Possible Missouri Valley Conference Expansion

[crusaderjoe]

If they won't add Gonzaga they're not going to add anybody. Give it up, Billikens, it's not happening.

They didn't add Gonzaga because the travel, especially for non-revenue sports for everyone would be a nightmare, and going from Providence to Omaha is already a long enough flight. If Saint Louis ever did figure it out, or if Loyola suddenly becomes a major factor in Chicago (tough to imagine, given that they had a F4 team and had home games in front of barely over 1,000 people and sold out 1 home game in a 4500 seat arena all year), or if Valpo starts making major runs consistently, they would definitely draw consideration from the Big East.  Butler's not a religious school at all and they got in, so the Lutheran thing wouldn't matter nearly as much as the University profile, which Valpo and Loyola fit.

The only other thing that might keep the Ramblers or Valpo from getting in, outside of a redundancy in the Chicago TV market is the arena size, but that certainly wouldn't trump winning, as Villanova plays the majority of its home games in a 6,000 seat arena (which is packed every night), and no one complains about that.

I'd be more worried about DePaul vetoing Valpo if that situation were ever to arise.  Same TV Market, campuses are half as far away from one another as Butler and Valpo (Butler and Xavier are closer to one another than Butler and Valpo).  Xavier and Dayton are basically the same distance apart (about 9 miles closer) as DePaul and Valpo, and are in the same TV market as well.  Dayton would likely have to make it so painfully obvious of an add through several deep tourney runs for the rest of the league and the TV partners to determine that they'd be a good enough fit to ignore that.  I'd imagine that it would be the same for Valpo and/or Loyola.

Not sure about this.  Not to take anything away from Butler, because your post season tournament success is impressive, but IMO you guys are partially where you are now because of substantial conference realignment which resulted in one major BCS conference splitting along non-football lines (Big East) and another FBS conference ceasing football operations all together (WAC). Your program's timing to explode nationally was perfect in that regard. The confluence of events which put open seats at conference tables in the manner that it did will likely never happen again, unless something catastrophic occurs like the Big 12 dissolving.

[IrishDawg]

Not sure about this.  Not to take anything away from Butler, because your post season tournament success is impressive, but IMO you guys are partially where you are now because of substantial conference realignment which resulted in one major BCS conference splitting along non-football lines (Big East) and another FBS conference ceasing football operations all together (WAC). Your program's timing to explode nationally was perfect in that regard. The confluence of events which put open seats at conference tables in the manner that it did will likely never happen again, unless something catastrophic occurs like the Big 12 dissolving.

No offense taken, and I never said that one thing would automatically lead to the other, just that if Valpo or Loyola (or any private school that is driven by basketball first) were to piece together several consistent runs of success that they would definitely be considered for an invite, but that's all my opinion.

Future realignment, as you said, unless catastrophic events occur isn't going to be a massive shift as in years past.  You'll see a single team move leagues which causes a domino effect, like with Wichita State last year (which allowed Valpo and IUPUI to move leagues), and with the P5 leagues other than the Big 12 going to a 20 game conference schedule, other leagues, like the Big East and MVC are going to be looking for schools to move to that model as well, assuming it makes sense.

And yes, Butler is in the Big East because of the timing of its runs, and at the time of the move to the Big East (and for the first 2 days after the new league was formed), they had one of the hottest names in basketball coaching them.  Had Stevens left during a normal time in the coaching carousel that year, who knows if the league would have honored the invite.  I do disagree that the WAC had anything to do with where Butler is right now, but other than that, there was definitely some luck involved in all of it.

[VUGrad1314]

Probably means nothing for the MVC; but since GCU has been mentioned in expansion talks, here's this:

https://news.gcu.edu/2018/07/gcu-nonprofit-transaction-completed/

[VUGrad1314]

This article (credit to VU2014 for finding it as it is also being discussed in the MVC Hoops thread) also says that nothing is imminent on expansion but that P5 scheduling practices may force the MVC in that direction.. Good news for us expansion advocates. Hopefully schools like Belmont, SLU and Dayton will be receptive this time; but that may be  wishful thinking.

