAA if you do not get there.:yes:

Don't go http://www.sportslogos.net/images/teams/thumbs/149.gif on me.

[WSUbballer]

I thought that all that really matters is where you are ranked on December 1.
I dunno what this even means. Who said it matters where you're ranked December 1st?? :helpsmilie:

If you don't make the postseason it doesn't matter right? :ermm:
True, it doesn't. But if all you do is show up, then you leave yourself open to look like the great Jim Kelly..

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Just for the record, , Villanova, and Georgetown don't have D-1 football programs.

Actually these 2 are 1-aa or the "subdivision" or whatever they are calling it these days

So the more correct statement would be "Just for the record, Kirk Herbstreit doesnt care about Villanova, and Georgetown D-1 football programs"

[Morgan Wick]

The point is, there are huge distinctions between the Valley (and WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and all these other one-bid leagues. That is why they are a one-bid league and the we are not. Everything about these middle tier conferences is more major than the one-bid leagues (better salaries, better facilities, better recruits, better TV contracts ...). There needs to be a distinction. Because of this article by Whelliston, every power conference coach is relaxing a bit knowing that the heat is off them because Alabama is playing at Mercer. That is a disaster for the Valley. We need the committee to pressure power conference teams to play the TRUE mid-majors (Valley, WAC, MWC, A-10, C-USA) and not get off easy by playing road games at TRUE Low-Majors like Mercer.

This is why I continue to advocate for the conferences mentioned at TRUE mid-majors to band together in some fashion to create an additional tier in the minds of the national media, and more importantly the selection committee.

Sorry to revive this moribund thread - I had to wait for my account activation to come through - but I was wondering if Aegyptus would like to know that Jay Bilas had a column on ESPN a few years back that also proposed a three-tier system. If I recall correctly, his second tier consisted of the A-10, the MWC, the WAC, the WCC (presumably because of Gonzaga, but even he admitted Gonzaga was a Tier 1 school in a Tier 2 conference), the Valley, C-USA, the MAC, the CAA (they've got a good conference going on there), and the Horizon.

Part of Bilas' classification was actually based on NCAA Tournament selections, so arguably there already is such a separation in the minds of the committee, at least in terms of selecting teams themselves, if not scheduling them. The main problem, then, is the media, by which I mostly mean ESPN.

One problem with getting people to recognize a group of mid-majors separate from the "low-majors" (why not just call them "minors", D-II and III don't even deserve classification of that sort anyway) is that no one knows what these teams are. Who the heck is Bradley, Creighton, Northern Iowa? By contrast, everyone knows what even the dregs are from the BCS conferences. The way to build name recongniton of your teams is to be on television on a regular basis, and that's a problem - and the problem, as it seemingly always is, is ESPN. ESPN has BCS conference games seemingly every day of the week, so it would seem fair for "mid-major" conferences to just get one appearance every week, perhaps on ESPN2. But checking the Valley's schedule page, the Valley is slated for a grand total of four non-BracketBusters appearances on ESPN2. Other conferences are in similar dire straits.

That's rooted in ESPN's dominance over college basketball, as well as its other commitments (NASCAR Busch Series action took time away on ESPN2 this past season). Ideally, ESPN would make ABC a more serious player in college basketball (one time slot a week for a two-hour sport? WTF?), which would free space on ESPN for the major conference games currently on ESPN2 on Saturdays, which would free space on ESPN2 for the mid-majors. But perhaps the real solution is for more mid-major conferences to follow the Mountain West's lead. Their Versus broadcasts guarantee them a national broadcast virtually every week. If enough mid-majors followed their lead, and Versus was able to grow enough over the next 10 years, the mid-majors could at least establish a "Versus" tier as opposed to the "ESPN" tier.

It's worth noting that in Aegyptus' Page 1 classification, 22 games are some combination of major or mid-major (in a major conference) teams playing at major or mid-major teams - contrast that with Whelliston's figure of 32 major-at-mid-major matchups last year (explicitly defined in the article as teams from BCS conferences at teams from non-BCS non-C-USA conferences), a significant number of which (probably more than the 10-game difference) were probably Alabama-at-Mercer type matches. And 22 out of 45 this year isn't bad.

[DUBulldog]

The main problem, then, is the media, by which I mostly mean ESPN...<snipped>.....The way to build name recongniton of your teams is to be on television on a regular basis, and that's a problem - and the problem, as it seemingly always is, is ESPN.

