Just fun to track it all year. Currently we are a 11 seed in Providence against the Zags. We know how that turned out last time we played them in the NCAA. There are two teams currently in the bracketology that we have beaten, Iona and Belmont. We lost to Oregon by 5 on their court. They are listed as a 6 seed.
Dec. 8th Edition
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Quote from: oklahomamick on December 08, 2015, 10:24:59 AM
Just fun to track it all year. Currently we are a 11 seed in Providence against the Zags. We know how that turned out last time we played them in the NCAA. There are two teams currently in the bracketology that we have beaten, Iona and Belmont. We lost to Oregon by 5 on their court. They are listed as a 6 seed.
Dec. 8th Edition
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Nice to see that he's kept us at 11. I don't know what he claims to put into his predictions, and I don't know if that "at-large quality" seed would survive us loving even the Horizon League tournament final (maybe that would be enough to drop us to "6th 12 seed" and out of the tournament).
I've not read a detailed report of the NCAA mock bracketing exercise since Whelliston went off the air. Or even paid too much attention to "how brackets are made" reporting since then.
But, it seems like geography matters more than it used to. I wonder if Lunardi takes this into account appropriately. I wonder, geographically, how likely a matchup with a Pacific school is, let alone on the Atlantic. Maybe Cincinnati, Vanderbilt, or especially Butler are more likely.
Butler, I could handle Butler. Maybe better than Baylor.
Quote from: oklahomamick on December 08, 2015, 10:24:59 AMThere are two teams currently in the bracketology that we have beaten, Iona and Belmont. We lost to Oregon by 5 on their court. They are listed as a 6 seed.
And with Oregon State and Rhode Island apparently 6th and 7th in line for additional at-large slots. Lunardi clearly has respect for our opponents, so maybe no surprise he has respect for us as well.
Do we have a better thread for early at-large speculation?
http://on.ncaa.com/1U4K3U7 (http://on.ncaa.com/1U4K3U7)
has the rosiest prognosis I've seen.
Quote
1. Valparaiso
Record: 6-2, KenPom rating: 31, RPI Non Conference Strength of Schedule: 3
The Crusaders topped the preseason list of hopefuls because they returned every starter from a 28-6 team and added talented newcomers as well. Coach Bryce Drew's team has fulfilled those expectations, picking up road wins over likely top-100 teams Rhode Island and Oregon State.
alpo lost by six at No. 24 Oregon on Nov. 22, but that result is more likely to help than hurt when the selection committee reviews its resume. A 69-66 Thanksgiving weekend loss at projected middle-of-the-pack-in-the-MAC Ball State could sting, but the committee should reward Valpo for challenging a half-dozen top-100 caliber opponents.
Defense fuels the Crusaders. They've allowed opponents a measly 0.84 points per possession to rank fifth in the nation in defensive rating.
searching for the touch from the 3-point arc (29.9 percent, 299th in the nation). Star forward Alec Peters (16.3 ppg, 57.1 pct. on 2-pointers) has been terrific, but needs help in the scoring column. Sophomore guard Tevonn Walker (11.3 ppg, 59.8 pct effective field goal pct.) is the only other Valpo player averaging in double figures.
At-large bid chances:Excellent. Thanks to smart scheduling and road success, Valpo is well-positioned in the at-large bid conversation. The Crusaders should enter Horizon League play at 11-2 or 10-3. From there, winning the regular season title with a two or three loss conference record should solidify their spot in the 68-team field regardless the result of the conference tournament.
Lunardi has his end-of-calendar-year bracketology out on twitter.
We've slipped a bit.
[tweet]682598970644951041[/tweet]
We were as high as 40 fairly recently
[tweet]679135431276011520[/tweet]
though had bounced around a bit (43, etc.)
(Thanks to HC for the Lunardi re-tweet.)
http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/01/01/bracketology-kansas-leads-new-years-day-lineup/ (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/01/01/bracketology-kansas-leads-new-years-day-lineup/)
Not ESPN but they have Valpo/HL team as a 13 playing Iowa State in OKC.
Something else im not sure how I feel about is they have up to 9 teams from the ACC getting in. Part of me says a 9th place team (heck anyone worse then 6th) probably shouldn't get a shot at playing for a national title. Another part says that a 9th place team from the ACC is probably better then a 2nd or 3rd place team from a smaller conference. I think I'd like to see it capped at 6 per conference to give the smaller conferences a few more opportunity (although I suppose the four slots that would open in this example would just go to the big east and sec), but then are the best 68 teams actually in? I know this would never happen because of e money of the bigger conferences so we can just ignore that.
Living in Des Moines, I would love to see the Saders upset the Clones. That would be hilarious.
Quote from: HC on January 01, 2016, 09:52:08 AM
http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/01/01/bracketology-kansas-leads-new-years-day-lineup/ (http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2016/01/01/bracketology-kansas-leads-new-years-day-lineup/)
Not ESPN but they have Valpo/HL team as a 13 playing Iowa State in OKC.
Something else im not sure how I feel about is they have up to 9 teams from the ACC getting in. Part of me says a 9th place team (heck anyone worse then 6th) probably shouldn't get a shot at playing for a national title. Another part says that a 9th place team from the ACC is probably better then a 2nd or 3rd place team from a smaller conference. I think I'd like to see it capped at 6 per conference to give the smaller conferences a few more opportunity (although I suppose the four slots that would open in this example would just go to the big east and sec), but then are the best 68 teams actually in? I know this would never happen because of e money of the bigger conferences so we can just ignore that.
I think the teams from the bigger conferences should have at least a 0.500 record in conference play prior to the conference tournament
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not sure what blog-subject to put this...
http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/01/05/midmajor-gonzaga-wichita-state-valparaiso-monmouth (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2016/01/05/midmajor-gonzaga-wichita-state-valparaiso-monmouth)
read all the way down... Felder has his own little section....
Quote from: agibson on December 31, 2015, 11:14:14 AMLunardi has his end-of-calendar-year bracketology out on twitter. [with Valpo #46 on the S curve]
The official Bracketology has now come out
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/188 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/188)
with Valpo bumped up, remaining an 11 seed. Against #6 Pittsburgh, in Brooklyn.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FIRST OUT: ZonaSt, FlaSt, VCU, Wake. NEXT OUT: Marq, LSU, Valpo, Vandy. FOUR MORE: OreSt, UTA, OhioSt, StJoes.</p>— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) January 9, 2016 (https://twitter.com/ESPNLunardi/status/685844743549534208)
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lunardi has valpo in his "Next 4 Out". So right now we are on the outside looking in if we don't win the HL. I wonder if the committee will give us the same respect they give the big boys when evaluating the Ball Sate loss. 2 starters out, on the road, directly after a long road trip. My guess is that they won't. Shocking, I know. haha :)
Quote from: SanityLost17 on January 09, 2016, 10:01:43 AM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FIRST OUT: ZonaSt, FlaSt, VCU, Wake. NEXT OUT: Marq, LSU, Valpo, Vandy. FOUR MORE: OreSt, UTA, OhioSt, StJoes.</p>— Joe Lunardi (@ESPNLunardi) January 9, 2016 (https://twitter.com/ESPNLunardi/status/685844743549534208)
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lunardi has valpo in his "Next 4 Out". So right now we are on the outside looking in if we don't win the HL. I wonder if the committee will give us the same respect they give the big boys when evaluating the Ball Sate loss. 2 starters out, on the road, directly after a long road trip. My guess is that they won't. Shocking, I know. haha :)
He has UWGB winning the Horizon because they're sitting 3-0 and we're only 2-0. Thats why we're in the OUT category. His Bracketology at the beginning of conference season is always fairly questionable. I wish he'd just take the top RPI teams in conference and assume they win the conference tournament.
Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk
[tweet]685844743549534208[/tweet]
Took me a minute to figure this out, or even come close. Since Green Bay's 3-0, they get the nod for the AQ [i.e. what a3uge said]. So they get a place in the S Curve (#58, maybe the last 14 seed; compared to our recent #46, 11 seed).
And we get official consideration on his at-large list. 7th out, suggesting #51 on the S curve, I guess. Not sure if I'm misunderstanding him, or if he really things the situation has changed so much for bubble teams - or if he's folding in a conference tourney loss, or what's going on. We've not done anything worthy of downgrade since the Dec 31/Jan 4 updates.
Will be interesting to see where we fold in once we're back in the AQ slot. Need a GB loss. May only come at the ARC next Saturday. (And, of course, Valpo needs to keep winning).
I've been trying to tell you all for years. Lunardi's bracketology is a frivolous exercise. Always has been always will be. He used to even sort of admit it.
His methodology is shallow at best. To him, it's probably just harmless fun. To me, he's a troll.
Valpo's RPI moved up to 31 with the win last night (I use the ESPN version). However, there are few scenarios that I see where Valpo can get an at-large birth. There are just too many games against 200+ and 300+ teams in the conference coming up. My guess would be that if Valpo wins every game in the conference, they will still be in the high 40s (Murray State last year is a good comparison). If Valpo were to then lose in the conference tournament to a '100s' team, their RPI drops to the high 50s and, unless Oregon State turns into a strong marquee win, Valpo does not get an at-large birth.
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 09, 2016, 11:04:55 AMValpo's RPI moved up to 31 with the win last night (I use the ESPN version). However, there are few scenarios that I see where Valpo can get an at-large birth. There are just too many games against 200+ and 300+ teams in the conference coming up. My guess would be that if Valpo wins every game in the conference, they will still be in the high 40s (Murray State last year is a good comparison). If Valpo were to then lose in the conference tournament to a '100s' team, their RPI drops to the high 50s and, unless Oregon State turns into a strong marquee win, Valpo does not get an at-large birth.
HL is a 1 bid onference, this year and for the foreseeable future. Just another reason to protect our best team and reward them the conference tournament. It's fun talking about a possible at large bid, but its too emotional. Not going to happen.
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 09, 2016, 11:04:55 AMMy guess would be that if Valpo wins every game in the conference, they will still be in the high 40s (Murray State last year is a good comparison). If Valpo were to then lose in the conference tournament to a '100s' team, their RPI drops to the high 50s and
RPI Forecast gives us an overall average expected RPI of 37.9, after the Oakland win. Good for 32nd or 33rd best, on a current RPI of 28.
They give us a 10.88% chance of a sweep (presumably our Sagarin PREDICTOR improved on the win), with an expected RPI in that scenario of 23.9.
RPI Wizard differs slightly, predicting #33 RPI. Or #22 in a conference sweep. Rising to #20 with a neutral win over, picking arbitrarily, Green Bay. Falling to #21 on a neutral loss to Oakland to end the tournament.
Not sure how accurate those predictions are. But, it'd be a mighty impressive RPI to turn down. Maybe not unprecedented.
Quote from: agibson on January 09, 2016, 10:15:22 AM
[tweet]685844743549534208[/tweet]
It may be pretty capricious, lightly done.
But, it is interesting to be reminded of the seeding competition. He's got non at-large 11's and 12's like
Quote
45-UALR, 46-SDSU, 47-AKRON, 48-CHATT, 49-STONY, 50-YALE, 51-NE, 52-HAWAII
Not to mention Monmouth.
South Dakota State and Monmouth could both end up with better RPI's than us. And Monmouth with better wins. Chattanooga could perhaps be like Monmouth.
Not that this can happen but what could be our lowest seed if we were to win out?
This is an intellectual exercise only so I don't want anybody to overexert themselves. :) Still I am curious about your thinking. Is an 8 now out of the question?
If Valpo wins out (wow, there is an excessively optimistic perspective), I would expect them to be between an 8 and a 10.
Quote from: justducky on January 09, 2016, 01:24:38 PMNot that this can happen but what could be our lowest seed if we were to win out?
Interesting question. Replying quickly, without too much though.
It's a straight up question of "Who's the better basketball team, more likely to win?", in principle. So, if Valpo somehow turned it on and won the rest of our games by 30 each, I suppose the sky's the limit.
Realistically, if it happened today, without time for the hype to build, if we automatically qualified (AQ'd) without another loss, I'd be unhappy but not completely astounded if were given a 12 seed. Could it even drop to 13? I'd want to see the other top AQ's for comparison.
I probably wouldn't complain with a 9, again, without time for the hype to build, just going off a quick gut reaction.
I guess we could be ranked #20 or better, without too much surprise, in some ranking schemes in this scenario. (Heck, our RPI could be #18 - maybe better.) So maybe a 5 or a 6 seed shouldn't be completely surprising either - except for the history of seeing big conference teams rewarded, lavish attention being given to "quality wins" even if mid-majors get very few chances, almost never on their home courts, etc.
I do notice there's some interesting history at
http://www.collegerpi.com/subs/rpitrivia.html (http://www.collegerpi.com/subs/rpitrivia.html)
If we wound up with the #21 RPI, say by running the table and losing to Oakland in the tournament final, it would almost, but not quiet, be the worst RPI snub ever if we were left out. Missouri State lost out once as a #21 (a pair of #30's next biggest snubs). 29 wins being left out would be the biggest snub ever, but that's presumably not sacred. And it'd only be 27 D1 wins - Oral Roberts missed out with that many a few years ago, and lost in the first round of the NIT.
I've not tried looking closely at comparisons, but I guess we have a bunch in the Horizon League in fairly recent memory. Some don't like the Butler comparison.
