Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

[Justwin]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Why not a merger? I don't have time to compare schedules, but it doesn't appear UNI, for example had a much better time scheduling quality OOC opponents in Cedar Rapids, with a big exception being the MVC/MW challenge. I assume most Summit and MVC schools are in the same boat unless a DI OOC for can bus to their gym. Play a big conference slate and throw in a few suicide road games against P5 schools and a neutral site tourney here and there and, boom, no more Presentation.

IMO a merger would be the worst thing that could happen. There is a big difference between how our fb conference works compared to a basketball conference. If you merge and lose a mid major conference you also lose an auto bid! There are no mid major conferences that are 2 bid leagues. Every now and then you have a conference that gets an at large bid but that is the exception. If we lose mid major conferences basketball will turn into the FBS football playoffs with only teams from the P5 in it. I could be wrong tho.

[filbert]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Why not a merger? I don't have time to compare schedules, but it doesn't appear UNI, for example had a much better time scheduling quality OOC opponents in Cedar Rapids, with a big exception being the MVC/MW challenge. I assume most Summit and MVC schools are in the same boat unless a DI OOC for can bus to their gym. Play a big conference slate and throw in a few suicide road games against P5 schools and a neutral site tourney here and there and, boom, no more Presentation.

The main reason against a merger is you'd lose one autobid to the NCAA basketball tournament(s).

It would be more likely that the two leagues would form some kind of scheduling alliance--but that would take further erosion of the Valley's overall standing in (especially) men's basketball before they would consider it, IMHO.

[Evolution Prime]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

While I do think that the MVC is better than the Summit, especially in terms of brand recognition and stability, it is not an echelon above than what it was with Creighton and Wichita State. I believe that both conferences are better with the XDSUs in them, but how much more beneficial it would be for us. Both conferences are one bid league for the foreseeable future. Will we see an increase in exposure long term without Creighton and Wichita State? Will UNI be looking to leave?

I'm not going to lie, having the SLT less than an hour from Brookings is a big advantage on getting to the NCAA tournament. Is it big enough to outweigh a possible numb in prestige? I don't know, but it is just one of the many things we have to consider.

My preference is to stay and make the Summit League better. I think if we add the correct pieces, the Summit will stabilize out. With IPFW and IUPUI being moved the outliers of the conference, they would have been looking to move any ways. The Summit will have to be more proactive to ensure a stable future.

However, if the writing on the wall becomes apparent that the Summit will further destabilize, I would support a move to the MVC.

I'm certainly glad I don't have to make a decision like this.

[thumper_76]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

I guess I really don't understand why people seem to think we need to have this ultra power conference full of top teams?

Well, having higher than a 13 seed would be kinda cool once in a while. Maybe even getting to the point of being a two bud conference.

I think maybe my thought on the MVC/Summit thing is if we stay in the Summit I damn sure hope we get some better teams added than what is there currently, and thats doubtful. I just don't think we can really hit our peak as a program in the Summit, or it won't be as high as the MVC. If we were in the MVC I could see us getting to UNI level, especially since being the MVC would require an increase in spending from a basketball standpoint. If we stay in the Summit I won't throw a fit, but I don't feel real comfortable with the long term stability of the conference. I'm not sure that it will ever be more than a stepping stone for most teams with better geography than us, and then the Dakota schools are left scrambling. IMO there's a limit to how strong a conference can get when it's a revolving door. Are IUPUI and IPFW super programs? No, but who is the Summit going to be able to coax to join that's better? UNI is a pipe dream at best, what else is there really though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OldHare]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Well, having higher than a 13 seed would be kinda cool once in a while. Maybe even getting to the point of being a two bud conference.