ESPN first became a problem for the MVC in the late 70's-early 80's. In those days, the MVC was a much better conference than it is now. Hard to believe for some of the young 'uns, but virtually every team in the MVC in those days had at least one future NBA player. MVC teams competed for, and sometimes got, top 10 high school players (Benoit Benjamin, Aubrey Sherrod, Greg Dreiling).

Then, ESPN came along and started showing boatloads of college b-ball. Their flagship conference from the beginning was the Big East, which was made of what were, at the time, mostly mid-level basketball schools. They televised games other than the Big East, of course, but the MVC was nowhere on their radar, despite the high level of play.

Within about 5 years, heavy saturation of college games on TV changed the recruiting landscape. If you weren't on TV regularly, you couldn't recruit for the top players. The MVC wasn't on TV. Ever. The top level players stopped considering MVC schools. It got so bad in the early-to-mid 90's, that the MVC dropped all the way to about 20th in the conference RPI.

I hate to say it, but without getting much more national TV coverage, the level the MVC is currently at is as good as it will get for the league.

[Aegyptus]

I'm fine with you bringing it back up. I personally enjoyed this thread and I think we all need to think more about consolidating the Valley's current standing and start demanding some action from Elgin and the university presidents. The college basketball landscape is changing and we need to change with it. Not keeping up with the changes is what got us into trouble in the first place.

Nice to know about Bilas and ESPN, from DUBulldog too. I do sort of remember that from Bilas, but I was not sure how serious he was about it. By the way, ESPN coming online was not before my time, but it was before I had cable and knew any better.

I really do think we need to go to (i.e. force) a 3 tier structure within DI Basketball with the Valley being in the middle tier. If Bilas (representing at least some media) and the Committee are behind it, I don't really understand what is stopping it other than budgets of major media outlets (like paying the part-timer Whelliston to cover 20+ conferences) and perhaps the commissioners and presidents of what would become the low-major (one-bid) conferences. When you say it like this, everyone would agree there are 3 tiers: (1)Power Conferences with multiple final-four threats, (2) non-power conference, multi-bid leagues with single final four threats, (3) single bid leagues with no final four threats. But, when you say high-major, mid-major, low-major ... no one seems to agree.

It is nice to know the MWC is partnering with Versus. I think the Valley should think about something similar. I sort of like the deal we have with FSN Midwest (only we need 1 more game a week minimum), but if Versus could pick up the other non-power conference multi-bid leagues (in my mind, MWC, A-10, C-USA, Valley, WAC) it could really have something because it would promote its national agenda (getting it into more markets) while getting regular good games and viewership. Then, perhaps Versus could sponsor the Versus Challenge where teams from these schools play each other with the top games getting national TV coverage.

I do think we need to forget about ESPN somewhat (although I am totally pleased with their selection of Carbondale for Gameday). They are never going to cover us the way they cover the power conferences, that is just the way it is going to be and we need to accept and deal with that. They only have 2 national channels that they broadcast games and there are only so many time slots to fill. Two-three games from the ACC and Big 10 and 1+ game from the other 4 conferences per weekend pretty much fills the slate. Then they do one "mid-major" game which could basically come from any non-power conference. Most of the time that "mid-major" game is a west-coast game and on in the 11 p.m. eastern time slot. That leaves the Valley with 4 or so non-bracketbuster ESPN games (on a good year, really).

There are so many ways to get this to happen, but here is one: I would love to see the commissioners of those 7-12 conferences get really creative and start scheduling occasional non-conference games during the conference part of the season. Basically spread the higher-level bracketbuster games out over several weekends in Dec and January and possibly the first couple weekends in February. With these good games you would get good TV coverage. This would help build the depth of each of these leagues. The top of these leagues are very good and legitimate final four threats and can recruit well and pretty stable. But, teams like Missouri State, New Mexico, UTEP, Hawaii, Dayton and George Washington would get some national TV exposure about 1/2 way through their season which would help their tourney case as well as their recruiting case. That is a way to build a depth of 4-5 legitimate teams in each league solidifying the multi-bid status of these leagues and guaranteeing some of these teams good games and marquee wins. All this without the insult of participating in Bracketbusters. If ESPN is unhappy with us leaving Bracketbusters, take the package over the Fox or a combination of Versus and CBS.

