Messages

One thing I don't understand is the concept of Valpo losing business over the mascot. As far as I know no one is not coming to Valpo because of the Crusader. Is there any data to support that Valpo is losing out on students because of a mascot?

If no one is choosing or not choosing to go to Valpo because of the mascot, then why does it matter whether it gets changed or not?

plus he's critical of things like lack of practice time at the tournament

We had the same amount of practice time as everyone else, we just chose not to use it.  I found that response by him to be very unsatisfying.

Yes, that one forward (Bullock?) 8-10 years ago was a beast.  I bet he got the tryout with the Jets.  Can't remember his name for sure.

J'Nathan

News flash: This was reported and talked about 6 months ago prior to or near the beginning of the season.  It was asked and answered then.

I know he was there a number of years  before they went D-1.

Yep.  His team lost to then-D II Northern Kentucky a few times in the NCAA tourney.

If I had my way it would have been in Indy because I don't think it should be in any school's back yard (I think Chicago would be as bad as Detroit on that count).  But, location is not that big of an issue to me.

I believe that "King" K is the only coach OU has had since they started their men's b-ball program.  Not sure though.

I believe that is incorrect.  He's the only coach they've had as a Division I team, that much is true.  I do not know the names of any of the coaches that came before him.

An interesting proposal of how to help the Best Mid-Major Teams not suffer from their own Conference Tournaments. Would have helped Valpo last year.

https://twitter.com/JonSolomonCBS/status/840205692275437568

I read the transcript of the podcast where he talked about this, and I thought at least one part of it was an absolute joke.  I also question whether his idea would really result in that outcome or not.  I feel like he was just flailing at best (and carrying water for the power conference teams at worst).  He complained that Duke and UNC can't play everybody every year, as if that's what anybody is asking them to do.  To say nothing of obscuring a very real and far less legitimate (though far more popular and applauded) response to the tune of "We have nothing to gain and everything to lose."

If I'm missing the gems with Bilas, so be it.  I just can't get past the smugness for some reason.

They showed on the video board that Jim Tressel (YSU president & former Ohio State football coach) was at the HLT and I think he must have talked to the YSU AD and they agreed that there is much potential for growth of the YSU basketball program after they knocked off Oakland in the tournament. I wonder if Tressel had ever seen that kind of excitement in the student body before outside of YSU football. I bet they asked Slocum if he was ready to take the program to a higher level and he decided this was as good as time as ever to retire.

I'm pretty sure Tressel was sitting in the row right in front of me and several seats to my right.  The face was a dead-ringer.  I wasn't positive, and didn't try to confirm.

Might I suggest that the biggest way for there to be improvement in the basketball program is for the athletic department as a whole to pay a little more attention to them in the budgeting process.  Slocum retired, which is how I always figured it would be.  He's done his time coaching basketball at an FCS football school.  Maybe when they get the payout for their run to the title game this year they can funnel some of that money to the basketball program to help with recruiting, etc.

I know I'm in the minority, but I always liked Gary (except when he was beating my team).  He was abrasive at times, but was brutally honest and never backed down from anyone.  He would fight you tooth and nail, then compliment you after the game.  A true competitor.  His 2009 team embodied his personality and was one of the toughest teams I've ever seen in the Horizon.  I hope he enjoys his retirement.

Those early (in Valpo years) teams were the ones that intimidated me more than any other HL team, including Butler.  One of his guys got a serious tryout with the NY Jets, for crying out loud   I'm still amazed that we could scare them in the semifinals like we did in 2008.

I presume it will come as no surprise that outside of that turd of a game we played Saturday night, I had a blast in Detroit.

My absolute favorite game was NKU vs. Wright State.  That game was breathtakingly exciting.  I also thought most of it was played at a fairly high level.  There were stretches when I almost got whiplash looking over at one of my friends with my best "Holy crap, did you see that play!" look, only to find the same look on their faces.

YSU-Oakland might have been just as entertaining, but I don't remember having quite the same reaction while it was going on.  Maybe it was because I expected Cameron Morse to have a big night.  I did *not* expect such a monster performance from Grant Benzinger.

I also enjoyed the UIC-GB game for a number of reasons (my irrational grudge against Turner Botz no doubt figured into the mix).  It too had a lot of excitement.

