Messages

There isn't a chance in hell that SLU leaves the A-10 to go to a watered down MVC.  The A-10 is still a multi-bid conference that has schools that can make deep runs in the NCAAs.  Without WSU, the MVC is a one bid conference.  They turned down an invite to the MVC when Creighton left.  They aren't going to join now when the conference is weaker.  Belmont turned down the MVC last go around too.  They aren't leaving the OVC.  They like being the big dog in that conference.

https://twitter.com/DanaBalash21/status/845767124220043267?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwrightstate.proboards.com%2Fthread%2F3084%2Fcoaching-carousel-2017%3Fpage%3D6

The HL didn't just receive the offer from Detroit and jump at it.  The league started the process of going to a neutral site over a year before it was announced.  They looked at dozens of cities/venues and Detroit was the best offer.  We aren't paying to rent Joe Louis Arena and we are all getting a paycheck out of it.  Cities like Columbus, Chicago, and Indianapolis were available to host the tournament but none offered the HL any type of compensation and the HL would have had to pay to rent the venue. 

The HL is not on the rise.  It has steadily dropped in the ranking the last few years.  Belmont isn't coming to the HL either.  They have ended their flirtation with the league by taking their men's soccer team out of the HL and will be joining another conference.

usc4valpo,
you don't seem to understand how major conferences and networks negotiate contracts.   I'll use the Big 10 as the role model everyone has been following lately.  They recently added Maryland and Rutgers.  Neither school is good at all in football and neither school has a following worth a crap.  That didn't matter at all.  What they offered was large media markets.  Rutgers gave the Big 10 the NYC media market and Maryland got them the DC media market.  Even though no one in those markets give a crap about either school, the Big 10 was able to add the BTN to basic cable subscribers in both media markets which brought in millions for each school in their conference.  All other conferences are moving in that direction.  They want to add schools that make some sense geographically but add new media markets that help their conference with network negotiations.   Those kind of things do not matter in the mid-major world we live in but for conferences like the A-10 and MVC that make money on their TV contracts, it matters.

The MVC knows that adding St. Louis and Dayton is a pipe dream, but they are not in a position where they need to add anyone.  They would rather stay at 10 (and just wait for SLU/UD) than add any other teams that do not offer consistent NCAA at large potential because it doesn't help their conference.  They split their NCAA tournament revenue and TV contract revenue 10 ways.  They are not going to split it up 11 or 12 ways unless they are sure those next additions add revenue to the conference.  You don't add a new media market for them.  You have never received an at large bid to the Dance.  No offense, but you have no shot at the MVC as things stand now. 

FYI, when the MVC expanded to add Loyola, they looked at multiple schools.  They were looking at Loyola, UIC, and Valpo for one spot to add the Chicago media market.  They offered Belmont (and were turned down) to add the Nashville media market.  They looked at Milwaukee but saw their athletic department as a clusterfuck due to the constant turnover of ADs.  They looked at my school but ruled us out because they would rather hold out for UD since we would both be in the same media market and we didn't offer them a school with that at large potential.  They also looked at 3-4 other schools from lower rated conferences.  They decided to stay at 10.  Adding 2 additional schools would have expanded their media markets but they didn't feel any of the other schools offered enough at large potential to help their conference. 

The MVC's picked Loyola in their last expansion for 2 reasons: money and location.  Loyola had a very large endowment and was willing to make a commitment to spend money on upgrading their facilities and increasing their athletic budget.  They went from having one of the bottom athletic budgets in the HL to spending over 14 million a year now in the MVC.  The MVC also picked Loyola because they wanted a school in a new major media market.  The MVC is a conference that actually makes money selling their media rights.  The more major media markets they are in the more they can negotiate for those rights.  The MVC was never going to add Loyola, UIC, and Valpo.  You were always competing for 1 spot.  Now that they have Loyola in that media market you have no shot at ever being invited.  If they ever decide to expand again they will be looking for 2 more schools to get to 12 and they will be looking for schools that give them new media markets.  Dayton and St. Louis are their 2 dream schools because they have good basketball programs, great facilities, and add new media markets.  The MVC is just waiting for those 2 schools to realize that the Big East isn't going to invite them to their conference.

Everyone including Valpo voted to add NKU.