[wh]

I would welcome a broader discussion about the pros and cons of MVC expansion. Adding 2 teams to a 10-team league to get 2 bids instead of 1 would be great, but what if it doesn't happen?  Our odds of winning the league go from 1:10 to 1:12, and probably worse since the programs we would add would be proven winners and highly competitive.  Moreover, our share of tournament pot money goes from 10% to 8 (a 20% cut in dollars).  It seems like a very high risk strategy, especially since the NCAA and power conferences are doing everything in their power to reduce mid-major at-larges. 

[FieldGoodie05]

I would welcome a broader discussion about the pros and cons of MVC expansion. Adding 2 teams to a 10-team league to get 2 bids instead of 1 would be great, but what if it doesn't happen?  Our odds of winning the league go from 1:10 to 1:12, and probably worse since the programs we would add would be proven winners and highly competitive.  Moreover, our share of tournament pot money goes from 10% to 8 (a 20% cut in dollars).  It seems like a very high risk strategy, especially since the NCAA and power conferences are doing everything in their power to reduce mid-major at-larges.

I'm also skeptical on expansion.  We already have a very difficult road to win this conference.  Like it or not our program history isn't as shiny when compared to this conference and the teams competing.

Basketball surplus helps to fund other sports at VU.  Cutting the pie 20% (b-ball income) is sizable enough for our overly conservative board/president to start cutting other sports.  It's happening all over college sports where Title 9 has erased men's sports teams (swimming, track and field etc).

No matter what the NCAA (puppets to $$) end up doing with RPI, we simply are not going to get 2-bid league status in the near term.

Two thumbs down on expansion.  I foresee it leading to more cuts in VU men's teams and that's not ok.

[VU2014]

I would welcome a broader discussion about the pros and cons of MVC expansion. Adding 2 teams to a 10-team league to get 2 bids instead of 1 would be great, but what if it doesn't happen?  Our odds of winning the league go from 1:10 to 1:12, and probably worse since the programs we would add would be proven winners and highly competitive.  Moreover, our share of tournament pot money goes from 10% to 8 (a 20% cut in dollars).  It seems like a very high risk strategy, especially since the NCAA and power conferences are doing everything in their power to reduce mid-major at-larges.

I'm also skeptical on expansion.  We already have a very difficult road to win this conference.  Like it or not our program history isn't as shiny when compared to this conference and the teams competing.

Basketball surplus helps to fund other sports at VU.  Cutting the pie 20% (b-ball income) is sizable enough for our overly conservative board/president to start cutting other sports.  It's happening all over college sports where Title 9 has erased men's sports teams (swimming, track and field etc).

No matter what the NCAA (puppets to $$) end up doing with RPI, we simply are not going to get 2-bid league status in the near term.

Two thumbs down on expansion.  I foresee it leading to more cuts in VU men's teams and that's not ok.

I see both side of expansion case. Cutting up the already small pie even more could impact MVC athletics departments. But I do think there is a possibility of the league earning a 2-bids once every 4 years or so, when the Conference is particularly strong and other stars align. The league strength would need to continue to be strong like it was last season. No one in the Conference was a RPI drag on the rest of the league last season. That may change with Evansville and Drake (although I don't think Drake will be too bad) next season.

A lot of what hinges on the MVC earning 2 bids is the Selection Committee's Power Conference voters getting their heads out their @$$es and stop being so biased. With the Power Conferences moving to 20 game Conference schedules it will become even harder to get quality guarantee games on the road. The scheduling disparity is the greatest threat to all mid-majors.

I'd prefer a scenario where we start a scheduling alliance with the other Mid-Major Conferences where the Conferences agree to have their Top 2-4 teams play the other conferences top teams to give a scheduling boost. There would be all kinds of politics that would make it a head ache to happen but it may be the best for the Mid-Major Leagues. The only problem is that those match ups may be considered "bracket buster" type games. The committee keeps changing it's "criteria" which makes it tough to recommend solutions to the problem right now.

