Nice move by the MVC adding Belmont....and if the rumors are true, Murray State.
Hearing that the Valley is leaning heavily toward taking UT-Arlington over Murray State. They like the possibility of the Dallas market it gets them in a totally new market and just like Nashville it is one of the top growing markets in the US. It is a basketball only school, that checks a lot of boxes academically. They would be the largest school in the Valley and have grown substantially since 2010. The Valley really likes their potential. For it to work they would have to be more committed to Men’s Basketball their basketball budget would need to be increased. However they do have a relatively new nice 7,000 seat arena with an attached practice facility. Murray could still happen but don’t think they are the first choice .
Don't know much about UTA and would be fine with them or MSU.
One thing for certain, the state of Texas is slowly shifting the center of the college basketball universe their way. Six Texas universities in the dance last year and half of the final four including eventual champion Baylor. Football is still king, but hoops are rising quickly in the Lone Star State. Would be a positive IMHO.
March on triumphantly!
If we're only taking one school, and it's a choice between UTA and Murray State then Murray State is by far the better choice. If the plan is to jump to 14 teams then UTA and some other school (Little Rock) I'm okay with, but if we can only take 1 it has to be Murray.
UTA has a TV market - that's about it. They've registered 1 NCAA tournament appearance in their history while Murray State has been there 17 times and won 4 games. While Murray may not be Arlington, TX, in terms of eyeballs, it does have name recognition and IMO it strengthens the conference for us in terms of recruiting. What's more appetizing to a high school player looking at our conference: UTA or Murray State? Which school has the better chance to bring in NCAA tournament revenue? Which school does a better job at strengthening conference NET and RPI scores? If the choice is down to 1 school then to me it has to be Murray.
If The Valley doesn't add Murray State that would be a tremendous mistake. They fit the profile of many of the current Valley schools. If UTA is the 2nd choice so be it.
UT-Arlington makes a ton of sense when you look at the underlying numbers outside of basketball but I just don't get why they're worth putting everyone on an extra flight for once a season. And are fans of Arlington gonna travel to Arch Madness? Highly doubt that. Northern Kentucky or Milwaukee make more sense to me if they really want to get into another big market.
If we're only taking one school, and it's a choice between UTA and Murray State then Murray State is by far the better choice. If the plan is to jump to 14 teams then UTA and some other school (Little Rock) I'm okay with, but if we can only take 1 it has to be Murray.
UTA has a TV market - that's about it. They've registered 1 NCAA tournament appearance in their history while Murray State has been there 17 times and won 4 games. While Murray may not be Arlington, TX, in terms of eyeballs, it does have name recognition and IMO it strengthens the conference for us in terms of recruiting. What's more appetizing to a high school player looking at our conference: UTA or Murray State? Which school has the better chance to bring in NCAA tournament revenue? Which school does a better job at strengthening conference NET and RPI scores? If the choice is down to 1 school then to me it has to be Murray.
Had Murray been in the MVC, and not the pathetic OVC since 1948 how many trips would they have made to the Dance? Belmont has been in the OVC for just a few years and has knocked Murray out of going several times. So suddenly life gets easier when you join the MVC? In terms of winning percentage of NCAA tournament games Murray would be at or next to the bottom of the barrel in the MVC, and that is fact, not opinion.
The advancement and diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.
James Madison
Murray St. has a winning tradition, name recognition, ideal geographical location, already established rivalries with several current schools, former players currently playing at the highest level, and a rabid fan base that will travel.
If the MVC's primary goal is to continue improving its basketball stock immediately, the choice is an easy one. If its media market and other factors leading the way while hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on the basketball side, like they've done with Loyola, then consider UTA.
As for the poor NCAAt winning percentage, that's likely more a product of conference affiliation and repeated extremely low seeding rather than a direct reflection of Murray's talent and ability to beat some teams in postseason.
--Insert something witty here--
Murray St. has a winning tradition, name recognition, ideal geographical location, already established rivalries with several current schools, former players currently playing at the highest level, and a rabid fan base that will travel.
If the MVC's primary goal is to continue improving its basketball stock immediately, the choice is an easy one. If its media market and other factors leading the way while hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on the basketball side, like they've done with Loyola, then consider UTA.
As for the poor NCAAt winning percentage, that's likely more a product of conference affiliation and repeated extremely low seeding rather than a direct reflection of Murray's talent and ability to beat some teams in postseason.
Poor NCAA winning percentage is partially due to seeding because of their conference affiliation, but so is "X many trips to the NCAA tournament in Y number of years." In my opinion, they have had several teams that didn't belong in the NCAA tournament but made it BECAUSE they won an easy OVC. Its a double edged sword. I'm really interested in seeing how the Murray experiment works out. How happy will those fans be when their "good" team gets fifth in the MVC, yet they could've been 26-5 and won the OVC?
I do hope they come, but I do think that playing in the MVC for a few years will be a humbling experience for those fans, to say the least.
Murray St. has a winning tradition, name recognition, ideal geographical location, already established rivalries with several current schools, former players currently playing at the highest level, and a rabid fan base that will travel.
If the MVC's primary goal is to continue improving its basketball stock immediately, the choice is an easy one. If its media market and other factors leading the way while hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on the basketball side, like they've done with Loyola, then consider UTA.
As for the poor NCAAt winning percentage, that's likely more a product of conference affiliation and repeated extremely low seeding rather than a direct reflection of Murray's talent and ability to beat some teams in postseason.