I agree with everyone about playing the games in Detroit.  The best option for a true neutral site that would have still been fairly centrally located would have been Indy.  My guess is that we made the decision on Detroit based on finances.  Detroit is in shambles and was willing to not only host this for free but they are paying the conference 200K a year.  Indy would have been a better choice but they wouldn't have done it for free let alone pay us to play there.  Renting a suitable facility and running the tournament would have cost the HL a lot of money and each school would have spent a lot on the travel, lodging, etc.  Playing it in Detroit saved us that money.  Each school will walk away with 20K for this and it cost the conference nothing.  If we would have done it at a truly neutral site and paid for it, it would have cost each school probably 50-75K by the time you add everything up.  If you look at the budgets for most HL teams, that is significant.  I think that would be the recruiting budget for at least 6 of our men's basketball programs.  I think everyone involved knows this is a big gamble.  They would rather gamble with Detroit's money than our own.

Ideally, I hope this works as much as I personally dislike it.  I think we all want to add a few schools to the HL that we can be proud to have in the conference.  I also think having a true neutral site tournament down the road (Indy) is in the HL's long term best interest. 

I would be willing to bet that this decision to go to a neutral site tournament has a lot more to do with attracting new members to the HL than it does with anything else. We have been going after a few OVC schools for the last few years. They play a neutral site tournament format. I know for a fact that Belmont did not like our previous format of giving the top seed a double bye and home court advantage in the HL tournament. I don't like having the tournament in Detroit the next 5 years. I think Indy would have been the better choice, but I am pretty sure we did this for the sake of future HL expansion and not as some quick money grab by the HL. 

WH,
The HL would rather add NKU over IUPUI for several reasons:
1.  Facilities.  There is no comparison between the 2 schools.
2.  Finances.  NKU's athletic budget was around 10 million last year.  IUPUI was around 8 million.  IUPUI also has to answer to the regent of IU when it comes to their finances.  NKU doesn't have to answer to anyone but themselves. 
3. New recruiting area.  Everyone in the HL already recruits in Indianapolis.  Adding IUPUI doesn't really open up a new recruiting area for the HL.  NKU is basically a suburb of Cincinnati.  Having a presence in that area opens up a whole new recruiting base for most HL schools.
4.  Travel.  IUPUI might be more centrally located in the HL but they aren't in a good location as a travel partner for anyone in the HL.  Whoever the HL adds, that team is going to be a travel partner for WSU.  IUPUI is roughly 2 hours away from WSU.  NKU is one hour away.
5. Location.  The HL doesn't want to stop expansion at 10 teams.  We want to get to 12 teams and we want to add Belmont and either Murray State or Lipscomb.  Belmont has made it very clear to the HL that they do not want to join the HL if they are the only southern team in the conference.  NKU makes more sense if we are going to really try to expand south.

That all being said, I think it is a mistake to add NKU this year.  The HL already had a down year last year.  If we add another team like NKU (which will be an anchor to the conference for the next several years) we are going to be even less appealing as a conference to the schools we really want to add to the HL. 

UWM has attendance issues in their own stadium and their games have been televised locally for many years before HL net was around. So there goes that theory.

That's BS.  They don't televise their entire season's worth of home games.  They only televised a handful of them.  That is actually a good business practice.  Give potential fans a taste of your product hoping to turn them into future paying customers.  It's a model that has made Netflix billions.  They give you a month free to try their service before they start to charge you.  It's a sound business practice taught to any first year business student.  It's a shame the idiots that run the HL think that giving away the entire product is going to somehow do the same thing.

You think the Horizon League network would generate $720k to $2.16 million per year if they made it subscription based?

No I don't.  I do think it would make enough money to cover the cost of operating it and I think it would discourage fans from staying home to watch games.  If there was no other benefit at all, I think that would make it worthwhile to do.  But there is at least one other benefit.  Making the HLN a paysite would make the HL look like we value our product.  Try to watch a internet broadcast of an A-10,  MVC or MAC game next year.  You have to pay to watch their broadcast online because they know there is value to their product.   The HL doesn't get that.

Also, its asinine to suggest that UWM fans aren't going to games now because of online streaming. Don't you think their previous attendance marks have anything to do with them making it to the Sweet 16? Attendance has to do with team success. Butler's attendance didn't go down after the HL Net came online. UWGBs attendance was the highest since the 90s.