[IrishDawg]

I see both side of expansion case. Cutting up the already small pie even more could impact MVC athletics departments. But I do think there is a possibility of the league earning a 2-bids once every 4 years or so, when the Conference is particularly strong and other stars align. The league strength would need to continue to be strong like it was last season. No one in the Conference was a RPI drag on the rest of the league last season. That may change with Evansville and Drake (although I don't think Drake will be too bad) next season.

A lot of what hinges on the MVC earning 2 bids is the Selection Committee's Power Conference voters getting their heads out their @$$es and stop being so biased. With the Power Conferences moving to 20 game Conference schedules it will become even harder to get quality guarantee games on the road. The scheduling disparity is the greatest threat to all mid-majors.

I'd prefer a scenario where we start a scheduling alliance with the other Mid-Major Conferences where the Conferences agree to have their Top 2-4 teams play the other conferences top teams to give a scheduling boost. There would be all kinds of politics that would make it a head ache to happen but it may be the best for the Mid-Major Leagues. The only problem is that those match ups may be considered "bracket buster" type games. The committee keeps changing it's "criteria" which makes it tough to recommend solutions to the problem right now.

NCAA selection committee members:
Committee Chair - Bruce Rasmussen - Creighton AD
Vice-Chair - Bernard Muir - Stanford AD
Mitch Barnhardt - Kentucky AD
Tom Burnett - Southland Conference Commissioner
Janet Cone - UNC-Asheville AD
Tom Holmoe - BYU AD
Jim Phillips - Northwestern AD
Jim Schaus - Ohio AD
Craig Thompson - MWC Commissioner
Kevin White - Duke AD

So half of the committee this past year was made up of members from non-power leagues, and they would only have to leave when it came to either selection or seeding of their school, or schools in the case of conference commissioners.  I don't think it's biased voting from power conference members (the Big 12 had no one on the committee and got 7/10 teams in, while the Big 10 did have a member and managed just 4/14), but I do agree that a lack of scheduling opportunities (as long as the committee is bent on including the RPI at all) hurts mid-major leagues.  This is why they should go purely to an analytical approach.  Then it doesn't matter what the schedule winds up being.  If you play well enough during the season against your schedule, you're in.  If you don't, you're out.

[FieldGoodie05]

I see both side of expansion case. Cutting up the already small pie even more could impact MVC athletics departments. But I do think there is a possibility of the league earning a 2-bids once every 4 years or so, when the Conference is particularly strong and other stars align. The league strength would need to continue to be strong like it was last season. No one in the Conference was a RPI drag on the rest of the league last season. That may change with Evansville and Drake (although I don't think Drake will be too bad) next season.

A lot of what hinges on the MVC earning 2 bids is the Selection Committee's Power Conference voters getting their heads out their @$$es and stop being so biased. With the Power Conferences moving to 20 game Conference schedules it will become even harder to get quality guarantee games on the road. The scheduling disparity is the greatest threat to all mid-majors.

I'd prefer a scenario where we start a scheduling alliance with the other Mid-Major Conferences where the Conferences agree to have their Top 2-4 teams play the other conferences top teams to give a scheduling boost. There would be all kinds of politics that would make it a head ache to happen but it may be the best for the Mid-Major Leagues. The only problem is that those match ups may be considered "bracket buster" type games. The committee keeps changing it's "criteria" which makes it tough to recommend solutions to the problem right now.

NCAA selection committee members:
Committee Chair - Bruce Rasmussen - Creighton AD
Vice-Chair - Bernard Muir - Stanford AD
Mitch Barnhardt - Kentucky AD
Tom Burnett - Southland Conference Commissioner
Janet Cone - UNC-Asheville AD
Tom Holmoe - BYU AD
Jim Phillips - Northwestern AD
Jim Schaus - Ohio AD
Craig Thompson - MWC Commissioner
Kevin White - Duke AD

So half of the committee this past year was made up of members from non-power leagues, and they would only have to leave when it came to either selection or seeding of their school, or schools in the case of conference commissioners.  I don't think it's biased voting from power conference members (the Big 12 had no one on the committee and got 7/10 teams in, while the Big 10 did have a member and managed just 4/14), but I do agree that a lack of scheduling opportunities (as long as the committee is bent on including the RPI at all) hurts mid-major leagues.  This is why they should go purely to an analytical approach.  Then it doesn't matter what the schedule winds up being.  If you play well enough during the season against your schedule, you're in.  If you don't, you're out.