If you did something creative like that with a start-up network like Versus it would be mutually beneficial to both that network and the non-power multi-bid conferences that participate. That kind of creative expansion in the new media world is what our commissioners need to be thinking about to prevent another 1970's-80s breakdown from occurring as DUBulldog Documented.

Everyone on here is all about a "just-win" and it will take care of itself attitude. Well, these things just don't take care of themselves. They require creative people in positions of power to capitalize on opportunities. The Valley is in a position to capitalize on multiple opportunities yet we are still playing bracketbusters and being covered by Kyle Whelliston in the same way that he covers the Mid-Con/Summit. Given our now near decade of success ... what has really fundamentally changed in our conference structure? Schools are individually making bigger monetary commitments, but without league-wide improvements, there is no safety net to fall back on when a school hits a rough patch! For all the success SIU has had, it is 2 rough seasons away from being irrelevant again. I'll acknowledge that. But, if we were in a new conference structure with some nationally televised games (albeit on Versus) and consistent good competition from the likes of the MWC, A-10, C-USA, and WAC there is a safety net because of the increased revenue and the consistent boost in recruiting.

For me, it is either something like this, or we are going to see massive conference realignment in about a decade among these mid-tier conferences with the schools that are willing to spend money dropping the schools that are not willing to spend money and partnering up with the top programs from other leagues. With these huge new investments our Valley teams and some of these other schools are making, I can see big problems and radical solutions in the near future if something is not done soon to create separation and a safety net when these multi-million dollar investments go wrong.

[barkeep1967]

and saying larry birds class was awesome, is easy, you have hind sight. What did they say about it 30 years ago, before he played a game.




Well to be fair. Larry was a transfer from INSU and everybody said he was too slow and not athletic enough to ever play in the NBA. :no:


Like was said Hindsight is 20/20

[Ricky Del Rio]

ESPN first became a problem for the MVC in the late 70's-early 80's. In those days, the MVC was a much better conference than it is now. Hard to believe for some of the young 'uns, but virtually every team in the MVC in those days had at least one future NBA player. MVC teams competed for, and sometimes got, top 10 high school players (Benoit Benjamin, Aubrey Sherrod, Greg Dreiling).

Then, ESPN came along and started showing boatloads of college b-ball. Their flagship conference from the beginning was the Big East, which was made of what were, at the time, mostly mid-level basketball schools. They televised games other than the Big East, of course, but the MVC was nowhere on their radar, despite the high level of play.

Within about 5 years, heavy saturation of college games on TV changed the recruiting landscape. If you weren't on TV regularly, you couldn't recruit for the top players. The MVC wasn't on TV. Ever. The top level players stopped considering MVC schools. It got so bad in the early-to-mid 90's, that the MVC dropped all the way to about 20th in the conference RPI.

I hate to say it, but without getting much more national TV coverage, the level the MVC is currently at is as good as it will get for the league.

A very thoughtful post.

Thanks.

[barkeep1967]

Well to be fair. Larry was a transfer from INSU




Sorry I meant Larry was a transfer from Indiana.

[Drakey]

Drake cannot "re-apply" to D2 because Drake has NEVER been D2. Admittedly some of the Bulldog teams over the past 10-12 years would have struggled in D2, but that is all behind us.

[DUBulldog]

Drake cannot "re-apply" to D2 because Drake has NEVER been D2.

It took me about 15 minutes to figure out what you were talking about (a 19 day old post a couple pages back in this thread). I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say. I didn't take it as a slam against either Drake or Evansville.

[dakyne]

DUBulldog,

Agreed with RDR. Good post from a historical perspective.

Only thing I might disagree with is that the MVC has peaked. They may not have.

However, there is some evidence that they have peaked because the selection committee only gave the MVC two bids last season. Using the previous season as a barometer, the MVC deserved at least 4 bids last season also.

I know they don't use conference affiliation as a criteria--their mantra is that "teams qualify, not conferences", but I gotta believe they have built-in biases.

I thought MSU got jobbed the previous season with their 21 rpi not being enough, and BU and perhaps MSU got jobbed last season. Hopefully, the MVC gets more than two teams in this season.

[DUBulldog]

DUBulldog,

Agreed with RDR. Good post from a historical perspective.

Only thing I might disagree with is that the MVC has peaked. They may not have.

I think the only way for the MVC to move up any more than they already have is to recruit even better players. Unfortunately, without a lot of TV coverage, I just don't see a lot of Top 50-100 type players picking MVC schools, much less McD A-A's. And, in my opinion, the MVC can't go higher without those type of guys.

