Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Basketball Topic:  MVC conference read Topic:  MVC conference read Author Message bornacatfan General User Member Since: 8/3/2006 Post Count: 5,716 Status: Offline     MVC conference read    Posted: 3/24/2013 12:55:04 PM  Was looking for some other info and found this read on how the MVC is handling realignment. Thought about tagging it on to one of the myriad of conversations but did not know to which one it should be attached so I put it in it's own thread. For those who think we are an MVC fit you may glean a bit of insight and appreciation for the thought process from here. never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer..... The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game Back to Top perimeterpost General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 3,165 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/24/2013 1:16:19 PM  I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. MY STATE. MY TEAM. Back to Top UpSan Bobcat General User Member Since: 8/30/2005 Location: Upper Sandusky, OH Post Count: 3,812 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/24/2013 1:31:04 PM  perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I agree with that, too. At this point, only playing the West once is beneficial to Ohio' strength of schedule but it makes records uneven. Had Western Michigan played all of the East again and Kent State all of the West again, I think Kent State probably could have moved up to the No. 3 seed. The schedules are not the same and it throws off the seeding in the tournament (although it worked to Ohio's benefit this year). Back to Top OUVan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Bethesda, MD Post Count: 5,580 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 1:29:09 PM  perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,375 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 1:58:20 PM  OUVan wrote: perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Count me as another person who is not, and never has been fine with football driving the bus. One reason is because I just like hoops better.  The other reason is that I've always believed that for the MAC, the road to notoriety is always going to be better through basketball.  Of course last football season changed that belief a little, but I still think over the long haul, baskerball is where the MAC should invest for the future.  The efforts of schools in the BCS to exclude outsiders get stronger every year, where by in basketball, that isn't the case at all.  But it's reality that the MAC is trying to be a football conference first, and only a few schools are concerned with basketball success. Back to Top mf279801 General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Newark, DE Post Count: 2,473 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 2:41:47 PM  OUVan wrote: perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Unlike you and OU_Country, I'm fine with it. Primarily because as much as I like watching/listening to OHIO basketball games (I think I caught all but 3 this year), I like football MUCH MUCH more. Also, I daresay we get more exposure via football in the average year than we do via basketball, and I believe that were we to drop football [or drop it down a level] we'd lose a great deal of net exposure, regardless how much more success we saw in basketball. I have four lines of reasoning backing this up (1) The public at large really only pays any attention to college basketball come March. What attention is paid to it November-February is focused on traditional powers (Kentucky, UNC, Duke) and the "it" team of the preceeding year's tournament (this year it was us; next year it'll probably FGCU or La Salle). Heck, I'm sports crazy and I don't really see any non-OHIO college basketball games until the conference tourneys start up. That means that if we miss the tournament (as we're likely do to ~50% of the time under reasonably ideal circumstances) we get greatly reduced exposure. Contrast that to football, where you have broad viewership (especially for weeknight games) and good post-season opportunities to get at least a bit of extra exposure. (2, and somewhat related to #1) There are 124 teams that play Division 1A football. There are 347 teams that play Division 1 basketball. Thats a lot more competitors for exposure, especially among casual sports fans. (3) Football is kind of a big deal in the State of Ohio specifically, and in the Midwest generally. The costs of cutting football (both in terms of exposure/publicity and in terms of prospective students saying "I don't want to go to a school that doesn't have real football") seem to be outweighed by the potential benefits of improved basketball success. (4) A beautiful fall day in the open air of Pedan (plus tailgating) is a wonderful thing not to be casually tossed away. Back to Top OUVan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Bethesda, MD Post Count: 5,580 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 3:11:50 PM  mf279801 wrote: OUVan wrote: perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Unlike you and OU_Country, I'm fine with it. Primarily because as much as I like watching/listening to OHIO basketball games (I think I caught