American Athletic Conference

[shoxlax]

Im with Capn. Im not alone.

Going with twelve and a round robin means two less conference games by my estimation. So that is two more challenges to fill your schedule with quality opponents. Not an easy task.

[SubGod22]

More mouths to feed, yes. However, if they do their research and look at schools that are successful where they are and/or trending up and/or investing in basketball, you could be adding 3 teams that can compete for a bid in any given year along with those that have that chance now. Also, you increase the RPI level of everyone which gives the top teams more games in conference against Top 50-100 schools and even the bottom feeders are less likely to be a drag. The potential to have more bids can lead to more money which could lead to more money per school even with two more.

And if they're the right adds, it COULD increase TV revenue down the road as new markets could be opened up. We're not going to get BE money with any addition, but we could eventually increase the per school pay by adding 3 as well.

[ABC]

I agree with Suelly on one team. His logic is strong. If there is enough difficulty finding one program, why 3? I am still not sold on ORU though.

[Ta town]

Here would be a slightly different 12 then what I keep seeing suggested.

North: Drake, UNI, Illinois State, Bradley, Indiana State, Evansville

South: Wichita State, Missouri State, UT-Arlington, UALR, SIU, Belmont

[ABC]

Here would be a slightly different 12 then what I keep seeing suggested.

North: Drake, UNI, Illinois State, Bradley, Indiana State, Evansville

South: Wichita State, Missouri State, UT-Arlington, UALR, SIU, Belmont

With all due respect . . . barf.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

The MVC is a 1-2 (maybe 3 in extremely strong years) bid league right now with 10. That's 10 schools dividing money from the success of 1 or 2. By losing a team that is almost guaranteed to be in talks for that 1 or 2 bids, it seems like unless we pick up 3 homerun schools that will increase our bid numbers from 1-2 to 2-3, that all we are doing is decreasing the individual size of the share from the profits of success.

There could be a chance we become a 2-4 bid league every year like the A-10 has become. But we have to add the right schools--ones that already are NCAA bid threats every year in their conferences. As has been said, if we get these top performers their RPI could improve the RPI of the entire conference. Couple that with the scheduling mandate and we'd be in good shape. That's the potential I see for a 12 team league. If we can't add the right schools, though, then going to 12 is suicide.

[ABC]

Illinois State, UNI and Indiana State all had chances to be tournament teams, but crapped the bed.

[shocky]

This is not a good day for the Valley, but adding new members because of scheduling issues or stability is a bad idea imo. We don't have to add anyone at this point. We can take our time and see how things shake out with the A-10. This will leave more revenue for fewer members and the league as a whole will be better next year. Now is not the time to panic. It seems the league is hellbent on adding a new member like a nuclear option.

The teams being discuss just don't seem to be a good fit either. ORU, Denver and Belmont???? I sure they all have good points as athletic departments, but we should really try for a home run on this one. I honestly would have never thought we would be seriously discussing these teams. My line of thinking would be: Dayton would be great, although a little to far east. Tulsa returning would be great, but may not be realistic. Something like that. A known versus an unknown. If a good fit doesn't happen then move forward with what we have.

[shockerfan34]

Just spitballing ideas here, but how do you think both sides would feel about adding St. Louis as a 10th team next year under the assumption they would move on to the new Big East next year?

I think the Valley minus Creighton would still be a better league than the A10 minus Butler and Xavier though in SLU's opinion maybe that is more debatable. Travel wise it would make since in a year that they would have a lame duck status in the A10 and MVC.

From the Valley perspective, it allows us to have a little more time to analyze more permanent adds to the league to ensure a proper decision will be made. Basketball competition wise, it never hurts to add a solid program into the mix and SLU would replace the temporary hole that a Creighton level team would add. Another extra plus could be to have them here and the Big East realizing that they are happy with 10 and then maybe we have SLU as a more long term Valley member.

I think everyplace it says SLU you could also swap Dayton in and everything similarly applies. I dont know how realistic such a solution would be, though its an intriguing thought

[SubGod22]

This is not a good day for the Valley, but adding new members because of scheduling issues or stability is a bad idea imo. We don't have to add anyone at this point. We can take our time and see how things shake out with the A-10. This will leave more revenue for fewer members and the league as a whole will be better next year. Now is not the time to panic. It seems the league is hellbent on adding a new member like a nuclear option.

