Fallout Options

[thefish7]

SLU left the MVC under not the best of terms. Many SLU fans would more or less disown the program if they went MVC. So that should answer your questions.

Well I guess you learn something everyday. I didn't even know that SLU once played in the Valley. After looking it up their last year was in 1974. That must have been a terrible break up if people are concerned about it almost 40 years later.

I'd like to be filled in on this. Only four current MVC schools were in the conference the same time as St. Louis. Three of those, Bradley, Creighton and Drake, left MVC and came back themselves. Creighton came back after St. Louis had left, even, so only two of those saw them leave. That leave Wichita St. as the only school that saw St. Louis in the conference and has never left the MVC itself. That must have been some nasty exit for a grudge to be still around.

I think Bradley and Drake were in the conference the entire time. As a Bradley fan, I don't know any Bradley fans that have any real heartburn over SLU history in the MVC. In fact, aside from people worried about SLU having an advantage at the tournament since they'd be home games, I've never heard Valley fans worry about any historical issue until the CaseyGarrisonforPrez (a Missouri St fan, joined the conference in 1990) action above. It's a near perfect fit conference and program wise, whatever this 40-y/o crazy history is aside.

[yorost]

According to Wikipedia:

Bradley and Drake both withdrew from the MVC during the 1951–52 academic year in protest over the Johnny Bright Incident, a racially motivated on-field attack by an Oklahoma A&M football player against Drake player Johnny Bright in a 1951 game. Bradley returned to the MVC for the 1955–56 school year, with Drake returning a year later.

I never realized how many big name schools used to be a part of the MVC. It looks like it was a precursor to the old Big Eight. Look at this list of power conference teams that used to be members: Cincinnati, Iowa, Iowa St., Kansas, Kansas St., Louisville, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., This conference is a revolving door for most of its history.

[BillikenRich]

Rabid valley fans aside, the current feeling among most SLU boosters is that the Missouri Valley as things stand now and stood when the Bills joined the A10 is that the Valley would be a pretty large step back for SLU as a program. At the time the MVC was at its zenith with Creighton, Witchita State, SIUC, and Southwest Missouri State all in excellent shape and riding (gaming to some) impressive RPI's to the post season. Southwest being snubbed for the NCAA tourney with a 21 RPI was a crime and reason #1 that any team with any aspirations at all wants nothing to do with the Valley.

With the Valley flying high and the A10 looking so very far away, a few local Missouri muck-rakers, and know-nothings in the press stared asking why the Bills were in the A10 instead of the Valley and the well was poisened just a little more. Obviously positioning for the Big East split is the reason that SLU is in the A10 and so the choice was an easy one. The wisdom of that choice is also shown by the cliff the Valley fell off in the last few years.

The Valley without Creighton is like the Horizon without Butler. If the A10 could snag a couple of decent teams from other conferences like GMU or even not, the A10 would still be better than Witchita State and the rest. The Valley would love to have us back but we're not going.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

The Valley without Creighton is like the Horizon without Butler. If the A10 could snag a couple of decent teams from other conferences like GMU or even not, the A10 would still be better than Witchita State and the rest. The Valley would love to have us back but we're not going.

Those three sentences are the height of hilarity. I am truly laughing at the moment.

Um...when did Creighton become the standard bearer for the MVC? I must have missed that moment because in recent years UNI and Bradley have made the Sweet 16. SIUC has done that a couple of times and were the dominant program in the Valley of the last decade. Missouri State won the CIT Championship in 2010. Wichita State won the NIT in 2011. This has not been a league that is anything like the Horizon. At all. At all. It has been very competitive. No one in the entire conference is not replaceable by itself. Creighton is no exception.

[thefish7]

Rabid valley fans aside, the current feeling among most SLU boosters is that the Missouri Valley as things stand now and stood when the Bills joined the A10 is that the Valley would be a pretty large step back for SLU as a program. At the time the MVC was at its zenith with Creighton, Witchita State, SIUC, and Southwest Missouri State all in excellent shape and riding (gaming to some) impressive RPI's to the post season. Southwest being snubbed for the NCAA tourney with a 21 RPI was a crime and reason #1 that any team with any aspirations at all wants nothing to do with the Valley.

With the Valley flying high and the A10 looking so very far away, a few local Missouri muck-rakers, and know-nothings in the press stared asking why the Bills were in the A10 instead of the Valley and the well was poisened just a little more. Obviously positioning for the Big East split is the reason that SLU is in the A10 and so the choice was an easy one. The wisdom of that choice is also shown by the cliff the Valley fell off in the last few years.

The Valley without Creighton is like the Horizon without Butler. If the A10 could snag a couple of decent teams from other conferences like GMU or even not, the A10 would still be better than Witchita State and the rest. The Valley would love to have us back but we're not going.

Oh, and I thought it was the acrimonious exit that was the problem. Now it's the strength of conference. Okay.

Before the A10 added Butler it was kind of a push as to which conference was stronger. The top of the A10 is pretty good, the bottom half, absolute trash. Without Xavier and Butler, the top isn't even that good. The Valley is a lot more competitive, top to bottom (which can actually be a problem for whoever's at the top of the conference. It may be tough to handle but SLU, until the last couple of years, would have been a bottom feeder MVC program.