all but 3 this year), I like football MUCH MUCH more. Also, I daresay we get more exposure via football in the average year than we do via basketball, and I believe that were we to drop football [or drop it down a level] we'd lose a great deal of net exposure, regardless how much more success we saw in basketball. I have four lines of reasoning backing this up (1) The public at large really only pays any attention to college basketball come March. What attention is paid to it November-February is focused on traditional powers (Kentucky, UNC, Duke) and the "it" team of the preceeding year's tournament (this year it was us; next year it'll probably FGCU or La Salle). Heck, I'm sports crazy and I don't really see any non-OHIO college basketball games until the conference tourneys start up. That means that if we miss the tournament (as we're likely do to ~50% of the time under reasonably ideal circumstances) we get greatly reduced exposure. Contrast that to football, where you have broad viewership (especially for weeknight games) and good post-season opportunities to get at least a bit of extra exposure. (2, and somewhat related to #1) There are 124 teams that play Division 1A football. There are 347 teams that play Division 1 basketball. Thats a lot more competitors for exposure, especially among casual sports fans. (3) Football is kind of a big deal in the State of Ohio specifically, and in the Midwest generally. The costs of cutting football (both in terms of exposure/publicity and in terms of prospective students saying "I don't want to go to a school that doesn't have real football") seem to be outweighed by the potential benefits of improved basketball success. (4) A beautiful fall day in the open air of Pedan (plus tailgating) is a wonderful thing not to be casually tossed away. I get that you are football guy but do you really think anyone is paying attention to MAC football at any  time?   And do you really think that any bowl that we have a realistic chance at getting to is giving us any real exposure compared to the Sweet 16 run last year or beating Georgetown two years prior to that?   The biggest exposure we've had in football at any point in our history was week 1 this year and that had very little to so with us. And I never suggested dropping a level in football.  But what is the real harm if the conference decided to emphasize basketball instead of  football?   There's only one division 1 football conference below us and one could argue that. It's great that Northern was able to play in the Orange Bowl this year but I don't think we'll see something like that again in our lifetimes. Back to Top D.A. General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Georgetown, ME Post Count: 1,190 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 4:36:03 PM  OUVan wrote: mf279801 wrote: OUVan wrote: perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Unlike you and OU_Country, I'm fine with it. Primarily because as much as I like watching/listening to OHIO basketball games (I think I caught all but 3 this year), I like football MUCH MUCH more. Also, I daresay we get more exposure via football in the average year than we do via basketball, and I believe that were we to drop football [or drop it down a level] we'd lose a great deal of net exposure, regardless how much more success we saw in basketball. I have four lines of reasoning backing this up (1) The public at large really only pays any attention to college basketball come March. What attention is paid to it November-February is focused on traditional powers (Kentucky, UNC, Duke) and the "it" team of the preceeding year's tournament (this year it was us; next year it'll probably FGCU or La Salle). Heck, I'm sports crazy and I don't really see any non-OHIO college basketball games until the conference tourneys start up. That means that if we miss the tournament (as we're likely do to ~50% of the time under reasonably ideal circumstances) we get greatly reduced exposure. Contrast that to football, where you have broad viewership (especially for weeknight games) and good post-season opportunities to get at least a bit of extra exposure. (2, and somewhat related to #1) There are 124 teams that play Division 1A football. There are 347 teams that play Division 1 basketball. Thats a lot more competitors for exposure, especially among casual sports fans. (3) Football is kind of a big deal in the State of Ohio specifically, and in the Midwest generally. The costs of cutting football (both in terms of exposure/publicity and in terms of prospective students saying "I don't want to go to a school that doesn't have real football") seem to be outweighed by the potential benefits of improved basketball success. (4) A beautiful fall day in the open air of Pedan (plus tailgating) is a wonderful thing not to be casually tossed away. I get that you are football guy but do you really think anyone is paying attention to MAC football at any  time?   And do you really think that any bowl that we have a realistic chance at getting to is giving us any real exposure compared to the Sweet 16 run last year or beating Georgetown two years prior to that?   The biggest exposure we've had in football at any point in our history was week 1 this year and that had very little to so with us. And I never suggested dropping a level in football.  