American Athletic Conference

[proshox]

You can't be serious.

Aren't you the guy that destroys Creighton fans for their delusions that being in the Big East makes them a better team? As you know the league doesn't matter - the quality of a team does.

As someone who spends a lot of money going to games - I would love to have a big east or big 12 schedule, but it isn't going to magically change WSU's ability to be a top program.

This year's upcoming schedule is the inverse of typical Power 5 school. Just like them, we will have plenty of chances to make our mark and plenty of chances to develop the team. Either way we will get the seed the results dictate.

[Cdizzle]

Can't. Tell. If. Serious.

[Play Angry]

Quality of league does not necessarily cap a team's ceiling, but it absolutely provides a higher floor for when we inevitably cycle down (whether in five years or fifty).

A team in a league where members receive millions each year in television and NCAA units (from other members' achievements) has a built-in buffer against truly shitting out to the degree a program like Loyola or Indiana State did following their peaks. This is because, when you are the welfare queen of your league and that league is "rich," you can still afford to pay coaches top $$$ on a relative basis (vis a vis other conferences). There will be exceptions to point to on a short time horizon like DePaul, sure, but if you don't like their odds at long-term success better than, say, Drake or ISUb, I don't know what to say. The ability to spend 500% more than a competitor, year over year for a lengthy period, provides a much higher likelihood of success.

Going to the MWC, AAC, or Big East would not mean we are guaranteed to achieve better results than we have in the past. However, it does mean that our downturns will likely be less severe and for shorter time periods than if we continue to churn away in the Elgin tar pits.

[ShockdaWorld]

Aren't you the guy that destroys Creighton fans for their delusions that being in the Big East makes them a better team? As you know the league doesn't matter - the quality of a team does.

As someone who spends a lot of money going to games - I would love to have a big east or big 12 schedule, but it isn't going to magically change WSU's ability to be a top program.

This year's upcoming schedule is the inverse of typical Power 5 school. Just like them, we will have plenty of chances to make our mark and plenty of chances to develop the team. Either way we will get the seed the results dictate.

You should've seen my second comment when someone else disagreed. To think being in the Valley doesn't hurt seems ludicrous to me, and to most on this board from what I can see. I'd take an 8 point win over a top 50 RPI team versus a 25 point win over a bottom 50 RPI team every day, and so would the selection committee. The problem with being in the Valley is that those opportunities against Top 50 teams don't exist, so if you have an early season injury or even just stumble a couple of times and need to make up ground in conference play, you can't do it in the MVC.

[proshox]

Can't. Tell. If. Serious.

Extremely... I would be very excited to have WSU in better league, but that is because of overall entertainment value. Unfortunately, I can't see where WSU's tournament fortunes and overall program status will improve by changing leagues.

The biggest chip a Basketball School can have is playing in the tournament every single year. The MVC isn't in the way of cashing that chip in.

[Cdizzle]

I'm just going to assume I'm being trolled and move on.

How 'bout that football, eh?

[FlyingWheat]

I disagree - we had plenty of chances to solidify our resume and didn't. WSU was very strong on defense and average on offense. The lack of balance made WSU beatable by descent teams.

Put WSU in a different league and we would have seen more losses; therefore, the net effect of being in the MVC was minimal. WSU was well served by the weakness in this year’s MVC which allowed WSU to quickly climb the polls multiple times as a result of “poll mechanics and winning streaks.”

When you set expectations for last year, was our non-conference record anywhere near your worst case projections? I would guess not. We still got in.

WSU needs to stay focused on supporting the coaches, the facilities, and taking care of players. The MVC isn’t a problem.

In most cases you're right, but in this one you're wrong.

Our statistical rankings vastly exceeded our RPI and seeding, leading to believe that a larger sample size against more telling (read: challenging) competition would have brought our RPI and seed more in line with the real abilities of the team, keeping us out of the first four, providing a better path for tourney success.

[proshox]

You should've seen my second comment when someone else disagreed. To think being in the Valley doesn't hurt seems ludicrous to me, and to most on this board from what I can see. I'd take an 8 point win over a top 50 RPI team versus a 25 point win over a bottom 50 RPI team every day, and so would the selection committee. The problem with being in the Valley is that those opportunities against Top 50 teams don't exist, so if you have an early season injury or even just stumble a couple of times and need to make up ground in conference play, you can't do it in the MVC.

Assuming 8 point wins are easy against top 50 competition is where we diverge. Especially for last year's team - I think WSU piles up losses against top 50 teams due to our pieces not quite fitting together.

I asserted WSU might have missed the tournament last year had they played in Big East. There were a ton of bad match-ups in that league for us... that is why I have made the argument the MVC helped us instead of hurting us. In prior versions of this discussion JH4P made strong arguments I overvalued "easy wins" and that at best league affiliation makes minimal impact. I will concede he thinks about these things far more than I do and I now accept his position. Which is why I feel people are way more worried than they should be.

Hope for a change of league for entertainment - do not rely on it to improve our recruiting, seeding, or basketball brand.

[proshox]

In most cases you're right, but in this one you're wrong.

