Messages

[I believe Steve Helm, who is on the mission, is going to be playing on an academic scholarship so we won't have to burn one on him]

So, assuming no transfers, is the roster full for next year? 

I think that there are three coming in:

Sheldon Edwards
Jacob Ognacevic
Connor Barnett

Also, is the guy on the mission (can't remember name) coming back next year?

Is that right?

We had an open scholarship so we'll fill up all 3 with the incoming freshman. I believe Steve Helm, who is on the mission, is going to be playing on an academic scholarship so we won't have to burn one on him

Just asking for my own education,

Does it matter what kind of scholarship that he gets?  What is to stop a team from awarding academic scholarships to extra players, and then having them "walk on"?  Seems like an unscrupulous team could have 18 people on the bench, with all being on scholarship 13-athletic, and 5-academic.  Seems like a team would be limited to 13 scholarships, regardless of what kind they are.

So, assuming no transfers, is the roster full for next year? 

I think that there are three coming in:

Sheldon Edwards
Jacob Ognacevic
Connor Barnett

Also, is the guy on the mission (can't remember name) coming back next year?

Is that right?

This directed to the podcast hosts.

I enjoy the podcast and really appreciate the enthusiasm for the league that you bring to the show.  Helps us rally around the league as a whole, rather than just our own teams.  I think that pride in the league as a whole was missing for Valpo in the Horizon League. 

Listened to the March to the Arch podcast on the drive in this morning.  They briefly discussed Lottich and the good job that he has done this year, relative to where the program was last spring.  I agree to that extent.  Will be nice to see his ability to build on the accomplishments so far.

Thanks 1314 for hat tipping VU2014, who has brought a lot of information to the board over the years.  Posts have tailed off recently - hope all is well.

Uh oh... We're in trouble aren't we?

As for missing JFL we played extremely well without him. Maybe, because of his hype and great athletic ability, we depend too much on him to carry the game for us.

Maybe playing without JFL for this game is something that was just what the doctor ordered for this team.  They need to be able to do well without him when he needs to sit, or fouls out.  Possibly, this game gave the team confidence to do that.

However, I don't want to go to the medicine cabinet for that medicine too often.  Looking forward to his return soon.

JFL has Mono, and will miss Saturday?

This season has had adversity, and the team has fought.  Missed time for Fazekas and Nick.

Team has put themselves down in multiple games, and has fought back.

Now JFL is out for the final two games.  Seems that adversity is one constant for the season.

I read at the beginning of the season that the coaching staff was putting a new emphasis on culture.  This latest blow is where that emphasis pays off.  It has been said that "culture eats strategy for breakfast."  I'm a believer in that.  It seems that this team has the culture and character to shake off this latest issue.  If VU wins in Terre Haute, I think that we need to be VERY proud of this team.

In his first year at Bradley, its conference record was 3-15, and then 7-11.  Last year, its conference record was 9-9

I know that people on this board generally don't like Wardle, but I don't think there are too many that wouldn't agree that he has been somewhat successful even if his methods are not the most ethical. Do you think that Bradley was looking to not renew his contract based upon the results of his first 3 years?

I don't know.  It's not possible for me to be more uneducated on Bradley than I am right now.  From an outsider's perspective, I see him improving the record yoy, and therefore being in a position to get a raise at Bradley when the time comes, or looking somewhere else.  Outside of that, I can't predict what either party will want to do at any point in time.

You think he would get a head coaching job somewhere else after this year?

Yes.

You think he would get a head coaching job somewhere else after this year?

Like him or not, Wardle will be looking at an improvement within the next 5 years, if his teams continue to improve as they did at Green Bay, and they have so far at Bradley.    In his first two years at Green Bay, Green Bay's in-conference record was 8-10, and then 10-8.  In the final two years at GB, its conference record was 14-2, and then 12-4.  In his first year at Bradley, its conference record was 3-15, and then 7-11.  Last year, its conference record was 9-9, and so far this year it is 10-6.  That is improvement at a lower level school and then a higher level school.  Unless he has another culture blemish or two, he is building a solid resume for moving up again.

I don't know his allegiances, but Bradley might not be his end goal.  Wardle played at Marquette, so he may want to end up there. 

I like him.  Give him 3-5 years.  He can recruit, and that is most of the battle at the mid-major level.  He has shown that he is learning the X's and O's, and making adjustments, otherwise we would never come back in these games.  Some may say that he just lets the team play in those scenarios, but that is him adapting to what works best for the team, at that particular time, and I have seen some really good set plays in the last few games, as well.

I agree that improvement is there, and is continuing.  Why change, unless you think that the improvement is not fast enough.  That impatience can be dangerous.