But what is the real harm if the conference decided to emphasize basketball instead of  football?   There's only one division 1 football conference below us and one could argue that. It's great that Northern was able to play in the Orange Bowl this year but I don't think we'll see something like that again in our lifetimes. Why can't we do both?  Why do these discussions always have to evolve into emphasizing one to the detriment of the other.  I like Borna's posit that if we can just dominate the MAC, making the NCAA's regularly should be a walk.  How much additional investment would it take to dominate the 17th RPI conference?  So much that we need to divest in FB?  My personal opinion is no. The Few, The Proud, The Bobcats! And for the record, I hate tOSU, and Ricordati and Torgerson are DB's. "This isn't just another walkover from the MAC." Kirk Herbstreit, another DB, on College Football Gameday Back to Top Bobcat110alum General User Member Since: 7/7/2010 Location: Columbus, OH Post Count: 470 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 5:19:43 PM  I would be fine with trimming the fat of the conference by starting to actually enforce some minimum investment in basketball and football by ALL schools. If schools aren't putting butts in seats for nationally televised games, then they shouldn't get the exposure.  Of course, it sounds like we're looking down at everyone else because we're a leader in the conference, but facts are facts. Ideally, the only football we should be seeing during MACtion are the top four teams in the conference. During basketball Ohio, Akron, and Kent should get first dibs on prime time slots. It's not fair to everyone else, but until they start caring, they shouldn't have the opportunity to gain that prime exposure.  How could we realistically enforce attendance minimums? (I'm actually curious, the only one I could think of is dividing up the money based on percentage of capacity filled over time. Even then, how do you account for attendance inflation? I don't know...) B.S. Journalism, 2012. Back to Top Ted Thompson Administrator Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: MAC Play Post Count: 7,723 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 5:39:01 PM  Tyler Charles wrote: I would be fine with trimming the fat of the conference by starting to actually enforce some minimum investment in basketball and football by ALL schools. If schools aren't putting butts in seats for nationally televised games, then they shouldn't get the exposure.  Of course, it sounds like we're looking down at everyone else because we're a leader in the conference, but facts are facts. Ideally, the only football we should be seeing during MACtion are the top four teams in the conference. During basketball Ohio, Akron, and Kent should get first dibs on prime time slots. It's not fair to everyone else, but until they start caring, they shouldn't have the opportunity to gain that prime exposure.  How could we realistically enforce attendance minimums? (I'm actually curious, the only one I could think of is dividing up the money based on percentage of capacity filled over time. Even then, how do you account for attendance inflation? I don't know...) Long been a proponent for attendance and RPI/Sagarin minimums. Maybe if BG knew it wasn't going to get a cut of the basketball revenue if their RPI was over 250, it would have given them the business case to fire Louie Orr. Same with CMU letting Jay Smith coach out the lame-duck year of his contract. Maybe Ohio would have pulled the plug on Knorr sooner? As for attendance, it's simple. This conference will go nowhere unless its communities and students support its teams. Attendance needs to be butts in seats. That needs to be the starting point. You have to build the attachment first and monetize it later. Figure out a way to average 15,000 butts in seats for football and 3,000 for basketball and let's go from there. Butts in seats is very easy to track. Have someone walk around with a digital camera and take a shot of each section at an agreed upon time in the game. Send them in and have Jeremy Guy count them. Add 10-15% for those in concessions. These factors would also help determine TV and scheduling. If no one ever goes to an EMU game, why should they get more home weekend basketball dates than Ohio or Toledo?  Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database. Back to Top JSF General User Member Since: 1/29/2005 Location: Houston, TX Post Count: 6,554 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 5:50:20 PM  The conference doesn't spend enough resources on sports. Now you want to have them divert some of those resources on attendance? You want better attendance? Win more games. "Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season. My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8 Back to Top perimeterpost General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 3,165 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 6:51:19 PM  10 teams is good for a bball conference, but we need 12 for football to have a championship game. Solution- Have 10 full members and 2 football only. Boot EMU all sports and boot all but football for NIU. No divisions for bball, keep divisions for