Very much appreciate the time you put into presenting the information.  Makes us think. 

The concern I have is that the data input is where the bias takes hold.  Even though we have stock at the table on this board, maybe it's effectively not true voting stock by the time it reaches the Mid Major board members?

RPI, SOS etc etc

[VUGrad1314]

I would welcome a broader discussion about the pros and cons of MVC expansion. Adding 2 teams to a 10-team league to get 2 bids instead of 1 would be great, but what if it doesn't happen?  Our odds of winning the league go from 1:10 to 1:12, and probably worse since the programs we would add would be proven winners and highly competitive.  Moreover, our share of tournament pot money goes from 10% to 8 (a 20% cut in dollars).  It seems like a very high risk strategy, especially since the NCAA and power conferences are doing everything in their power to reduce mid-major at-larges.

I'm also skeptical on expansion.  We already have a very difficult road to win this conference.  Like it or not our program history isn't as shiny when compared to this conference and the teams competing. Basketball surplus helps to fund other sports at VU.  Cutting the pie 20% (b-ball income) is sizable enough for our overly conservative board/president to start cutting other sports.  It's happening all over college sports where Title 9 has erased men's sports teams (swimming, track and field etc). No matter what the NCAA (puppets to $$) end up doing with RPI, we simply are not going to get 2-bid league status in the near term. Two thumbs down on expansion.  I foresee it leading to more cuts in VU men's teams and that's not ok.

Our program history such as it is is what got us into the MVC. I don't see any reason to denigrate it. As for tournament credits each team added would reduce each team's take  per year per game played by about $2500-3000. That's notinsignificant but it's far from devastating. A good donation drive would raise many times that amount. As it stands one deep tourney run (Hi Loyola) or one year with multiple bids out of every five six puts the financial fears to bed for everyone for several years. Yes, Loyola would have struggled to gain an at-large bid but that is largely because their schedule was utter crap thanks in part to NC State. This year's schedule is shaping up to be much better. If you give last year's Loyola this year's schedule and they performed similarly, they would have had no trouble.


Now let's look into how expansion could have (and can) help this situation. One of the teams that is a lock for the MVC in any expansion scenario is Murray State. The Racers went 2-0 against the MVC's top 3 and narrowly lost to Auburn (4 seed) and MTSU who would have been an at large had their league been better than 15th in RPI. It is widely believed that Murray State would have given everyone at least 3 more Q1\Q2 games. That would have been huge for Loyola and probably given us 3 NCAA\NIT teams which would have been huge for the conference's profile. Adding them would be a huge help for the conference. As long as the other addition isn't a total dud (the problem has always been and continues to be the location of a suitable 12th team) the conference would be fine and in a great position to log multiple bids.


Now let's look at the outlook for next year, The league is getting better deeper and more talented. The top 4 are better than last year. I think UNI Indiana State and Valpo can all say the same, and Missouri State shouldn't be any worse especially if their new coach can actually coach. Drake and Evansville may not be as bad as we all feared but it's going to be up to the top 8 to pull their weight I think. If they can do that the MVC's metrics will look as good or better this year. Loyola and the MVC are now more trusted names. The post-Wichita State concerns are largely laid to rest. If an MVC team plays itself on to the bubble they are now more likely to get the nod than they were last year. The conference through expansion namely by adding Murray State should be trying to help its teams reach that goal. Illinois State is scheduling like it wants an at-large. UNI always does Loyola Missouri State and even Evansville are beefing up their schedules. If Loyola and ISUr or UNI or MSU do well in the nonconference and separate themselves in Valley play they will be firmly in the conversation.


