ORU to the Valley?

[Kemo]

I do think the Missouri Valley Conference would look at the XDSUs before ORU if they chose to expand, but is there really any evidence/sources that says the MVC is looking to expand in the near future?

I'm all for the XDSUs joining the MVC, in a matter of fact I like to think that we are ushering in the UxDs to the Summit League not as our partners, but rather our replacements Think of it as our good deed towards a conference that took us in when we needed a home!

[Golden Eagle]

I don't think the MVC is interested in expanding.

The Summit is getting stronger. NDSU's seed in the tourney wasn't that much lower than Northern Iowa's... and who had the better showing?

The level of play in conference is strong among our top 3-4 teams. We just need the teams at the bottom to improve.

[BisBison]

I don't think the MVC is interested in expanding.

The Summit is getting stronger. NDSU's seed in the tourney wasn't that much lower than Northern Iowa's... and who had the better showing?

The level of play in conference is strong among our top 3-4 teams. We just need the teams at the bottom to improve.

Good point Eagle, we got a 14 seed and UNI got a 12. Each league got only one entry. Maybe we should have gotten a higher seed, maybe not, but we showed well against KU.

[sambini]

I don't think the MVC is interested in expanding.

The Summit is getting stronger. NDSU's seed in the tourney wasn't that much lower than Northern Iowa's... and who had the better showing?

The level of play in conference is strong among our top 3-4 teams. We just need the teams at the bottom to improve.

Well said+++

[Kemo]

Good point Eagle, we got a 14 seed and UNI got a 12. Each league got only one entry. Maybe we should have gotten a higher seed, maybe not, but we showed well against KU.

I would argue though that this was a down year for the MVC, at least as the top of the conference is concerned. I know it wasn't all that long ago that the MVC placed 3 teams in the tournament, and I don't recall the Summit/Midcon placing multiple teams in recent years... maybe even in its history.

I do agree that the top few teams in the summit each year are pretty decent, but the conference as a whole is not that highly regarded, which hurts the top teams' chance at obtaining an at-large bid.

[zooropa]

I would argue though that this was a down year for the MVC, at least as the top of the conference is concerned. I know it wasn't all that long ago that the MVC placed 3 teams in the tournament, and I don't recall the Summit/Midcon placing multiple teams in recent years... maybe even in its history.

Hammersmith said that the NCAA has altered its procedures so that's not likely to happen anymore.

The Valley only sent one team last year as well, and I think maybe the year before too. The Horizon sent two teams this year only because Butler was good enough to get in as an at-large.

And if it's true that the NCAA has tightened the RPI 'loophole' that Hammersmith says the Valley was exploiting, then it would seem to me that the Valley (and conferences like it) would be even more hesitant about accepting new schools.

[Kemo]

And if it's true that the NCAA has tightened the RPI 'loophole' that Hammersmith says the Valley was exploiting, then it would seem to me that the Valley (and conferences like it) would be even more hesitant about accepting new schools.

Please explain this "RPI loophole".

[zooropa]

Please explain this "RPI loophole".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratings_Percentage_Index

50% of your RPI comes from your opponents' winning percentage and 25% of your RPI comes from your opponents' opponents' winning percentage.

So fully 75% of your RPI is based on what your opponents and their opponents have been doing.

Hammersmith would have to explain it more clearly but it's my understanding the Valley schools were taking advantage of the way RPI is calculated to boost their own RPI--I believe by scheduling a lot of mid-pack BCS programs.

And I believe, in response, the NCAA has reduced the weighting it assigns RPI during selection.

-----

I mean, I'm not going to say that the Summit's as good as the Valley. The Valley certainly didn't get its reputation through cheap tricks and chicanery, but the Valley may no longer be able to consistently count on multiple bids to the tournament.

And that's kind of a shame, IMO, as it means more mediocre (and NOT fun to watch) BCS programs.

I guess I'd rather see the #2 team from the Valley in the tournament than the #7 finisher from the Big East, but that's just me..........

[Hammersmith]

zoo is slightly misinterpreting what I said but is still pretty close. RPI, at it's most basic level, is the simple .25(own record) + .5(opponents' record) + .25(opponents' opponents' record), but the NCAA uses certain additional modifiers. Extra weight is given to top-25 and top-50 wins(and losses to those teams don't hurt as much) but one of the big modifiers is the home/away mod. Home wins only count for .6 the value of a neutral court win and away wins count for 1.4 of a win on a neutral court. The reverse is also true: losses at home hurt worse(1.4) and losses away aren't so bad(.6).

By careful non-conference scheduling, you can boost your RPI by playing sure wins at home(near-patsies) and top-50 teams on the road. The MVC took this a step further and formed a conference-wide scheduling mandate. By having every school in the conference schedule according to what would boost their RPI the most, it raised the conference's RPI to the point where even playing each other in conference play helped boost the RPI. To use a flood analogy(seems appropriate, no?), a conference's RPI is like a dike holding water IN. The dike's lowest point determines the level of water that it can hold(the weakest individual RPI of a conference member). By making sure everyone built their dike up to the highest level(non-conference scheduling), the conference assured that members playing their weakest conference-mates(like UMKC or WIU for us) wouldn't take huge hits in their RPIs. And it worked.

Prior to four or five years ago, the RPI was by far the most important factor in the deliberations of the selection committee. In fact, RPI was viewed as a perfect, objective system for choosing who should get into the tournament. When the MVC got 4 teams in the Dance in 2006(with two snubs), it caused the selection committee to lower the importance of RPI in their deliberations. For example, 2007 only saw two MVC teams in the Dance, even though the conference had the sixth-best RPI(ahead of the Big 12). Since then, the Valley only got one team in the Dance in both 2008 & 2009. Much of that is due to the lowered importance of RPI.

Now what the Valley did did not make bad teams in the conference good, but it did minimize the damage they would do to the best teams. Unfortunately, it won't work twice. Still, I'd much rather be in a conference that works as hard as they did to improve the image of their league rather than be in a group that can almost be defined as "better than nothing".* While the RPI-boosting method only worked for a few years, I have faith that the MVC leaders will work hard to find another way to challenge the big-6; I'm just hoping their next solution will be FBS football.


*or, at least, better than being in the Great West Conference(non-football)

[Kemo]

I appreciate the info, though it doesn't change my mind about the XDSU's jumping on an opportunity to join the MVC should it present itself. Even without manipulating the RPI, I don't think anyone would disagree with me that gaining an at large bid in the MVC is still way more likely than the Summit.