If Lottich is continuing to grow and learn, and he is not extended (remember, it takes two to tango), then there will likely be another setback while the next coach acclimates, and Lottich then takes his growth to a new place.  In that event, VU would rightly be considered a development school, and Lottich's next gig would rightly be considered a production school.  For the University to put itself in that position ... that makes no sense to me.

While I do think that Lottich is improving, I do not deny the fact that there are arguments to the contrary.  For example, the team's conference win percentage has gone up each year since joining the MVC.  However, remember that Evansville and IL State have tanked this year.  If they had performed similarly to last year, then many of the other teams in conference would have at least one less victory.  Assuming that VU has two less victories, then the improved performance this year is simply not there.  So, part of the W-L improvement this year could be deemed fortuitous. 

My point is that, although there are arguments that the team has not improved, or it has not improved fast enough, reasonable minds can differ, and it is a very risky maneuver to oust Lottich on the premise that the next coach would improve more or faster.  When the time comes, I think that it makes sense for the University to 'lean in', and extend.

1. VU didn't play well defensively and didn't rebound in the defensive end.
2. If VU shoots 50% (14/28) they win by 8 (assuming all else stays the same). If they shoot 40% 11/28 they win by 5.
3. Quite a few of those 3s had a hand in the face, the hoop must've looked like a hula hoop.
4. Krikke isn't moving into the starting line up this year. Mostly because he shouldn't.
5. I think it's a back issue maybe.
6. Zion would strength the defense but I wonder if it's worth it with his offensive struggles. Maybe a offense/defense substitution from time to time.
7. It was hall of Fame night.
8. Agree!
9. Agree!!

2.  M, not sure that I'm following.  If VU shoots 50% from 3, then they score 12 fewer points.  All else being equal, that puts game in OT at 78-78.  If VU hits 11 3's, and again all else being equal, then VU scores 21 fewer points, which means a 78-69 loss.  In any event, my original point was that anomalous shooting covered up some warts.  I think we agree on that.
4.  Reasonable minds can differ.  But, seems that coaches agree with you.
5.  Thanks
6.  Agreed.
7.  Thanks, I stand corrected.  No disrespect to our new hall of famers. 

Just a few observations from the game.

1.  I don't think VU played particularly well.  Bradley's backdoor cuts and drive-and-dish plays were horrendously defended.  VU had very few drive-and-dish plays.
2.  If VU shoots 'only' 50% from three point line, they may have easily lost.  If they shoot a respectable 40% from three, then they would have lost.  That does not make me optimistic if VU plays Bradley on a neutral court for another game (i.e., in STL).
3.  Part of the reason that VU shot such a high percentage from 3 is that the shots were essentially uncontested.  Bradley chose not to defend that shot.  That equals a win for VU.
4.  My uneducated view was that defensive lapses were worst when Mileek played.  I think Krikke should start.
5.  Nick did not play.  I may have missed this somewhere else.  Why didn't he play?
6.  I think that Zion has to play against teams like Bradley.  His athleticism would have helped on both offense and defense (which I think regressed since previous games).
7.  Large game, and not half-time entertainment after dancers?  Really?
8.  If Fazekas and Kiser get replaced by two freshman like Clay and Krikke, and there are no transfers (don't count on it), next year will be REALLY fun.
9.  THAT WAS A FUN GAME!!

In the last three years, the team has finished 6-12, 7-11, and this year will be at least as good as last year since they already have 7 wins.  Before making a judgement on Lottich, I think we should wait to see what the final record will be.  It will be flatline from last year, or incrementally better.  If VU finishes 9-9, then there is accelerating improvement yoy.  I don't think that reality supports a change.  Improvement is better than the other two alternatives of (1) flat, or (2) worsening.  If, on the other hand, VU finishes 7-11, it's a little more debatable.

My only point is, I think we should wait until the end of the year to have the discussion. 

I created my best attempt at a regression based on how 5 major CBB statistics (NET, PPG, Opponent PPG, and SOS) relate to Valpo final scores (negetives for losses and positives for wins). I only created it two games ago but in hindsight it predicted the winner of 24 of our 27 D1 games correctly (14 out of 15 in conference). It had us beating Illinois State by 2 and losing to Drake by 2. It has us beating Bradley by 1 and Missouri State by 3, while losing to Indiana State by 6. I would be very encouraged by that and that's what I am rolling with.