And frankly, I was impressed by Milwaukee - except against us - the entire tournament.  Part of me wanted them to win so I could see them play in Dayton, but I'm fine with NKU as well.  They really impressed me.

I needed all that excitement on Sunday-Tuesday to wash away the turmoil in my mind over Saturday night, but the source of that turmoil was not the same as it was for some of you.

I heard Luke Gore talk about how the Valpo men declined to come a day early and have their shootaround to get familiar with JLA (and learned that we'd made the same decision last year).  Someone indicated that Matt Lottich mentioned this too in his postgame press conference.

My initial reaction was: WTF?  Why would we not jump at the chance to practice on the floor we'd be playing on (since we then complained about it after the game was over)?

I really still do not understand this decision, which was a Valpo decision, not an HL decision.  I really did not know what to think as I walked back to my hotel.  A lot of mindless speculation flooded into my head which I'm not going to regurgitate here because I don't feel like I have the full story.  But I'm waiting to hear it, because I think it's important - not that there's anything magical about spending a half hour on the floor translating into winning the title, mind you, but because it seems like such a mysterious decision that I can't help wonder if there's something else going on.  By the way, NKU also did not use their shootaround time, and they did just fine, so I'm not pinning Valpo's loss on that.

But after Sunday night, the questions remained, but the turmoil was gone.  I really needed that evening session to cure the blues.

zvillehaze, I want you to know that I have remained consistent all these years since 2008: I loathe the double-bye/home court advantage format.  Always have, always will   I won't inflict all the gory details of my position again since I've done it several times.

All in all, I had a blast.  And except for the end zones, the lower bowl was fairly full Tuesday night.  Milwaukee and NKU both brought a lot of fans.  Somehow on Sunday night the "emptiness" of the stands totally escaped my attention - since I was there to watch the games and not the fans.  Maybe it was all the noise the measly crowd managed to make as Grant Benzinger was hitting 3s from downtown with 3 guys draped all over him.  Who knows.

I hope next year, Valpo commits to tourney prep a little more than they have so far.

Classy responses from them.  I have been impressed with NKU and their team.  They have a bright future. 

I was very impressed with their arena too.  The fans I sat with were knowledgeable about Valpo's team.  The guy next to me recognized what I was saying when I pointed out to him that although it continues to amaze me how often the home run play works, in this game our usual "QB" on that play was not in there (AP).

I understand your point, but I disagree with your statement that the tournament decides who the "best" team is.

I never said that.  Tournament decides the champion, not who the best team is.  There is no way to determine who the best team is.  That's my whole point.

Or that an 18 game regular season is a small sample size, but a few games on a neutral court isn't, and decides ultimately who the best team is.

Once again, never said either of those things.

I think it's a little absurd to think Green Bay was the best team in the league last year because they shot really well vs Valpo in one game. Green Bay was 1-2 vs Valpo and significantly behind them in pretty much every metric that ranks teams.

Green Bay wasn't the best team last year.  They were the champion.

The moral game with an even playing field is nice and all, but mid majors aren't given a fair shake.
Vanderbilt can lose to a crappy SEC bottom feeder in their tournament, but a good mid major can't lose at all. Ultimately the SEC program can get away with losing in the first round of their conference, but it's still all roses on selection Sunday. And hey, when they put on a pathetic show on national TV, they can always pouch a top mid major basketball coach from a team that did more with way less.

Now you're just stealing my rant.

For the good of the conference, I could care less about playing fair, and leveling the teams out. The conference goes as the best teams go. Without NCAA tournament wins, there's not much sell to the conference, and I'm still trying to grasp why it's in the best interest of the conference to level things out again.

Once again: for the purpose of this debate, we don't know with high enough confidence who the best team is.  And again, if we did, I would be against having a conference tournament at all.

Alec has been hammered this season and been playing injured since the Green Bay game, which adds more light to this comment by his father a couple of weeks ago.


[tweet]830652515968548864[/tweet]

While we're still in a salty mood, I also remember how Turner Botz got whistled for absolutely nothing on that play.  Max Joseph committed the same foul in the 2nd half and they called it.  I turned to the older Green Bay fan couple behind me and pointed out that Botz should have been whistled for the same thing, and they both agreed.

I'll be in Detroit supporting Valpo wherever they play and enjoying myself. I've traveled there before and it's not the end of the world and not the horrible place that you want to think that Detroit is. Downtown Detroit IS enjoyable!

I heartily concur.

I would rather the tournament be at the O-rena because Oakland tied for the best record and won both games head-to-head. They deserve it. The conference had a very good format before last season and broke it by doing the agreement to play in JLA and then the new arena in Detroit.

I completely agree. The atmosphere would be electric for home fans and visitors alike.

Now, let me ask Grizz a question. How would you feel about the move to a "neutral" site if it were Indianapolis, IN or Columbus, OH or Chicago on a Tuesday night instead of down the road in Detroit. How would you feel about 400 Oakland fans at your championship game instead of 4000?  That's what 8 of 10 fan bases are left with.

He already answered that question.

but if it was decided this summer, in a year we think we are going to be very good, I'm sure our fan base would be upset.

And our fan base would be scolding you over it.

I have no doubt both would be true.

If I had my druthers, I'd put the tournament where no team's fanbase would have a travel advantage

Simple answer go to Las Vegas. They already have the PAC-12, MWC, WCC and WAC. They could easily fit us in.

I'm reminded of the Big Sky, who has their conference tournament in Reno, NV, even though there isn't a singe Big Sky team in Nevada and the conference powers (Weber St, Montana) have 10 hour drives from campus just to get there. That said, it isn't well attended and I think it's in the best interest of the conference (any conference) to have as many interested fans at the tournament as possible.

Hence, you go where someone wants you.  Olympia wanted us, they ponied up (I guess), so that's where it is.

I actually like the logic of rewarding top finishes with extra perks in conference tournament ... up to a point:

1. The 2 seed has always gotten screwed in the old format - no home games unless #1 loses in semis
2. There's just a bit of a small-sample size problem that ruins it all for me - 18 games is nowhere near enough to decide who the best team is, at least not enough to go around handing out a double-bye AND home court advantage.

My problem with the previous format is purely philosophical.  I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Valpo host 3 out of 4 years, you can count on that.  But I also hated the first round.  I am in that small minority that is not the least bit interested in sitting at home and watching these games on TV or my computer (and especially trying to watch 4 games at once on Tuesday night - go away with that crap).

If I had my druthers, I'd put the tournament where no team's fanbase would have a travel advantage, but it'll never happen, and I don't care enough about the "injustice" to get upset about it.  I thoroughly enjoyed the tournament last year, except for the double-bye which I also have always viewed as excessive.  Of course it was a bummer that we lost, but overall I thought it was a great tournament.

It should be noted that I don't care what it looked like on TV or how many fans were in attendance.  Those are other people's problems, not mine.  I go to watch 5-on-5, not the fans.

If we could definitively prove who the best team in the conference is, then I would be against the conference tournament and for just sending that team.  All of which is to say that I think this "rewarding" the best team idea is ridiculous.  We have conference tournaments precisely because we don't know who the best team is.  If we knew who it was, we wouldn't need the tournament.

The fact is, it's always going to be in a city with close ties to one or more HL schools.  And jealousy swings both ways (technically it's the haves who are "jealous"; the have nots are "envious") - if Oakland had been the standard bearer for 4 years and was looking at building a dynasty and suddenly the HL office decided to move to a neutral site somewhere in Chicago, the Oakland fan base would include plenty of whiners who sound just like we do -- and we'd be over there telling *them* to grow a pair.

I understand the frustration.  I felt a bit of it too when the shift was announced, even as I agreed with the move.  Fans who are used to winning get like this.  It happens everywhere.  Fans who are constantly chasing winning teams think those fans are the absolute worst in the world.

And it's all relative.

I heard about the insanity going on over here from an Oakland fan I interact with on twitter.  And I told him this is a common phenomenon in sports.  I get twitchy anytime I perceive that a fanbase is being singled out.  I live in St. Louis and root for the Cardinals, so I've had some experience with this.  As if no other fanbases have their fair share of racist, homophobic fans like Cardinals fans do (Please).

I like the new setup.  I like it as a basketball junkie - I think being at the game beats watching it on TV to the nth degree.  I like it from a competitive standpoint.

