|
Post by gerb on May 30, 2012 7:42:18 GMT -5
Well crud. I made a little table of the potential schools (including IPFW, just for laughs) for a side-by-side comparison, but I can't figure out hos to post the dang thing.
Stuff I took into consideration: -5-year RPI, -closest/farthest current and potential members -closest major city (The HL makes a big point of our schools' proximity to cities/airports. This is a big strike against Murray and Evansville) - baseball and football.
Once I figure out a way to post it I will.
|
|
|
Post by keithfromxenia on May 30, 2012 8:09:43 GMT -5
big d, i do not think we are disagreeing on the facts, only on the significance of the timeline/reference points. if one wants to project the chances of this league being a 2 bid league in the next 5-7 years, eg. with an at large bid, the last 12-13 years seems way more significant to me than what happened two decades ago, in another century. if xavier was still with us i would agree with you we are a 2 bid league, but neither they nor butler are. the fact that we have no team left in our league that has gotten an at large bid since 1998 tells me that the likelihood is that we will not be getting at large bids anytime soon. two other thoughts. if memory serves me correctly, and it often does not, had butler played next year and gotten an ncaa bid, and made any money, all of that money would have gone into the coffers of the hl. if that is true, if it is, then it was plain stupid to let this happen. we just threw good money away. also, i think some folks are way, way underestimating the negaive effect of this loss. in terms of rpi, we will not even come close to replacing the positive effect of them in the league. i think the 14 rank we had last year is the best we will see for a number of years, and i think 16-17 is a real possibility. just mho. but more importantly, in terms of our name, reputation, resume. fact is the hl has none outside of what they have done. the respect for this league has been driven by their accomplishments and without them we will not be viewed even close to the top non bcs leagues. sadly, i can remember raider fans discussing the importance of positioning our program for the changes coming in league affiliations. butler did a good job of it, and we sucked at it.
|
|
|
Post by bballraider on May 30, 2012 13:50:54 GMT -5
if memory serves me correctly, and it often does not, had butler played next year and gotten an ncaa bid, and made any money, all of that money would have gone into the coffers of the hl. if that is true, if it is, then it was plain stupid to let this happen. we just threw good money away. also, i think some folks are way, way underestimating the negative effect of this loss. in terms of rpi, we will not even come close to replacing the positive effect of them in the league. i think the 14 rank we had last year is the best we will see for a number of years, and i think 16-17 is a real possibility. just mho. but more importantly, in terms of our name, reputation, resume. fact is the hl has none outside of what they have done. the respect for this league has been driven by their accomplishments and without them we will not be viewed even close to the top non bcs leagues. sadly, i can remember raider fans discussing the importance of positioning our program for the changes coming in league affiliations. butler did a good job of it, and we sucked at it. Keith your memory is working fine. Yes we would have got to keep any money Butler may have brought in. But that is a gamble, we have no idea whether Butler would have brought anything in. However, with Butler gone before next year, we do not have to split any money that is already coming in with them, and I believe they got extra shares for their portion too. So in essence we are getting more sure money. Yes if Butler is very good next year there is a possibility of losing out on some money, but I will take the sure thing over a possibility next March. Also I am disappointed with losing Butler, and I do think it will hurt in the immediate short term. I just believe the league will be capable of overcoming the loss. Add since Butler IS leaving, I am glad that it is now and not something that will linger for an entire year. The league needs to move on now and start building a new reputation, lets just hope it is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Big D on May 30, 2012 19:10:12 GMT -5
big d, i do not think we are disagreeing on the facts, only on the significance of the timeline/reference points. if one wants to project the chances of this league being a 2 bid league in the next 5-7 years, eg. with an at large bid, the last 12-13 years seems way more significant to me than what happened two decades ago, in another century. if xavier was still with us i would agree with you we are a 2 bid league, but neither they nor butler are. the fact that we have no team left in our league that has gotten an at large bid since 1998 tells me that the likelihood is that we will not be getting at large bids anytime soon. Keith, I think showing what has happened over time is what is going to sell the HL to potential new members. Recently several coaches have come and gone from the HL because they saw the the HL as a stepping stone to a BCS job. I see the HL as a good stepping stone conference for any potential new member. If you look at the conference over the last 20+ years, we have had good NCAA success in terms of getting at large bids and teams winning games. We have also had good success in terms of teams having success at our level and moving up to higher conferences: A-10, MVC, Big East, etc. Butler is the most recent example of that success, but it has happened to several schools over the years. I really think that is part of we will need to sell to any potential candidate to the conference. I think we should be selling the fact that if you have success in our conference you will have the potential to be an at large team. You will have the potential to get a high tournament seed. If you can sustain success in our conference over time, you will have the chance to move on to an even higher level. For a team coming from a conference ranked in the 20s, I think it's a very good sales pitch. In fact I know it is. It was the same sales pitch the HL used on 1/2 of the Mid Con in the 1990s when we all joined the HL.
|
|
|
Post by Black PantherU on May 30, 2012 19:15:20 GMT -5
I believe it was divvied 12 ways per unit. 10 to each team, 1 to HL, 1 to team that garnered the unit.