It's not asinine at all to suggest that UWM fans aren't traveling to Dayton because of online streaming.  It's a fact.  Like I have stated in my past post.  I have been traveling to WSU away games for decades.  I know many of the fans of other HL teams pretty well.  I have even let a few of them crash at my house when their team was in town over the years.   UWM didn't just stop having passionate fans because their team has had a few down years.   They still have several thousand loyal fans that follow their team closely.  I have asked many of those fans over the years why they don't travel as much to away games and the HLN is ALWAYS the answer. 

In regards to Butler and UWGB's attendance numbers, what is your point?  That successful teams don't have attendance problems.  Did you read the first post in this thread?  Your own team has won 2 conf. championships and a conf. tournament championship in the last 5 years and your attendance is down.  Wright State is coming off of the best 8 year stretch in school history and attendance is down.  There are many things that factor into why attendance numbers are down and offering the games for free online is one of them.  Ignoring that is asinine.

Thinking that there's hundreds of people that are now staying home from every game now that there's online streaming is irrational. I doubt there were hundreds of fans that previously traveled 4+ hours for games that are now watching from their laptops. Maybe 1, 2 fans per team fit this criteria?

You are a fool if you honestly believe 1-2 fans fit that criteria.  I used to travel regularly to all WSU away games and became good friends with other fans that also made those road trips regularly.  Wright State used to arrange 2-3 bus loads of fans for our 2 game road trip to Chicago or into Wisconsin.  We rarely have to charter more than 1 bus now.  Before the HLN, UWM used to bring a couple of buses loaded with fans to their game at the Nutter Center.  Now we get a few carloads.  That is just HL fans.  You also have to consider that most HL teams schedule several of their OOC games vs other local D1 teams that also have local alumni.  Their fans are closer to our arenas than most fans of HL opponents and they have stopped attending games too.  You don't think being able to watch the game for free at home has something to do with that?  The number of traveling fans we have lost may not be in the hundreds, but it is a heck of a lot more than 1-2.  Even if the number is a little more than 100.  Multiple that by the number of home games you play each year by the average cost of your tickets.  That is enough money to buy a game vs a D1 team each year instead of a NAIA/D2 team.   Add in the loss of revenue of your own fan base that comes to watch the games online instead of in person and we are probably leaving enough money on the table to completely eliminate playing NAIA/D2 teams.

I bet the HL Net streams have under a hundred viewers per game.

I don't know what the league wide numbers are, but I do know what Wright State's numbers were for last year.  The average home game streamed to a little over 3000 IP addresses.   WSU had 16 home games last year.  If all of those fans would have paid $5 per broadcast to watch the HLN, we could have added $240,000 in revenue.  Even if only 1/3 of those viewers were willing to pay to see the broadcast, we still would be bringing in $80,000.  Once again, that is enough revenue to help each team pay for better buy games.  It is revenue we could be using on recruiting.  It is money we could be using for advertising.  If nothing else is could be revenue the HL has to cover the cost of running the HLN.  The HL spends a quarter of a million a year to run the HLN. 

Lower attendance has nothing to do with online streaming.

I couldn't disagree more.  It is one of the biggest reasons I argue that the HL should make the HLN a pay site.  The HLN discourages fans from attending games in person by making the broadcasts free and convenient.   Season tickets at most schools cost hundreds of dollars per seat, plus the cost of parking at many of our venues, travel expense, and money you are going to spend at the concession stands.  Many fans of opposing teams no longer travel to HL venues because we offer them a free broadcast of the games.  If it was 10 years ago I would be preparing to make about 15 road trips for this season to watch my team play.  I used to travel to all HL away games and many of our OOC games that were appealing to me.  I rarely travel to more than 2-3 games at other HL venues a year anymore because it just isn't worth all of the travel and costs when I can just stay home and watch my team play on the road on TV.  Last year, my team played 5-6 OOC games where they offered their games online for a fee.  I paid between $5.99 and $9.99 a piece to see my team play those games and never batted an eyelash doing so.  It was much more inexpensive than traveling to those away games.   It's a joke we allow fans of other teams to watch HL broadcasts without getting any compensation for it.  We make it way too easy for opponent's fans to stay home, but it can even be tempting to our own fans.  Parents with young kids and seniors in particular don't want to deal with the travel, parking, walking up and down all of those stairs in our arenas in the dead of winter when they can easily watch our games at home.  We lose twice when we broadcast games for free.  We lose the revenue from having that fan attend the game in person and we also lose the revenue we could have made by charging him to watch the game online.  There aren't many businesses out there that give away their product for free. 

