Messages

23, if you think the thread is a waste of time, then don't read it.

It may give others enjoyment to participate in these exercises.

Thanks for correcting me Historyman.  My point is still the same, but was better stated by Valpopal.

Playing the three worst teams in the conference three games in a row results in a three game winning streak.  I'm glad that they won.  But, for now there needs to be wins against other teams in the conference, otherwise, Valpo is simply the best of the Thursday teams, which should not be the goal for the year, or long term.

Commenting on the chicken & egg analogy:

I think the team should focus on winning first.  If large crowds were attracted because of something other than a good game, they will be turned off by the performance on the court, and then not return once the promotion is complete.  Then it will be harder to get them to come back.  So, first need excitement on the court, then promotions.  Can't let up on either after that.

I also want to thank those who attended for their observations.  I did not attend.

I'm curious as to whether 'top half' is a metric conveyed to the current coaching staffs (including MBB) as a threshold for continued employment.

I would hate for a new staff for MBB to be told 'top half' is sufficient for continued employment. To be honest, I could be sold on consistent top third or fourth.

Pretty sad when slightly above average (i.e., mediocrity) is the goal.  Does anyone know whether mediocrity is the goal for academics?  Doesn't seem like a formula for success for an institution with above average costs of attendance.

I would love to see trend lines across all measures of team performance (WL%, conf. W/L%, Athlete GPA, national rankings (RPI, KenPom, etc.), attendance, etc.).  Some of those trend lines may be up or down, but so would be the national average (e.g., attendance, number of transfers, etc.).  In those cases, it might be informative to compare to the national average as a baseline.

After we have all of the trend lines, and compared with relative base lines, then determine whether the program over Lottich's tenure is trending in the right direction.  I tend to think that it's not, but haven't seen any comprehensive study.  (No reason for me to see it, as I'm nobody important.).  My simple way of doing that is to do a linear extrapolation.

If the trends are mostly good, then no reason to change.  If not good, then there should be a change.  Frankly, I don't see a reason to wait.  Budget issues would get worse with waiting longer.  Bad news does not age well when trend lines point down.  The only argument for not making a change in case of poor trending would be that the trends are acceptable to the University board because it no longer values MBB the way that it was valued in the past.

Those trends, if evaluated correctly, would account for things such as one bad loss and COVID.

If these studies have been collected and presented, apologies for missing.

I typically abhor when the board incorporates political or quasi-political conversations.  But I'm going to do that.  When I first saw the mascots, my first reaction was that the University has followed 'woke' trends at the nationwide university level by coming up with completely sanitized mascots, devoid of any possible flare or gutsy character.  When reading the descriptions of Beacon and Blaize (which for my generation is a typical stripper's name), the thing that I noticed is that they gave each a genderless name, and omitted any references to gender.  Complete issue du jour sanitization.  These two things are guaranteed to neither impress nor offend anyone, or to endear any following.

When I showed my wife the picture of the dogs on the website, she busted out laughing, and it took me about five minutes to convince her that it wasn't a joke.

I later determined that she was right all along.  It is a joke. I just wish it were funny.

In trying to think of something positive to say, I can honestly say that this team is very well balanced - they're absolutely terrible in every facet.  It's hard to pick whether the offense or defense is more terrible than the other, since both are repugnant.

I'm not wowed by the name or logo, but I'm sure there are some who will like it.

My only comment is on the logo.  In the US, people read from left to right, so things pointing to the right typically equate to looking forward.  In the new logo, it seems that the beacon of light is looking backward.  One would think that a logo that is supposed to be a move forward would be forward looking.

I would love to hear Commissioner Doug Elgin's thoughts about the social and economic impact the Coronavirus pandemic could have on the future of college athletics, especially our flagship sport, and more specifically on how the "new normal" may impact Missouri Valley Conference program budgets, attendance, NCAA tournament revenue sharing, scheduling philosophy, etc., etc.

Could not agree with WH's request more.  I would simply add, that in discussions on the same topic, might be helpful to have someone from VU athletics, even if they have been on the show before.  I'm sure that, at this point, discussions on 20/21 sports is very speculative, and I think we understand that, but would still be nice to hear perspective.

As for past players, I think it might be interesting to hear from Ben Boggs, as he was part of a couple of different eras in different roles.

