Messages

It's unfortunate that this is so divisive.  I'll be glad when we're talking about games and go back to debating NCAA seedings like we did years ago.

I'm admittedly not part of the pro-dog group.  I think that my problem is that I like to wear VU stuff to the games, and I have a hard time picturing the image of those dogs on the front of my sweatshirt(s).

I'll be curious as to whether the university goes all in, and puts those on a lot of the gear.  If they do, I'll be curious as to the sales numbers.  If sales are booming my fellow anti-doggers and me will need to re-think.  People tend to vote with their money.

I think it will be tough going for awhile before we start landing quality transfers that don't have a direct connection to the coaching staff. Despite Roger's charisma and good name, we're still a train wreck until we're not. I can imagine a lot of players not wanting to be part of a complete rebuild, especially if they only have 1 year to shine.

Agreed.  Even Powell is playing down expectations for the first year.  At least he's managing expectations, which is an art in and of itself.

[spot.]

St. John's was 8-11 in 21-22 which is the season referred to. Their issue was not offense. It was defense. They led the Big East in scoring but were towards the bottom in points allowed.

Gonzaga is currently such a different animal than, not only Valpo, but most major programs. In the year referenced they shot over 40% from three point land in conference and 37% overall. Some of that is the structure of the offense but a lot of it is that the roster is full of guys who can shoot and get to their spot to take the shot quickly. It's going to take a monumental effort to get Valpo to that spot.

RP has experience with several 'spots' that I wouldn't mind landing on.  The spot that the Illini were in when he played there; the spot Valpo was in when he was there, and the spot Gonzaga was in when he was there. 

Maybe he could overlook the Nashville 'spot'.

Gonzaga has just announced a terrific incoming transfer class of Steele Venters, Ryan Nembhard, and Graham Ike. Apparently, Powell was the lead recruiter of Ike. I am expecting Valpo to see some of the Rev's ability to attract talent on display very soon as well.

Forget past references about Valpo as "the Harvard of the Midwest," perhaps for recruiting purposes it is time to label VU under Powell as "the Gonzaga of the Midwest."

Respectfully, these types of references have always bothered me.  I'd rather Valpo be the best Valpo, rather than the second best [somebody else].

I think that if Valpo were to thrive, it may need to take on a disruptive culture, which would suggest not following the path of anyone else.

MLB posted outside of that thread from time to time.  I recall one time posting on scheduling.  So, I second your request, but note that he can post anywhere on the board.  If nothing else, it once gave us solace that he was listening.

I'm not sure everybody wanted to hear what Mark actually said in his office. He said a lot of the people on this board where just "plain wrong" and made up a lot of their information. Although he never gave additional details that he hadn't posted to this message board already.

I'm sure MLB had good reason to be frustrated with us much of the time.  I think many of us, including myself as a prime example, are out-of-the-know fans.  However, we do know and have opinions on what we see.  Little nudges by way of posts on this board or guest spots with Paul can help push us in the right direction and can build connection.  And few things build connection better than communication.  If the University wants our money and fandom, then it has to build connection.  MLB's small posts from time to time helped that in my opinion.  I think that the new leadership should do something similar.  I don't expect much, but little things help.

MLB posted outside of that thread from time to time.  I recall one time posting on scheduling.  So, I second your request, but note that he can post anywhere on the board.  If nothing else, it once gave us solace that he was listening.

[The coach with MVC experience is the one I am stumped with]

The name of this thread is call let's speculate not let's recommend assistant coaches. I would not shocked if some of the names mentioned end up the bench. I think he will tap into his Vanderbilt days and Baylor connection. Not sure if a Valpo connection will end up on the bench. The coach with MVC experience is the one I am stumped with.

I think Gregg Marshall is unemployed.

As much as I hate to see Coach Gore go, I have to think that this would probably be the best thing for him.  He likely needs to be around other coaches and systems in order to grow.

He has been an awesome ambassador, and I truly wish the best for him and his family.

Maybe it's to buy out the contracts of those two dogs.