That puts us at 9-9 in conference.  Not sure whether that results in a Thursday game.  However, at the beginning of the year, I think that many posters were asserting that getting to .500 was a good step in the right direction, since VU finished 7-11 last year, and 6-12 in the previous year.  I agree that it is a step up from previous years in the conference.  The debate could have been whether the first year was a sufficiently high starting point and whether the positive progression is good enough.  If the progression continues, then next year we could reasonably expect 11-7. 

I don't think that the first year record was good enough.  However, I do recognize that the progression since then has been positive.  I think that we should let that continue.  Speaking for myself, I'm not going to clamor for wholesale changes, including a coaching change, or stop sitting in the 4th row at home games, until the trend reverses. 

1314, I'm going to re-phrase your summary slightly, though we might be saying some of the same things.

4 teams are tied at 7-7.  Seems certain that 2 of those 4 teams will play on Thursday.  Valpo plays all three of the others who are in the tie.  Of the teams in the tie, the other three only play Valpo.  So, Valpo's strength in completing will have a significant affect on all 4 teams.  Valpo already has one home win against two of the other three, and an away loss against the other.  So, if each team holds wins at home while playing against tie-mates, then chances of Valpo playing on Thursday go up, because that means that Valpo went 1-2 against the other teams in the tie.  That puts Valpo at 8-9, with a home game at Bradley as the only other game.  If VU wins that game (big IF), then it finishes 9-9. 

As 1314 pointed out, Drake seems to have the toughest battle ahead.  I kinda think that they will take one of the two open Thursday slots.

Only 5 potential final results are available for Valpo:

A.  11-7
B.  10-8
C.  9-9
D.  8-10
E.   7-11

Seems to me that D & E = Thursday, with C being a risky unknown for now.  Which means, holding serve at home, plus one road win to get it done.  A would be really nice.

As could be expected of a team with key freshmen and sophomores and transfers, this team has been consistently inconsistent.  If they're consistently inconsistent against Drake, then that game will include some great play, and some terrible stretches.  It seems that the deciding factor as to whether Valpo wins is whether Valpo scores more when it is playing well than Drake scores when Valpo is playing terribly.  Ideally, the players buy in to the concept that inconsistent bad play can be ironed out by great defense for the full 40 minutes.  If Valpo plays solid defense for the full game, but is still inconsistent on offense, then they should win.

Regarding IL St fans being upset...it all started when Alec Peters chose VU over the Redbirds.  They were quite upset when they lost him to dear old Valpo   

The highlight from the game below is when the Redbirds defeated VU in 2018.  They were so proud of themselves for dunking on a then-freshman Mileek.

Good thing that their fans were so proud of them then, because since then, Mileek and his friends have reeled off 5 straight wins, culminating the humiliation on Saturday night on their home court.

Gotta love Karma.  I hope IL St fans are upset and seething about VU's entry into the MVC for a very long time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo08A_WPfdM

Can't wait to hear Vance and Bakers take on Valpo's wins against their Persian Hounds and Birds of red.

I actually enjoy them. They give props to good play and credit to teams other than their own. Actually, sometimes they're harder on their own

I agree with this.  The hosts are open and honest about their allegiances, but also give credit to other teams.  They covered the SIU loss on the previous episode.  I think their take was a little bit more of "SIU played terribly" rather than "Valpo played great".  Was probably a little of both.

In any event, I'm appreciative that they do the show, and hope they continue.  And I will look forward to hear how they address the Valpo comeback. 

Valpo Seeks Season Sweep of Illinois State

http://www.valpoathletics.com/mbasketball/news/2019-20/19701/valpo-seeks-season-sweep-of-illinois-state/

Television – MVC TV Network (FOX Sports Midwest, NBC Sports Chicago, FOX Sports Indiana) – Mitch Holthus (play-by-play) and Rich Zvosec (analyst)

This has to be sort of underwhelming for Mitch Holthus (a very good play-by-play announcer). He is the radio play-by-play guy for the Kansas City Chiefs. Going from the Super Bowl to an MVC game in Normal, IL in two weeks is a pretty big change.

Ideally, VU puts on such an incredible display that it is actually a huge step up in excitement for him.