Throwing another monkey wrench into this business... Talked last night to the owner of the Fort Wayne Komets ECHL Hockey team.  He told me that there will be seating restrictions in the Allen County War Memorial Coliseum at the start of next season. Attendance will be capped at 4,500 people with seats only sold 6 feet apart. I had heard that something like this might be enforced on the College football venues. If something like this is enacted for CBB then this would definitely affect buy games, reducing game revenue significantly.  What would the capacity of the ARC be under these restrictions? Does the number of Season Ticket Holders increase or decrease under this scenario? Does the "boomer crowd" stay away because of the expected October second wave and the health concerns that might bring? All of this could dramatically affect scheduling.

This raises a lot of interesting questions.  One that came first to my mind was: if you have a venue (in any sport) like the ARC and the entire lower bowl is season ticketholders that typically renew every year, how do you tell half to two-thirds of them that they cannot renew their season tickets?  For basketball and hockey, may have to say: "no season tickets until 1/1/21" or, "no season tickets at all for 2020/2021".  For CFB and NFL, may look a little different. 

I wonder how many would-be transfers are waiting for rule change on immediate eligibility.  If that rule change is delayed, it may be causing a delay. 

Seems like the total number of transfers across the country is way, way down,

Ag
Not sure about way way down!  Were at 493 now.  Christopher Agbo from Indiana State is transferring. That bring the Valley total to 9.

When did I say that?  Think you attribute the quote incorrectly.

That's from my post.  I can't remember the exact numbers, but I thought that last year the total was over 1000 transfers, or at least 3 per school.  At 493, it's less than half of last year.  Granted it's a little early, but season is over nonetheless.

Just curious because I don't know how recruiting and transferring works - but is the transfer network shut down with the rest of the economy.  In other words, when things start happening again, will there be a flood of transfers.  Seems like the total number of transfers across the country is way, way down, and I assume that this is related to the shutdown.  If the country-wide 'timeout' goes too long, do would-be transfers say "too late now, I'll stay where I'm at for now"?  I guess I'm just curious as to what the summer transfer list looks like, assuming things start to veer toward 'normal'.

[any]

It wouldn't be the end of the world if any of our bench players transferred. I'd be open to getting a grad transfer to add to what should be a good team. Post player would be nice

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Not sure that I'd like to see Sackey or Krikke go.

Assuming the major puzzle pieces stay in tact - which I think they will - success for the 20/21 season definitely means

1. We are top 2 in the league. Maybe top 3-4 at worst depending on the parity and how things shake out.

2. Defend our home court. Less than 3 losses on the season at home. 1 or less loss at home in conference.

3. Advance to the mvc championship game and play well. Ideally get an NCAA birth.

I basically agree with Golden's benchmarks.

Looking purely at trajectory, then I think that 11-7 seems realistic (6 wins first year, 7 following year, 9 wins this year, then 2 more wins results in 11-7).  Based on this past year's standings, that would put VU tied for third place.  Since we were 10th place first year, 9th last year, and tied for 6th this year, moving to tied for 3rd or 4th place, again, seems realistic.

However, I would add one more benchmark, which is dramatically harder to measure.  I think that culture was significantly better this year.  I'm hoping that culture continues to improve.  A couple of signs of that improvement this year is how much more enjoyable games were to watch, and how much more the fans on this board have embraced the team throughout the course of the year, even after losses.  For the most part, we complained about the coach, but not the players.  I don't remember anyone complaining about negative attitudes like we've done in the past couple of years.

So, agreed with all three of Golden's points, but add a fourth for culture with simply an 'up' arrow.

Looking at this from a purely numbers standpoint, on average, 3+ players will transfer from every Div 1 team in the country.  I think that we should view it as a positive accomplishment for the program if less than 3 transfer. 

Hoping and thinking that the deep run into the MVC tournament helps.

Does anyone know why Morgan has not played much?  With Javon obviously not 100%, seems that Morgan would be getting at least a couple of minutes here and there.

It seems that Kiser, Clay, Javon, and Sackey will start to be a little gassed tonight.  Also seems that Morgan, Gordon, Mileek, and Krikke shouldn't have fatigue issues, and could be really important.

[They beat us, we beat them]

Looks like everyone is gun shy to start a thread for this game. But what the heck, let's get this thing going. They beat us, we beat them. Now it's time to see who is going to advance. Going on less than three hours of sleep so I don't know if I'm still dreaming, but if I am don't wake me. Go Valpo!
https://twitter.com/AlBillets/status/1236274303831859202

Valpo has beaten every team remaining in the tournament, so they have just as good of a chance of winning out as anyone left.   Should be no confidence issues. 