Are these requirements you lay out REALLY realistic, BigDWSU?

The A-10 announced their scheduling policy in 2007.  The MVC announced theirs the year before in 2006.  If you really go back and look at those conferences before that they really weren't much different than the HL.  The MVC and HL used to flip back and forth between who was ranked higher the decade before that.  I believe those conferences drawing a line in the sand and saying this is how we are going to do things was the catalyst that elevated them to become consistent top 10 conferences while our decisions have made us flounder. 

Are these requirements realistic?  The answer to that is obviously yes.  Those conferences have already shown that it can be done.   The real question is--does the HL want to take that next step up the ladder because if we are going to move up the ladder in conference rankings we are going to have to start making some hard decisions that will most likely effect our finances in the short term.  Playing less buy games on the road is going to take revenue out of our pockets.  Paying D1 teams to play at our arenas instead of D2 teams is going to cost us more money.   In the long run we will start coming up with better schedules which will bring in more paying fans to games and better TV contracts which will offset those losses.   

Hilarious that Oakland's scheduling is a huge problem, but Wright State's isnt. I've never heard of a conference putting requirements to have teams put together a weaker SOS. I had no idea that it's a good strategy to have a team with 19 wins finish +150 RPI. Do you honestly think Detroit's schedule bogged down the Horizon just as much as Oakland's? No. Oakland's SOS, while stupid for them, did not hurt the HL as much as Detroit's because their opponent's opponent's W/L record was high enough to elevate their RPI. Playing a pathetic OOC schedule is not good for Wright State or the Horizon league no matter how much you want to believe it's all Oakland's fault for the league's overall conference RPI being down. Conference RPI is literally the average of each team's RPI. Oakland wasn't projected to finish 2nd with a number of 1st place votes. Wright State was. And what happened? Wright State ended the season with a +150 RPI despite having 19 wins. The absolute garbage scheduling doomed Wright State, a decent team, from breaking in the top 100 RPI, something which the Horizon League runner up should be in.

The constant references to playing an all D1 schedule is hilarious. Had you played a D2 school instead of North Carolina A&T, you would've had a better RPI EVEN IF YOU WOULD HAVE WON THE GAME.

It's hilarious that you keep beating the same dead horse.  I have clearly stated that WSU needs to play a tougher schedule.  My exact quote in this thread was...I have said in the past and I will repeat it here again, I don't like the way my team scheduled last year.  The HL needs to come up with a true scheduling model to prevent teams from scheduling like my team did or the way Oakland continues to schedule.  You just choose to ignore that.  You also keep ignoring the fact that playing a low major is better for your RPI than a D2 school WHEN THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE DOES IT because it has an accumulative effect on every team's RPI.   I laid that out pretty clearly on the last page using the AAC as an example. 

I agree in general, but have a question.  Most scheduling guidelines prevent teams from playing non-DI schools or very weak DI schools ... how do you prevent teams from scheduling too many upper level DI teams (like Oakland seems to do)?  Do any leagues currently have something like this in place?  Just wondering.

The A-10 and MVC both have rules that would take care of this.  The A-10 prohibits members from being bought to play games on the road.  The MVC wants their member teams to play at least 50% of their OOC games at home.  Neither is allowed to play non D1 teams.  The HL could tweak those to suit our purpose.  I think we should have 3 basic scheduling rules to start with.  1.  We play an all D1 schedule.  2.  We play at least 50% of our OOC games at home on average.  (teams need to meet this criteria 2 out of 3 years or 3 out of 5 years).  3.  You can only play 3 road buy games a year. 

If teams want to play a few buy games vs BCS schools you can but rules 1 and 2 would mean that you have to buy 3 D1 teams to play at home to keep your schedule balanced.  It would encourage teams to play in more tournaments to get a chance to play BCS schools on a neutral court or trying to get true home/homes and 2 for 1s with BCS schools instead of just playing buy games.

The HL really needs to come out with a scheduling mandate and hold schools accountable.  If all 9 HL teams scheduled as irresponsibly as Oakland, we would be ranked between 25-30 as a conference instead of being ranked between 11-14 regularly.   YSU promised the HL they would put more of their funding into basketball prior to their invite to the HL.  They never followed through.  Oakland promised to tone down their scheduling and now they are backing out of that agreement.  I'm sick of this BS from new members.  We don't need members that aren't willing to do what is in the best interest of the entire conference.  The HL needs to establish a league wide scheduling policy.  Don't follow our scheduling policy 1 year, you get a pass.  Second offense results in you loosing your share of the HL's NCAA tournament money.  3rd offense and you aren't eligible for the league tournament that year.  4th offense and the HL can choose to kick you out of the conference.   