Another key is the ability to hold onto our coaches. Unless we can afford to pay what the big boys are paying, the MVC is going to continue to lose top coaches to BCS conferences. Dana Altman is an exception to the rule.

Believe me, I'd loving nothing more than to see the MVC take that next step, but without regular national TV coverage, I don't see it happening.

[Aegyptus]

Well, that is why I have been harping on the point that the Conference itself needs to be involved in the next step, whether it is securing better TV contracts, negotiating a challenge with the MWC, etc. You can't ask schools like Creighton, Wichita and SIU to do much more. They are already spending millions of dollars by themselves. They have taken steps to consolidate their success and ensure that such success happens frequently.

Other schools have not taken these steps yet, but with the exceptions of the Indiana schools, I think the rest of the schools would take those steps if they were available. If Keno or Jacobson or the others turn out to be excellent coaches, I think the schools would step up. I am not sure the money is there in Evansville and I am not sure the leadership/desire is there in Terre Haute.

But, the schools spending millions is not going to get it done by itself. At some point the conference has to step in and raise the bar for everyone. That is why we have a conference in the first place so that the individual schools can function as a collective negotiator.

I really don't care what Elgin tries, but I think he needs to start trying something. There are some easy things to start like (1) drop bracketbusters, (2) negotiate a better deal with FSN, (3) working to create an Internet package for games that are not otherwise picked up on TV ... those are some initial steps that are not really controversial. Then, down the road, we need to start considering partnerships with other conferences in our position and negotiating TV deals with other networks, etc. And, eventually we need to consider expansion/contraction possibilities to make ourselves more marketable. There is a reason all the major conferences (but the Pac 10) have 11, 12, or even 16 members. More teams in more cities = more dollars in revenue.

[dakyne]

DUBulldog,

As an SIU fan, and in our myopic view, SIU is recruiting a better class of players--3 bonafide top 150 players for 08, and that doesn't include one that may end up there as he was an 07 prop 48. In CLo's case, he has been able to leverage a consistent winning culture into grabbing athletes who normally wouldn't have considered SIU in the past. And that doesn't include Fay, an 07 who may the best of them.

I do hear ya, DUBulldog, I just think SIU is getting on TV more, and CLo is milking it for all it's worth (Maroon Madness, GameDay, etc.).

[Aegyptus]

DUBulldog,

As an SIU fan, and in our myopic view, SIU is recruiting a better class of players--3 bonafide top 150 players for 08, and that doesn't include one that may end up there as he was an 07 prop 48. In CLo's case, he has been able to leverage a consistent winning culture into grabbing athletes who normally wouldn't have considered SIU in the past. And that doesn't include Fay, an 07 who may the best of them.

I do hear ya, DUBulldog, I just think SIU is getting on TV more, and CLo is milking it for all it's worth (Maroon Madness, GameDay, etc.).

That's true and SIU does have a good class coming in, but you saw what happened with Bertrand. If SIU played in a difference conference, he would be a Saluki now - I mean, he pretty much explicitly said so. I also have a feeling that conference affiliation factored into the Kuric decision as well.

I don't care how great Lowrey is, it is still going to be tough for him to recruit. He is going to consistently have to deal with the closed-minded Bertrands of the world who see the "mid-major" label as a sign of inferiority.

Look, for any school, conference affiliation can either be a benefit or a burden. Recently the Valley has been a benefit to pretty much all parties involved. But, once Creighton started spending at a new level and some schools matched that level, those schools might have to reevaluate whether the Valley continues to be a benefit or is becoming a burden. I am still of the mindset that the Valley is a benefit to all the teams, including all the big spenders. But, when Lowrey reads in the paper after a successful recruiting visit that he put a lot of hours into making happen that the recruit loves the school but doesn't love the conference and thus is not coming ... that is a burden. Plain and simple.

[BearsCountry]

Here is how I view college basketball:

BCS - ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, SEC, PAC-10
Major - A-10, CUSA, MVC, MWC, WAC
Mid-Major - CAA, Horizon, MAC, Sun Belt, WCC
Low-Major - Rest

[dakyne]

Aegyyptus,

I hear ya--Crittle pretty much said the same thing when eliminating SIU and verballing to Oregon. I just think CLo has stepped up his recruiting so much that he is actually getting players who the Big 10 also coveted.