But, we have examples of a Horizon League team winding up with 5, 5, 7, 8, and 9 seeds. That 8 seed coming with 5 Horizon League losses.
What did their records look like? I suppose they often had bigger wins than Oregon State, or more like it.
Quote from: agibson on January 09, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
Quote from: justducky on January 09, 2016, 01:24:38 PMNot that this can happen but what could be our lowest seed if we were to win out?
Interesting question. Replying quickly, without too much though.
It's a straight up question of "Who's the better basketball team, more likely to win?", in principle. So, if Valpo somehow turned it on and won the rest of our games by 30 each, I suppose the sky's the limit.
Realistically, if it happened today, without time for the hype to build, if we automatically qualified (AQ'd) without another loss, I'd be unhappy but not completely astounded if were given a 12 seed. Could it even drop to 13? I'd want to see the other top AQ's for comparison.
I probably wouldn't complain with a 9, again, without time for the hype to build, just going off a quick gut reaction.
I guess we could be ranked #20 or better, without too much surprise, in some ranking schemes in this scenario. (Heck, our RPI could be #18 - maybe better.) So maybe a 5 or a 6 seed shouldn't be completely surprising either - except for the history of seeing big conference teams rewarded, lavish attention being given to "quality wins" even if mid-majors get very few chances, almost never on their home courts, etc.
I do notice there's some interesting history at
http://www.collegerpi.com/subs/rpitrivia.html (http://www.collegerpi.com/subs/rpitrivia.html)
If we wound up with the #21 RPI, say by running the table and losing to Oakland in the tournament final, it would almost, but not quiet, be the worst RPI snub ever if we were left out. Missouri State lost out once as a #21 (a pair of #30's next biggest snubs). 29 wins being left out would be the biggest snub ever, but that's presumably not sacred. And it'd only be 27 D1 wins - Oral Roberts missed out with that many a few years ago, and lost in the first round of the NIT.
Missouri State didn't have any quality OOC wins that year. The selection committee crucifies teams for that. Valpo has decent wins @URI, @Oregon State, Belmont, and Iona, all which should be top 100 RPI wins. We also have a good reputation carrying over from last year, and the selection committee seems to reward past performance (see Butler getting a 8 seed, George Mason a 9... Okay maybe a ridiculous comparison), but you get my point. Even though the Horizon slipped in terms of RPI recently, it still has a decent reputation. There's still NBA-caliber talent in the Horizon and already in the Association, even outside of Butler. Writers and reporters seem to respect the Horizon, and Valpos decent performance over Maryland last year seems to get a lot of praise. Valpo most certainly won't win every conference game, or all but 1, but I think it's a lock for an at-large if they do, and certainly possible to get an at-large with 2 road losses + a HL championship game loss.
I think Valpo will probably lose 3 conference games, maybe 4, so the at-large talk will probably be moot come March, but like tonight's Powerball, one can certainly dream.
Quote from: agibson on January 09, 2016, 10:15:22 AMNeed a GB loss
You ask. Your wish is granted. 103-93 to YSU. I don't even think defense came to the Beeghly tonight.
"Have you seen defense?"
"No, I think he didn't get off the bus."
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 09, 2016, 11:04:55 AMunless Oregon State turns into a strong marquee win, Valpo does not get an at-large birth.
You'll have to ask Vashil if it was an at-large birth. He's not your average father in height. Probably an at-large berth.
Let's look at from a glass half full and an HL perspective. Valpo wins out and wins the tourney too. Is it possible that a second HL team gets an at-large because of the quality of our top 3?
Quote from: bbtds on January 09, 2016, 08:21:47 PMunless Oregon State turns into a strong marquee win, Valpo does not get an at-large birth.
It may well be. I watched them beat Cal last night and they looked terrific. OSU was ranked 52 in the Sagarins and beat #29 Cal so should easily move back into the top 50. Valpo was at 39 so should move up as well. Bill Walton thinks OSU can contend for the Pac 12 title. Rhody has a shot at the A10 title and Belmont will most likely win the Ohio Valley. Iona will also most likely win their conference. That is a pretty solid portfolio to be considered.
Valparaiso, Monmouth chasing at-large possibilities for 2016 NCAA Tournament: Mid-Major Watch
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2016/01/valparaiso_monmouth_chasing_at.html (http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2016/01/valparaiso_monmouth_chasing_at.html)
Only four of the top 10 teams from one-bid leagues listed in Monday's weekly RPIRatings have a strength of schedule inside the Top 100 -- No. 22 Monmouth (21 SOS), No. 44 Valparaiso (69), No. 47 Cal-Irvine (65) and No. 49 Cal-Santa Barbara (5). But all four play in leagues currently ranked No. 12 or worse among 32 Division I conferences. Last season only one mid-major conference in the top 12 failed to get an at-large team into the tournament field -- the Mid-American.
Valparaiso (11-3, 1-0) has no quality wins or bad losses, but plays in the Horizon League (No. 15) which currently has no other top 100 teams. >:(
South Dakota State's RPI is 35, but its SOS is a very tepid 160. The JackRabbits will have to run roughshod through the league to overcome that SOS and get into the at-large conversation. Yet playing in a top 12 league is a plus. >:(
Although Elton Alexander does report on CSU, it is one of the least informed Writers about the HL. To say we have no quality wins is lacking in even Low level college Basketball knowledge. The Oregon State win is quality. Road wins versus Rhody is quality. Wins versus Belmont and Iona are quality. At a minimum 1, maximum 4. main point, we got some press in C-Town, which is hard with the Cavs rolling and the Browns roiling and taking up all the ink and airwaves. Do not take anything Elton writes as worth much more than that.
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 09, 2016, 10:07:42 PM
Let's look at from a glass half full and an HL perspective. Valpo wins out and wins the tourney too. Is it possible that a second HL team gets an at-large because of the quality of our top 3?
No. At least not this year.
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 09, 2016, 10:07:42 PM
Let's look at from a glass half full and an HL perspective. Valpo wins out and wins the tourney too. Is it possible that a second HL team gets an at-large because of the quality of our top 3?
Doesn't work like that.
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
The Summit this year is much like the MAC was last year - inflated due to easy scheduling. If Valpo ends with a similar RPI to South Dakota State (whom just lost to IUPUI), they'll favor Valpo because of their tougher OOC schedule and better wins. Their best win is Middle Tennessee State. Conference affiliation doesn't lift one team over another on Selection Sunday; if it did, Valpo wouldn't have been a 14 seed in 2013 while SD State in a crappy Summit was a 13.
Quote from: a3uge on January 11, 2016, 12:06:31 PM
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
The Summit this year is much like the MAC was last year - inflated due to easy scheduling. If Valpo ends with a similar RPI to South Dakota State (whom just lost to IUPUI), they'll favor Valpo because of their tougher OOC schedule and better wins. Their best win is Middle Tennessee State. Conference affiliation doesn't lift one team over another on Selection Sunday; if it did, Valpo wouldn't have been a 14 seed in 2013 while SD State in a crappy Summit was a 13.
The bottom 4 teams in the HL have a combined record of 10-44 and combined RPI of 270. The bottom 4 teams in the SL are a combined 25-37 with a combined 170 RPI. That clearly explains the how the 2 leagues are positioned where they are right now.
The bottom line is that the bottom half of the Summit is continuing to improve over past years, while the teams in the bottom half of the Horizon are among the worst programs in D-1.
Give credit where credit is due. The SL is doing a great job of organically elevating it's standing. The Horizon is a league with a lot of dead weight and more problems than solutions.
Quote from: wh on January 11, 2016, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 11, 2016, 12:06:31 PM
O
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
The Summit this year is much like the MAC was last year - inflated due to easy scheduling. If Valpo ends with a similar RPI to South Dakota State (whom just lost to IUPUI), they'll favor Valpo because of their tougher OOC schedule and better wins. Their best win is Middle Tennessee State. Conference affiliation doesn't lift one team over another on Selection Sunday; if it did, Valpo wouldn't have been a 14 seed in 2013 while SD State in a crappy Summit was a 13.
The bottom 4 teams in the HL have a combined record of 10-44 and combined RPI of 270. The bottom 4 teams in the SL are a combined 25-37 with a combined 170 RPI. That clearly explains the how the 2 leagues are positioned where they are right now.
The bottom line is that the bottom half of the Summit is continuing to improve over past years, while the teams in the bottom half of the Horizon are among the worst programs in D-1.
Give credit where credit is due. The SL is doing a great job of organically elevating it's standing. The Horizon is a league with a lot of dead weight and more problems than solutions.
By the way, I think BlackPantherUWM has a great idea that it's time for a select few HL teams to join forces and form a new conference with other good Midwest mid's.
#11 seed vs. USC in Providence.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Quote from: valpo84 on January 11, 2016, 09:13:09 AM
Although Elton Alexander does report on CSU, it is one of the least informed Writers about the HL. To say we have no quality wins is lacking in even Low level college Basketball knowledge. The Oregon State win is quality. Road wins versus Rhody is quality. Wins versus Belmont and Iona are quality. At a minimum 1, maximum 4. main point, we got some press in C-Town, which is hard with the Cavs rolling and the Browns roiling and taking up all the ink and airwaves. Do not take anything Elton writes as worth much more than that.
I've been taking him that way for years myself.
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 09:03:29 AM
Valparaiso, Monmouth chasing at-large possibilities for 2016 NCAA Tournament: Mid-Major Watch
http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2016/01/valparaiso_monmouth_chasing_at.html (http://www.cleveland.com/sports/college/index.ssf/2016/01/valparaiso_monmouth_chasing_at.html)
Only four of the top 10 teams from one-bid leagues listed in Monday's weekly RPIRatings have a strength of schedule inside the Top 100 -- No. 22 Monmouth (21 SOS), No. 44 Valparaiso (69), No. 47 Cal-Irvine (65) and No. 49 Cal-Santa Barbara (5). But all four play in leagues currently ranked No. 12 or worse among 32 Division I conferences. Last season only one mid-major conference in the top 12 failed to get an at-large team into the tournament field -- the Mid-American.
Valparaiso (11-3, 1-0) has no quality wins or bad losses, but plays in the Horizon League (No. 15) which currently has no other top 100 teams. >:(
South Dakota State's RPI is 35, but its SOS is a very tepid 160. The JackRabbits will have to run roughshod through the league to overcome that SOS and get into the at-large conversation. Yet playing in a top 12 league is a plus. >:(
Noticed the same thing. I don't know what else to say about it, except that his coverage is mediocre at best. Oregon isn't a quality win and Ball State isn't a bad loss????? Alrighty then... ::) :crazy:
Quote from: wh on January 11, 2016, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: wh on January 11, 2016, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 11, 2016, 12:06:31 PM
O
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
The Summit this year is much like the MAC was last year - inflated due to easy scheduling. If Valpo ends with a similar RPI to South Dakota State (whom just lost to IUPUI), they'll favor Valpo because of their tougher OOC schedule and better wins. Their best win is Middle Tennessee State. Conference affiliation doesn't lift one team over another on Selection Sunday; if it did, Valpo wouldn't have been a 14 seed in 2013 while SD State in a crappy Summit was a 13.
The bottom 4 teams in the HL have a combined record of 10-44 and combined RPI of 270. The bottom 4 teams in the SL are a combined 25-37 with a combined 170 RPI. That clearly explains the how the 2 leagues are positioned where they are right now.
The bottom line is that the bottom half of the Summit is continuing to improve over past years, while the teams in the bottom half of the Horizon are among the worst programs in D-1.
Give credit where credit is due. The SL is doing a great job of organically elevating it's standing. The Horizon is a league with a lot of dead weight and more problems than solutions.
By the way, I think BlackPantherUWM has a great idea that it's time for a select few HL teams to join forces and form a new conference with other good Midwest mid's.
WH, who might that be (on both sides of the proposed equation)?
The HL few: ??? ???
Valpo (of course)
UWM
UWGB
Detroit
Wright State
Oakland
Other Good MW Mid's: ??? ???
Evansville
Belmont
Somebody
Somebody elseAside from EU and Belmont, I can't think of a good fit that isn't already solid in the A-10 or MVC. Is there a Summit school that could fit the bill (IPFW or IUPUI)? :whiteflag:Help!
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 11, 2016, 11:29:21 PM
Quote from: wh on January 11, 2016, 01:28:58 PM
Quote from: wh on January 11, 2016, 01:15:27 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 11, 2016, 12:06:31 PM
O
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 11, 2016, 11:00:49 AM
The message I got from the article is that they perceive the summit to be better not only in RPI.
The Summit this year is much like the MAC was last year - inflated due to easy scheduling. If Valpo ends with a similar RPI to South Dakota State (whom just lost to IUPUI), they'll favor Valpo because of their tougher OOC schedule and better wins. Their best win is Middle Tennessee State. Conference affiliation doesn't lift one team over another on Selection Sunday; if it did, Valpo wouldn't have been a 14 seed in 2013 while SD State in a crappy Summit was a 13.
The bottom 4 teams in the HL have a combined record of 10-44 and combined RPI of 270. The bottom 4 teams in the SL are a combined 25-37 with a combined 170 RPI. That clearly explains the how the 2 leagues are positioned where they are right now.
The bottom line is that the bottom half of the Summit is continuing to improve over past years, while the teams in the bottom half of the Horizon are among the worst programs in D-1.
Give credit where credit is due. The SL is doing a great job of organically elevating it's standing. The Horizon is a league with a lot of dead weight and more problems than solutions.
