2025-26 Around The Valley

[Jason Svoboda]

Interesting. What makes you say 0 leadership? I also think at least one of the 3 schools will have to have baseball.

I've said for the longest time that whomever comes in should draw an official line in the sand for the long term outlook of the two conferences. FBS football drives college sports despite basketball being the only NCAA revenue generator. The Valley will not last 50 years if they continue to have a fractured conference.

They either need to:

1) State the long term goal is for the MVC/MVFC to merge and have a unified conference and ultimately end up FBS so they can participate in that revenue generation machine or;

2) State they have zero intentions of a unified conference so they can embrace a Big East-like operational model and ask their schools to put everything behind basketball. Then any publics that want to to continue to fund the football charade can look for better fits.

Based on which path is taken, that is your lens for expansion candidates. Moreover, if they go #2, the goal should be to strategically align hoops partners (conferences, sponsors, etc) so the focus is 110% on basketball and marketed as such. The continued half-ass way of doing both the MVC and MVFC is a path to nowhere IMO.

 

[jturner38]

I've said for the longest time that whomever comes in should draw an official line in the sand for the long term outlook of the two conferences. FBS football drives college sports despite basketball being the only NCAA revenue generator. The Valley will not last 50 years if they continue to have a fractured conference.

They either need to:

1) State the long term goal is for the MVC/MVFC to merge and have a unified conference and ultimately end up FBS so they can participate in that revenue generation machine or;

2) State they have zero intentions of a unified conference so they can embrace a Big East-like operational model and ask their schools to put everything behind basketball. Then any publics that want to to continue to fund the football charade can look for better fits.

Based on which path is taken, that is your lens for expansion candidates. Moreover, if they go #2, the goal should be to strategically align hoops partners (conferences, sponsors, etc) so the focus is 110% on basketball and marketed as such. The continued half-ass way of doing both the MVC and MVFC is a path to nowhere IMO.

Do you think if we dropped football it would tip the scale for the conference if any?

 

[Jason Svoboda]

Do you think if we dropped football it would tip the scale for the conference if any?

Honestly don't know, but I think it takes the league to set the path.

 

[isubird33]

Not a fan of going to 14 but if we do here are my adds:
Green Light:
St Thomas & Milwaukee as a package deal. I'm starting to change my tune a bit and think that St. Thomas would be a good add. Grabbing these two schools would get us in the upper midwest, but also relatively close to the current MVC footprint - which I don't think is a bad place to add and also get 2 pretty good markets into the MVC (I hate "market" adds for the sake of markets but if they check off other boxes I'm all for it). as a package deal these 2 just make sense now. I also believe that Drake becoming the premier program in the MVC plays a role as the recent shift of the conference going southeast hasn't been the best for the Drake and UNI, this add helps them out.
Northern Kentucky: If you add St. Thomas & Milwaukee going southeast and grabbing a solid mid-major in a basketball crazy state makes a ton of sense to round the MVC at 14. In a perfect world, these are the 3 most realistic adds I could imagine that would add some value.

Yellow Light:
Wright State: I believe financial woes have kept them out of the MVC, but they do tend to fit the current MVC make up; especially the current public schools in the MVC.
Morehead State: see Wright State.
SEMO: I'm going to need a little bit more convincing on this one, but I don't think they would be the worst add we could make? could they?

Red Light:
SIUE - Are they even in the discussion?
The Dakotas - Do they have solid athletics? yes. Are they in unique markets that they essentially have monopolies on? yes. But the Dakotas just ARE NOT a culture fit to the MVC. The same reason why Kentucky would never go B10, they just do not fit culturally with northern states and identify with the south.
Omaha - Just don't. This would be a nightmare add. This is Valpo 2.0
Kansas City - with the recent name change it sounds like a better add than UMKC but they are still UMKC. This again would be a horrible add and I'm not sure going west is in the MVCs best interest at this point.

Intriguing schools:
Chattanooga - not sure if they would have any interest at all, but I'd have a conversation with them
Austin Peay - not the best add but it could be worse

Pretty much fully in agreement here. Would love St Thomas and Milwaukee. Would like NKU. Getting Milwaukee, the twin cities, and Cincy on the rotation would make for some fun road trips and good media markets. Makes a lot of geographic sense too. I'd move Kansas City up to the yellow column and SEMO to the red column but besides that I'm in agreement. Dream scenario in a realistic world is bringing on Milwaukee, St Thomas, and then one of NKU/Wright State/Kansas City.