football, move BG to West. MY STATE. MY TEAM. Back to Top Bobcat110alum General User Member Since: 7/7/2010 Location: Columbus, OH Post Count: 470 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 7:39:11 PM  perimeterpost wrote: 10 teams is good for a bball conference, but we need 12 for football to have a championship game. Solution- Have 10 full members and 2 football only. Boot EMU all sports and boot all but football for NIU. No divisions for bball, keep divisions for football, move BG to West. Progress. B.S. Journalism, 2012. Back to Top Ted Thompson Administrator Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: MAC Play Post Count: 7,723 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 7:48:18 PM  JSF wrote: The conference doesn't spend enough resources on sports. Now you want to have them divert some of those resources on attendance? You want better attendance? Win more games. It's a zero sum game. Every program can't be a winning one. You need a base level of support that's behind you no matter what. As for resources, many programs in this conference support more sports than is required. Some that are not even sponsored by the MAC. I would argue that Miami won pretty well in football and basketball for a decade and it didn't turn into anything sustainable. Same thing for Kent St. basketball. So there's more to it than just winning games. I'm not sure how hard they're trying. Are they studying Ohio and Toledo? Are they trying to understand the success of the O Zone? Are they looking at best practices for ticket pricing? Are they doing Caravans? Are they looking at the results of Ohio bringing in a ticket team? I'm not sure they are.  Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database. Back to Top Brian Smith (No, not that one) General User Member Since: 2/3/2005 Post Count: 3,019 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 8:36:31 PM  My sloppily formed opinion: The MAC got a team into the BCS. Shoulda been a massive deal. A game changer. Instead, the attention Northern got involved being ceaslessly and unfairly mocked for a month leading up to the game, during the game and after the game. And that's the pinnacle of MAC football. The  greatest accomplishment in conference history became a massive Twitter joke. It reinforced my belief that MAC football has a glass ceiling that would take so much to shatter that it's too expensive. I think the NCAA tournament allows for MAC basketball programs to be taken seriously in short order with a limited bump up in resources spent. Kent State is still respected as a program, perhaps even more than its very recent performance deserves. Ohio will get deference from people for another year or so just because of that run to the Sweet 16. Ohio can be great in both football and basketball. I think basketball will get more respect for being great because of the unique stage the NCAA tournament offers to schools outside the power conferences. That deserves consideration when dividing the resource pie, in my useless opinion. Back to Top Deciduous Forest Cat General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Ohio Post Count: 4,475 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/25/2013 10:21:31 PM  Either that or Northern (or whoever is next) needs to win that game.  Boise is taken seriously because they win those games. (there are some out there that still don't believe, sure) FSU was a terrible matchup... they have top-5 level talent, but they are always good for crapping the bed once or twice a year. Back to Top mf279801 General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Newark, DE Post Count: 2,473 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 9:10:03 AM  OUVan wrote: mf279801 wrote: OUVan wrote: perimeterpost wrote: I like their reasoning for staying at 10 teams, it allows you to play everyone twice on a 18 game conf schedule. I wouldn't mind a 10 team MAC. I would to but it's never going to happen for the same reason we are hindered in going for the next level in basketball.  Football drives the bus.  It frustrates me but I'm guessing the majority of our fans are perfectly fine with it. Unlike you and OU_Country, I'm fine with it. Primarily because as much as I like watching/listening to OHIO basketball games (I think I caught all but 3 this year), I like football MUCH MUCH more. Also, I daresay we get more exposure via football in the average year than we do via basketball, and I believe that were we to drop football [or drop it down a level] we'd lose a great deal of net exposure, regardless how much more success we saw in basketball. I have four lines of reasoning backing this up (1) The public at large really only pays any attention to college basketball come March. What attention is paid to it November-February is focused on traditional powers (Kentucky, UNC, Duke) and the "it" team of the preceeding year's tournament (this year it was us; next year it'll probably FGCU or La Salle). Heck, I'm sports crazy and I don't really see any non-OHIO college basketball games until the conference tourneys start up. That means that if we miss the tournament (as we're likely do to ~50% of the time under reasonably ideal circumstances) we get greatly reduced exposure. Contrast that to football, where you have broad viewership (especially