By the way, I think BlackPantherUWM has a great idea that it's time for a select few HL teams to join forces and form a new conference with other good Midwest mid's.
WH, who might that be (on both sides of the proposed equation)?
The HL few: ??? ???
Valpo (of course)
UWM
UWGB
Detroit
Wright State
Oakland
Other Good MW Mid's: ??? ???
Evansville
Belmont
Somebody
Somebody else
Aside from EU and Belmont, I can't think of a good fit that isn't already solid in the A-10 or MVC. Is there a Summit school that could fit the bill (IPFW or IUPUI)? :whiteflag:Help!
Here's Panther's suggestions from another thread:
Quote from: wh on January 04, 2016, 02:08:44 PM
If we were regularly a 2 or 3 bid league, then holding the tournament in Detroit's and Oakland's backyard (or anyone else's) would matter very little. Unfortunately, that's not the case. There is only 1 prize - 1 highly coveted, ultimate prize that separates 1 program from all the rest.
This being the case the HL tournament championship is simply too important to unfairly weigh it's outcome in favor of 2 programs "within walking distance" of the tournament venue.
It is time to move to a better league. I have a gut feeling our administration is thinking the same thing. We deserve better than membership in a declining 1-bid mid major league centered in Detroit Michigan.
The problem here is that there's nowhere to go. The MVC isn't going to 11 and I doubt they'd go 12. If Wichita State actually moves forward with that ridiculous football idea and leaves the MVC, there's your shot. But that's an if-and-only-if scenario. The Atlantic 10 is incredibly scattered and still has 14 teams.
However, I'll humor this discussion.
Perhaps the discussion should move away from which conference to move to. Perhaps the discussion should move towards looking for outside the box thinking. Here's my plan, if I'm the Milwaukee AD/Chancellor, on improving the conference:
Make one.
It's not such a crazy idea. There is precedence in the history of college sports, and there's a recent sort-of-example if you look outside basketball.
The latter example I'm referring to is the National Collegiate Hockey Conference, or NCHC. A few years ago, Penn State announced its move to NCAA D-I for ice hockey. This was incredibly important because up to that point, only five Big Ten schools played ice hockey (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State). Once PSU added hockey, the Big Ten could field a conference. The Big Ten schools were divided among two conferences: Minnesota and UW in the WCHA, and OSU, U of M and MSU in the CCHA. All five schools joined PSU to create the B1G for hockey, which sounded like a death knell to the other conferences.
Except it wasn't. The best schools of the WCHA and CCHA got together and created the NCHC, a brand new league that got an automatic bid immediately to the NCAA hockey tournament. The leftovers of the CCHA folded into the WCHA, making what had been the WCHA and CCHA into the B1G, NCHC and WCHA.
Guess which conference was worst off? The Big Ten. They will build up eventually, but their hockey programs are split between national powers (Minny, UW, Mich) and also-rans (MSU kinda, OSU). The conference hasn't got its footing yet. The WCHA, made up of all the dregs, has been best or second best of the three conferences since the realignment happened.
In hoops, this has happened before, and it's happened in the midwest. The Great Midwest Conference, created in 1990, pulled schools from several different conferences to make a borderline high-major conference - Cincy and Memphis left the Metro, UAB left the Sun Belt, Marquette and Saint Louis left the MCC (Horizon), and DePaul, one of the last independents. Dayton joined in 93. In 1995, after a slew of more schools from different conferences joined up, the Midwest name no longer fit (lots of southern schools). They became Conference USA.
___________
Long story short, you can create a conference by taking the best of different leagues and running with them. I'd shoot for an 8-team League, but 10 would be all right and the most I would go for. These are the schools I would consider for such a conference:
Horizon: Valpo, Oakland, Wright State, Milwaukee. Those should all be for obvious reasons. In the next state budget round we'll get our advance money for the practice facility, a project that is said to cost about $13 million (better than the one Creighton just opened). Wright State already has the facilities, with a nice $9 million practice facility and still-solid Nutter Center. Valpo doesn't have the facilities but succeeds and can own it's metro area, which albeit small would be entirely yours if you had a solid conference. Oakland has a nice game facility and is a strong program, although I'd rank them 4th here because I think most of their success is due to Greg Kampe, and he's 60 years old. Besides these four? CSU leans entirely on students and no one has ever gone to games. YSU is YSU. NKU is too new to D-I for this conference. Detroit is a shadow of what they once were. UIC can't put anything together, but I'd rank them 5th in this scenario. GB has no room to grow their budget.
Summit: North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Oral Roberts, Denver. The latter exists in an air hub so travel isn't as expensive as flying most places and therefore they can be a bit far-flung. Oral Roberts is traditionally strong, but I do think their status as a bandit program would scare me away too much. NDSU and SDSU would be a package deal and IMO a strong package to take. They both have great facilities - in NDSU's case brand-new - and they absolutely own two states that are growing. Their football programs are profitable to their universities, which is more than can be said about most I-AA schools. They're strong publics. I don't think any other conference school is close or even worth mentioning.
Ohio Valley: Murray State, Belmont. You're talking about two schools that succeed and have done so for a long time. I'm not familiar with budgets, but I'm sure Belmont could stand to grow its budget for this new conference. Murray State owns its corner of Kentucky. Belmont's president doesn't believe the Horizon or MVC are strong enough brands to merit full membership. My guess is a brand new conference would change that. Morehead State may be successful, but I don't think I'd offer membership based on what Kenneth Faried did in school. Others are non-starters.
Atlantic 10: Dayton, Saint Louis. Both schools used to be in the Horizon League and got left behind in the major hoops-only shuffle. The thinking around Marquette was that they'd both get invited not long after the start of the Big East, but that hasn't happened yet. I believe the Big East thinking now is that 10 is a good enough number and there's no reason to keep adding. VCU and the east coast schools are too far; Duquesne is probably the only school I would consider, but they have no recent history and they're something of a bandit program (although not as brazen as Oral Roberts). Other schools are too far east or too crappy.
Missouri Valley: Wichita State, Northern Iowa, Illinois State, Missouri State, Loyola. I think the Ramblers' problems are the same as when they left us - yeah they have facilities, but the donor base is ancient and they have no recent success. They get you entry to the Chicago recruiting base, but so does Valpo/Milwaukee. Missouri State's gorgeous JQH Arena is a great facility and the basis for a good program. Illinois State covers a lot of that central Illinois ground and could be a strong addition. Northern Iowa and Wichita State are obvious picks; the question isn't would they be invited but rather would they accept?
Working just from those five conferences, you could build a pretty great 8 or 10 team league:
8 team: Milwaukee, Valpo, Murray State, Belmont, Dayton, SLU, Wichita, UNI. Obviously I'm biased in putting Milwaukee in there, but we're a couple years from breaking ground on a high-major practice facility, so you can see I'm not just paying lip service. Also the people in Milwaukee have come out for big regular season games - we had 6500 at a recent Valpo game, 7500 for Marquette, 8k for GB, 10k for Wisconsin...when students are surveyed and asked the question "why don't you come to games?", the most common answer is "level of competition in the arena." Of those teams, Valpo, SLU and UNI have brought over 6k fans to the Arena. If we had a conference full of those games, I think our attendance would skyrocket. Valpo may sell out the ARC all season.
That conference is also 4v4 Public vs Private. There's something like 35 NCAA Tournaments in the past 20 years there.
This is obviously just an exercise. I think booting YSU out of the conference in the summer rather than adding NKU would have been everything we needed for 2015-16. But WH has a point - something is wrong in this league. I just hope we can fix it before it all goes to hell.
Thx WH for adding Panther's "exercise." He ranges far and wide but has some good arguments. I'm wondering about things like ....
:-\ Why Evansville was left out? They seem more likely to leave the MVC than the others mentioned. Plus they are another private
:-\ Murray is in a scholarship football conference. Not likely.
:-\ The potential foot print would be crazier than the current Summit foot print
:-\ Detroit may be less than in the past but a better new league with them in it would float their boat along with the rest of us don't you think?
:-\ Even in this scenario, we took another hit on our facilities >:(
:-\ I wonder what they'd call this new conference ???
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 12, 2016, 08:23:18 AM
Thx WH for adding Panther's "exercise." He ranges far and wide but has some good arguments. I'm wondering about things like ....
:- Why Evansville was left out? They seem more likely to leave the MVC than the others mentioned. Plus they are another private
:- Murray is in a scholarship football conference. Not likely.
:- The potential foot print would be crazier than the current Summit foot print
:- Detroit may be less than in the past but a better new league with them in it would float their boat along with the rest of us don't you think?
:- Even in this scenario, we took another hit on our facilities >:(
:- I wonder what they'd call this new conference ???
Evansville sucks at basketball. I still don't understand why people think academic performance is more important than athletic performance when it comes to athletic conferences. But that subject - beating a dead horse.
I just don't see the feasibility of this conference being formed. It still feels like a mid major conference, and the TV deal will be as such.
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I don't think SLU and Dayton are ever going to give up thinking they are Big East candidates. And in the mean time, they wouldn't leave the A10 to go laterally.
As long as we are wasting time, I'll throw out names for a great conference. A bit spread out, but it seems to be working well. The conference? The Pioneer League.
The North Division
Valpo
Butler
Drake
Dayton
Marist
South Division
Jacksonville
Davidson
Campbell
Stetson
Morehead State
San Diego makes the tough choice to stay in their exiting conference. ;D
Let's just say the latest ESPN bracketology is rather intriguing.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology)
Quote from: a3uge on January 12, 2016, 10:32:41 AM
I just don't see the feasibility of this conference being formed. It still feels like a mid major conference, and the TV deal will be as such.
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
Are you serious? This is a collection of the best mid majors in the mid west, if not the country. It would immediately be a better basketball conference than the A-10 and even the American Conference. It's all Midwest centric. It would be a multi-bid conference every year without failure. It would have a big time conference tournament that would rival the A-10's Brooklyn event. Our recruiting profile would improve dramatically. 3-stars would become the norm - not the exception. Valpo home games would immediately become a hot commodity. Finally, this conference would without a doubt garner interest in a revenue-generating, long term TV package with a major sports broadcasting company. For a small, private university that is Valpo, this would be hitting the lottery.
I should add this warning. Right now we are riding the 2nd of the 2 biggest highs we've ever had in our D-1 history. Everyone knows that we completely squandered a great opportunity to sustain the first wave by staying put in the pathetic Mid Con. There is no doubt in my mind that history WILL repeat itself if we don't proactively find a way to not only sustain the momentum we've built, but to build on it.
Butler's administration had the wisdom to recognize what they had and the strategic ability to act on it. Hopefully, Valpo's administration is up to same challenge. Otherwise, rest assured we will fall off the table again, probably beginning the day Bryce moves on.
18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.
24 "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' 26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28 " 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents.
Quote from: usc4valpo on January 12, 2016, 12:22:33 PMLet's just say the latest ESPN bracketology is rather intriguing.
Valpo - North Florida in Round 3... in Providence, where we've had some luck this year...
Honestly, if I were these collection of schools
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year.
Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.
I really like the creative thinking on forming a new conference if no other options are available, but I think that getting a strong enough conference (strong = best combination of quality teams and TV contract) would be very difficult. Additionally, while we may all love basketball the university presidents at many of these schools will consider all of the other sports and how realignment could impact them.
From a TV contract perspective, Murray State is very problematic (that school is more remote than many may realize). Northern Iowa gets Cedar Rapids but is going to lose the fight for attention with Iowa State and Iowa. Wichita State is interesting during the season for people in Wichita, Belmont and Valparaiso do not have a comparatively large alumni base, etc. Schools like this would indeed make a great conference, but I think that the best that you could do is to find a fledgling network that may only exist in some cable systems.
So I don't see any 'new conference' solution that would make things better (I should restate that this sort of creative thinking is needed). My guess for Valparaiso is that the best potential would be to have a tremendous regular season (get to Top 25) and then make a big statement in the NCAA tournament (Elite 8). Then, hopefully some great opportunities come up. Butler had its rapid rise because of their success AND lots of realignment at the same time.
If you don't get the MVC big dogs (Wichita State and Northern Iowa), I would doubt that the other MVS schools would leave.
Dayton and SLU will never leave the A10 unless it is to move up to the Big East (or similar). SLU has always had illusions of grandeur.
The Summit League schools: I just eliminate Oral Roberts for overall dislike. NDSU and SDSU are interesting and are schools with good enrollments, on campus stadiums, and money. I think the problem would be getting NDSU for a non-football conference, since I think NDSU will try to make a move to D1-A football and would seek the Mountain West (or a 'far away' conference just to get in or, in their dreams, the Big 12). I like Denver.
Quote from: bbtds on January 12, 2016, 04:20:12 PM
Honestly, if I were these collection of schools
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year.
Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.
Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 12, 2016, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: bbtds on January 12, 2016, 04:20:12 PM
Honestly, if I were these collection of schools
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year.
Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.
Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).
And where has most of the money for Butler's latest facilities--both athletic and academic--come from?
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 12, 2016, 04:33:26 PMThat said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).
For the Chapel, it really wouldn't surprise me. I don't know if other options were presented to the donors, but I well expect they approached the university looking to improve the Chapel.
I have much less intuition for the Welcome Center.
And, in general, I'm spitballing. I had no particular involvement with the Chapel addition, Helge Center, etc. I was at the dedication (with some others from the board!), and know some people who had greater involvement.