There's an argument to be made that Fazekas turns a lot of these losses we've suffered into wins. I think with a healthy Fazekas we would be in a very different position right now. Patience guys. We're close. Very close. We may not see it this year, we may end up in seventh place. But if we can stay together and avoid the transfer bug, I have a hard time not seeing us as a factor in the MVC race from the jump next year. At large contender? That might be a bit much to say. Top 4 or 5 team with potential to be much more? You bet. We're getting there. It took Loyola like a solid 4-5 years to get where they needed to go. We're in year 3 and making great progress. I know this isn't an apples to apples comparison because we don't have Wichita State to beat the crap out of us and hand us two losses like Loyola did when they were building but have a look at this:

2013-2014 Loyola: 10-22 4-14 10th place MVC Beat Bradley in St Louis MVC RPI Rank: 11
2017-2018 Valpo: 15-17 6-12 10th Place MVC Winless in St Louis MVC RPI Rank: 8

2014-2015 Loyola: 24-13 8-10 6th Place MVC WON CBI Beat Indiana St in St Louis MVC RPI Rank: 9
2018-2019 Valpo: 15-18 7-11 9th Place MVC Beat Indiana St in St Louis MVC NET Rank: 14 (Remember this was the Me-first Year and started 5-1 we could have and should have been much better than this)

2015-2016 Loyola: 15-17 7-11 8th place MVC Beat Bradley in St Louis MVC RPI Rank: 13
2019-2020 Valpo: 12-11 5-5 Result TBD MVC NET Rank: 11

2016-2017 Loyola 18-14 8-10 5th place MVC Winless in St Louis MVC RPI Rank: 12
2020-2021 Valpo: TBD MVC NET Rank: 11

2017-2018 Loyola: 32-5 15-3 1st Place MVC WON ARCH MADNESS MADE FINAL 4 MVC RPI Rank: 8
2021-2022 Valpo: TBD

Conclusions: It took until year 5 for Loyola to crack the .500 mark in conference. We have a chance to do it in year 3 and arguably should have done it in year 2. It's hard to glean much from the standings because Wichita State was so dominant but I still say our numbers compare quite favorably when you look at overall results. League strength has fluctuated wildly for the MVC so it's hard to say who had the stronger MVC to contend with. My point is that we're not that far off the trajectory our predecessor set in their first five years. I'm not saying we're going to make a final 4 anytime soon but if we can get invited maybe a postseason tournament wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it would be a good step for the growth of the program We should go on the road though. Our problem is winning on the road. We should focus on getting better at that if we do decide on postseason play assuming it is an option for us. My point in doing all of this is that we're not that far off and next year should be much better.

1314, I appreciate the post.  And the side-by-side comparison is interesting.  However, I'm uncomfortable with the comparison.  I don't like benchmarking other teams, even if the other team is a former VU team.

It seems that this team should strive for getting better, and being the best that they can be.  But, if we compare the team's yoy improvement to Loyola in the MVC, or even with Valpo when it joined the HL, then there is an opportunity for complacency if the benchmark is matched or exceeded.  I'd rather that the team set its own goals, and then engage a plan to meet THOSE goals. 

Besides, I frankly thank that Loyola's in-conference yoy improvement in the MVC is not that impressive.

Maybe it's just me, but I believe I have seen kids doing the mop duty at NBA games, let alone mid major D1 Basketball . So I would imagine it's not uncommon. Also I'm sure we have all seen situations in high profile games where the "Mop Boy" just can't seem to figure out how to clean the wet spot on the floor and the ref has to keep redirecting him to clean it up. That being said, if the people chosen are not able to do the job, whether it be they are not paying attention, too young, can't handle the mop... yes it is a problem and should have been addressed. But to act like this is some huge scandal and embarrassment that we had kids handling mop duty is a bit of an over reach. There are plenty of other things we as a fan base should be embarrassed about as it pertains to the ARC and the gameday experience before we get to kids and mops.

I agree with you to an extent.  I think that Mick was simply noting the cumulative number of things, which I think is where some of the frustration is.

One thing that would make a lot of these complaints go away would be more wins.  If VU were 17-3 (or better) right now rather than 10-10 (or 11-10 depending on how you count), then we'd be talking about a lot of other things like bracketology, polling, etc., and not about mopping and bathrooms.  I think most of us prefer those other conversations.

The absence of a pep band was not the only strange thing inside the ARC today, at the basketball game against Evansville.  No, a much stranger thing took place under the west backboard.  There were two toddlers that were assigned there to mop sweat from the floor.  I say toddlers, because I estimate that they were no older than 5 years old.  They were cute little girls, but they had no business doing that job as they were physically unable to handle the mops.  Of course it certainly was not their fault, but rather that of whoever is in charge of filling that activity.  There was a member of the ARC Event staff stationed near that backboard all game, who did absolutely nothing to help the kids and make sure that the floor was taken care of.  Young children should not be used for this activity.  It was so bad that late in the game, an Evansville team manager ran over, grabbed a mop, and dried off the floor prior to his team shooting a free throw - how bad is this?  I, and the people around me were embarrassed. 