for weeknight games) and good post-season opportunities to get at least a bit of extra exposure. (2, and somewhat related to #1) There are 124 teams that play Division 1A football. There are 347 teams that play Division 1 basketball. Thats a lot more competitors for exposure, especially among casual sports fans. (3) Football is kind of a big deal in the State of Ohio specifically, and in the Midwest generally. The costs of cutting football (both in terms of exposure/publicity and in terms of prospective students saying "I don't want to go to a school that doesn't have real football") seem to be outweighed by the potential benefits of improved basketball success. (4) A beautiful fall day in the open air of Pedan (plus tailgating) is a wonderful thing not to be casually tossed away. I get that you are football guy but do you really think anyone is paying attention to MAC football at any  time?   And do you really think that any bowl that we have a realistic chance at getting to is giving us any real exposure compared to the Sweet 16 run last year or beating Georgetown two years prior to that?   The biggest exposure we've had in football at any point in our history was week 1 this year and that had very little to so with us. And I never suggested dropping a level in football.  But what is the real harm if the conference decided to emphasize basketball instead of  football?   There's only one division 1 football conference below us and one could argue that. It's great that Northern was able to play in the Orange Bowl this year but I don't think we'll see something like that again in our lifetimes. And how much attention was paid to the seasons of Southern illinois, Missouri State, Drake, Bradley, Illinois State, Indiana State, Evansville, and Northern Iowa combined? Creighton and Wichita State are the only teams from the MVC that have received any press this year, and thats only because (a) reached and (b) advanced in the tournament. I'm sorry, and perhaps I was mistaken, but I read your comment lamenting the fact that "football drives the bus" as wishing/hoping we could join a conference that doesn't have football (as has been discussed on other threads, keeping OHIO in MAC football under such a scenario would require amendments to the MAC bylaws, something I'm not at all sure we'd get). Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,375 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 11:07:45 AM  Brian Smith wrote: My sloppily formed opinion: The MAC got a team into the BCS. Shoulda been a massive deal. A game changer. Instead, the attention Northern got involved being ceaslessly and unfairly mocked for a month leading up to the game, during the game and after the game. And that's the pinnacle of MAC football. The  greatest accomplishment in conference history became a massive Twitter joke. It reinforced my belief that MAC football has a glass ceiling that would take so much to shatter that it's too expensive. I think the NCAA tournament allows for MAC basketball programs to be taken seriously in short order with a limited bump up in resources spent. Kent State is still respected as a program, perhaps even more than its very recent performance deserves. Ohio will get deference from people for another year or so just because of that run to the Sweet 16. Ohio can be great in both football and basketball. I think basketball will get more respect for being great because of the unique stage the NCAA tournament offers to schools outside the power conferences. That deserves consideration when dividing the resource pie, in my useless opinion. These reasons Brian points out are among the best examples of why I hold the belief that moving the focus to basketball is where it's at.  The money grubbing powers that be in football aren't soon going to let the MAC be part of their party again soon.  And while I don't know details on how much is spent on football vs basketball, I have to believe simply based on the numbers of coaches and scholarships it a drastically higher.  So if I do the math, and we ask MAC football programs to make due with $1.5mil less a year from their budget, and we move that to hoops, then hoops could benefit much more than football might with that same money.  The other argument is simple:  no one, and I mean NO ONE that isn't totally football obsesses gives a crap about 90% of the bowl games that don't involve teams they're interested in personally.  I watch OU's game online from work.  Conversely, I have take vacation days to watch basketball games.  Why?  Because the MAC Tournament is an EVENT.  MAC bowl games are not.  As Ted said on here, the Friday/Saturday portions of the MAC Basketball Tournament is the best thing the MAC does.  If we agree that's the case, then why not emphasize it more? Who has gotten more positive attention for the MAc?  Ohio Basketball for advancing in the tournament, or NIU for participating in a BCS bowl game (that they may never see again)? I admit, I'm anti college football as a whole, because I believe the big BCS TV Money grab is slowly ruining college sports because of all this realignment. Since Ohio football isn't part of the big money grab, it seems to me that a better ROI for Ohio Athletics is to try to push more on basketball than football.  