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 12, 2016, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: bbtds on January 12, 2016, 04:20:12 PM
Honestly, if I were these collection of schools
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year.
Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.
Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).
[/b]
Well perhaps you should do a little research before making such an assertion. The Chapel addition was funded by two Lutheran pastors who met at the Chapel. They are classmates of mine. They also were the lead donors on the Union project. One of the main purposes of the University is to advance its Lutheran tradition. There was a great need to consolidate the various aspects of Theology/campus ministries, which were scattered all over campus. They saw a need and responded accordingly.
As for the Welcome Center, I have no ideas how the Dusenbergs were approached. The fact is that the Welcome Center is the very first point of entry for new students and their families. The previous option was not very good and again had various players located in different spots. As much as we might want better athletic facilities it still takes the financial commitments necessary. These funds do not ever come from the endowment. Trust me, the athletic fund raising staff (which has been upgraded and expanded) is busy asking but it still takes a "yes" to proceed. There is a rumor floating about that a lead donor on the Rec Center may have been identified. That's all I know.
One way or the other Valpo will be making a commitment to an improved basketball venue, either proactively to take advantage of new opportunities that may come its way, or reactively after its flagship athletic program falls on hard times for a few years. With no announced facility improvement plan presently in the works valpo is already well down the road toward toward being left behind agin if anything new breaks loose.
That said it's important to remember that there are a lot of Valpo stakeholders who could care less about the mens bb program, including most of the faculty and administration, high dollar donors, and board members. They know there is only so much money to go around, and the last thing they want to see is a major investment being made on mens basketball. There is a second group (and I love these people) that is arrogant enough to believe that the success of the basketball program has to do with the institution (and them), and therefore the ARC is fine the way it is. They have no idea that 100% of the credit belongs to the Drew family.
LaPorte Apostle would be very pleased this got turned into a facilities discussion!! ;)
(http://cdn.streamlinetechnologies.com/valpoathletics/22A02316-F471-4A89-9E2C-CBAD5F7F62BA/10859M.jpg)
Greatest accomplishment in 15 years!
Hmmm Never really thought about the last 4 in but they are then positioned as play in games featuring a 10 vs a 10, and an 11 vs an 11. They get to warm up against opponents of equal strength. Then if victorious move on to play a 7 or a 6 seed.
Wasn't VCU the last team in on its way to the final 4?
Want a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament)
Quote from: vu72 on January 12, 2016, 04:53:26 PM
Quote from: vu84v2 on January 12, 2016, 04:33:26 PM
Quote from: bbtds on January 12, 2016, 04:20:12 PM
Honestly, if I were these collection of schools
Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton
I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year.
Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.
Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).
[/b]
Well perhaps you should do a little research before making such an assertion. The Chapel addition was funded by two Lutheran pastors who met at the Chapel. They are classmates of mine. They also were the lead donors on the Union project. One of the main purposes of the University is to advance its Lutheran tradition. There was a great need to consolidate the various aspects of Theology/campus ministries, which were scattered all over campus. They saw a need and responded accordingly.
As for the Welcome Center, I have no ideas how the Dusenbergs were approached. The fact is that the Welcome Center is the very first point of entry for new students and their families. The previous option was not very good and again had various players located in different spots. As much as we might want better athletic facilities it still takes the financial commitments necessary. These funds do not ever come from the endowment. Trust me, the athletic fund raising staff (which has been upgraded and expanded) is busy asking but it still takes a "yes" to proceed. There is a rumor floating about that a lead donor on the Rec Center may have been identified. That's all I know.
I made some comments earlier and then took them away.
One thing. I once met relatives of Richard Duesenberg in St Louis and they knew nothing of what was happening in Valpo athletics.
Those projects to my understanding were targeted projects by the donors. Some backdrop. I understand the group on here is among the most passionate fans/alumni about the program we have, and if we had our preferences the ARC would be upgraded tomorrow. There is a master plan, be patient and continue to save your dollars so you all can contribute to it when the time is right. Also, remember that the University has made upgrades to athletic facilities in the past few years, maybe not to all of your desires (basketball is one of many sports), but FITT and weight room are examples, not to mention commitment to salaries of basketball coaches and upgraded floor and Hilltop for practice. The next big athletic project will likely be the Intramural/student athletic center. That is another facility that is required to compete for the entire University (like the Union, Library and residence halls). There is a steady drumbeat about the ARC, but it is right size for the program right now, there is expansion opps and it will come in the priority order. I have been to lots of arenas around this country, and yes there are upgrades that would improve the viewing situation, but our viewing experience is still among the best in the Midwest, fans are close to the court, the noise level is great, it looks full on TV. Kent, BG, Akron, Detroit, YSU, Oakland aren't better. Old barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new. Others are new or upgraded arenas at public universities, or old big arenas that are empty of fans (CSU). CSU is even abandoning that facility on multiple occasions this year to play at the Q (hence another white elephant appears to be ascending in the Cleveland horizon). One of the nicest right now is Cintas in Cincy, but look how many years it took to get that. They played in an old barn know as the Gardens til fairly recently. Heck, the "greatest" venue by the so-called "media" experts is one of the oldest and most cramped places -- Cameron. Sometimes, we want a lot more than our budgets will permit. That said, we must not settle, we must capitalize on this time in Valpo basketball history. We must be out there creating the commitments to the program and the expansions of the facilities. I was among the more vocal proponents of this prior to 1998, during 1998, and subsequently (I've posted on here the letters to the then President about moving to the old MCC, the new HL, etc. and that we needed to move on this marketing-wise and fundraising-wise). You all should continue your campaign and let the AD and President Heckler know what you think. However, and a caution, emotion only goes so far. Bring the analytics -- how does it help the University in terms of admissions, funds raised, capital campaigns, etc. Or, how does it save costs in other areas? There are case studies out there -- a few years ago on Gonzaga's new arena (not sure what paper). Sometimes, I think you all shoot too low with these speculations about conferences. The one that makes the most sense for Valpo because of the schools in it and geography is the Big Least. And, you all talk about arena sizes, etc. need this, etc. to join. We can compete in that conference in all sports on the court, pitch or field -- right now. Dream big and do not settle. Or, better yet, write a big check for $5 mill to kick off ARC renovation/expansion today (or tomorrow after the Powerball) or help find someone who can -- identify to the AD how to fund it. But saying people are out there in this economy and the one we've had since 2008 and are ready to plunk down that kind of commitment, c'mon. Low hanging fruits aren't there. The next generations have to be cultivated or the vine will wither. We have been good stewards with our funds and our endowment. However, should we start investing/borrowing against that just for an arena, and when is the right time and do we have a strong endowment foundation, otherwise we're building a house on shifting sand. Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that. You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000. There may be some donors who would do that.
Not just individual donors but must go after corporate donors in the region.
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 08:11:43 AM
Those projects to my understanding were targeted projects by the donors. Some backdrop. I understand the group on here is among the most passionate fans/alumni about the program we have, and if we had our preferences the ARC would be upgraded tomorrow. There is a master plan, be patient and continue to save your dollars so you all can contribute to it when the time is right. Also, remember that the University has made upgrades to athletic facilities in the past few years, maybe not to all of your desires (basketball is one of many sports), but FITT and weight room are examples, not to mention commitment to salaries of basketball coaches and upgraded floor and Hilltop for practice. The next big athletic project will likely be the Intramural/student athletic center. That is another facility that is required to compete for the entire University (like the Union, Library and residence halls). There is a steady drumbeat about the ARC, but it is right size for the program right now, there is expansion opps and it will come in the priority order. I have been to lots of arenas around this country, and yes there are upgrades that would improve the viewing situation, but our viewing experience is still among the best in the Midwest, fans are close to the court, the noise level is great, it looks full on TV. Kent, BG, Akron, Detroit, YSU, Oakland aren't better. Old barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new. Others are new or upgraded arenas at public universities, or old big arenas that are empty of fans (CSU). CSU is even abandoning that facility on multiple occasions this year to play at the Q (hence another white elephant appears to be ascending in the Cleveland horizon). One of the nicest right now is Cintas in Cincy, but look how many years it took to get that. They played in an old barn know as the Gardens til fairly recently. Heck, the "greatest" venue by the so-called "media" experts is one of the oldest and most cramped places -- Cameron. Sometimes, we want a lot more than our budgets will permit. That said, we must not settle, we must capitalize on this time in Valpo basketball history. We must be out there creating the commitments to the program and the expansions of the facilities. I was among the more vocal proponents of this prior to 1998, during 1998, and subsequently (I've posted on here the letters to the then President about moving to the old MCC, the new HL, etc. and that we needed to move on this marketing-wise and fundraising-wise). You all should continue your campaign and let the AD and President Heckler know what you think. However, and a caution, emotion only goes so far. Bring the analytics -- how does it help the University in terms of admissions, funds raised, capital campaigns, etc. Or, how does it save costs in other areas? There are case studies out there -- a few years ago on Gonzaga's new arena (not sure what paper). Sometimes, I think you all shoot too low with these speculations about conferences. The one that makes the most sense for Valpo because of the schools in it and geography is the Big Least. And, you all talk about arena sizes, etc. need this, etc. to join. We can compete in that conference in all sports on the court, pitch or field -- right now. Dream big and do not settle. Or, better yet, write a big check for $5 mill to kick off ARC renovation/expansion today (or tomorrow after the Powerball) or help find someone who can -- identify to the AD how to fund it. But saying people are out there in this economy and the one we've had since 2008 and are ready to plunk down that kind of commitment, c'mon. Low hanging fruits aren't there. The next generations have to be cultivated or the vine will wither. We have been good stewards with our funds and our endowment. However, should we start investing/borrowing against that just for an arena, and when is the right time and do we have a strong endowment foundation, otherwise we're building a house on shifting sand. Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that. You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000. There may be some donors who would do that.
I think you might be a bit low on your estimates... UWM has a proposed practice facility estimated at $11,800,000 with $1,000,000 in yearly maintenance. I could be wrong, but I believe they're doing this within their budget (thanks taxpayers!)
Athletic upgrades to the ARC probably won't happen until the new REC center is built. Then you won't have the basketball team practicing on the same court that intramurals plays floor hockey. Once the REC center is built, they can get rid of the track and place chairbacks in the entire lower section. Lots of dominos have to fall in place first, so it still seems years down the road.
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 08:11:43 AMOld barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new.
Not really sure this is an accurate statement. With the major renovations to Hinkle and the Memorial Coliseum in Fort Wayne it is hardly accurate to call them "Old barns". IPFW also splits their games between the Coliseum and the Gates Center which is a small 2,000 seat arena that is part of the IPFW Athletics Center. I would also say that any trip to Hinkle is "special".
Otherwise I agree completely that we must capitalize on this special time. If this team meets some of the high expectations we all have for them then the administration must immediately move to
initiate projects that capitalize on this success. I am not saying that the priority of major projects should change, what I am saying is that the
perception of alumni is an important motivator and it should be perceived that steps are being taken to maintain or increase the achievements of the MBB program. There are few things that a university can give back to an alumni after the commencement of a degree... PRIDE, whether it be the recognition of a schools academic achievements or, the much easier of the two in today's society, its athletic prowess. The academic accomplishments, perhaps of more logical importance to the alumni of a university, are published in magazines, newspapers and online news services, while the athletic are broadcast across the globe in almost every media including all the social forms. If you want alumni and corporate sponsors to give more to the university simply make them proud to be associated with the success of a widely recognized successful institution.
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 08:11:43 AM
........ Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that. You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000. There may be some donors who would do that.
I've spoken with ML on this approach in general for all sports and also to Dave Cecchini as it relates to football. There are
real "projects" out there
right now that require funding, but most of us aren't privy to what they are. And here I disagree with the administration -- they prefer to solicit individual benefactors to underwrite these. Two good examples were the new weight training facility and the FB locker room. Each was substantially underwritten by a lead donor who was solicited for that project. That's great. But what about the rest of us who want to help but who don't have $100K to donate? I would like to see a publicized and promoted "2016 project list" or a "3 Year Project List" that allows casual donors (ones that might not have deep pockets) to target a project they personally want to see implemented and be associated with ("I helped fund that") and donate specifically to that project fund. I might be wrong in my interpretation, but the current approach is grounded in the philosophy that to do so would be viewed by potential donors as always asking for money (kind of like that telemarketer who never stops calling you). I think a balance can be struck that offered that annual project list while also pursuing the solicited lead donor.
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 13, 2016, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 08:11:43 AM
........ Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that. You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000. There may be some donors who would do that.
I've spoken with ML on this approach in general for all sports and also to Dave Cecchini as it relates to football. There are real "projects" out there right now that require funding, but most of us aren't privy to what they are. And here I disagree with the administration -- they prefer to solicit individual benefactors to underwrite these. Two good examples were the new weight training facility and the FB locker room. Each was substantially underwritten by a lead donor who was solicited for that project. That's great. But what about the rest of us who want to help but who don't have $100K to donate? I would like to see a publicized and promoted "2016 project list" or a "3 Year Project List" that allows casual donors (ones that might not have deep pockets) to target a project they personally want to see implemented and be associated with ("I helped fund that") and donate specifically to that project fund. I might be wrong in my interpretation, but the current approach is grounded in the philosophy that to do so would be viewed by potential donors as always asking for money (kind of like that telemarketer who never stops calling you). I think a balance can be struck that offered that annual project list while also pursuing the solicited lead donor.
Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!
62--you hit a good theme. The Advancement Office has been stuck in a model of look for the "big donor" and rely on those gifts and oh by the way don't interfere with the capital campaign. Rather, unless you ask about smaller projects, you don't necessarily hear about them. The Advancement Office needs to have the smaller development opportunities team that essentially utilizes the new models for fundraising -- crowdsourcing type things. Athletics could post on the its website or even this board -- hey we need helmets for the baseball team at $2000, people could then donate $1 or $2000 til they reach their goal for that project. Accomplishes 3 things (i) that's how millennials respond and donate, (ii) cost effective fundraising and (ii) broadens your donor base. Really crazy, crowdsource the whole $10 million ARC expansion project! 8-)
And while we're on it, another thing Advancement started doing is disincentiving givers to target gifts. If you don't give X amount to the Valpo Fund, then you don't qualify for the "big givers" lists. So, although you might give $2500 to the athletic department, the University doesn't recognize that gift in their publications under the appropriate giving levels the University recognizes, you only show up in the Athletics Department section under its levels. So, it makes athletic donors, or even CC-only designated donors, 2d class citizens to dear ol Valpo. In an age when more folks want more control over their gifting, that thinking is old school.
Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!
[/quote]
The University generally doesn't commit to those types of projects unless they have received commitments in for the entire or nearly entire amount. For example, your seating project would only be committed to when there were sufficient pledges.
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!
The University generally doesn't commit to those types of projects unless they have received commitments in for the entire or nearly entire amount. For example, your seating project would only be committed to when there were sufficient pledges.
[/quote]
I don't think they'd take donations from hundreds of people and not end up completing the project... It would probably turn off those people from donating in the future.
Quote from: valpo84 on January 13, 2016, 12:23:54 PM
62--you hit a good theme. The Advancement Office has been stuck in a model of look for the "big donor" and rely on those gifts and oh by the way don't interfere with the capital campaign. Rather, unless you ask about smaller projects, you don't necessarily hear about them. The Advancement Office needs to have the smaller development opportunities team that essentially utilizes the new models for fundraising -- crowdsourcing type things. Athletics could post on the its website or even this board -- hey we need helmets for the baseball team at $2000, people could then donate $1 or $2000 til they reach their goal for that project. Accomplishes 3 things (i) that's how millennials respond and donate, (ii) cost effective fundraising and (ii) broadens your donor base. Really crazy, crowdsource the whole $10 million ARC expansion project! 8-)
And while we're on it, another thing Advancement started doing is disincentiving givers to target gifts. If you don't give X amount to the Valpo Fund, then you don't qualify for the "big givers" lists. So, although you might give $2500 to the athletic department, the University doesn't recognize that gift in their publications under the appropriate giving levels the University recognizes, you only show up in the Athletics Department section under its levels. So, it makes athletic donors, or even CC-only designated donors, 2d class citizens to dear ol Valpo. In an age when more folks want more control over their gifting, that thinking is old school.
The crowd-sourcing model has many appealing qualities. especially if it has a truly public reach. In addition to those you mentioned, it has an infectious, momentum-building quality in that contributions will tend to accelerate as the projects near the required funding levels. However, to work well, campaigns have to have accurately-defined costs and a sense of urgency (an expiration date). The latter requirement exposes administrators and the school to the possibility of publicly-failed campaigns, which could be a liability to the school's reputation. To a degree, the risk could be mitigated by only opening up projects to crowd-sourcing when they've been funded up to a certain level through traditional means, but I don't think the conservative (and often, overly self-assured) administrators could handle any level of such risk.
Quote from: valpopal on January 12, 2016, 06:06:42 PMWant a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament)
Updated this morning and we are down to a six. My preseason thinking was that this would be theoretically possible (Murray St did it in 10-11?). So the only thing standing between us and a great seed is, is, is, is---------OK never mind. This is still the impossible dream.
My apology for for hijacking the bracketology thread away from facilities and donors.
Quote from: justducky on January 16, 2016, 12:19:47 PMUpdated this morning and we are down to a six.
http://bracketmatrix.com/ (http://bracketmatrix.com/)
shows a bunch of folks giving us great seeds, and one even a five
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/ (http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/)
A couple of slots better than Monmouth, and a couple of spots into the at-larges. We'll see.
In "actual" ESPN Bracketology news
[tweet]688086948028747776[/tweet]
while they were prepping for the Dayton-GWU game together, presumably.
For Lunardi's latest S curve:
[tweet]688383077274484736[/tweet]
with us, again, a couple of slots into the at-larges. He's got Monmouth as "not at-large", and not even in first twelve out.
The big conference teams, of course, will have in-season chances for quality wins. So, we'll see what develops...
Quote from: justducky on January 16, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
Quote from: valpopal on January 12, 2016, 06:06:42 PMWant a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament)
Updated this morning and we are down to a six. My preseason thinking was that this would be theoretically possible (Murray St did it in 10-11?). So the only thing standing between us and a great seed is, is, is, is---------OK never mind. This is still the impossible dream.
My apology for for hijacking the bracketology thread away from facilities and donors.
BPI is a horrible projection of seeding and isn't what Lunardi uses in his Bracketology predictions. The best website to gauge seeds is http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ - typically seeds are within 1 or 2 of the consensus order. Valpo's average seed is a 10.27, with a low of 5 and high of 13. Lots of 7s and lots of 12s. If Valpo somehow got a 13, it would mean 3 or 4 losses in conference and someone in the team sleeping with a couple wives from the selection committee.
Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk
Quote from: a3uge on January 16, 2016, 12:33:19 PMThe best website to gauge seeds is http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/)
He casts a pretty wide net - any idea how many of his sources are garbage?
But, fun to follow, horse race style, for sure.
Quote from: a3uge on January 16, 2016, 12:33:19 PM
Quote from: justducky on January 16, 2016, 12:19:47 PM
...If Valpo somehow got a 13, it would mean 3 or 4 losses in conference and someone in the team sleeping with a couple wives from the selection committee.
Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk
AND getting caught. 5 if they didn't.
I just did a brief review of some of the high mid-majors surrounding us in the bracketology conversations.
Team RPI Sag True OOC Rd games Pomeroy
VU 17 34 7 19
Dayton 11 35 1 44
Wichita St 40 32 3 23
Gonzaga 62 26 1 37
St. Marys 46 19 1 17
George Wash 33 55 3 62
VCU 72 38 2 33
On selection Sunday any or all of these could be seeding or even at-large bid competitors. Most commentators with their "Big Conference" orientations would incorrectly lump us into this category. Looking at the true OOC road games it becomes apparent that we have nowhere near the scheduling selection powers that they do.
If we want to compare scheduling power, we also have to see what they did with those home games. Did they get decent opponents? Presumably we _could_ have paid more of the RPI 300 set to visit Valparaiso, but chose not to.
I'll throw in Warren Nolan's RPI-based non-conference SOS.
Team RPI Sag True OOC Rd games Pomeroy non-conference SOS (Warren Nolan, RPI style)
VU 17 34 7 19 31
Dayton 11 35 1 44 3
Wichita St 40 32 3 23 4
Gonzaga 62 26 1 37 15
St. Marys 46 19 1 17 179
George Wash 33 55 3 62 106
VCU 72 38 2 33 158
Monmouth 22 61 7 45 7
Where I also added in Monmouth as someone who could definitely be seeding or at-large competition, and is doing it more Valpo style.
So, yes, it would seem that Dayton and Gonzaga have a lot more scheduling pull than Valpo. Getting quality opponents to travel.
St. Mary's? Not so much.
Getting high quality in-season tournaments, with neutral court games, would be a good intermediate step. We've discussed this in the past, but I don't know if there's any consensus as to why we can't get into the "better" events.
Up to a 10 seed vs. Wichita State in Lunardi's latest bracketology. Monmouth also a 10.
Palm (CBS) has us as an 11 vs. Kentucky.
Quote from: valpo4life on January 18, 2016, 10:47:54 AMUp to a 10 seed vs. Wichita State in Lunardi's latest bracketology. Monmouth also a 10.
Nice. So he's claiming that Monmouth and we are firmly in the at-large, it would seem. At least five at-larges below us... (Rounding up by two spots doesn't seem so likely, but maybe it's allowed...)
Wichita State would be profoundly unkind, of course. Mid on mid violence, and all.
Quote from: agibson on January 16, 2016, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 16, 2016, 12:33:19 PMThe best website to gauge seeds is http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/)
He casts a pretty wide net - any idea how many of his sources are garbage?
But, fun to follow, horse race style, for sure.
He's willing to take one from anyone and everyone, which helps to kind of balance things out. I think overall, it is a really good gauge of the landscape as a whole. And it also lets you find a lot of not quite as well known sources for this stuff, some of which are quite good.
Quote from: agibson on January 17, 2016, 04:15:52 PMSo, yes, it would seem that Dayton and Gonzaga have a lot more scheduling pull than Valpo. Getting quality opponents to travel.
St. Mary's? Not so much.
Getting high quality in-season tournaments, with neutral court games, would be a good intermediate step. We've discussed this in the past, but I don't know if there's any consensus as to why we can't get into the "better" events.
I am not certain of the rules or the logic but someone commented that to participate in the "better" events you need to "host in the prior season ??? or some such". So maybe the Oregon St gig along with hosting Iona and 2 non D-1s was the best we could do?
I already posed the question as to whether or not this season's hosting efforts will qualify us for "prime" 16-17 events but strangely no one replied. I took that silence as a sign of uncertainty.
Frankly many of these exempt tournaments are just no bargain (except for the majors). With todays structuring you frequently only play one major team at their home site and are then shuffled to a neutral site "kids table" event featuring less than ideal mid- major competitors.
Oakland announced they will be In the Alaskan shootout next year.m
The Great Alaska Shootout is not what it used to be. It is still a good/solid tournament, but is no longer thought of as the #2 tournament to #1 Maui Invitational. When we played in Alaska, it was still a very prestigious tournament.
This year:
Quarterfinalists
Alaska Anchorage Seawolves (DII, GNAC)
Drexel Dragons (CAA)
Loyola of Chicago Ramblers (MVC)
Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders (C-USA)
UNC Asheville Bulldogs (Big South)
San Diego Toreros (WCC)
San Jose State Spartans (MW)
Toledo Rockets (MAC)
So isn't this the type of scheduling we were encouraging Oakland to seek? More potential wins rather than playing only for guaranteed money to help the budget.
Quote from: sliman on January 19, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
So isn't this the type of scheduling we were encouraging Oakland to seek? More potential wins rather than playing only for guaranteed money to help the budget.
Yes.
Quote from: a3uge on January 19, 2016, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: sliman on January 19, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
So isn't this the type of scheduling we were encouraging Oakland to seek? More potential wins rather than playing only for guaranteed money to help the budget.
Yes.
Despite their recent RPI drop to 149 Oakland is still a Pomeroy 103 and Sagarin 100 team. So if Felder and his core group all return (big if) then Oakland could be in the thick of the 16-17 at-large conversations. With that as our starting point would you rather they fatten up on cream puff mid majors or go gunning for trophies? I think the MAC 2014-15 strategy of piling up meaningless wins might now be totally discredited. Either way I doubt that many top 100 teams who were willing to play them this year will be willing to play them next.
Quote from: justducky on January 19, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 19, 2016, 12:05:59 PM
Quote from: sliman on January 19, 2016, 12:01:23 PM
So isn't this the type of scheduling we were encouraging Oakland to seek? More potential wins rather than playing only for guaranteed money to help the budget.
Yes.
Despite their recent RPI drop to 149 Oakland is still a Pomeroy 103 and Sagarin 100 team. So if Felder and his core group all return (big if) then Oakland could be in the thick of the 16-17 at-large conversations. With that as our starting point would you rather they fatten up on cream puff mid majors or go gunning for trophies? I think the MAC 2014-15 strategy of piling up meaningless wins might now be totally discredited. Either way I doubt that many top 100 teams who were willing to play them this year will be willing to play them next.
I want them to finally have an RPI close to their abilities. It's absolutely ridiculous that the Horizon's second best team is at a 149. We will have 0 opportunities in conference to collect another top 100 RPI win, something which the selection committee does see and look at. Valpo can win out and end up with the same exact RPI. That's a major problem. Last year Oakland didn't even finish above .500. I don't think anyone is advocating them playing "cream puff mid majors", but they're not going to be anywhere close to an at-large scheduling the way they do now. Even had Oakland beat Michigan State and Virginia, their RPI would be around 98. That's nowhere close enough for an at-large. They should worry about winning games they should and less about upsetting top 10 teams.
I absolutely agree. Again, our 2nd best team should not be in the mid 100's. They are much much better than their rpi suggests.
Oakland AD takes questions on their fan forum (pretty cool) and he usually responds. I think you should copy the above and send it his way. Kampe also takes questions from his radio show.
If they chance their ways just a little, they will be helping the HL. They are a good team and dedicated to winning which helps the HL, but they can do more for the HL by their scheduling.
Palm's updated us to a 10, happen to be facing Pittsburgh in Des Moines.