If you go to basketball traveler's scheduling board and select guarantee offer as game type, you can see what I am talking about.  Most posts just say large guarantee offered, but some give figures.  Tennessee, for example is offering 80K for an in state school and 85K for an out of state school.  Nebraska and Minnesota are also offering a six figure guarantee.   

http://www.basketballtravelers.com/game-schedule-board/?e_type=1

[Eureka also is a cheap date. Terms of the contract were not disclosed, but you can be sure the Red Devils will receive a tiny fraction of the $80,000-plus it can take to buy a low-Division I opponent.]

From the Wessler article I referenced in the HL OOC thread:

After road games at Memphis and Kansas State, the Braves break eight days for semester final exams. Eureka provides a shake-off-the-rust contest before heading to Las Vegas for a holiday tournament. Eureka also is a cheap date. Terms of the contract were not disclosed, but you can be sure the Red Devils will receive a tiny fraction of the $80,000-plus it can take to buy a low-Division I opponent.

Read more: http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140707/Sports/140709371#ixzz39M16h0nF

Maybe I'm the only one, but I did not know mid-major teams had to "buy" low major teams @ up to $80,000+... 

...and, now knowing that...

...is that the reason teams (including ours) are opting to fill out home schedules with non-D-1's? 

Is it all about money?

It is all about the money, but that figure sounds pretty high.  If you look at some of the reported figures from last season it looks like most BCS schools offer between 75-100K for a buy game vs. a good mid-major.  Mid-majors usually pay low majors between 40-50K to be bought.  A D2 or NAIA team can be bought for 25$.   

[RPI, Overall record, overall SOS, OOC SOS]

Broken record, over and over again. Scheduling teams like North Carolina A&T is actually worse for your RPI than not scheduling anyone (or a D2 team). Beating horrible teams actually worsens your RPI. Losing to BCS teams actually improves your RPI. Scheduling D2 teams is better than scheduling MEAC and NEC teams.

That simply is not true especially if you apply the effect it has across the whole conference if everyone does it.  If every team in the HL played 10 OOC games vs. the 10 worst D1 teams and went 10-0 vs. them everyone in the HL would have a high RPI and the conference would have a high RPI.   RPI is 25% your winning percentage, 50% your opponent's winning percentage, and 25% your opponent's opponent's winning percentage.  So 25% would be your 10-0 record.  Out of the middle 50%, 2/3 of that would be the rest of the HL's winning %.  Only 1/3 of that would be those 10 bottom feeders you beat.  Out of the final 25%, 2/3 once again is made of the HL and 1/3 would be those 10 bottom feeders. 

Look at the American Athletic Conference last year.  They finished as the 8th rated conference last year and got 4 teams into the NCAAs.  They had an 88-35 OOC record vs. a very poor OOC schedule that was ranked 26th overall.  Because everyone in that conference did so well in their OOC schedule they all finished with high RPIs and even a high overall SOS because the games they played in conference raised their individual SOS.   

RPI, Overall record,  overall SOS,  OOC SOS
20  Louisville    29-5,  79  , 149
21  Cincinnati  27-6  , 68 ,  95
22  Connecticut  26-8 , 32 , 78
36  Memphis  22-9  ,  41 , 55 
55 South. Methodist   23-9 , 113 ,  295
143 Houston 17-16  120 ,  342
177  Temple  9-22,  44   ,  45
197  Rutgers  11-21  , 64   , 131
218  UCF  11-18  , 112 ,  344
230  South Florida  12-20  , 137  , 322

I'm not advocating everyone in the HL schedule the 10 worst D1 teams they can play to pick up wins.  I was using that example to try to prove the math.  As I mentioned in my last post, everyone needs to play as many D1 games as they can and schedule teams they have a reasonable chance at beating.  More D1 wins helps your team and it helps everyone else in the conference too.   