So, we're now gonna take 1/6th of each unit and divide it up. Or we can make HLN go HDTV.
|
|
|
Post by Sixth Man on May 30, 2012 19:46:06 GMT -5
I believe it was divvied 12 ways per unit. 10 to each team, 1 to HL, 1 to team that garnered the unit. So, we're now gonna take 1/6th of each unit and divide it up. Or we can make HLN go HDTV. BP, I believe that is the way the HL used to divide NCAA money until after Butler made their first NCAA tournament finals. They threw a big stink about earning all the money and having to share it with the rest of the HL. LeCrone changed the distribution after that so the team that goes to the dance gets even more money than in the past. I don't remember what the percentages were but I do remember reading the article about it after it happened.
|
|
|
Post by coogles on May 31, 2012 8:14:27 GMT -5
BP, I believe that is the way the HL used to divide NCAA money until after Butler made their first NCAA tournament finals. They threw a big stink about earning all the money and having to share it with the rest of the HL. LeCrone changed the distribution after that so the team that goes to the dance gets even more money than in the past. I don't remember what the percentages were but I do remember reading the article about it after it happened. www.cnbc.com/id/42273328/Butler_Gets_A_Bigger_Piece_Of_Winning_PieBasically, the school earning the NCAA shares gets a one-year bump, receiving 30% of the funds allocated to the universities before the remaining 70% is divvied out among the remaining members. After that one year, the shares are again spit evenly among the members. So, Butler already received its larger share this year from the 2011 tournament run.
|
|
|
Post by keithfromxenia on May 31, 2012 8:28:50 GMT -5
bball, i understand your tradeoff and you may be right. two thoughts i have are one, given their recent history, their returning players and their incoming recruits, i think it is a very good bet that they would have won the league and been in the ncaa. after that anything can happen, so i tend to favor the idea of letting them play the year and compete for the championship. it could well have netted us more money. second, which game next year do you think would have drawn our biggest crowd? which had the best chance of bringing 6-7k to the nutter? definitely butler. if we replace them with a skanky div ii or iii, or even a crummy div i team, we draw 2-3 k. how much dough does that cost us? i am just of the belief that our finances would have likely benefited from them being here one more year. and big d, i see your point, and i think any team in a 20's conference will jump at the chance to join the hl, but i just do not buy that we are, as we are constituted next season, a consistent 2 bid league.
|
|
|
Post by Raider Pride on May 31, 2012 21:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Big D on May 31, 2012 22:01:23 GMT -5
and big d, i see your point, and i think any team in a 20's conference will jump at the chance to join the hl, but i just do not buy that we are, as we are constituted next season, a consistent 2 bid league. I agree we aren't a 2 bid league next year with the status quo. I don't believe I have made that claim anywhere. The same can be said about the HL/MCC in the 1990s right before many of our current teams made the jump from the Summit to the HL after the HL lost many of it's former members. The HL was able to sell to us that the HL had been a multi-bid conference in the past and could be again if we joined. I think the same holds true moving forward. If we are smart and add the right teams I think the HL could actually end up in a stronger position than we have been in the recent past. On the flip side, if we panic and add teams like IPFW and IUPUI we will most likely drop down to a low major level. LeCrone really needs to make the right decisions and convince all HL teams to go along with it.
|
|
|
Post by gerb on Jun 1, 2012 8:11:15 GMT -5
Did Katz just write an article that was complimentary to us? June is already shaping up to be a weird month for the hl
|
|
|
Post by keithfromxenia on Jun 1, 2012 9:45:00 GMT -5
gerb, i know mark katz caught a lot of grief while he covered us, but he usually wrote positive articles about the program. he was and i guess still is, a huge raider fan. i really liked kyle nagel as our guy, but i thought katz deserved more credit than he got. he really likes the raider program. and big d, i really did not mean to that we are not a 2 bid league next year only. i just do not see it for the foreseeable future and i don't think your characterization of it as a 2 bid league in the past is accurate. but we won't agree on this i guess we will just see what the future holds. however, i do agree with you about the importance of decisions to be made. if our leadership brings in another ysu, then this league is toast. that said, i have a feeling our options are pretty limited due to geography, football and money. honestly, i think that minus butler, the hl has been on a similar track to the raiders. just kind of putterin along.
|
|
|
Post by Tipp City Raider on Jun 1, 2012 19:35:15 GMT -5
LeCrone really needs to get his ass in gear and add Oakland now. It makes sense for so many reasons. It solidifies our needs for a top mid-major team that also has a basketball program. More importantly, it sets the stage to add more teams going forward. We need to show the top mid-majors we want to add to the HL that the conference is worth joining. Adding Oakland will help do that. It also could help out with some of our scheduling problems for next year. Even if Oakland cannot join the HL until 2013, they could probably schedule several HL teams for next year as part of their OOC schedule. It would help them and us for next year. If we move quickly enough and add several teams for 2013, all our HL teams can fill up the hole left in our schedules by the loss of Butler with a future member of the HL. It could be a fun way to get a sneak peak of the future HL and add a bit more excitement to our OOC schedules this year.
|
|
|
Post by Doliboabros on Jun 2, 2012 10:05:51 GMT -5
bball, i understand your tradeoff and you may be right. two thoughts i have are one, given their recent history, their returning players and their incoming recruits, i think it is a very good bet that they would have won the league and been in the ncaa. after that anything can happen, so i tend to favor the idea of letting them play the year and compete for the championship. it could well have netted us more money. I don't think the potential negative PR would have been worth it in the long run. A best case scenario would have been Butler winning the HL and making a run in the NCAAs making us a bunch of cash. In that scenario we would have had to deal with ESPN announcers talking about the impact of Butler leaving the HL throughout the entire HL finals. We would then have to hear it all over again from CBS announcers throughout the entire NCAA tournament. The money we would have gotten from them wouldn't have been worth the negative PR. An even worse case scenario is what happened in the Big 12 basketball tournament last year. For the last several minutes of the game, Mizzou fans chanted "S-E-C" over and over again spitting in the face of the Big 12. We all know most Butler fans at games are classless assholes. I could see them doing a very similar A-10 chant on National TV to further humiliate us during the HL finals. It's better to cut all ties with them now. I rather remember that Butler left the league as the 5th place team in the conference than either of the above scenarios.
|
|
|
Post by Raider Rowdies on Jun 2, 2012 12:16:47 GMT -5
|
|