Currently he's go the play-in games both as 11-11. He said on twitter as recently as Monday that we couldn't afford a loss in the HL tourney... But, at a 10 seed we must be pretty close, in his estimation, to an at-large. He's got Gonzaga, GWU, Oregon State at the other 10's, and Monmouth, Wichita State, and the play-ins at the 11's.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
Bracketmatrix.com, with all brackets represented coming after our Michigan road wins, but necessarily our last three wins, has us as the top 11 seed, an average of 9.98 in brackets. With a 6 (still teamrankings.com), but also still some 13's, even as recently as this Monday. (And their averages include a 12-12 play-in. They also push Wichita State and Gonzaga up to the 9's.)
Quote from: oklahomamick on January 19, 2016, 02:38:08 PM
I absolutely agree. Again, our 2nd best team should not be in the mid 100's. They are much much better than their rpi suggests.
What a difference a day makes. They have lost 3 home games already, including 2 to league bottom feeders. 8 of their remaining 12 games are on the road. They are not even in the conversation for "2nd best team" - at this point.
Personally, I don't have any special feelings about Oakland one way or the other. They're just 1 of several teams standing between us and a return trip to the Big Dance. That said, as been discussed many times the location of the tournament gives Oakland and Detroit a built in advantage over the rest of the field. For that reason alone I will be pulling for anyone else but those 2 to get the other double bye, and anyone else to reach the championship game against us (if we are able to get there).
Maybe I should have said 2nd best talent, instead of second best team. Then again, 2nd best talent could be the other Detroit group.
You don't suppose this is all part of the plan by the league to get JLA ticket sales up for Round 1? Having them play in the early round might draw a few more fans than a Northern Kentucky-Green Bay game.
Quote from: agibson on January 20, 2016, 12:52:19 PM
Palm's updated us to a 10, happen to be facing Pittsburgh in Des Moines.
Currently he's go the play-in games both as 11-11. He said on twitter as recently as Monday that we couldn't afford a loss in the HL tourney... But, at a 10 seed we must be pretty close, in his estimation, to an at-large. He's got Gonzaga, GWU, Oregon State at the other 10's, and Monmouth, Wichita State, and the play-ins at the 11's.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology)
Bracketmatrix.com, with all brackets represented coming after our Michigan road wins, but necessarily our last three wins, has us as the top 11 seed, an average of 9.98 in brackets. With a 6 (still teamrankings.com), but also still some 13's, even as recently as this Monday. (And their averages include a 12-12 play-in. They also push Wichita State and Gonzaga up to the 9's.)
Pitt would be a dream matchup. They played ZERO out of conference road games. Only two neutral court games, both to middling A10 teams. They got destroyed in two games vs really good defenses - Louisville and Purdue. I think Valpo could win that game pretty easily.
Did you happen to see the first half of the Pitt vs Gonzaga game that got canceled(It was in Japan,to much moisture on the floor http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/11/13/pitt-vs-gonzaga-slippery-court-conditions-canceled-early (http://www.si.com/college-basketball/2015/11/13/pitt-vs-gonzaga-slippery-court-conditions-canceled-early)). Pitt is very athletic,they were up on the Zags at halftime.I would be worried about them if somehow that bracket prediction is correct. It would be awesome to be in a 10 vs 7 game though!
Quote from: VUSWIM08-12 on January 20, 2016, 09:17:09 PMIt would be awesome to be in a 10 vs 7 game though!
under their scenario, winner would get Iowa (or North Florida)... in DesMoines... which would mean Tickets would be hard to get for our faithful.
College basketball: Become acquainted with these possible bracket busters
http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2016-01-20/college-basketball-become-acquainted-these-possible-bracket?cid=ncaammsocial_tw_sf19313329 (http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2016-01-20/college-basketball-become-acquainted-these-possible-bracket?cid=ncaammsocial_tw_sf19313329)
Didn't know where to put this so added to this Bracketology thread.
USA Today has us as a 9 seed playing Colorado. Sagarin has us up to #34 and Notre Dame at #35!! Got to love it!! Oh, and our friends a little south of Valpo also got a 9 seed, playing Pittsburgh.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/01/21/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-march-madness-college-basketball/79022432/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/01/21/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-march-madness-college-basketball/79022432/)
12 seed would be the highest we can get now with another bad road loss.
Quote from: valpotx on January 22, 2016, 08:06:40 PM
12 seed would be the highest we can get now with another bad road loss.
Or nah.
Quote from: valpotx on January 22, 2016, 08:06:40 PM
12 seed would be the highest we can get now with another bad road loss.
We can't get another loss or it will be a 12, maybe even 13 but if we win out I think it will be 10 or 11.
I just can't see the committee giving a 10 seed to a team with losses at Ball State, at Belmont, and at Wright State. These are not bad losses for a mid-major program, but when comparing our losses against losses that standard 10 seeds end up with (Power 5), I just don't see it happening.
Quote from: bbtds on January 22, 2016, 08:36:16 PM
Quote from: valpotx on January 22, 2016, 08:06:40 PM
12 seed would be the highest we can get now with another bad road loss.
We can't get another loss or it will be a 12, maybe even 13 but if we win out I think it will be 10 or 11.
Valpo could lose 3 conference games and still be an 11 seed. Still a top 50 RPI with wins over quality teams, and a much better resume than Valpo's team last year.
The HL is very down this year. The conference RPI is #15. We don't have room to lose 3 conference games against mid-100 and below RPI teams, and still be a 10-11 seed.
Quote from: valpotx on January 22, 2016, 09:17:48 PM
The HL is very down this year. The conference RPI is #15. We don't have room to lose 3 conference games against mid-100 and below RPI teams, and still be a 10-11 seed.
Our RPI would still be top 50 with 3 conference losses. Last year we were 50 exactly, but had 1 top 100 OOC RPI win and a really weak SOS.
And seriously look at the other top mid majors this year - Monmouth and AR-LR are losing in conference on the road. It sucks, but this stuff happens to mid majors. Maybe we didn't shield ourselves from a 12 seed, but Valpo still has a better resume than the other mid majors.
Those seeds are all on speculation that we win our tournament. We may get a 12 seed but we have to win our tournament, otherwise it's no seed. We could win the rest of our games and lose the last one....
Well at least we needn't worry about being an 8 or 9. I would have hated winning out then being rewarded with one of those when we could have deserved a 6 or 7. A 10 11, 12 even a 13 suits me just fine from a competitive standpoint. Or we might go into an Oakland like tailspin. :o Oh please don't send us to the NIT even if we could win the whole thing!
[tweet]690763256252743680[/tweet]
[tweet]690764360583663616[/tweet]
You could read that two ways. And, it's hard to know if Lunardi had the Wright State loss in mind, or not, when he posted his S-curve not too long after the game and had us #41, somewhere around the top edge of "last four in".
I'm choosing to think that he meant, "win out, lose in the tournament final, and they've still got some shot at an at-large." Of course, what does Lunardi know?
Quote from: agibson on January 23, 2016, 12:29:38 AMI'm choosing to think that he meant, "win out, lose in the tournament final, and they've still got some shot at an at-large." Of course, what does Lunardi know?
My thoughts well before tonight were that a 17-1 conference record with a championship game loss at Detroit would still have us is contention for an at-large. Some decent wins with only 5 losses would certainly still have us in the conversation. That said our chances would be maybe 35 or 40% and the inevitable "who did they beat?" would be asked. In that light the ref tripping incident at Oregon St could be enormous.
Quote from: agibson on January 23, 2016, 12:29:38 AMOf course, what does Lunardi know?
I've been saying the same thing ever since he started doing brackets for ESPN. What makes Lunardi so much better than anyone else at predicting brackets? He simply isn't.
Quote from: historyman on January 23, 2016, 10:43:06 PM
Quote from: agibson on January 23, 2016, 12:29:38 AMOf course, what does Lunardi know?
I've been saying the same thing ever since he started doing brackets for ESPN. What makes Lunardi so much better than anyone else at predicting brackets? He simply isn't.
:clap:
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 24, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
Quote from: historyman on January 23, 2016, 10:43:06 PM
Quote from: agibson on January 23, 2016, 12:29:38 AMOf course, what does Lunardi know?
I've been saying the same thing ever since he started doing brackets for ESPN. What makes Lunardi so much better than anyone else at predicting brackets? He simply isn't.
:clap:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maj1r0IfjH1rqqk0ko1_250.gif)
I though it only appropriate to give you
the clap-----also.
Lunardi's bracket came out Monday. 10 seed against Dayton in St. Louis.
Ahead of ~5 at-large teams.
Quote from: agibson on January 27, 2016, 09:49:43 AM
Lunardi's bracket came out Monday. 10 seed against Dayton in St. Louis.
Ahead of ~5 at-large teams.
That would be awesome, except for the mid-on-mid violence, of course ;)
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 27, 2016, 04:12:51 PMThat would be awesome, except for the mid-on-mid violence, of course
It seems remarkably common for Valpo, in his brackets.
Dayton, Wichita State, a month ago it was Gonzaga. Three for seven, anyway. I assume that's well above average for the #4-7 lines our opponents have been on.
so... being the planner... I went to the NCAA tournament site to look at ticket availability... YIKES !
Nose-Bleed baseline upper upper upper deck at:
Des Moines: $225 PER TICKET for Day 1 Session 1 (that's two games)
St. Louis: $198 PER TICKET for Day 1 Session 1
I stopped looking... I'm hoping that includes some serious broker-fee that would not be charged if we get into the Participating Team Ticket Pool.
Quote from: talksalot on January 27, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
so... being the planner... I went to the NCAA tournament site to look at ticket availability... YIKES !
Nose-Bleed baseline upper upper upper deck at:
Des Moines: $225 PER TICKET for Day 1 Session 1 (that's two games)
St. Louis: $198 PER TICKET for Day 1 Session 1
I stopped looking... I'm hoping that includes some serious broker-fee that would not be charged if we get into the Participating Team Ticket Pool.
On seatgeek.com they have upstairs corner seats (where the section was in Columbus) for $140 (incl fees) in Des Moines for section 1. But from there prices skyrocket.
Session 1 for St Louis has seats in the lower bowl for $96 including fees and even has a center court lower bowl seat for $203.
Tickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
Also, it depends on the matchup too. I went to the Championship Game for $177 and sat in the 2nd deck next to some SMU assistants. If you time it right, you can get a good deal!
Funny, I've been looking at Copa America tickets - tournament in June. They're barely on sale yet, only the first couple of advanced pools are in.
I've been thinking about Horizon League tournament tickets - again, only 4-day tickets on sale at this point.
It hadn't occurred to me that NCAA tickets were already on sale. Looks like it started in October. I know Ticketmaster does secondary market stuff now too... I can't quite tell, are those prices face value? Looks like it might be.
I guess it makes sense if you're a local and just want to see some good basketball. I wonder how many fans buy up tickets to a variety of sites, planning to sell off the ones where their team isn't playing?
I'd looked at the options a while back, considered the sites I'd be willing to get to on short notice (e.g. drive), what days of the week I could conceivably drop everything to get away, etc, etc. It didn't look likely for the first/second round, for sure.
But, I'd not even thought about buying the tickets months in advance... Before any of the teams were announced.
What did I pay for the sweet sixteen in St. Louis in the 90's? $50 per seat? Not more than $100, I'm pretty sure. But, it was a long time ago. It did seem border-line exorbitant at the time. And the seats were _not_ good.
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMOn seatgeek.com they have upstairs corner seats (where the section was in Columbus) for $140 (incl fees) in Des Moines for section 1. But from there prices skyrocket.
Session 1 for St Louis has seats in the lower bowl for $96 including fees and even has a center court lower bowl seat for $203.
Now I'm pretty confused by the pricing.
I had just about convinced myself that the "Get Tickets" links from
http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/basketball-men/d1 (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/basketball-men/d1)
were for retail pricing.
And that the Ticketmaster secondary market was the "Experience/Exchange" link from that page.
But the retail prices from ncaa.com seem well above what you mentioned...
Anyone know the story here?
Quote from: agibson on January 27, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMOn seatgeek.com they have upstairs corner seats (where the section was in Columbus) for $140 (incl fees) in Des Moines for section 1. But from there prices skyrocket.
Session 1 for St Louis has seats in the lower bowl for $96 including fees and even has a center court lower bowl seat for $203.
Now I'm pretty confused by the pricing.
I had just about convinced myself that the "Get Tickets" links from
http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/basketball-men/d1 (http://www.ncaa.com/tickets/basketball-men/d1)
were for retail pricing.
And that the Ticketmaster secondary market was the "Experience/Exchange" link from that page.
But the retail prices from ncaa.com seem well above what you mentioned...
Anyone know the story here?
I get why you're confused - Ticketmaster is the official ticket broker for the NCAA. They sell face value tickets for the tournament games. They also have a ticket exchange where anyone who owns a ticket can sell through their marketplace.
There's also popular reseller sites like StubHub or Ticket City, where, again, anyone can sell their tickets and the website takes a cut of their sale.
My recommended site:
http://seatgeek.com/
Best user interface and you can see if the seat is a good deal or not. It combines tickets from 4 or 5 reseller sites and you see tickets with fees included. Ticketmaster will have up to 20% fees that aren't listed until after you've entered your credit card and are about to click submit! StubHub finally went the fees included route.
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 05:19:54 PMMy recommended site:
http://seatgeek.com/ (http://seatgeek.com/)
Noted, I'll keep it in mind.
I have some idea of the various primary and secondary market options. But, I think I found my mistake. By default the NCAA page was giving me "all session" tickets, and I was comparing those prices to your session 1 prices from seatgeek. Probably talksalot's prices were also "all session" tickets? An "all session" St. Louis ticket would be, what, six games?