The teams being discuss just don't seem to be a good fit either. ORU, Denver and Belmont???? I sure they all have good points as athletic departments, but we should really try for a home run on this one. I honestly would have never thought we would be seriously discussing these teams. My line of thinking would be: Dayton would be great, although a little to far east. Tulsa returning would be great, but may not be realistic. Something like that. A known versus an unknown. If a good fit doesn't happen then move forward with what we have.

9 is not a safe number for the MVC. And waiting for the A10 isn't smart. By all accounts, SLU and Dayton will both be gone. IF the A10 decides to keep a midwest presence and we wait around, we could lose out on the better options to our east. There are NO home run options. There are only schools that have good/solid programs with upside.

Denver is in a big city and would bring in a new market. They're investing heavily in basketball and have come a long way the past 5 years. It's also an easy to get to location for everyone.

ORU isn't anybody's favorite, but they're in a decent market in Tulsa and would give us a presence in OK. Solid but not great program. Wouldn't do anything to hurt the MVC.

Belmont has been tremendous and has a top 20 RPI this year. Attendance isn't great, but a Nashville presence isn't bad at all.

Arlington is much like Denver and would put us in the Dallas area. More exposure. They continue to improve and are investing in basketball.

Murray St. doesn't give you a market but they've been a pretty solid program the past 10 years or so.

Wright St is a solid but not great program in Dayton. Attendance is ok.

Valpo is a pretty solid program with ok attendance.

Point being is there are good options out there. There are a number of schools that could finish and compete in the upper half of the conference. Those are the schools we should be targeting. The MVC needs to secure at least one solid school. I do think 12 is still a good option. And some of these schools could very well improve by being in the MVC where they'll get more exposure and money.

I said a a few years ago that we should go to 12 and target Butler and another. I've heard that Butler wanted in sometime between 5-10 years ago and the MVC said no because they couldn't get SLU. Elgin would not add anyone unless SLU was involved. There's nothing wrong with expanding the footprint some. More TVs/markets can't hurt next time we're looking for a TV deal. Especially if NBC/CBS/Fox are serious about content and competing with ESPN. I think our deal goes for a few more years and it's possible that if we shopped around when that time comes, we could get more money per school, even with 12, if we add solid teams that bring in new areas. That's one reason I believe we should take a serious look at Denver, Arlington, Belmont and Wright State. Milwaukee was on my list but I am concerned about their finances right now. IF they could prove that had a good plan and were willing to build a new arena, I'd be more open to consideration.

I'm not saying 12 is a must, but it should be considered and looked into. If WSU stays or not, the MVC needs to be serious about who they add and where.

[SubGod22]

Just spitballing ideas here, but how do you think both sides would feel about adding St. Louis as a 10th team next year under the assumption they would move on to the new Big East next year?

I think the Valley minus Creighton would still be a better league than the A10 minus Butler and Xavier though in SLU's opinion maybe that is more debatable. Travel wise it would make since in a year that they would have a lame duck status in the A10 and MVC.

From the Valley perspective, it allows us to have a little more time to analyze more permanent adds to the league to ensure a proper decision will be made. Basketball competition wise, it never hurts to add a solid program into the mix and SLU would replace the temporary hole that a Creighton level team would add. Another extra plus could be to have them here and the Big East realizing that they are happy with 10 and then maybe we have SLU as a more long term Valley member.

I think everyplace it says SLU you could also swap Dayton in and everything similarly applies. I dont know how realistic such a solution would be, though its an intriguing thought

SLU isn't spending 2 million dollars to get out of the A10 and join the MVC for ONE year.

[shockerfan34]

SLU isn't spending 2 million dollars to get out of the A10 and join the MVC for ONE year.

I wasn't sure of the A10 buyout, but that answers the question to if that was a plausable idea.

[ShauXTyme]

It cracks me up to see the "Creighton is going to be the punching bag" comments. Those comments are from the same people who are always complaining that WSU should get the opportunity to play the power conference teams because we'd, more often than not, beat them. But now, one of the best teams in our league (and confrence champ) is moving to a conference that will play some of the bigger named schools, and now Creighton is gonna get pounded by Nova and Marquette? If WSU was moving to the new league, are you people saying we'd get pounded for years? Just wondering.

[shockmonster]

What conference is Denver in now? Is it just a rumor that they turned the MVC down or more than that? They seem to have the biggest upside to me for basketball growth and the WAC is a loser for the short and long term.

Bump

[SubGod22]

I wasn't sure of the A10 buyout, but that answers the question to if that was a plausable idea.

It's 2 mil for less than a years notice and 1 mil for anything over that.