I may be in the minority here, but if there's a level below "red light", I'd move the Dakotas there.

 

[isubird33]

I've said for the longest time that whomever comes in should draw an official line in the sand for the long term outlook of the two conferences. FBS football drives college sports despite basketball being the only NCAA revenue generator. The Valley will not last 50 years if they continue to have a fractured conference.

They either need to:

1) State the long term goal is for the MVC/MVFC to merge and have a unified conference and ultimately end up FBS so they can participate in that revenue generation machine or;

2) State they have zero intentions of a unified conference so they can embrace a Big East-like operational model and ask their schools to put everything behind basketball. Then any publics that want to to continue to fund the football charade can look for better fits.

Based on which path is taken, that is your lens for expansion candidates. Moreover, if they go #2, the goal should be to strategically align hoops partners (conferences, sponsors, etc) so the focus is 110% on basketball and marketed as such. The continued half-ass way of doing both the MVC and MVFC is a path to nowhere IMO.

Not to sound the anti-football drum more than I already do on here, but 2 seems like the clear cut best option. Model yourself after the Big East/A-10. Publics can move to the Pioneer for football if they decide to keep it around or jump ship for scholarship football.

As to #1, I just don't see the path. I know the lower FBS leagues are still making some money, but with the SEC/B10 moving more and more towards a top 2 league model when it comes to CFB, I don't see the value in being the 10th best FBS conference 10 years from now.

The world of focusing any sort of attention towards FCS football or making decisions based on that just doesn't make a ton of sense unless you're an HBCU, a school in the Northern Plains states, or a small private/elite East Coast school.

 

[sycamore tuff]

Hbcu is nonsense. Their football teams couldn't beat a good highschool team. They somehow operate under the fcs model for scholarships and #of sports except they play a bowl game at the end of the season. The NCAA needs to tell them to either be fcs for real or be fbs.

 

[Sycamorefan96]

Is there a reason that the conference needs to expand to 14? I could see getting back to 12 if that makes scheduling easier, but there doesn't appear to be any realistic schools out there that will help make the league better in basketball. If anything any additional bids will just water down the conference's strength even more.

I doubt the conference actually cares, but which schools out there are they going to add that actually have fans? I can't think of any. We already have 3 schools that can't bring more than 100 fans to St Louis (Valpo, UIC, Belmont). Do we really need roughly half of the conference to be like those schools?

Not sure how expanding benefits ISU either. Right now we have a 1/11 chance of making the tournament and with expansion those chances dwindle even more. Frankly I prefer to stay at 11, unless we could somehow yank Chattanooga from the SOCON. Otherwise I'm a hard pass on expansion right now.

 

[4Q_iu]

I've said for the longest time that whomever comes in should draw an official line in the sand for the long term outlook of the two conferences. FBS football drives college sports despite basketball being the only NCAA revenue generator. The Valley will not last 50 years if they continue to have a fractured conference.

They either need to:

1) State the long term goal is for the MVC/MVFC to merge and have a unified conference and ultimately end up FBS so they can participate in that revenue generation machine or;

2) State they have zero intentions of a unified conference so they can embrace a Big East-like operational model and ask their schools to put everything behind basketball. Then any publics that want to to continue to fund the football charade can look for better fits.

Based on which path is taken, that is your lens for expansion candidates. Moreover, if they go #2, the goal should be to strategically align hoops partners (conferences, sponsors, etc) so the focus is 110% on basketball and marketed as such. The continued half-ass way of doing both the MVC and MVFC is a path to nowhere IMO.

there are zero rational scenarios in which the current MVC/MVFC land in FBS - there's simply zero revenue under the current and a future FBS 'rules'

#2 is the only legit COA

 

[4Q_iu]

Hbcu is nonsense. Their football teams couldn't beat a good highschool team. They somehow operate under the fcs model for scholarships and #of sports except they play a bowl game at the end of the season. The NCAA needs to tell them to either be fcs for real or be fbs.

Nonsense or not, at least 7 HBCU schools averaged TWICE what ISU drew in home attendance.

If the MEAC and SWAC conferences choose to abstain from playoff and stage a bowl game - I'm searching for the problem

FCS Playoff football isn't being suppressed/depressed by MEAC, SWAC champions opting for another path

 

[Jason Svoboda]

there are zero rational scenarios in which the current MVC/MVFC land in FBS - there's simply zero revenue under the current and a future FBS 'rules'

#2 is the only legit COA

While I agree, most of these school Presidents, ADs and conference folk seem to think otherwise. I'm convinced most don't understand money in any capacity but I digress.