$198 (albeit before fees) doesn't sound so bad, in principle, for six games. Cheaper than I'd have expected, in fact. So, maybe I still have it wrong! But, at least, Seat Geek's prices for those tickets are higher, as you might expect.
I went to OK City in "the year"... without a ticket, got one from a scalper 10 minutes before tip... for $10... got in the building, sat in the 4th row behind the team bench down the row from Gene Bartow.
Those were the days...
My father and I went to the game. I was very young and barely remember. I didn't think anything of it at the time and then 10 years later I received a recruiting letter from Valpo. Valpo was not in my top 5 but my Dad talked me into taking an official visit and the rest is history.
Jan 28: USAToday has Valpo as a #10 seed and playing #7 seed Duke in the East Region in NYC.
The NCAA's preference to get teams that are among the top 5 seeds closer to their home is what is driving up ticket prices. Iowa and Iowa State fans both can make a reasonable assumption of being a 1 through 4 seed and playing at Des Moines. While there are other reasonably close options for Kansas, St. Louis is still a probable place for Kansas and is the very likely place for Kentucky if they are a 1 through 4 seed.
Some really unfortunate 10 or 11 seed team will probably get Duke in Raleigh.
Nah... the #4 Tarheels will get that slot... Duke will be "Sent Packing"...
Going back to 1979 Duke's lowest seeds were the 2007's 6th seed vs VCU when they were sent packing to Buffalo and 1996's 8th seed vs EMU in Indianapolis
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMTickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
I thought they were pretty good myself.
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology)
Quote from: UConnHoops on January 29, 2016, 07:48:07 PM
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/team/valparaiso-crusaders/bracketology)
Yeah, they're the guys that _really_ like us. Have been a 6 or a 7 there consistently.
Though, to my surprise, they're not our high currently
http://bracketmatrix.com/ (http://bracketmatrix.com/)
has a six too. And several 9's. Average of 10.7, slipping a bit to the last of the 11 lines. But still ahead of two at-larges.
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 28, 2016, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMTickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
I thought they were pretty good myself.
They were okay. I wouldn't call them good. At least they weren't in the deck above us.
Quote from: bbtds on January 30, 2016, 01:16:45 AM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 28, 2016, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMTickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
I thought they were pretty good myself.
They were okay. I wouldn't call them good. At least they weren't in the deck above us.
I know what you mean. I had to sit up in nosebleed for the night session, right behind two UD fans who insisted on standing up through half the game. Fortunately, I could see the whole court in between their two bodies ;)
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 28, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Jan 28: USAToday has Valpo as a #10 seed and playing #7 seed Duke in the East Region in NYC.
February 1: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed Michigan in the West Region in Spokane. Our buddies, the Oregon Ducks, BTW, are given a #2 also in the West
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/216 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/216)
ESPN's bracketology has us playing Indiana in Spokane. Survive that and we get a rematch with Oregon.
Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) has us as the first 12 seed. The team who is in the last line for 5 seeds... Baylor. If there's ever a season for this to happen, let it be this one!
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 01, 2016, 01:11:23 PM
Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) has us as the first 12 seed. The team who is in the last line for 5 seeds... Baylor. If there's ever a season for this to happen, let it be this one!
Cracks me up that one guy still has us as a 6 seed.
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 30, 2016, 02:16:31 AM
Quote from: bbtds on January 30, 2016, 01:16:45 AM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 28, 2016, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMTickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
I thought they were pretty good myself.
They were okay. I wouldn't call them good. At least they weren't in the deck above us.
I know what you mean. I had to sit up in nosebleed for the night session, right behind two UD fans who insisted on standing up through half the game. Fortunately, I could see the whole court in between their two bodies ;)
"D.....A.....Y.....T.....O....o o o o o.....N"
I hate Dayton, just because they play that stupid song over and over and over. I had some obnoxious UD fans in front of me as well, who could not help but speak like Dayton is on another level from Valpo. Basically, they were living in their glory years of the 70's/80's, and thought that it still applied.
Quote from: valpotx on February 01, 2016, 01:56:32 PM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 30, 2016, 02:16:31 AM
Quote from: bbtds on January 30, 2016, 01:16:45 AM
Quote from: StlVUFan on January 28, 2016, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: a3uge on January 27, 2016, 04:58:17 PMTickets through Valpo last year were $95, but again, those seats were pretty bad.
I thought they were pretty good myself.
They were okay. I wouldn't call them good. At least they weren't in the deck above us.
I know what you mean. I had to sit up in nosebleed for the night session, right behind two UD fans who insisted on standing up through half the game. Fortunately, I could see the whole court in between their two bodies ;)
"D.....A.....Y.....T.....O....o o o o o.....N"
I hate Dayton, just because they play that stupid song over and over and over. I had some obnoxious UD fans in front of me as well, who could not help but speak like Dayton is on another level from Valpo. Basically, they were living in their glory years of the 70's/80's, and thought that it still applied.
I had to sit through that at the First Four too ;)
I ran into a UD fan in the hallways during the first night game (Albany vs. someone) and he did say it was too bad Valpo lost. I probably mentioned something about rooting for mid-majors, and he was sure to jump on that and expect that I was rooting for Dayton in the nightcap ;)
Quote from: oklahomamick on February 01, 2016, 12:48:45 PM
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/216 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/216)
ESPN's bracketology has us playing Indiana in Spokane. Survive that and we get a rematch with Oregon.
Down to the 11 line. At-large wise, ahead of maybe only the 12-12 play-in game, but with four other at-larges on the 11 line, so hard to say. On his S curve from Jan 30 we were unchanged at #41, ahead of Monmouth and ~6 at-large teams. So maybe it's a "high" 11. Wouldn't be shocking if it depended on geography.
Quote from: StlVUFan on February 01, 2016, 01:52:01 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 01, 2016, 01:11:23 PM
Bracket Matrix (http://www.bracketmatrix.com/) has us as the first 12 seed. The team who is in the last line for 5 seeds... Baylor. If there's ever a season for this to happen, let it be this one!
Cracks me up that one guy still has us as a 6 seed.
Bracket Matrix needs updated, guy who had us as 6 is now down to 7. He has an excel of his rankings so you can see some of his thought process. Clearly puts emphasis on Kenpom.
This isn't ESPN Bracketology, This is K.Y.L.E. Bracketology, get ready to be schooled Lunardi.
The image is clickable to embiggen it. ALL CAPS=Auto Qualifier.
(http://s10.postimg.org/p6r7oi1q1/Bracket.png) (http://s10.postimg.org/p6r7oi1q1/Bracket.png)
If you're wondering about my bubble...
Last 4 in:
George Washington
California
William & Mary
Cincinnati
Last 4 out
Kansas St.
Butler
Vanderbilt
Princeton
AQ's who would be an at large
Villanova
Iowa
Oregon
West Virginia
North Carolina
Dayton
Wichita St.
Valparaiso
Monmouth
Arkansas Little Rock
We are a 10 seed again in Lunardi's recent release, playing 7 seed South Carolina. I would love that match-up, as nothing about SC on a jersey would intimidate our team. It is only the big name schools that seem to cause our guys to wilt. With SC, you get the thought of, 'they play basketball?' :)
Quote from: valpotx on February 08, 2016, 11:58:43 AM
We are a 10 seed again in Lunardi's recent release, playing 7 seed South Carolina. I would love that match-up, as nothing about SC on a jersey would intimidate our team. It is only the big name schools that seem to cause our guys to wilt. With SC, you get the thought of, 'they play basketball?' :)
We're still unchanged at #41 on his S curve, so maybe bouncing around between a 10 and an 11.
I certainly have as much, if not more, faith in Kyle as I do Lunardi.
Quote from: historyman on February 09, 2016, 01:47:28 AM
I certainly have as much, if not more, faith in Kyle as I do Lunardi.
I'm actually reworking my formula a little and right now I have us as a 6 seed in it's current iteration. I feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test. I don't know, I might just stick to the original formula because it works alright.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 09, 2016, 01:52:05 PMI feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test.
That squares with KenPom, at least. Valpo 23*, Kentucky 21, USC 27, Connecticut 22. Depends on what you're aiming for, perhaps. Something that predicts results on a neutral court? Something that predicts what committees will decide? Something else?
*I admittedly worry about what's going to happen in the NCAA when we meet a really potent offense. Though KenPom claims Oakland 21, Milwaukee 37, Detroit 77. Or maybe especially a really potent defense. KenPom claims Wright State 69, and I'll feel a little better if we can drop 80 points on them at the ARC, or at least beat them by 15.
Quote from: agibson on February 09, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 09, 2016, 01:52:05 PMI feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test.
That squares with KenPom, at least. Valpo 23*, Kentucky 21, USC 27, Connecticut 22. Depends on what you're aiming for, perhaps. Something that predicts results on a neutral court? Something that predicts what committees will decide? Something else?
*I admittedly worry about what's going to happen in the NCAA when we meet a really potent offense. Though KenPom claims Oakland 21, Milwaukee 37, Detroit 77. Or maybe especially a really potent defense. KenPom claims Wright State 69, and I'll feel a little better if we can drop 80 points on them at the ARC, or at least beat them by 15.
Which game so far have we (1) clamped down the D to strangle the opponent (2) exploded on Offense and had our way with an opponent, and (3) did it against a quality team? We've done prices, but I don't think we've done that in one game quite yet ( I welcome contradictions, I really do) but we have that chance on a few occasions in the next couple of weeks: WRS, OU, UWM and UWGB. Yeah, UDM too.
Looking at what I just wrote, man, the last half of he season could jack us up pretty high in the rankings, bubbles, rips/schmarpis cuz these opponents are the iron. Of e league. Is that true?
Quote from: agibson on February 09, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 09, 2016, 01:52:05 PMI feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test.
That squares with KenPom, at least. Valpo 23*, Kentucky 21, USC 27, Connecticut 22. Depends on what you're aiming for, perhaps. Something that predicts results on a neutral court? Something that predicts what committees will decide? Something else?
*I admittedly worry about what's going to happen in the NCAA when we meet a really potent offense. Though KenPom claims Oakland 21, Milwaukee 37, Detroit 77. Or maybe especially a really potent defense. KenPom claims Wright State 69, and I'll feel a little better if we can drop 80 points on them at the ARC, or at least beat them by 15.
Quote from: agibson on February 09, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 09, 2016, 01:52:05 PMI feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test.
That squares with KenPom, at least. Valpo 23*, Kentucky 21, USC 27, Connecticut 22. Depends on what you're aiming for, perhaps. Something that predicts results on a neutral court? Something that predicts what committees will decide? Something else?
*I admittedly worry about what's going to happen in the NCAA when we meet a really potent offense. Though KenPom claims Oakland 21, Milwaukee 37, Detroit 77. Or maybe especially a really potent defense. KenPom claims Wright State 69, and I'll feel a little better if we can drop 80 points on them at the ARC, or at least beat them by 15.
Quote from: agibson on February 09, 2016, 09:27:18 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 09, 2016, 01:52:05 PMI feel like I need to work on this some more because us as a 6 seed doesn't fit the eye test. We're there with USC, Kentucky and Connecticut. Again, not passing the eye test.
That squares with KenPom, at least. Valpo 23*, Kentucky 21, USC 27, Connecticut 22. Depends on what you're aiming for, perhaps. Something that predicts results on a neutral court? Something that predicts what committees will decide? Something else?
*I admittedly worry about what's going to happen in the NCAA when we meet a really potent offense. Though KenPom claims Oakland 21, Milwaukee 37, Detroit 77. Or maybe especially a really potent defense. KenPom claims Wright State 69, and I'll feel a little better if we can drop 80 points on them at the ARC, or at least beat them by 15.
Sorry iPad is screwing up. Would love to have an admin kill the previous couple of repeats.
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 09, 2016, 09:58:36 PMWhich game so far have we (1) clamped down the D to strangle the opponent (2) exploded on Offense and had our way with an opponent, and (3) did it against a quality team?
Oakland. Well below their season average, beat them by a bunch and zero people think they aren't our number 1 opponent for the title.
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 09, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Sorry iPad is screwing up. Would love to have an admin kill the previous couple of repeats.
There should be a "REMOVE" button on the far right at the top of posts that you have created.
Quote from: historyman on February 09, 2016, 11:22:56 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 09, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Sorry iPad is screwing up. Would love to have an admin kill the previous couple of repeats.
There should be a "REMOVE" button on the far right at the top of posts that you have created.
I wish sometimes I had the "REMOVE" button on posts that other people created.
I am more worried about a good defensive team in the tournament than a good offensive one. Our D has shown up 95% of the time but our offense has been lethargic at times. Teams like Louisville concern me, well not anymore...
cbs's Sam Vecenie believes Valpo could be a Cinderella team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP0LKCsWAIQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP0LKCsWAIQ)
Quote from: valpocleveland on February 10, 2016, 05:39:41 AM
I am more worried about a good defensive team in the tournament than a good offensive one. Our D has shown up 95% of the time but our offense has been lethargic at times. Teams like Louisville concern me, well not anymore...
agree wholeheartedly ...We seem to bring our defense to every game but not our offense. Poor shooting from every aspect has let us down when we lose. A team can not beat elite teams on defense alone. We have got to find a way for our other scorers to have big games when Alec is doubled. Free throw shooting in the clutch should be a given. That being said, on any given day, we can beat many of the higher rated teams. Watched Xavier and Creighton last night, we could easily beat these two teams.