[ChiFlyer]

It's not a push. The A-10 has been far superior to the MVC. It's not even really close. I had the perception that Creighton basketball was really good, but over the last ten years they are nothing special and very similar to Dayton and SLU. I am by no means anti Creighton, but I think the perception that they are above Dayton or SLU doesn't hold true when you look at the results. And the A-10 is a much better conference and has been for many years.

NCAA Bids over the Last 5 years. A-10 = 16 MVC = 6

10 years; A-10 = 28 MVC = 19

Games won in the NCAA Last 5 years A-10 = 14 MVC = 3

10 Years A-10 = 23 MVC = 10

A-10 has won 45% of there games in NCAA over the last 10 years, MVC = 34%.

The A-10 is a true multi bid league. The MVC sent two teams last year, but that was the first year they have sent two in 5 years.

Case closed.

[yorost]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... l-schools/

Over the last 10 years the computer numbers like Creighton notably more than Dayton, and a lot more than St. Louis. You can find the numbers in the link above, but Sagarin over the last 10 seasons:

Xavier: 84.37
Butler: 82.15
Creighton: 81.98
BE7: 81.06
VCU: 80.72
Dayton: 80.03
Remaining BE schools: 78.41
St. Louis: 77.90
MVC: 76.76
A10: 76.57

I'm not sure how the A10 numbers are computed, with current lineup or whatever team was in at the time, but the basic analysis is simple. The BE7 is starting around the level of a weak major conference, while the remainder of the BE is starting around the level of a very strong mid major. Other than Temple and Memphis, every single addition to the Big East is rated worse than DePaul, by at least a point. Xavier, Butler, and Creighton are all beneficial to computer numbers. VCU and Dayton more or less fall in line with the average BE7 team. St. Louis would be a hit but still drain the A10..

[ChiFlyer]

I'm not going to argue with Nate Silver or Jeff Sargian, they are very smart men and provide great analysis. So the raw computer numbers say it is close between the 2 conference and that's fine. But, results in the NCAA do not say its a push. NCAA bids and wins are real and what should matter the most. I don't think anyone really cares what Ken Pom, Jeff Sargian or the RPI say except around selection Sunday. If I had to pick my 12 it would include CE7, XU & BU, and then Creighton, VCU, and UD. St. Louis seems to be the weakest and I'm not sure how much being in Saint Louis matters. (St. Louis is clearly the best market of the remaining 4.) I'm not sure how you really separate these 4 programs. They all have obvious strengths and weakness. I would guess that the AD's and presidents of the the Catholic schools are pretty chummy. That could help St. Louis. It will be interesting, but I think 9 teams are set. I think they will go to 12 to get inventory for television and I think it is down to 4 schools competing for three spots. There is no combination of these 4 that would surprise me. I'm not even sure if UD should go into the league. They have a hard enough time in the a-10 and it may be harder to get a bid in the new league. I think a watered down a-10 is still a 2 bid league on average. Obviously, if UD gets the invite, you take it. The money and exposure should give all the schools an opportunity to get their programs to new heights, but the reality is that the teams in the bottom of league will not be in the NCAA.

[yorost]

The problem with NCAA bids and wins is it's such a small sample size and only rates the top of the conferences. It is what ultimately matters for a team, I agree, but it doesn't measure well a program's strength over the short term, nor is a great measure for conferences These numbers are a notion of typical strength of the teams for a program over the last decade, not a ranking of their results. The BE7 with DePaul, Providence, St. John's, and Seton Hall at the bottom is actually off to a pretty solid start of a conference, if they stay at the bottom. A top to bottom strong conference really important in notching quality wins and boosting rpi. Better numbers translates to better odds at visible success.

I realize numbers aren't perfect, you can get into nit picking them, but they are wonderful measures. Personally, I like LRMC as a predictor, but it isn't as well known as Sagarin or KenPom.

[CaseyGarrisonforPrez]

It's not a push. The A-10 has been far superior to the MVC. It's not even really close. I had the perception that Creighton basketball was really good, but over the last ten years they are nothing special and very similar to Dayton and SLU. I am by no means anti Creighton, but I think the perception that they are above Dayton or SLU doesn't hold true when you look at the results. And the A-10 is a much better conference and has been for many years.

NCAA Bids over the Last 5 years. A-10 = 16 MVC = 6

10 years; A-10 = 28 MVC = 19

Games won in the NCAA Last 5 years A-10 = 14 MVC = 3

10 Years A-10 = 23 MVC = 10

A-10 has won 45% of there games in NCAA over the last 10 years, MVC = 34%.

The A-10 is a true multi bid league. The MVC sent two teams last year, but that was the first year they have sent two in 5 years.

Case closed.

I would be curious about how much two schools have impacted those numbers: Xavier and Temple.

The problem as I see it historically with the A10 is that effectively two schools have done all the damage. Two schools have any sort of national relevance (not counting VCU and Butler). The bottom half of the league is lousy. Very, very lousy. Duquesne, Fordham, Saint Bonaventure most years that weren't last year. Comparatively the Valley has seen 70% of its membership in the Dance in the last decade with one of the others CIT champions, another (Illinois State) a near miss many times, and only Evansville floundering around helplessly.