I think maybe my thought on the MVC/Summit thing is if we stay in the Summit I damn sure hope we get some better teams added than what is there currently, and thats doubtful. I just don't think we can really hit our peak as a program in the Summit, or it won't be as high as the MVC. If we were in the MVC I could see us getting to UNI level, especially since being the MVC would require an increase in spending from a basketball standpoint. If we stay in the Summit I won't throw a fit, but I don't feel real comfortable with the long term stability of the conference. I'm not sure that it will ever be more than a stepping stone for most teams with better geography than us, and then the Dakota schools are left scrambling. IMO there's a limit to how strong a conference can get when it's a revolving door. Are IUPUI and IPFW super programs? No, but who is the Summit going to be able to coax to join that's better? UNI is a pipe dream at best, what else is there really though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would that argument apply to the MVC at this time too. The revolving door has been spun as of late. The door in the Summit has ushered Omaha, Denver, UND, USD, and ORU back to the fold. The long term outlook for the MVC is UNI and Valpo the annual contenders while the rest could be also rans. If you are determined that the teams in the Summit will never equal the MVC, you are not looking at programs closely and you are brand shopping. The MVC appears to be the old castle at the end of main street that was the best place in town and the maintenance program has slid significantly and there is not enough money in the budgets to fix it where it was a decade ago. The
Summit will be what the core teams make it. At this time, I would expect better things much like the addition of the teams we have seen replace the teams that have departed. If that is not an upgrade on the quality of the conference, I do not understand what you do. Loyola replaces Creighton and Valpo replaces WSU. Those trades will not get you too rich. The higher than a 13 seed is every mid major dream. Meanwhile we live in the reality of tough seeds. By the way, the year Parks and Marshall were seniors they were a 12 seed which is still not great. The 2 bid may require a different conference and a different team.

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

A move to the MVC, along with NDSU, would have to be seriously considered by the Jacks. Sioux Falls does not have a lifetime lock on hosting the Summit tourney. From an SDSU perspective, the location of the tourney 60 miles from Brookings is about the only factor in the Summit's favor. Even if SDSU joined the Summit, the Jacks could still play an annual game against USD and perhaps some other Summit teams.

[OldHare]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

A move to the MVC, along with NDSU, would have to be seriously considered by the Jacks. Sioux Falls does not have a lifetime lock on hosting the Summit tourney. From an SDSU perspective, the location of the tourney 60 miles from Brookings is about the only factor in the Summit's favor. Even if SDSU joined the Summit, the Jacks could still play an annual game against USD and perhaps some other Summit teams.

In a couple of years, Loyola and Valpo go to MVC. What is the expectation we might have for an invitation?

[Kemo]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

The truth of the matter is the MVC is a better conference than the Summit is currently, even without Wichita State, and would be an even better conference if they did add both xDSU's.

The pros of being in the MVC would be better non-conference home games (better reputation/rpi would help lure teams in, plus the MWC/MVC challenge) and a better chance of getting a higher seed in the NCAA Tourney. Bringing in Northern Iowa and Illinois State would also be nice draws, though we'd likely lose a home game with USD at least every other year. We would also see some more national television exposure since ESPN2 broadcasts some MVC matchups and CBS broadcasts the MVC Tourney Championship.

The biggest con would be the lose of the quasi-home court advantage for the Summit League Tourney in Sioux Falls, and though the MVC is a better overall conference, their strength dropped significantly with the loss of Wichita State to the point in which at-large bids will likely be more the exception rather than the rule going forward.

I'm not against moving to the MVC and think it would give our program a short-term bump in national prestige, but I am concerned with the MVC's leadership and public/private rift going forward. The Loyola-Chicago addition was an incredibly short sighted decision and really showed where their interest lies (market size/geography > basketball success). The private schools in the MVC seem hell-bent on turning conference into a bus league and consolidating power amongst themselves so they can control the vision of the league (I feel the privates have a very different vision for the league as opposed to the publics, and it's not a good one). It wouldn't shock me if this leads to future instability for the MVC and a continual drop in RPI to the point where the Summit less-so surpasses them as opposed to the MVC just drops below us in basketball quality.

Of course, I think the discussion is moot since the MVC isn't going to be calling our name anytime soon since the league is following the vision of the private school instead of the publics.

[Justwin]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

I will be curious to see the MVC tournament attendance figures this year compared to last year. The MVC is not what it was. As far as exposure goes it only matters if you win and make the big dance. Higher seeds and 2 bid leagues are a pipe dream. Gonzaga plays in its own version of the Summit league and seems to do ok.

[thumper_76]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Would that argument apply to the MVC at this time too. The revolving door has been spun as of late. The door in the Summit has ushered Omaha, Denver, UND, USD, and ORU back to the fold. The long term outlook for the MVC is UNI and Valpo the annual contenders while the rest could be also rans. If you are determined that the teams in the Summit will never equal the MVC, you are not looking at programs closely and you are brand shopping. The MVC appears to be the old castle at the end of main street that was the best place in town and the maintenance program has slid significantly and there is not enough money in the budgets to fix it where it was a decade ago. The
Summit will be what the core teams make it. At this time, I would expect better things much like the addition of the teams we have seen replace the teams that have departed. If that is not an upgrade on the quality of the conference, I do not understand what you do. Loyola replaces Creighton and Valpo replaces WSU. Those trades will not get you too rich. The higher than a 13 seed is every mid major dream. Meanwhile we live in the reality of tough seeds. By the way, the year Parks and Marshall were seniors they were a 12 seed which is still not great. The 2 bid may require a different conference and a different team.