Loyola's run was an indication and a testament to the endurance and strength of the league as is, but it is also a sign that  now is the time to go for it both in terms of bids and expansion where we can get some very strong programs. To fall to do so is to repeat the mistake of the HL following Butler's runs. They didn't strike when they had the opportunity, and they paid for it. The MVC may not pay for complacency and inaction in the same way via program defections but it risks irrelevance as the 7th or 8th league in a world where 6 or 7 conferences matter. The right additions could give us a fighting chance of that not happening or at least we can slow it down. Loyola's run also taught us to look at a program not only for what it is but what it could be. That's why an NKU type addition makes a lot of sense. Just because they don't look like the best #12 now doesn't mean they can't be later. If Dayton Belmont and SLU aren't willing we could do a lot worse than rolling the dice on NKU.


The MVC may never be more than a 2 bid league but that's a heck of a lot better than where we've come from. The whole point of this move was to ensure that what happened in 2016 never happened again--that our season would never again come down to three neutral site games in March. We should be supporting and leading the charge to ensure that all actions (scheduling alliances pod scheduling and yes expansion) are taken to accomplish this goal. That, to me, is the case for expansion.

[FWalum]

I have to agree with VUGrad1314, many of you are looking at this through the HL experience.  We are now in a league that CONSISTENTLY wins their first round game (9 years in a row). We are certainly not getting less money in the MVC even if we add 2 teams.  If the odds are that we only get 2 bids every 4 years we still come out ahead in virtually every scenario.  The league would have to slip to HL levels to hurt us financially and I don't think that is in the cards... unless the conference maintains the status quo and gets hurt by defections.

[SanityLost17]

11 teams (Murray State) 
20 game regular season  (I still like the idea of playing everybody twice)   
11th place team doesn't make the conference tournament  (whatever you do, don't get last)   

[wh]

Our program history such as it is is what got us into the MVC. I don't see any reason to denigrate it. As for tournament credits each team added would reduce each team's take  per year per game played by about $2500-3000. That's notinsignificant but it's far from devastating. A good donation drive would raise many times that amount. As it stands one deep tourney run (Hi Loyola) or one year with multiple bids out of every five six puts the financial fears to bed for everyone for several years.

The Loyola Ramblers' March Madness success has earned $8.5 million for their 10-team Missouri Valley Conference, to be paid out by the NCAA over the next six years. That amounts to roughly $140,000 per school, per year — more than any of the universities make annually from the conference's media deal with ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/loyolas-final-four-run-means-years-of-increased-revenue-for-missouri-valley-conference-members.html

Here's the hit Valpo would have taken from this year's shares if the pot were to be divided by 12 instead of 10:

10-team league: $850,000/team
12-team league: $708,000/team
Loss                  $142,000/team over 6 years or $24,000/year

Here's another way of looking at it. The MVC budgets based on 2 NCAA tournament shares/year.  So...

10-team league: $340,000/year/team
12-team league: $283,000/year/team
                         
That's a $57,000/loss/team/year every year. That's anything but chicken feed for an athletic budget the size of Valpo's

[VU2014]

It might be wise to wait for the MVC to wait for the BE and P5 to make their next move in expansion, before adding an additional school. If the Big East passes on SLU and opts for a Davidson, Dayton or St. Bonnies, maybe the MVC could lure SLU. The Big East has stated their intention to move to 11 schools, because they want to go to a 20 game schedule.

Murrary State, Belmont, NKU or any other possible future school from a lower league aren't going anywhere. Something that needs to be factor these days more than ever is academic profile. There will be units awarded to Conferences for programs APR scores above 975. I know Belmont received a perfect 1000 APR score as did VU a few years ago.

Our program history such as it is is what got us into the MVC. I don't see any reason to denigrate it. As for tournament credits each team added would reduce each team's take  per year per game played by about $2500-3000. That's notinsignificant but it's far from devastating. A good donation drive would raise many times that amount. As it stands one deep tourney run (Hi Loyola) or one year with multiple bids out of every five six puts the financial fears to bed for everyone for several years.