About all it does is open them up to getting a couple million more toss their way through menial revenue share and the bump in their buy game payouts. That's quickly chewed threw with revenue sharing and all of the pomp and circumstance you have to do to be FBS.

 

[jturner38]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1953862378891706556

 

[CoachShipp]

While were talking teams vs players, HBCU players have done pretty well in the NFL

Walter Peyton, Richard Dent, Jerry Rice, Mel Blount, Jackie Slater, Deacon Jones, Shannon Sharpe, Buck Buchanan, John Stallworth, L.C. Greenwood, Willie Lanier, Doug Williams, Bob Hayes, Larry Little, Willie Davis....and those are just a FEW of the members of the College Football and Pro Football HOF's off the top of my head from HBCU's. The list is a lot longer. The claim that a "good" high school team could beat most HBCU teams is laughable.

 

[sycamore tuff]

Laugh away. I stand by my statement. Those guys you mentioned are ancient history. Their good teams are not very good. If we played against them we would have a playoff season every year.

 

[Sycamorefan96]

The SWAC is 0-20 all time in the playoffs. The MEAC is on a 19 game losing streak in the playoffs. Those conferences are arguably worse than the Pioneer League. They'd probably suck at the D2 level also.

 

[treeman]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1953795056487260325

This just seems like wasteful spending too me.

 

[Hooper]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1953795056487260325

This just seems like wasteful spending too me.

How so? 80k'ish seems right around the going rate to buy a D-1 win these days and SIUE returns 7 players from last year's NCAA tourney team so they can certainly demand that price. While they'll have a low NET it probably won't be bottom barrel like a SWAC or NEC--and those school charge 80k'ish or more to be bought by a HM for a cupcake win. Drake has plenty of money and needed an opponent so why not buy a D-1 win if you can afford it?

 

[Jason Svoboda]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1953795056487260325

This just seems like wasteful spending too me.

This is the new normal. Rather than give MMs 2-for-1s, they want bought especially since they can then buy players with said cash.

 

[treeman]

How so? 80k'ish seems right around the going rate to buy a D-1 win these days and SIUE returns 7 players from last year's NCAA tourney team so they can certainly demand that price. While they'll have a low NET it probably won't be bottom barrel like a SWAC or NEC--and those school charge 80k'ish or more to be bought by a HM for a cupcake win. Drake has plenty of money and needed an opponent so why not buy a D-1 win if you can afford it?

This doesn’t seem like a team you pay 85k for.

- the chances of Drake getting an at-large (or any MVC team) is about <1% so not sure why you pay 85k
- SIUe returns 7 players from an NCAA team. The chances of you blowing them out and increasing said NET is very low. In-fact I wouldn’t be surprised if SIUe wins
- Even if SIUe is good (which I think it’s going to be a tougher win) their NET is going to be shit because of the OVC. basically if you beat them - great you were suppose to beat a OVC team. If you lose - you’re at-large is down the drain. The only hope is you blow them out, again do you take that chance on a NCAA team with 7 guys back and your program was gutted?

Look this isn’t a bad game, it’s just not a game you pay 85k for.

 

[jturner38]

This doesn’t seem like a team you pay 85k for.

- the chances of Drake getting an at-large (or any MVC team) is about <1% so not sure why you pay 85k
- SIUe returns 7 players from an NCAA team. The chances of you blowing them out and increasing said NET is very low. In-fact I wouldn’t be surprised if SIUe wins
- Even if SIUe is good (which I think it’s going to be a tougher win) their NET is going to be shit because of the OVC. basically if you beat them - great you were suppose to beat a OVC team. If you lose - you’re at-large is down the drain. The only hope is you blow them out, again do you take that chance on a NCAA team with 7 guys back and your program was gutted?

Look this isn’t a bad game, it’s just not a game you pay 85k for.

Well it’s not about any of that. That’s the market value.

 

[treeman]

Well it’s not about any of that. That’s the market value.

Maybe. But this feels like a “tulip bulb bubble” to me. Schools are just paying ridiculous amounts of money for things that should be readily available. Imagine if 5 years ago someone told you Drake is paying SIUe 85k for a home. You would have thought they were insane. Maybe that’s the market value these days but sometimes as an investor you sit on the sidelines for a while and this feels like one of those times.