UND, Omaha, and Denver will always be hockey first schools and are OK at best. Hell UNO had a shot at the MVC until they had to show them their finances and then the MVC couldn't say no to them fast enough. UND barely pays their coach more than $100k last I saw. ORU is a dumpster fire. The reality is that after a while dollars invested in a program matter, and the MVC is MUCH more invested than Summit schools. Plus I think that eventually you help attendance for the athletic department overall when you get to play most of the same teams we play in football and build more rivalries there. Teams like SIU, ISUr, MSU, and UNI all playing in Frost every year would boost attendance compared to UNO, Denver, UMKC (likely), etc.

And to compare the revolving door of the MVC to the Summit is laughable. The conferences that steal from them are the Big East. We get pillaged by the conferences that they took the top team from. I really hope the Summit turns out to me something special, but I just don't see who we get that is a special add that improves the conference. Reality is we usually get the misfit schools that other conferences generally don't want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GopherHole]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Love the discussion and many excellent posts are bringing up valid points of consideration. While I'd prefer to stay in the Summit, I wonder if we all have a little too much blue in the glasses we view with. Or maybe it's the other schools are only looking at the history and stature of the MVC. The thing is our perspective is significantly different than other schools on switching to the MVC. As of 8/8/2017, we are the only school with strong support for staying.

Oral Roberts fans prefer MVC 16-2 (89%)
NDSU fans preferthe MVC 43-5 (90%)
SDSU fans prefer the SLC 31-13 (70%)

Murray State prefer the MVC 66-3. (See post below.)
Northern Kentucky fans prefer to stay put 3-2, but they only have 378 posts in their entire forum for all sports. Hard to get a real pulse on such an anemic fan forum.

[mvfcfan]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

Murray State (currently OVC) also prefers the MVC 66-3 in their poll.

Someone on here (or maybe it was Bisonville) mentioned it and I will throw in my support for this idea. Make a new 10 team league for all sports with all the MVFC league members (minus YSU). My guess is that league would end up being better than the current MVC. It would also be nice to be in a league where all the members have a common goal: being good in football and basketball. The private schools without doubt have been dragging the MVC down. Anymore the only teams that ever get considered are non-football schools. I think it's time for the 5 public MVC schools to kick the privates to the curb. As far as I'm concerned the privates can go start their own league or join the Horizon League. I'm thinking since they wouldn't have enough teams to start a conference and since we are all part of the MVFC we could probably steal the "Missouri Valley" name like the current Big East schools did. Just a thought.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

MVC and it's not close. If the Summit League Tournament wasn't in Sioux Falls, I think a lot of people would be voting different.

[GopherHole]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

MVC and it's not close. If the Summit League Tournament wasn't in Sioux Falls, I think a lot of people would be voting different.

I would seriously consider it harder if the tourney wasn't in Sioux Falls, but it is. I'm not ashamed of that for my rationale. It generates HUGE fan support not only for the conference tournament, it is huge for Jackrabbit fans following our team. Could you honestly expect 1,500 Jackrabbit fans showing up in St. Louis for the MVC? If we even doubled that, it would still feel empty. Sioux Falls is a great venue for the conference, but it is monumental for Jackrabbit/Coyote fans.

[goon]

Re: Would you support SDSU moving the MVC? (poll)

when you have your conference tourney just out your back door, you have to really consider the advantages of leaving that. If the goal is to make the dance every year, be competitive, get a better seed etc, we can do most of that in the summit. I don't think we gain much buy leaving, unless the Summit is going to completely implode. I think growing the base of the summit is the best. If our conference RPI is in the 30s, and we can move to one in the low teens and we have no rivals or the tourney moves out of SF. Sure, jump ship in no time, but our RPI has gradually been improving, if I am not mistaken we had a higher conference RPI then MVC a year or so ago. I know that's not always going to happen, but that shows in last 10 years we closed the gap more then most would be willing to admit. But giving up our fan support and tourney advantage is worth a lot and I am pretty sure Sell sees it that way too. I would think he likes to keep all his options open, but currently it would take a lot for us to give that up.