[75%]

WH,
If you look at the A-10 and MVC's scheduling guidelines, they have a few similarities in common that greatly affect each team's RPI and their conference's RPI.  They try to play an all D1 schedule.  They don't want their teams to play buy games on the road.  They want their teams to play >50% of their OOC games at home.  They do that because they know that you always have a better chance at winning at home than you do on the road and only D1 teams count into the RPI equation.  RPI and conference RPI is all about winning percentages.  SOS is really blown out of proportion by fans.  It's all about winning games against D1 teams that are calculated into your RPI.

RPI is 25% your winning percentage, 50% your opponent's winning percentage, and 25% your opponent's opponent's winning percentage.  So 25% is how you do and 75% is based on how your opponents do.  The MVC and A-10 have figured out that 2/3 of that 75% number is made up of conference games.  So everyone in the conference needs to have a pretty darn good OOC record if the conference and each individual member is going to have a good RPI.   Oakland's 3-10 OOC record and UIC's 3-9 OOC record were anchors to the HL last year. 

The HL finished ranked 14th last year as a conference.  We had the 13th rated SOS, but we finished with an OOC record of 51-60 vs. D1 teams.  The 6 conferences that finished directly in front of the HL all played weaker schedules than us, but had higher winning percentages, resulting in them finishing rated higher than us.

Conference RPI, D1 OOC record, SOS
8 American Athletic Conference 88-35 , 26 
9 West Coast Conference 71-41 , 15 
10 Mountain West Conference 76-46 , 16 
11 Missouri Valley Conference 64-49, 20
12 Mid American Conference 72-59 , 19 
13 Conference USA 105-97 , 22
14 Horizon League  51-60 , 13

Every team in the HL needs to start playing an all D1 schedule.  We could have had 16-18 more D1 victories to add into the equation if we all would have played a few low majors at home and picked up an easy W instead of beating up on D2 and NAIA teams that didn't count into the equation. 
 
Every team in the HL needs to start scheduling games against teams they can beat.  If you can beat BCS schools great, but if you can't you at least need to be scheduling and winning games that can help the rest of the conference.   I have said in the past and I will repeat it here again, I don't like the way my team scheduled last year.  The HL needs to come up with a true scheduling model to prevent teams from scheduling like my team did or the way Oakland continues to schedule.   If we want to take the next step as a conference we need to find a happy medium that makes sense for the conference.

Unless someone knows differently, to my knowledge the HL still hasn't established its own OOC scheduling parameters. Until it does I'll continue to use the A-10's scoring system.

You are comparing apples to oranges the way you are applying the A-10's scoring system to the HL.  The A-10 does not allow it's members to schedule non-D1 games unless they have no control of it (ex: having to play a non-D1 team that is part of a MTE) and they are not allowed to play buy games on the road vs. BCS schools.   Almost all of the BCS teams HL members are playing are buy games on the road.  Historically, home teams win 71% of games played.  The A-10 is smart enough to know that it isn't worth playing BCS teams unless they get return games even if it is a 2 for 1. 

Beyond that, if we were to expand to 12 members, I think our administration and Detroit's should insist that only private universities are added.  Even at that, the ratio will still favor the publics (7-5).  Who might the candidates be?  I have no idea.  It doesn't really matter.  If we can't find them, we don't expand - period.

The HL is going to look to add the 3 best programs we can and I would be willing to bet that only 2 of the 3 are going to be private.  You might not want another public school in the HL, but you cannot stop it even if you get Detroit to go along with your thinking.  A 7-2 vote is enough to add any team.  You don't have veto power over a school joining the conference unless your school is located within 25 miles of one of the schools that is being voted upon.

That would be a big "gotcha" if I had signed a NLI with Milwaukee.  Does the NCAA give you an out for that?  I doubt if that possibility was in the recruiting literature....  I think they only have one signed NLI, and if I had an offer from UWM would probably be looking somewhere else.  What a recruiting killer.

What is worse is they are loaded with freshmen and sophomores.  According to this link, those players (that aren't the APR problem) can transfer without sitting out a year.  Since they are not UConn, I wouldn't be surprised to sea an Exodus (okay that was a bad pun- but hey tis the season).

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7720137/alex-oriakhi-transfer-connecticut-huskies-ncaa-tournament-ban

UWM only has to worry about their current junior class because they have one year left of eligibility.  UWM will only be banned from post season play next year.  If you read the article closely, it states that the NCAA grants waivers for athletes to transfer if their previous school is ineligible for the postseason for the length of the players' eligibility.    Current freshmen and sophomores at UWM who decide to transfer will have to sit out next year because they don't qualify for the waiver.