I'm not anti-Ohio Bobcat football, and went to all the weekend home games last year.  But to me the simple facts are that all MAC schools stand a greater chance at success and getting their names out there over a long haul with basketball than they do with football. Back to Top OUVan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Bethesda, MD Post Count: 5,580 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 11:31:22 AM  mf279801 wrote: And how much attention was paid to the seasons of Southern illinois, Missouri State, Drake, Bradley, Illinois State, Indiana State, Evansville, and Northern Iowa combined? Creighton and Wichita State are the only teams from the MVC that have received any press this year, and thats only because (a) reached and (b) advanced in the tournament. I'm sorry, and perhaps I was mistaken, but I read your comment lamenting the fact that "football drives the bus" as wishing/hoping we could join a conference that doesn't have football (as has been discussed on other threads, keeping OHIO in MAC football under such a scenario would require amendments to the MAC bylaws, something I'm not at all sure we'd get). Huh?  This year nobody paid attention to the teams that you listed but that doesn't mean they haven't in the recent past.  Northern Iowa got tons of press by going to the Sweet 16 the year we beat Georgetown and taking down #1 seed Kansas along the way.  Southern Illinois barely lost to #1 seed Kansas in 2007 to reach the Elite Eight.  In 2006 they got 4 teams in and two, Bradley and Wichita State, reached the Sweet 16.   In the last ten years five Missouri Valley teams have made the Sweet 16 and none of them have been named Creighton. Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,375 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 11:35:28 AM  OUVan wrote: mf279801 wrote: And how much attention was paid to the seasons of Southern illinois, Missouri State, Drake, Bradley, Illinois State, Indiana State, Evansville, and Northern Iowa combined? Creighton and Wichita State are the only teams from the MVC that have received any press this year, and thats only because (a) reached and (b) advanced in the tournament. I'm sorry, and perhaps I was mistaken, but I read your comment lamenting the fact that "football drives the bus" as wishing/hoping we could join a conference that doesn't have football (as has been discussed on other threads, keeping OHIO in MAC football under such a scenario would require amendments to the MAC bylaws, something I'm not at all sure we'd get). Huh?  This year nobody paid attention to the teams that you listed but that doesn't mean they haven't in the recent past.  Northern Iowa got tons of press by going to the Sweet 16 the year we beat Georgetown and taking down #1 seed Kansas along the way.  Southern Illinois barely lost to #1 seed Kansas in 2007 to reach the Elite Eight.  In 2006 they got 4 teams in and two, Bradley and Wichita State, reached the Sweet 16.   In the last ten years five Missouri Valley teams have made the Sweet 16 and none of them have been named Creighton. And let's not forget the little two year run that Drake had not too long ago before their coach left for Providence (?). Back to Top OUVan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Bethesda, MD Post Count: 5,580 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 11:40:19 AM  Yep, losing Creighton hurts because they are the marquee team but it's hardly leaving a shell like the CAA is now.  The MVC is and will remain an extremely good basketball conference. Back to Top mf279801 General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Newark, DE Post Count: 2,473 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/26/2013 11:57:55 AM  OUVan wrote: mf279801 wrote: And how much attention was paid to the seasons of Southern illinois, Missouri State, Drake, Bradley, Illinois State, Indiana State, Evansville, and Northern Iowa combined? Creighton and Wichita State are the only teams from the MVC that have received any press this year, and thats only because (a) reached and (b) advanced in the tournament. I'm sorry, and perhaps I was mistaken, but I read your comment lamenting the fact that "football drives the bus" as wishing/hoping we could join a conference that doesn't have football (as has been discussed on other threads, keeping OHIO in MAC football under such a scenario would require amendments to the MAC bylaws, something I'm not at all sure we'd get). Huh?  This year nobody paid attention to the teams that you listed but that doesn't mean they haven't in the recent past.  Northern Iowa got tons of press by going to the Sweet 16 the year we beat Georgetown and taking down #1 seed Kansas along the way.  Southern Illinois barely lost to #1 seed Kansas in 2007 to reach the Elite Eight.  In 2006 they got 4 teams in and two, Bradley and Wichita State, reached the Sweet 16.   In the last ten years five Missouri Valley teams have made the Sweet 16 and none of them have been named Creighton. Right: as with teams in the MAC (i.e. us, last year), if you make they made the tournament and found success they got attention. If they didn't make the tournament, no body gave a hoot about them. This idea that basketball SHOULD drive the bus, rather than football--or vice a versa-- is really about whether the person making the statement likes football or basketball more. Back to Top ou79 General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Post Count: 660 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/27/2013 8:51:12 AM  Although still early in the process, the Tulsa World reported yesterday that the Mo Valley is having discussions with Oral Roberts University in regard to joining the league.  