If nothing else, Dr. Small was able to have us put our pitchforks away for a while.

If RJP does turn out to be a good hire (which I hope it is), I hope his contract contains an effective golden handcuff.

I assume that Small & Padilla would not fall for a "name" that makes an immediate headline splash but isn't the right guy for the program and the school.

Even the most anonymous choice won't be for long if he succeeds.

I wonder who turned us down???

I'm curious too, but they may not have turned down the school, but rather the offer.  Might be higher offers elsewhere.

[BOLD]

No one commented on what I put in BOLD. First time, at least for me, that such a statement became public.

Valparaiso
Out: Matt Lottich
A late firing in the process, but one that came after the buyout dropped, I was told. This is a small-time program with a big-time name at that level. A few early candidates have turned Valpo down, but be on the lookout for this job to close in the coming days.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/college-basketball-coaching-changes-2023-texas-penn-state-vcu-and-cal-all-fill-vacancies/

62, I don't know what that bold portion means.  Do you?  I was wondering whether you were surprised that the statement was made public, or that it occurred at all.

Given Padilla's heightened interest in hiring minorities, someone like Greg or Schilling may be at the bottom of the list, if at all. I'd love to see Tonagel get the job and I'm betting that he will. If Schilling was let go early in his contract, does it matter how long he has been coaching?  He would be a bad choice in my view. Greg is squeaky clean.

From an outsider's perspective, I think Just Sayin is spot on regarding the emphasis likely to be placed on diversity in the hiring.  My 'read of the room' is that this is a priority.

If that's right, someone like Tonagel might not be a priority. 

I'm asking this because I don't know the answer, not because I'm suggesting anything.

If there is a financial issue, I wonder if the financially strapped universities can juice their offers with incentives based on financial return of the team.  For example, maybe the lower base-pay offer could include additional payment as a percentage of ticket sales, tv revenue, NCAA tournament payout, etc.

If we have a confident coach with a healthy incentive package, we may be able to 'out bid' other schools only offering guaranteed pay.  Actually, the entire staff should be on an incentive package.

Again, I don't know how it works in college athletics, so simply asking if anyone has insight.

Yes! Not only is it possible, it's actually pretty common to you have incentives built-in to the contract. This can include a variety of things such as -number of wins, postseason awards, academic performance, etc. At Indiana, Archie Miller actually had bonuses reliant on how they finished in RPI or Kenpom. Lots of different ways to get creative.

Thanks mp91.

Obviously, VU would need to find a coach to agree to some sort of incentive-heavy agreement, but I think that could be something that could solve some issues.

First, VU could offer some sort of retention bonus so that stability is incentivized.  For example, there could be a base pay less than Matt's, but could offer, for example, a $500K payment if he stays for 5 years.  There would have to 'termination for cause' and 'good leaver' provisions, but that's not hard.

Second, given the university's financial situation, I'd probably try to tie bonus to financials rather than pure performance. For example, maybe he could get a pro rata bonus paid based on MBB revenue growth.  If the revenue growth is greater than 10% for each year, then he would 'be in the money'. Could say that revenue growth over 10% would result in receiving percentage of base pay up to a maximum of, say 50%.  They could set that max at something like 20% revenue growth.  So, if he gets paid, say $300K, then under my example, he would get an additional $150K annually if MBB revenue grows by 20% each year.  The benefit of this would be that high pay could be easier to justify to other staff who are not highly paid.  Maybe they would want to go on an incentive program for their own compensation.

Third, there could also be other incentives based on W/L (only for Div 1 W's), but again these incentives may need to be secondary, but might be easier to understand for most coaches.

Again, there might not be many coaches that would agree on such things, but it would help get a quality coach for less up-front payment.  A Div II coach would likely jump on this (and the incentives would lose effect) simply because the base pay is already more than they make.  So, my thinking is geared more toward someone who would have other Div 1 offers from more attractive positions simply so that VU"s offer becomes potentially more lucrative.

Just some thoughts.

I'm asking this because I don't know the answer, not because I'm suggesting anything.