And I also think that the problems the HL face, while somewhat self-inflicted, are also problems shared by the lower 26 entirely and need to be solved at the NCAA level rather than by us using gimmicks as band-aids.  I'd like to see the NCAA reform non-conference scheduling and do something about all the power conference snow-flakes and their politically correct scheduling.  They hold the rest of us in chains in November and December and we end up fighting over the at-large scraps that fall from the master's table.  Deplorable.  Sad!

Wow, it's been awhile since I stopped by here.

As one who also lost his   in the Valpo fan section during that 2nd half (Count on it, I will always be at the Valpo-Oakland game at the O'Rena), I have since seen a GIF of the play, and the leg kick was not momentum.  I am told, and find it believable, that the Oakland player was anticipating a rebound and that's why he landed on top of Tevonn.  It all happened very quickly.  Moreover, Tevonn didn't give him a chance to back away.

To be honest, I figure the frustration from that afternoon and the frustration of the game so far may have boiled over in Tevonn.  I think the leg kick was instinctive, but it was intentional.  If I had no problem with Bobby's ejection 4 years ago at Calihan, I can't have any problem with Tevonn's ejection.  Both Kampe and the OU player after the game shrugged it off with no hard feelings.

I do have a problem with them diagnosing the trip of Tevonn as a non-shooting foul.  We absolutely should have gotten free throws on that.  And technically, OU did get penalized - their player was charged with a foul (it didn't matter, of course; he didn't foul out).

I thought Peters got tripped with no call, and there were a few other outrageous calls that had me fuming.

That game sucked mainly because Oakland dominated us twice this year.  They're not our little brother any more.  That's life.

But, here's a fan etiquette question. Is it not a thing in basketball to wait for a timeout, or at least a dead ball, before moving around the seating area? That's gospel in baseball, and probably hockey, right?

Can't speak about hockey, but having been to many baseball games, it's a gospel that's NEVER EVER FOLLOWED.

I'm even more alone in my position than you are, because I also frown on standing up unless the people behind you are standing up (during the game).

We're dinosaurs, apparently

Just showing your age. If the young people today can't put down their iphones to actually look at you when you're speaking to them do you think they care that they are blocking your view at a sporting event?

Au Contraire.  I get yelled at for not understanding what a basketball game is.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I know the term "statistically safe lead" has been thrown around this board somewhat. I don't know how one determines what "statistically safe" is, but I've always thought that the rule of thumb is to multiply the number of minutes left in the game by 3 (5 minutes * 3 = 15 points) and if your lead is less than that product, it's too early to start stalling.

Not quite

Team A is leading Team B by X points with Y seconds remaining:

1. Subtract 3 from X
2. If Team A has the ball, add 0.5; if Team B has the ball, subtract 0.5
3. Square the result of (1 and 2)
4. If the result in (3) is > Y, then the lead is statistically safe.

Valpo never had a statistically safe lead on Sunday, if I remember right.

But, here's a fan etiquette question. Is it not a thing in basketball to wait for a timeout, or at least a dead ball, before moving around the seating area? That's gospel in baseball, and probably hockey, right?

Can't speak about hockey, but having been to many baseball games, it's a gospel that's NEVER EVER FOLLOWED.

I'm even more alone in my position than you are, because I also frown on standing up unless the people behind you are standing up (during the game).

We're dinosaurs, apparently

I do want to give props to Mark Alstork. He's been watching a lot of LeBron film...his flopping might be tops in the league.

Also, did anyone else see Lottich giving the ref the business when they wouldn't review Tevonn getting grabbed by the face and thrown aside? This was right after they reviewed the play looking to see if Walker elbowed Flopstork under the basket.

LOL, and Justin Kinnear (covers WSU) went ballistic on twitter when they didn't give Tevonn a flagrant on that play.

That is an awesome story as told by Champagne. He thought Phil Wille was a foreign player who would back down? Just think if he had gone after Vilcinckas!

As for video, I doubt if that game was televised. I'm pretty sure it was a Saturday afternoon and it was the day that Homer missed the game because he had some heart pains and his doctor made him go to the hospital. So it was the first time that Scott was the head coach for a game and they hammered Oakland. I remember Lubos Barton saying, maybe off the record at the time, "See how we play for Scott?"

I remember watching it on TV, so I do think it was televised.  It might have even been the FSN Mid-Con game of the week, though maybe not.