I noticed the two girls and the Aces' "volunteer" as well.  I see this as more than an embarrassment issue.  What if one of the Aces slipped and seriously hurt themselves.  I'm sure that Evansville would have a legitimate gripe to the league.  I've never seen the league contract, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were obligations built in, such as must provide a locker room, shoot around time, general security and safety, and so on.  Seems that a requirement of generally and adequately staffing the sporting events would be included.  If that's correct, then it seems that VU was in violation of the agreement.  If the injury were due to a VU infraction of the agreement, then that could be a serious issue for the University.

I like it that young kids are given that job, but they need to be able to do it.  As much as I enjoyed watching the two girls fumble around with the mop, I don't think it was appropriate for Division 1 basketball, which is serious business.

1314, I was still trying to follow what you're saying, and I think I now understand.  If I'm right, we're talking about two different things.  I (and I believe Valpo64) was talking about parity in a single year.  I believe that you're talking about parity over multiple years.  I think that you're saying that teams' records will fluctuate over the years, but if the average win percentage over the years is .500 for all teams in conference, then that's parity, and would allow for multiple bids because some teams would be really good in a given year, while some are not so good.  Is that right?

You could well be right, but I (and Valpo64) was talking about something different.  I was talking about parity in a single year.  In other words, all teams finish near .500 in conference.  The first place team might be 11-7, and the last place team might be 7-11.  In my example, there would be parity, and the dreaded single bid.  Which teams are in first place, and which teams are in last place, and whether or not they rotated over the years, simply wouldn't be relevant.

I think that Valpo64 was saying that he'd rather see a 10-way tie at 9-9 than a wide spread with multiple bids.  A 10-way tie at 9-9 would be pretty exciting, and I could see the enticement of that, so his point is valid, even if someone doesn't agree.

Multi bids  are fine, but I would much rather see good competition game in and game out throughout the season with good teams and parity.  Watching many good competitive games all year long beats seeing one and done in the NCAA tourney.

Newsflash: If you have a multibid league you usually get good games throughout the year because it means your league is probably pretty good. And Parity is possible even in multi bid leagues because it may not be the same teams making it every year. And teams from multi bid leagues usually aren't one and done in the Tournament. At least one of them usually wins a game or two at least. And even if they don't just having multiple bids is like winning the first round game before you even play. Multiple bids should be the goal every single year even if it means there are some bad teams at the bottom. Let's face it WE'VE been one of those bad teams our first two years. Before we start throwing stones about wanting more good competitive games (I don't know how you could want more than you've been getting from this conference) let's make sure we aren't one of the bad teams everybody else dreads having to play because it's an easy win that does nothing for them.

1314, sorry, I'm just not following what you're saying.  I think at first you're saying that we should all want parity AND multiple bids.  Fine, we should all want that, and multiple final four teams.  But, as we sit here, it's just not going to happen with the current level of performance. 

You then say that multiple bids should be the goal "every single year even if it means there are some bad teams at the bottom."  That, by definition, is not parity.  So, it seems that you've shifted to only wanting multiple bids.  Plus, if two teams go 1-17, and the other eight teams go 12-6 (i.e, some sort of quasi-parity, which is kind of what we have now), then that will very likely mean one bid for a mid-major conference, even if two of the teams essentially go undefeated out of conference. 

For a mid-major conference to have multiple bids, the at-larges will likely need to go nearly undefeated out of conference and in conference.  Again, that is veering away from parity.

Look at it this way, if every team in the conference goes roughly 11-2 out of conference, and then goes 9-9 in conference - in other words, there was great performance and parity - then the MVC is a one-bid league that year.  I know that sucks, but it is the reality.

For the MVC, parity and at-large bids are diametrically opposed.  The more that we have of one, the less that we will have of the other.  So, Valpo64's comment of essentially wanting more parity at the expense of bids did have a logical foundation.  You may not like the premise, but it was sound.

[because that is a massive blow to the hopes for a multibid MVC.]

Southern Illinois barely holds on to beat UNI. Give them credit for holding home court, but they are also 0-7 on the road this year. Depending upon tomorrow's result against Missouri State, Valpo will either be tied for 4th or tied for 7th.

We need to lock in and get this win. It means so much. With UNI taking its second Q4 loss maybe I'm freed up to simply be a Valpo fan now because that is a massive blow to the hopes for a multibid MVC. I still think this conference will get there. There's too much depth and talent in this league for it not to. We just need to finish some of those near misses in the non-con.

As was the case last year, there is simply a lot of parity in this conference, and as a result, multiple bids simply aren't coming soon.  Parity means a lot of great games in January, February, and early March, and much fewer games in late March.  That's the unfortunate bittersweet result of the parity.