The Loyola Ramblers' March Madness success has earned $8.5 million for their 10-team Missouri Valley Conference, to be paid out by the NCAA over the next six years. That amounts to roughly $140,000 per school, per year — more than any of the universities make annually from the conference's media deal with ESPN.

http://awfulannouncing.com/ncaa/loyolas-final-four-run-means-years-of-increased-revenue-for-missouri-valley-conference-members.html

Here's the hit Valpo would have taken from this year's shares if the pot were to be divided by 12 instead of 10:

10-team league: $850,000/team
12-team league: $708,000/team
Loss                  $142,000/team over 6 years or $24,000/year

Here's another way of looking at it. The MVC budgets based on 2 NCAA tournament shares/year.  So...

10-team league: $340,000/year/team
12-team league: $283,000/year/team
                         
That's a $57,000/loss/team/year every year. That's anything but chicken feed for an athletic budget the size of Valpo's

I'm not sure what our agreement was with the MVC when we joined. Did we agree to not receive any of the Tournament shares from Wichita State's past runs when we joined? If that was the case then the future schools may not get any of the pie from that run. Something that needs to be considered is that we'd dividing up the MVC TV revenue as well.

[VUGrad1314]

Right, TV revenue is a concern, but the Murray State fanbase is large and  extremely devoted. I can see them consuming a great deal of MVC content. Plus, the market they inhabit (Carbondale\Murray\Paducah\Cape Girardeau) isn't exactly small potatoes. Having the two best programs in that area is a good thing. The second addition, assuming it is one of Belmont\SLU\Dayton\Wright State\NKU will allow the MVC to tap into a larger city market which will help TV revenue if they can get an established or rising brand. Think of it like how adding Loyola helped the circulation of MVC content, but on a smaller scale.

As for the Big East, I think SLU will be #1 on their list if the program shows signs of life and they can't get UCONN. Creighton sticks out like a sore thumb in their footprint, and they need that bridge to Omaha.

[FWalum]

Here's the hit Valpo would have taken from this year's shares if the pot were to be divided by 12 instead of 10:

10-team league: $850,000/team                                                           HL 10-team league: $170,000/team   Increase of $680,000
12-team league: $708,000/team                                                           HL 12-team league: $141,500/team   Increase of $566,500
Loss                  $142,000/team over 6 years or $24,000/year

Here's another way of looking at it. The MVC budgets based on 2 NCAA tournament shares/year.  So...

10-team league: $340,000/year/team                                                   HL 10-team league: $170,000/year/team   Increase of $170,000
12-team league: $283,000/year/team                                                   HL 12-team league: $141,500/year/team   Increase of $141,500
                         
That's a $57,000/loss/team/year every year. That's anything but chicken feed for an athletic budget the size of Valpo's

I really don't know how you can associate this with a "hit".  Had we stayed in the HL with the Butler money gone we would basically be getting squat with no foreseeable opportunity to make more than squat. I am very concerned that our new conference doesn't repeat the same mistake of the HL by standing pat and going stagnate waiting to be picked apart.  I'd rather be in a 12-team MVC making $283,000 than a 10-team league making $170,000.

[VUGrad1314]

You guys are forgetting also that programs do not receive their tournament credits as a lump sum but over a rolling six year period. That's why the number I used is so small, and that's why at large bids matter. You're not receiving 1\10th of a full credit per year per game played but rather 1\6th of 1\10th of a credit per year per game played or 1\60th of a credit per year per game played. Take the credit split it six ways then take each of those and split it 10 ways or 12 ways or whatever for every single game your conference plays. That is a schools yearly take compounded by the number of games played over the six year rolling period. Getting a program or two that gets you closer to gaining at large bids and makes the league more competitive helps a league like the MVC more than it hurts. The upside far outweighs the downside risk

[EddieCabot]

I really don't know how you can associate this with a "hit".  Had we stayed in the HL with the Butler money gone we would basically be getting squat with no foreseeable opportunity to make more than squat. I am very concerned that our new conference doesn't repeat the same mistake of the HL by standing pat and going stagnate waiting to be picked apart.  I'd rather be in a 12-team MVC making $283,000 than a 10-team league making $170,000.

