POLL WATCH

[ShockTalk]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

Actually, I hadn't even thought of your option #2, which is probably the only viable and realistic option. Have the Valley become the Atlantic-10 (or better) of the central US. #1 just isn't going to happen unless there is a real shake-up among certain conferences.

[SHOXAAC]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

Who do you consider the weak players and what defines a major conference?

[Veritas]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

Who do you consider the weak players and what defines a major conference?

1. UE, InSU, UNI, Drake imo. Drake is the longest running member so kind of hate to see them leave, but something needs to be done to make the MoVal stronger. UNI on the bubble.
2. Good question. Perception is hard to measure though I don't believe you have to belong to a BCS conference to be considered a major conference. But you do need to get more than 2 teams in The Dance year after year.

We'll probably see some additional shake-ups in the near future with more basketball schools reducing their football focus. The MoVal could be one of those conferences (WSU, MSU, CU, BU, IlSU, SIU, SLU, Butler, and 2 others).

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/03/2390906/hoops-may-be-trumped-by-football.html

[1979Shocker]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

2. I don't think the conference can kick out weak players. That would be up to the school(s) that has(ve) those players. But maybe you meant weak schools.

[SHOXAAC]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

Who do you consider the weak players and what defines a major conference?

1. UE, InSU, UNI, Drake imo. Drake is the longest running member so kind of hate to see them leave, but something needs to be done to make the MoVal stronger. UNI on the bubble.
2. Good question. Perception is hard to measure though I don't believe you have to belong to a BCS conference to be considered a major conference. But you do need to get more than 2 teams in The Dance year after year.

We'll probably see some additional shake-ups in the near future with more basketball schools reducing their football focus. The MoVal could be one of those conferences (WSU, MSU, CU, BU, IlSU, SIU, SLU, Butler, and 2 others).

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/03...-football.html

The challenge with point #2 is the word "major" perceptionally is linked to having a football program imo. It seems the Valley is ranked as the 7-9 best basketball conference year-year. As been mentioned in this thread, near future changes in D-1 basketball will happen. Realistically, WSU can invest time into recruiting a new conference (unlikely imo), or strengthening a better MVC (more likely). A Major shakeup is unlikely (more than 2 teams leaving). So it will take strategically creating a win-win exit strategy for 2 teams lets say (Evansville & Indiana State for example). Then add a SLU & Butler. This would incrementally strengthen the Valley. The realistic goal would be to become the best non-BCS basketball conference (although the Valley was better than the Pack-10 last year). Surpass the A-10 and be right behind the B-12, ACC, B-East, SEC & B-10.

[ShockTalk]

Mid-Major moniker will grow more and more each year. The options are:
1. Move to a better conference
2. Strengthen the MoVal by kicking out the weak players and replacing them with stronger schools and market itself as a "major" college basketball conference
3. Ignore the "mid-major" label and pretend it doesn't exist

I'm a bit curious as to why HCGM would involve himself with voting on the "mid-major" poll. The poll or "mid-major" label doesn't seem to be how he views WSU.

2. I don't think the conference can kick out weak players. That would be up to the school(s) that has(ve) those players. But maybe you meant weak schools.

He did.

[RoyalShock]

UE and InSU. Those are the ones who bring little to the table. Drake at least has success in several minor sports as well having a good academic reputation. UNI may not bring a large market, but they seem to do well in spite of their weaknesses. They have pulled their weight and more the past 5-6 years in basketball.

Replace the Aces and Sycs with Bulldogs and Billikins.

[ShockTalk]

The Valley needs to go back and demand higher SoS from its teams.

MVC - The highest 2 teams SoS were in the 60s (Bradley & In St). 7 of 10 teams had SoS below 100.

MWC - Also only 2 teams in the 60's or higher SoS, but only 2 teams were below 100.