Another 18 point comeback.  They sure know how to do it.  Don't know how to find it but I'm will to say we lead the NCAA and have the most 16+ comebacks.   

I was thinking about this in a little bit different way, and was trying to figure out what the stat would be.  It seems that if NCAA kept a stat for most cumulative points overcome in a season or conference play, Valpo would surely be leading the entire NCAA by a large margin.  It's the story of this season.  Seems that Valpo would average over 10 points overcome per game.  I can't imagine many teams come close to that.

Todd had a great opening comment to Gore to start the post-game interview, and it says it all: "When you were down by 18, you had them right where you wanted 'em."

I like the underdog win as much as anyone, but this drubbing of UNI was not good for the league.  No way they get at-large consideration.  Had they made it to Sunday, then could still be in the discussion.  Now, MVC is definitely a one-bid league, which hurts from a marketing standpoint and a financial standpoint.

As has been discussed before, the parity in the conference this year and last year make for exciting games, but doesn't do much for the league on Selection Sunday.

I like that any team can beat any other team at any time.  However, I'd also like to see a couple of teams in the tournament.  If the parity each year continues, then all of the teams are simply going to need better performances in the non-con.

As it stands now, in order to get recognition and money, we need our lone representative to win at least two games.  No easy task.

1314, I disagree with that.  "Fine" should not be good enough.  Satisfaction with 2nd or 3rd option should not be "fine." 

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but trying to have more of an urgent sense of getting to the top of the league.

Let's not forget that this young man has yet to play one minute of college basketball. He'll be on a team that has some established and up and coming players, one of whom is already an all conference performer. Thus, for a freshman to be the 2nd or 3rd option is very reasonable.

I can agree to an extent, but I'd rather have a roster of Clay's and Krikke's than Freese-Villen's.  I guess I'm just looking more for a pressuring mindset. 

I think that we are very lucky to have 2 of what I would call exceptional freshman this year. Finding just one recruit per year that has the potential to be a starter 3 out of the 4 (hopefully) years they are in your program is really killing it on the recruiting trail.  The 2019 recruiting class has gone above and beyond what I expected.  In evaluating Krikke last year from some of the highlights we saw, I thought he might struggle with the speed of the US college game, but I think he is quicker than I had thought and has adjusted very well as the season progressed. Don't have to talk much about Clay, his play speaks for him. I think the the 2020 class has similar potential. Sheldon Edwards appears to be just a flat out scorer who, much like JFL and Clay, enjoys playing hard nose defense and has an extra year of maturity. We know about Jacob Ognacevic's achievements, but we really don't know about his potential. Is he even close to Sam Dekker (the player his coach and others have compared him)? If he is just 75% of Sam Dekker we probably have a good MVC player. The interesting question mark really is Connor Barrett. Not much out there this year with him playing at Brewster Academy (one of the top Basketball Prep Schools, last years national prep champions) with a bunch of high major recruits. The things we do know is that he has grown 3 inches in the last 18 months, has taken this year to get more mature and has a great looking stroke with a quick release. I can't help but think that he and Edwards come into the program next year more ready to play at this level because of the extra year. I agree with Tarrance Price and Chris Sparks' improving assessment of the program and these 2020 recruits appear to be another step in the right direction.

I think we're all on the same page:

1.  We want all current eligible players to stay, develop, and get better.  They are a group of guys that we enjoy watching, top to bottom.  And, they are great ambassadors for the program.
2.  The incoming class seems to have a lot of promise.  Incredible scoring chops. All are excited to see them come in.
3.  1 + 2 = continuous improvement for the team, such that we can and should expect continually increasing win percentage and funner games to watch going forward.

1314, I disagree with that.  "Fine" should not be good enough.  Satisfaction with 2nd or 3rd option should not be "fine." 

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but trying to have more of an urgent sense of getting to the top of the league.

Let's not forget that this young man has yet to play one minute of college basketball. He'll be on a team that has some established and up and coming players, one of whom is already an all conference performer. Thus, for a freshman to be the 2nd or 3rd option is very reasonable.

I can agree to an extent, but I'd rather have a roster of Clay's and Krikke's than Freese-Villen's.  I guess I'm just looking more for a pressuring mindset. 

1314, I disagree with that.  "Fine" should not be good enough.  Satisfaction with 2nd or 3rd option should not be "fine." 

Not trying to sound like a jerk, but trying to have more of an urgent sense of getting to the top of the league.

The fun thing about college basketball tournaments is that they rarely go the way they're supposed to go.

Glad they actually play the games.