Our statistical rankings vastly exceeded our RPI and seeding, leading to believe that a larger sample size against more telling (read: challenging) competition would have brought our RPI and seed more in line with the real abilities of the team, keeping us out of the first four, providing a better path for tourney success.

I love Kenpom.com, but WSU was an anomaly last year... unbelievable defensive numbers against OK competition and very little to show on the offense. I think balance matters more than his metrics would allow for.

[ShockingButTrue]

I disagree - we had plenty of chances to solidify our resume and didn't. WSU was very strong on defense and average on offense. The lack of balance made WSU beatable by descent teams.

Put WSU in a different league and we would have seen more losses; therefore, the net effect of being in the MVC was minimal. WSU was well served by the weakness in this year’s MVC which allowed WSU to quickly climb the polls multiple times as a result of “poll mechanics and winning streaks.”

When you set expectations for last year, was our non-conference record anywhere near your worst case projections? I would guess not. We still got in.

WSU needs to stay focused on supporting the coaches, the facilities, and taking care of players. The MVC isn’t a problem.

Self-respecting chicken fans would certainly agree with your take... Loading up on cupcakes in the Valley ; )

[VALPOfan]

In my opinion, the best way to pick 10 teams in the region that have the highest chance of long-term success would be to look strictly at head coach salaries.

I can't find consistent across the board coaching salary information, but here's the next best I can do. Take Dept. of Education total men's basketball expenses and adjust for the variable scholarship costs between schools (so as not to overly advantage private schools that can expense scholarships at higher dollar amounts without it having any actual benefit toward the quality of the team). Working from the same group of schools as my first post, this new selection criteria would yield the following 10 teams.

School	Coach Salary + Operating Expenses Estimate
Wichita State	$5,422,311
Northern Iowa	$3,234,065
Bradley	$3,195,700
Loyola	$2,114,216
Detroit	$1,959,598
Evansville	$1,936,554
Cleveland State	$1,931,924
Illinois State	$1,920,771
Missouri State	$1,884,615
Valparaiso	$1,871,234

At least over the last 4 years, some of these teams have clearly gotten good return for their money while others have not. Will be interesting to see how they perform in the years to come.

[ShockdaWorld]

Assuming 8 point wins are easy against top 50 competition is where we diverge. Especially for last year's team - I think WSU piles up losses against top 50 teams due to our pieces not quite fitting together.

I asserted WSU might have missed the tournament last year had they played in Big East. There were a ton of bad match-ups in that league for us... that is why I have made the argument the MVC helped us instead of hurting us. In prior versions of this discussion JH4P made strong arguments I overvalued "easy wins" and that at best league affiliation makes minimal impact. I will concede he thinks about these things far more than I do and I now accept his position. Which is why I feel people are way more worried than they should be.

Hope for a change of league for entertainment - do not rely on it to improve our recruiting, seeding, or basketball brand.

I'm not assuming any easy wins. The only thing I'm trying to say is that the opportunity to get those 8 point wins is nonexistent in the Valley. There simply is zero room to make an improvement in your rpi when you're playing against bottom 50-100 rpi teams. And apparently, this year at least, rpi mattered at least a little.

[AndShock]

I believe there were 12 conferences ahead of the Valley last year including such basketball powers as #10 Summit, #9 Mid-American, and a greatly depleted #8 Colonial (VCU, ODU, and George Mason all recently departed). In RPI, we were closer to being 17th in RPI calculation than 12th and closer to 20th than 10th. This is with WSU included. Where would the Valley have ranked without WSU?

Hopefully, the MVC will be better this year. However, to think there is not enough other schools out there that want, and will commit, to grow as a basketball conference into a regular top 8-10 conference while saying the Valley is as good as anywhere, might not be objective enough. I do agree that if the Valley grows a spine or enough Valley schools sees the writing on the wall, it probably is the best place to start that rebuild. Unfortunately, many of those best schools may be blinded by FCS football "success" and find themselves hanging in the wind if other quality non-Valley schools leave.

Extensive research done by Valpo Fan has given us Evansville as one of the top options. I think that says a lot.

[1972Shocker]

I think it would be easier to reform and improve the Valley than it would to try to form a totally new conference from scratch.

I say keep WSU, UNI, MSU, ILS, INS and SIU. Add North Dakota State and South Dakota State. Make BRD, DRK, EVN and LOY make a compelling case why they should be retained. If they can't make that case then look for the best replacements you can get to maintain the conference at at least 10 teams.

Assuming none of the 4 bottom feeders can make a compelling case I would look for the 2 replacements to get us back to 10 teams.

For some reason Arkansas - Little Rock appeals to me. Would have to study the options a bit more.

That said I am not sure the will to do something like this exists with the Elgin-lead MVC and its other member institutions. This wouldn't be a great conference but it's better that what the MVC is currently bringing to the table.

[ShockTalk]

Extensive research done by Valpo Fan has given us Evansville as one of the top options. I think that says a lot.

I think he qualified his research by pointing out the last 4 years performance was one of the main factors. Not saying I'd have them (and didn't in my grouping), but, if I was an outsider, I can see why UE was included given that period of time.

I'm still not sure what quoting my post had to do with your post. I think that says a lot.