It's obvious that Valpo got out of the HL at the right time.  It had become a perennial one-bid league with no teams capable of earning additional credits by advancing in the tourney.  Amazing how that league declined from 2011 to 2017.

[VUGrad1314]

What happened in 2016 must have (rightly) set off alarm bells. If THAT team couldn't get an at-large it was reasonable to ask whether ANY HL team could have. We're very fortunate Wichita State sought greener pastures when they did. The HL's decline really is a shame because I'm sure they could have gotten schools like Murray State Belmont or at least the Dakotas had they been more proactive. Maybe that would have been enough to keep Butler from jumping to the A-10. It very likely would have kept Valpo and probably Loyola interested too. As much as we like to blame LeCrone I think greed and small thinking by the HL university presidents doomed the league as much as anything else. I don't want to see that happen again in the MVC. The time is now for the league to strike. Earlier moves may have even saved Creighton, or at least Wichita State.

[justducky]

It's obvious that Valpo got out of the HL at the right time.  It had become a perennial one-bid league with no teams capable of earning additional credits by advancing in the tourney.  Amazing how that league declined from 2011 to 2017.

The Horizon League decline has been breathtaking! The only thing I remember being comparable might have been the WAC but I think that it was a slower process. Speaking of the WAC I think they were at #15 and the HL at 27 or 29 last year. Goes to show how quickly things can change.

[VUGrad1314]

It's obvious that Valpo got out of the HL at the right time.  It had become a perennial one-bid league with no teams capable of earning additional credits by advancing in the tourney.  Amazing how that league declined from 2011 to 2017.

The Horizon League decline has been breathtaking! The only thing I remember being comparable might have been the WAC but I think that it was a slower process. Speaking of the WAC I think they were at #15 and the HL at 27 or 29 last year. Goes to show how quickly things can change.

The WAC also had the Mountain West eat about 1\2 or 2\3 of their league to precipitate that decline. The HL's fall is much harder to explain.

[justducky]

The WAC also had the Mountain West eat about 1\2 or 2\3 of their league to precipitate that decline. The HL's fall is much harder to explain.

No-----I can explain it in one word and that word is LeCrone.

[VU2014]

It's obvious that Valpo got out of the HL at the right time.  It had become a perennial one-bid league with no teams capable of earning additional credits by advancing in the tourney.  Amazing how that league declined from 2011 to 2017.

The Horizon League decline has been breathtaking! The only thing I remember being comparable might have been the WAC but I think that it was a slower process. Speaking of the WAC I think they were at #15 and the HL at 27 or 29 last year. Goes to show how quickly things can change.

The Horizon League last season:

[a3uge]

The WAC also had the Mountain West eat about 1\2 or 2\3 of their league to precipitate that decline. The HL's fall is much harder to explain.

No-----I can explain it in one word and that word is LeCrone.

How does that guy still have a job? It's amazing how one guy can be so bad at what he does.

[VU2014]

How does that guy still have a job? It's amazing how one guy can be so bad at what he does.

I don't think he's a particularly good Commish but I'll give him credit on the OU and NKU adds. OU fans may be obnoxious, but at least the fans that do get to show up to their games care about their team unlike the majority of the commuter schools in the HL. They were a bit of a "obvious" add once lecrone's favorite child BU left him. The NKU add was smart but the timing of the add was idiotic because it hurt their only school who had a shot at a at-large bid. He also created the Horizon League Network which was awesome for a few years till ESPN3 supplanted it's purpose. He made the completely idiotic move of adding OOEE-PPOO-EE to the conference. The Motor City Dumpster fire was a bit of a disaster but at least it was a quick cash grab for the HL.

I'm just so thankful that the Valley is our home now. It's a great Mid-Major Conference and it's comprised of like minded fan-bases/programs.