A-10 - 6 teams were in the 60s or higher. Only 4 of 14 teams had a SoS below 100. They have an advantage in this area because the Big East plays them a lot of games, but if I remember right, they also played other BCS conferences more games (per team) than any other mid major conference did against all BCS conferences.

WAC - The 3 best teams in the WAC all had higher SoS ranking than any of the best 3 MVC teams despite the fact that the rest of WAC conference teams had (much) worse SoS than the rest of the Valley.

This SoS issue needs to get addressed by all of the Valley teams. And before anyone goes off :cry: about how tough it is to schedule good teams, remember: These other mid major conferences are doing a better job of it. The A-10 from top to bottom, the MWC overall, and the WAC with their best teams.

[swish1]

UE and InSU. Those are the ones who bring little to the table. Drake at least has success in several minor sports as well having a good academic reputation. UNI may not bring a large market, but they seem to do well in spite of their weaknesses. They have pulled their weight and more the past 5-6 years in basketball.

Replace the Aces and Sycs with Bulldogs and Billikins.

its all about money and drake brings none. uni has been good recently, at basketball, but it wont last and they dont bring money to the table either. the valley needs to expand its media market for basketball.

[Aargh]

The scheduling difficulty is fueled by a mentality that says, "Don't lose a game to anyone that's not a top-10 team and WHATEVER happens - never, never, ever lose a home game".

Mrshall is pretty much in that group.

If there was a SoS requirement, then coaches would be forced to take some games with an element of risk. As long as the coaches schedule as if winning the Valley tournament is the only way to get into the NCAA's, then the Valley will be a one-bid or two-bid league.

The problem with the SoS requirement is that MVC coaches might be forced to take some risks, but that doesn't matter unless you find opponents also willing to take some risks.

[ShockTalk]

The scheduling difficulty is fueled by a mentality that says, "Don't lose a game to anyone that's not a top-10 team and WHATEVER happens - never, never, ever lose a home game".

Mrshall is pretty much in that group.

If there was a SoS requirement, then coaches would be forced to take some games with an element of risk. As long as the coaches schedule as if sinning the Valley tournament is the only way to get into the NCAA's, then the Valley will be a one-bid or two-bid league.

The problem with the SoS requirement is that MVBC coaches might be forced to take some risks, but that doesn't matter unless you find opponents also willing to take some risks.

Agreed.

The problem with that mentality is that a team's margin of error is small. If you don't win the conference tournament, you may be off to the NIT. I believe we've had just a little bit of problem winning that conference tournament.

The other problem is team preparation and "toughness" when it comes to playing the bigger games or road games. This isn't just a single year problem, but a year-to-year continual problem. What type of schedule you had two years ago can effect last year and if last year's schedule was somewhat soft, that problem can be compounded to the current year. A little tougher schedule may have generated a loss to a team at home and/or a higher RPI team on the road. But those losses may have prevented others -- maybe 2 or 3 of the road losses to Creighton, Evansville, Drake, Bradley, maybe even a 3 point loss to UNI. Maybe we would have won at Utah St or, particularly, here against Nevada (or not faced them at all because we'd gone dancing).

I believe the risk of losing a home game and a road game to stronger RPI teams would be worth it if it improves, builds, and toughens the team to not loss 2 or 3 of the loses they did have. There by, maybe not requiring that they have to win the MVC tournament to get to the NCAA tournament. Just my opinion.

And again, these other conferences, including their top teams, are finding the teams for a better, stronger schedule.

[AndShock]

AP Poll is out.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/usatpoll.htm

We lost 4 points, understandable considering we haven't played yet.

[Veritas]

Pomeroy Ratings

http://kenpom.com/rate.php

[AndShock]

Pomeroy didn't really like us last year. Not sure what the formula is, but it probably had something to do with our schedule. It's carried over to this year and it shows us losing more games than we should. Pomeroy is still one of my favorite sites though.

[RoyalShock]

Considering we've played one game against a SWAC team, #75 sounds generous.

Though historically, Pomeroy's rating hasn't liked the MVC too well.