That makes a lot of sense as ORU is a basketball school with no football and is very good in all other sports.  Also, Mabee Center seats 10,500 and Tulsa is not too far from Wichita State and also fits in the footprint of the MVC.  Plus, Tulsa brings a market of about 500,000 and ORU broadcasts its games on its own tv network.  Finally, they are still alive in the CIT and play Weber State tonight in Ogden, Utah.  The winner will take on Northern Iowa Saturday in the semi-finals. Last Edited: 3/27/2013 8:55:26 AM by ou79 Back to Top Bleed Green & White General User Member Since: 12/27/2004 Location: Driving on US 33 Post Count: 164 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/28/2013 6:35:04 PM  mf279801 wrote: OUVan wrote: mf279801 wrote: And how much attention was paid to the seasons of Southern illinois, Missouri State, Drake, Bradley, Illinois State, Indiana State, Evansville, and Northern Iowa combined? Creighton and Wichita State are the only teams from the MVC that have received any press this year, and thats only because (a) reached and (b) advanced in the tournament. I'm sorry, and perhaps I was mistaken, but I read your comment lamenting the fact that "football drives the bus" as wishing/hoping we could join a conference that doesn't have football (as has been discussed on other threads, keeping OHIO in MAC football under such a scenario would require amendments to the MAC bylaws, something I'm not at all sure we'd get). Huh?  This year nobody paid attention to the teams that you listed but that doesn't mean they haven't in the recent past.  Northern Iowa got tons of press by going to the Sweet 16 the year we beat Georgetown and taking down #1 seed Kansas along the way.  Southern Illinois barely lost to #1 seed Kansas in 2007 to reach the Elite Eight.  In 2006 they got 4 teams in and two, Bradley and Wichita State, reached the Sweet 16.   In the last ten years five Missouri Valley teams have made the Sweet 16 and none of them have been named Creighton. Right: as with teams in the MAC (i.e. us, last year), if you make they made the tournament and found success they got attention. If they didn't make the tournament, no body gave a hoot about them. This idea that basketball SHOULD drive the bus, rather than football--or vice a versa-- is really about whether the person making the statement likes football or basketball more. Its a bus, not a racecar, there's room for everyone.  But as most college basketball fans would tell you, making decisions on a conference level based only on football money, ruins some of the traditions and history of some of these storied programs. In the case of the MAC, they have continuously focused on building up football and have neglected any serious focus on basketball.  They had a huge opportunity to build off of Kent & Fiami success and the conference floundered.  Just look at the advancement of football in "bowl" game appearances as opposed to at-large bids, while you also compare the growth and success of other  conferences like MVC, CAA, & even the MAAC. MAC Basketball is to B1G/ACC/BigEast Basketball as AAA baseball is to MLB  (Good value! See the future stars!) MAC Football is to BCS Football as Summer Wooden Bat leagues are to MLB (Awwww that's quaint) Living in Columbus, no one asked me about OU football and their recent successes, because frankly anything that is not BCS is crap in the college football landscape ("Oh you won the Potatoe Bowl, that's cute" *Snickers*). Many however have asked about OU basketball because of the Sweet 16 last year.  "You guys are pretty good right?  Weren't you ranked earlier this season?" "we are bound to win the fray..." Don't let anyone block your pride. BSC '06 Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,365 Status: Offline     RE: MVC conference read    Posted: 3/28/2013 10:50:13 PM  Bleed Green & White wrote: Living in Columbus, no one asked me about OU football and their recent successes, because frankly anything that is not BCS is crap in the college football landscape ("Oh you won the Potatoe Bowl, that's cute" *Snickers*). Many however have asked about OU basketball because of the Sweet 16 last year.  "You guys are pretty good right?  Weren't you ranked earlier this season?" I've found O$U fans to be a little less condescending since their football team didn't go anywhere this past season.  I think most O$U fans would've given their left buckeye to have gone to any bowl last season.  What I hear when eavesdropping on their conversations is something like "OU.  They almost beat us a few years ago."  They still remember '08. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 25  of 57 Posts Jump to Page:   1 | 2 | 3    Next > View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 234 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 232 Guests 2 Registered Users:   bobcatsquared, Andrew Ruck There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties