What Team(s) Does HL Backfill With?

True. But as I said, like any good company, entity or individual, all exhaustible scenarios are laid out. As some on this board like to bash the HL, maybe the League is not good enough for those other candidates to join...then what? What if the other mid-majors think the HL is now just a lateral move or even a step lower? Then what?



I'll just be a fool then Big DWSU, because I don't think 2-3 HL teams will leave! I don't think we'll add 1-3 crappy teams to the league and also I would like to think that the teams we already have in the HL will get better to bring the conference RPI up, not relying on new teams to do it! For the Summit...two years does not dominance make.



I saw the article, but I also saw where you even questioned your own athletic department's intentions. Sure they can probably pay exit and entrance fees, but why when you're trying to become more fiscally responsible? That $500,000 savings would be eaten up by the HL exit fee and the $1,000,000 of the 1.6 million will probably be devoured by entrance fee to the new conference. Again...why? I also didn't say you guys would NEVER move, but I still don't think 2-3 teams would leave right away.

I'm not trying to bust any HL team's balls, but just giving my opinions like everybody else. If that makes me a fool or a person that doesn't know what he's talking about, well...it is what it is! But know that I don't take offense to anything being said. I enjoy the back and forth. It's all good!

So what, we just add teams to add them? That's how we got Youngstown State. We didn't get Valpo because their AD was the Mid-Con commissioner's dad. We couldn't get Oakland because they were new and Detroit wouldn't accept them. So instead of staying at eight, the Executive Council had a knee-jerk reaction - one that we've been paying for over and over for 16 years.

What if USI comes to D-I and they suck, like SIU-Edwardsville? What if they never get attendance going because Evansville is too small to support two D-I teams?

The Horizon League isn't a halfway house. But if you keep considering USI for the vacant spot then this conference might as well be.



Honestly, 2-3 might be the minimum. Big DWSU said 'immediately,' and in the five years following such an addition you could see half the conference get out of Dodge. Hell, UIC would probably be one of the teams getting a move-on.



I would be willing to bet all the money in my pockets that Wright State would not be on the hook for an entry fee into a new conference. The Horizon League exit fee is $500k, and if the option is to stay or go somewhere better, they may just do it. I can think of several programs in the conference that could make such a move.



You're right not to get offended by the 'fool' comment, Chuck. It wasn't personal. But you have to know that Big DWSU isn't wrong about USI - they very well may be a good addition in 2027, but it's not 2027. It's 2017.

I know that you're seeing the map the same way we are in Milwaukee - having a team in Indiana keeps the conference together geographically. But adding a completely unproven team to bridge the gap just because of geography is as foolhardy as adding IUPUI because they're a big urban public research institution. There's more to it than that.

We have plenty of candidates. None of them are going to light the world on fire. And it's been said here that the conference as a whole needs to elevate its basketball, which we can all agree on 100%. But we can't just add teams to add teams. They have to be able to strengthen our men's basketball product.

Something that doesn't sit well with me is the idea of USI not being good for 10 years. I don't know for sure if or when they would be good. I just know there are several ways they could be good sooner. NKU was dancing in year 5.

Here are some ideas. If they made the move for 2019-20. In there recruiting class for 2018-19 they could take in all D1 transfers who have played two years or less. In this idea of recruiting they could enter D1 with a roster of guys who are D1 level and would have one or more years left to play in 2019-20. For any high school recruits they have, use a redshirt year immediately. They could preserve a year of eligibility that would later be used at the D1 level. Given the state of the world use the fact that if they graduate in four years they can transfer up. At some point the mid majors who embrace this might end up getting the best mid major talent. Use the rules to get 3 good years out of a kid and then help him move on. Plus they could go with a tried and true method to reload and bring in some JUCO players. Look how quickly Steve Forbes reloaded ETSU using transfers and JUCO players. I know in my scenario the team can't dance right away and that will limit the pool of options but there are still enough kids who will want to play D1 and might be interested. If they just try to transition with a D2 roster sure it will be rough but there is plenty of options they can use to have a better talent pool and not be an RPI anchor on day one.

I'm just really interested in how many teams get added, in the past we've always just added one but there was always a good all around university that was in the footprint that fit all our needs/wants and i don't think we have a clear picture of a university doing that so i'm thinking it might be 3 to add stability. I don't like that idea but i think it may help maintaining a stable conference. On a random thought note, if we added 3 teams, say Fort Wayne, RMU, and MoreheadSt/Belmont. Would it be possible to have 4 groups of 3 travel partners and do 3 away and then 3 home games or is that too much? like Wisconsin Schools & UIC/Michigan Schools & FW/ Clev, YSU, RMU/ WSU & Kentucky Schools. Just random thought.

Look - I've got nothing to bring to the table as for the last 30 years, but to say YSU has no real history of success in any level of hoops is just not correct.

In the Division I era Mike Rice had them play in two consecutive OVC championship games losing each by three points.

Dom Roselli coached from the end of World War II until 1982.  He won 583 of 977 games.  From 1962-72, in an era of 25 to 28 game season, YSU never lost more than 9 games and never won less than 17 games.  YSU made the NAIA Final Eight twice in that time and made the Division II playoffs nine times.  From 1956 to 1981 YSU had three losing seasons.  

I get there were no lower level Final Fours and after the first five years or so they've been a horrible Division 1 program.  But to say no success at any level, just isn't right   Problem is I am one of the few people who can remember that era.

AS for the arena, I would much rather they stay there on campus on play in a school owned arena, than go downtown to the Covelli Center just to say they play in a "fancy" arena.  Beeghly's not going anywhere for a long time even if Calhoun starts selling the place out.  The money just isn't there to build a new arena any time soon.

A few additional points that I thought were interesting. LeCrone bragged about Motor City Madness and talked about how great the ESPN deal is. So for those who hate those two things it might be awhile before those change or go away. The good news is that he made no mistake about it, Men's basketball is driving the decisions for the league. I appreciate that view point.

The fact that they are presenting 9 team schedules and Motor City Madness formats to the AD's next week tells me that despite LeCrone leaving the door open the league is pretty sure a 10th member is not coming this year.

What was interesting is to me is the timing, the criteria and the divisional play limiting cost for Olympic sports. He thought 10 for 18-19 and maybe 12 members for 19-20 and beyond. He mentioned researching 12, 14 and 16 member league formats. So the timing with waiting a year to get on with expansion, is that to allow a prospect to notify on more favorable financial terms? Is that to allow each current member to get a little extra league money to help offset future travel costs? Is that just because they aren't able to lineup their top priorities just yet? There are so many questions that could have been asked that weren't by the few media members participating on the line.

As for the criteria mentioned about emerging and existing brands, I am fascinated by emerging and what that means to the league office. What does an emerging brand need to demonstrate to the league? When I think of emerging brands I think CGU, the Dakotas or Omaha. When I think of existing brands I think of Belmont, Murray State, NMSU or RMU. Most of the rest of the potential member list doesn't fit either category.

The divisional play comments about non geographic fitting expansion almost makes me think the expansion would have to be west and big. You can't expand west and have fair cost divisional play for Olympic sports without having 4 members at least. For example you can't invite Omaha, NMSU and CGU while expecting only Milwaukee, UIC and GB for example to travel their Olympic teams out there while the rest of the league is on a bus. Now if you get Denver, Omaha, KC, NMSU and CGU they could play in their own division as part of a format that could make sense for the rest of the current HL members.

The call was long on conjecture and short on answers. The good news is that It looks like we will have a few years to debate what the league could and should do.