Poor NCAA winning percentage is partially due to seeding because of their conference affiliation, but so is "X many trips to the NCAA tournament in Y number of years." In my opinion, they have had several teams that didn't belong in the NCAA tournament but made it BECAUSE they won an easy OVC. Its a double edged sword. I'm really interested in seeing how the Murray experiment works out. How happy will those fans be when their "good" team gets fifth in the MVC, yet they could've been 26-5 and won the OVC?
I do hope they come, but I do think that playing in the MVC for a few years will be a humbling experience for those fans, to say the least.
You said it better than I have been. Same goes for Belmont. The Valley is an entirely different animal.
If we're only taking one school, and it's a choice between UTA and Murray State then Murray State is by far the better choice. If the plan is to jump to 14 teams then UTA and some other school (Little Rock) I'm okay with, but if we can only take 1 it has to be Murray.
UTA has a TV market - that's about it. They've registered 1 NCAA tournament appearance in their history while Murray State has been there 17 times and won 4 games. While Murray may not be Arlington, TX, in terms of eyeballs, it does have name recognition and IMO it strengthens the conference for us in terms of recruiting. What's more appetizing to a high school player looking at our conference: UTA or Murray State? Which school has the better chance to bring in NCAA tournament revenue? Which school does a better job at strengthening conference NET and RPI scores? If the choice is down to 1 school then to me it has to be Murray.
Had Murray been in the MVC, and not the pathetic OVC since 1948 how many trips would they have made to the Dance? Belmont has been in the OVC for just a few years and has knocked Murray out of going several times. So suddenly life gets easier when you join the MVC? In terms of winning percentage of NCAA tournament games Murray would be at or next to the bottom of the barrel in the MVC, and that is fact, not opinion.
I don't disagree with you, but using that same argument - bringing a successful program from a poor conference that won't translate to MVC success - makes an even worse case for UTA doesn't it? I mean they're in a slightly better conference than the OVC, but they only have 1 tourney appearance to show for it.
I agree with the other posters that in most years, had they been in the Valley, Murray would have been in middle of the pack on average; you could argue that one or tow years they could have competed for or even won the conference particularly the year with Ja Morant. But that's where the case for Murray helps: if they can continue to excel on the non-conference side, and then still fair well enough in Valley play it helps strengthen - at least much better than UTA or the other options floating out there - for a multi-bid Valley.
Is Murray the best choice if the Valley could literally choose any school to come? Not even close. Is it the best option that's realistic and more or less available? I think it is.
Murray St. has a winning tradition, name recognition, ideal geographical location, already established rivalries with several current schools, former players currently playing at the highest level, and a rabid fan base that will travel.
If the MVC's primary goal is to continue improving its basketball stock immediately, the choice is an easy one. If its media market and other factors leading the way while hoping to catch lightning in a bottle on the basketball side, like they've done with Loyola, then consider UTA.
As for the poor NCAAt winning percentage, that's likely more a product of conference affiliation and repeated extremely low seeding rather than a direct reflection of Murray's talent and ability to beat some teams in postseason.
Poor NCAA winning percentage is partially due to seeding because of their conference affiliation, but so is "X many trips to the NCAA tournament in Y number of years." In my opinion, they have had several teams that didn't belong in the NCAA tournament but made it BECAUSE they won an easy OVC. Its a double edged sword. I'm really interested in seeing how the Murray experiment works out. How happy will those fans be when their "good" team gets fifth in the MVC, yet they could've been 26-5 and won the OVC?
I do hope they come, but I do think that playing in the MVC for a few years will be a humbling experience for those fans, to say the least.
You said it better than I have been. Same goes for Belmont. The Valley is an entirely different animal.
Even though it was in a very weak OVC, at least they did win. Did they have some teams that didn't belong in the dance over the years? Sure. Still, a winning tradition has value, and I believe it will make their potential transition to the MVC smoother and their turnaround time shorter for being competitive in the form of higher quality recruits etc.
Also, something that SIU fans should be able to relate to and appreciate; having rabid fans and being the only show in town bears its own intrinsic value and appeal. And as others have stated, their fans will show well for Arch Madness. The Valley can certainly use more of that in these post-Bluejay and Shocker years.
--Insert something witty here--
A little birdie just informed me that the Racers may not have enough votes to join.
Don’t kill the messenger
A little birdie just informed me that the Racers may not have enough votes to join.
Don’t kill the messenger
I'm wondering how many votes it takes to approve a member and who would be joining in with SIU in blocking them (does Belmont have power yet?)
A little birdie just informed me that the Racers may not have enough votes to join.
Don’t kill the messenger
I'm wondering how many votes it takes to approve a member and who would be joining in with SIU in blocking them (does Belmont have power yet?)
I do not know. What I do know is this is football related
A little birdie just informed me that the Racers may not have enough votes to join.
Don’t kill the messenger
😱😱 really you don’t say. I still feel like most Valley fans ( SIU fans included) are for Murray being added, I do believe that there are a few major obstacles that they have to overcome before it gets done, football being a major one I personally would much rather see Murray added than say UT-Arlington but I don’t have a vote.
A little birdie just informed me that the Racers may not have enough votes to join.
Don’t kill the messenger
I'm wondering how many votes it takes to approve a member and who would be joining in with SIU in blocking them (does Belmont have power yet?)
I’ve read where it takes 3/4 vote, although I’ll admit I’m not sure how true it is. So if 3 of the 10 schools vote no, that would be below the 75% threshold.