If there is a financial issue, I wonder if the financially strapped universities can juice their offers with incentives based on financial return of the team.  For example, maybe the lower base-pay offer could include additional payment as a percentage of ticket sales, tv revenue, NCAA tournament payout, etc.

If we have a confident coach with a healthy incentive package, we may be able to 'out bid' other schools only offering guaranteed pay.  Actually, the entire staff should be on an incentive package.

Again, I don't know how it works in college athletics, so simply asking if anyone has insight.

Ideally, all of the coaches would receive offers from other universities so that their new salary would off-set buy-outs.

Maybe new positions are being explored now, and that's what is going on behind the scenes.

Valpo22, I agree with all of that.

But, simply I think that your thinking is unfortunate (no reflection on you).  Seems that there is a lack of confidence as to the leadership being able to capably make a commitment that requires a significant allocation of revenue where there is risk (i.e., all of your 'what-ifs').

My own (very uneducated) view is that there is a cultural issue in leadership that has resulted in recent failures.  It will take a lot to change that, and it is very unfortunate that VU is where it is.  But the current issues have resulted in pessimism common in posts like yours.

It's very unfortunate.

Valpo22, I get your point, but, I disagree with your analogy below a little bit.  The expenditure on a new coaching staff, while paying the existing is not like buying a toy, although I imagine that the non-sports fan portion of the VU Family would view it that way.  Rather, I view it as an investment.  Theoretically, an improved coaching staff would lead to more wins, and some prospective students would elect to come to VU, and there would be greater tickets sales and TV coverage.  Maybe your analogy should have been that the teen is throwing a fit because they weren't allowed to use their money for a new car for their Uber job.  Theoretically, the new car would lead to better revenue, but there is still an affordability problem.  I think a replacement of the coaching staff is simply a B/C ratio.  I imagine that the internal VU dispute is on the 'B'.

i just don't get how pitching a fit over Valpo not dropping $700K on a buy-out right now is helpful. it's like a teenager throwing a fit because they don't get an Xbox for Christmas when the parents were just trying to make sure there was a ham and electricity on for Christmas eve. if Valpo can't afford it, Valpo can't afford it.

VU72, I know the discussion is very superficial, and is not inclusive all factors.  Nonetheless, I do point out a factor that I think must also be considered.  If there is a change, the revenue recovery is not guaranteed, nor will it be immediate.  However, your thinking can possibly still be justified with a present value calculation based on projected improvement.

I'm out of my lane here, so any 'numbers guys' on the board should feel free to correct me.

I wonder whether the school has an analysis that shows the difference in revenue, either through enrollment, ticket sales, shirt sales, TV revenue, etc., as between a winning MBB program and a losing MBB program. 

Where I'm going with this is: I wonder whether the cost of NOT making a change is greater than the sunk cost of making a change.

To be clear, I have no idea, so not suggesting one way or the other.

Apologies, didn't mean to insinuate that you were dissing.  Rather, I was agreeing with you.

The problem is that it can get much worse.  It may get worse if something is not done to change course.

VU could drop to single digit wins with a still-declining enrollment.  The problem will be harder to correct then.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, thinking that another result will come.

62, on that note, I would point out that most agree that there is no nefarious or scandalous issue at hand, and we should be thankful for that.  So, things could be worse.  Valpo could be in a pre-Drew Baylor situation or a Pitino - Louisville situation, or be in a situation where sanctions are imminent.  VU's only problem is deterioration.  Character and integrity of the program is still intact.  We can thank the current staff for being a good caretaker of that.

Simply pointing out that Matt has done a good job in some respects, and should lauded for that.   

VU72, do you know whether the endowment decrease was simply market valuation loss?

If we assume that MBB is a draw for new and returning students, then MBB could be seen as an enrollment investment.  However, that would only come from improved W/L.  A coaching change now very likely would not result in W/L improvement for a few years.  That would not address the "Now" problem in 72's note above.  However, not making a change simply (in my uneducated opinion) kicks the can down the road.

I would imagine that the University has a lot of tough decisions ahead that will make today's decisions pale.