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 01, 2016, 12:00:37 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 28, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Jan 28: USAToday has Valpo as a #10 seed and playing #7 seed Duke in the East Region in NYC.
February 1: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed Michigan in the West Region in Spokane. Our buddies, the Oregon Ducks, BTW, are given a #2 also in the West
Feb 10: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed UCONN in the Eastt Region in Raleigh, NC. Our buddies, the Oregon Ducks, BTW, are
still a #2 in the West. We sure are traveling ;D
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 10, 2016, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 01, 2016, 12:00:37 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on January 28, 2016, 01:51:27 PM
Jan 28: USAToday has Valpo as a #10 seed and playing #7 seed Duke in the East Region in NYC.
February 1: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed Michigan in the West Region in Spokane. Our buddies, the Oregon Ducks, BTW, are given a #2 also in the West
Feb 10: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed UCONN in the Eastt Region in Raleigh, NC. Our buddies, the Oregon Ducks, BTW, are still a #2 in the West. We sure are traveling ;D
Feb 11: USAToday now has Valpo as a #10 but playing #7 seed
Dayton in the Eastt Region in Raleigh, NC. Sheesh!
Bubble arch dropped St. Mary's on a home loss. Our entry stays about the same, but maybe their pkaying up of our injuries is new.
QuoteValparaiso [21-4 (11-1), RPI: 49, SOS: 203] The Crusaders spent much of November and December intermittently banged up. Now healthy, they play the stingiest per-possession defense in the country, while star forward Alec Peters is basically Iowa's Jarrod Uthoff without the blocked shots. That may, in the end, be Valpo's trump card: It's just really good. Better than its resume hints, anyway.
Oregon State won on the road, so their RPI continues to look good and now forecasts better than 50 (if not quite as well as ours forecasts). But, could go either over or under pretty easily.
Right now my bracket (I figured out the formula I like! Woot!) has us playing as an 8 seed vs. Colorado. The 1-16 match up that we line up with? Maryland vs. UNC Asheville. That would be a fun rematch in the second round. Old friend Butler is a 12 seed playing Arizona.
Did I miss the transition? It seems like we jumped from "always 41" on Lunardi's curve all the way to 35, deep into the at-large spots.
[tweet]698520393469009920[/tweet]
Lots of other teams have been losing lately. The bubble is soft this year...we need to continue winning games and good things will happen.
Best case scenario for our conference would be for us to win out and lose to Oakland in the championship game. The bubble is soft enough this year that we would be in the tournament under this scenario. We would be on a 12 game winning streak going into the conference final. This puts us in at a probable 10-11 seed, which is great for upsets. I think Oakland would sneak in as the last 14 seed. Both teams would get a fair amount of press, us because of our defense and Oakland because of Felder.
Also, what are the chances we lose 2 games in a row to end the season? If we lose the championship game to Oakland, we would win the next game. This team does not lose 2 games in a row!
Also, I am afraid that if we WIN OUT AND WIN THE TOURNAMENT that we would end up with an 8-9 seed. I don't want an 8-9. I don't think they will give us a 7 seed. So yeah, having 1 more loss is actually beneficial in my mind.
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 13, 2016, 09:50:55 AMAlso, I am afraid that if we WIN OUT AND WIN THE TOURNAMENT that we would end up with an 8-9 seed. I don't want an 8-9. I don't think they will give us a 7 seed. So yeah, having 1 more loss is actually beneficial in my mind.
I don't want an 8 or 9 seed either but if you weigh that against a 60 or even 70% nail biting, edge of your seat, elevated blood pressure probability for an at-large; then give me the 8 or 9. I don't want an NIT spot even if we might be the best team in the field.
Quote from: justducky on February 13, 2016, 12:03:08 PMQuote from: SanityLost17 on February 13, 2016, 09:50:55 AMAlso, I am afraid that if we WIN OUT AND WIN THE TOURNAMENT that we would end up with an 8-9 seed. I don't want an 8-9. I don't think they will give us a 7 seed. So yeah, having 1 more loss is actually beneficial in my mind.
I don't want an 8 or 9 seed either but if you weigh that against a 60 or even 70% nail biting, edge of your seat, elevated blood pressure probability for an at-large; then give me the 8 or 9. I don't want an NIT spot even if we might be the best team in the field.
If anyone tracked NCAA's Mock Selection over the past two days, it was based on a premise (likely a random simulation) that Valpo lost in the Horizon tournament and Oakland won. In that scenario, the selection committee seeded Oakland at 15, but Valpo was among the "last four out." In other words, we did NOT make the tournament.
Sorry Horizon League: In my opinion we should be looking out for Numero Uno, and hoping for VU to completely win out. It's the only
certain path to the Tournament for VU.
(Correction:
Winning the Horizon tournament is the only certain path to the Tournament. We can lose as many games as we want until that time. But let's not.)
Quote from: Donjon VU07 on February 13, 2016, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: justducky on February 13, 2016, 12:03:08 PMQuote from: SanityLost17 on February 13, 2016, 09:50:55 AMAlso, I am afraid that if we WIN OUT AND WIN THE TOURNAMENT that we would end up with an 8-9 seed. I don't want an 8-9. I don't think they will give us a 7 seed. So yeah, having 1 more loss is actually beneficial in my mind.
I don't want an 8 or 9 seed either but if you weigh that against a 60 or even 70% nail biting, edge of your seat, elevated blood pressure probability for an at-large; then give me the 8 or 9. I don't want an NIT spot even if we might be the best team in the field.
If anyone tracked NCAA's Mock Selection over the past two days, it was based on a premise (likely a random simulation) that Valpo lost in the Horizon tournament and Oakland won. In that scenario, the selection committee seeded Oakland at 15, but Valpo was among the "last four out." In other words, we did NOT make the tournament.
Sorry Horizon League: In my opinion we should be looking out for Numero Uno, and hoping for VU to completely win out. It's the only certain path to the Tournament for VU.
(Correction: Winning the Horizon tournament is the only certain path to the Tournament. We can lose as many games as we want until that time. But let's not.)
The mock selection was based on current resumes, not projected ones, so they caught Valpo at their highest RPI after playing NKU, UIC, and YSU in the past 3 games. If Valpo wins out, their RPI will slide into the 20's, and it would be really tough to leave Valpo out. There's only been a few teams between 20-35 RPI to miss the tournament.
Quote from: a3uge on February 13, 2016, 01:51:20 PM
The mock selection was based on current resumes, not projected ones, so they caught Valpo at their highest RPI after playing NKU, UIC, and YSU in the past 3 games. If Valpo wins out, their RPI will slide into the 20's, and it would be really tough to leave Valpo out. There's only been a few teams between 20-35 RPI to miss the tournament.
So they based their selection on the 3/4 of a season that's been played thus far, and just sort of arbitrarily chose auto-bids? Wow that's dumb. I just assumed they simulated the remainder of the season so they'd have full (albeit hypothetical) resumes to compare. That would have made more sense.
Still though, I'd prefer not to be at the mercy of the selection committee come March.
Here from the NY Post
Quote
The most debate, predictably, revolved around the final bubble teams, pitting mid-majors against power-conference teams. Valparaiso, the best defensive team in the country according to KenPom.com, was left out. So were Chattanooga and William & Mary, who also were considered. But there was a strong sentiment to include Valparaiso over the likes of Butler, Michigan, Wisconsin and Temple. Losing to good teams only goes so far. We're talking about you, Michigan, which has only two top-100 wins. Time to pile up some victories.
Monmouth was apparently also given a loss in their tourney final... and given an at-large.
Quote
The mock selection was based on current resumes, not projected ones, so they caught Valpo at their highest RPI after playing NKU, UIC, and YSU in the past 3 games. If Valpo wins out, their RPI will slide into the 20's, and it would be really tough to leave Valpo out. There's only been a few teams between 20-35 RPI to miss the tournament.
If they got our schedule earlier this week... maybe it's a low point in _our_ RPI, but that's not supposed to matter much. Oregon State should have been a top-50 win, Belmont and IPFW top-100. Losses at 172, 175, 96, and 3. Hmm... it's only a bunch of journalists, but doesn't bode well for our at-large chances.
Quote from: Donjon VU07 on February 13, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 13, 2016, 01:51:20 PM
The mock selection was based on current resumes, not projected ones, so they caught Valpo at their highest RPI after playing NKU, UIC, and YSU in the past 3 games. If Valpo wins out, their RPI will slide into the 20's, and it would be really tough to leave Valpo out. There's only been a few teams between 20-35 RPI to miss the tournament.
So they based their selection on the 3/4 of a season that's been played thus far, and just sort of arbitrarily chose auto-bids? Wow that's dumb. I just assumed they simulated the remainder of the season so they'd have full (albeit hypothetical) resumes to compare. That would have made more sense.
Still though, I'd prefer not to be at the mercy of the selection committee come March.
Where is your sense of adventure? haha Win out and lose the championship game and ESPN is talking about us non-stop for 5 days. Can't beat that kind of press. :)
Quote from: SanityLost17 on February 13, 2016, 02:42:21 PM
Quote from: Donjon VU07 on February 13, 2016, 02:12:49 PM
Quote from: a3uge on February 13, 2016, 01:51:20 PM
The mock selection was based on current resumes, not projected ones, so they caught Valpo at their highest RPI after playing NKU, UIC, and YSU in the past 3 games. If Valpo wins out, their RPI will slide into the 20's, and it would be really tough to leave Valpo out. There's only been a few teams between 20-35 RPI to miss the tournament.
So they based their selection on the 3/4 of a season that's been played thus far, and just sort of arbitrarily chose auto-bids? Wow that's dumb. I just assumed they simulated the remainder of the season so they'd have full (albeit hypothetical) resumes to compare. That would have made more sense.
Still though, I'd prefer not to be at the mercy of the selection committee come March.
Where is your sense of adventure? haha Win out and lose the championship game and ESPN is trashing us non-stop for 5 days.
FIFY
Quote from: agibson on February 13, 2016, 02:40:27 PM
Here from the NY Post
Quote
The most debate, predictably, revolved around the final bubble teams, pitting mid-majors against power-conference teams. Valparaiso, the best defensive team in the country according to KenPom.com, was left out. So were Chattanooga and William & Mary, who also were considered. But there was a strong sentiment to include Valparaiso over the likes of Butler, Michigan, Wisconsin and Temple. Losing to good teams only goes so far. We're talking about you, Michigan, which has only two top-100 wins. Time to pile up some victories.
Anyone know the details? Did they take our schedule from today, and just added the tourney final loss? Or what did they assume for the rest of the regular season?
Monmouth was apparently also given a loss in their tourney final... and given an at-large.
Just go to Twitter and search #MockSelection and you will get all the details. It was all based on data "as of today" and it wasn't the selection committee, it was the media. It is just a way to make the media understand the process.
Quote from: ValpoHoops on February 13, 2016, 09:38:56 AM
Lots of other teams have been losing lately. The bubble is soft this year...we need to continue winning games and good things will happen.
Bracketmatrix doesn't show it, alas. At least not yet. Somehow we're down to a 10.84 there, good for a middling 12. Just below the last at-large. Lowest we've been in... a long time?
As for seeding, give me the best seed we can get, even a 9. I'm not greedy, I want to win a game. We can worry about taking down that #1 seed when we get there.
Quote from: Donjon VU07 on February 13, 2016, 02:12:49 PMSo they based their selection on the 3/4 of a season that's been played thus far, and just sort of arbitrarily chose auto-bids? Wow that's dumb. I just assumed they simulated the remainder of the season so they'd have full (albeit hypothetical) resumes to compare. That would have made more sense.
In some past selection exercises they've done something like this. At least they dribbled in results of conference tournaments late in the process, to simulate what it's like to get only some information on Saturday or even Sunday of bracketing week.
Why on earth would we want a 10/11 seed over an 8/9?
Sure, we'd play a top team in the second round, but we have a MUCH better chance of even getting to that point. And hey, even 8/9s beat 1 seeds. Look at UNI over Kansas the other year. I believe Butler's done it before, etc.
Does someone want to look up if an 8/9 historically has a better shot at reaching the Sweet 16 than a 10/11? I'd be very surprised if they didn't.
Well, the model here suggests that a 12 seed is actually a good place to be. http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/2015%20Omega.pdf (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/2015%20Omega.pdf)
I suppose there's anecdotal wisdom to support that (there's always a 12 or two that beats a 5), and also suggests that the top 5 (overall) teams every year are a lot less upset-prone than everyone else. Either it's the shock-and-awe factor, or they simply are on another level.
Nonetheless, there's so much parity this year (how many #1-ranked teams have lost?) that any team we wind up playing is certainly beatable. I still think it's in our best interest to rack up as many Ws as possible.
An 8-10 seed would be great for the program - it would show recruits we're at-large caliber. It's the sort of thing that could separate Valpo from most other mid majors.
Quote from: hailcrusaders on February 13, 2016, 03:15:21 PMWell, the model here suggests that a 12 seed is actually a good place to be. http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/2015%20Omega.pdf (http://bracketodds.cs.illinois.edu/2015%20Omega.pdf)
Not even just the model, right? Only glancing at the paper, but looks like Table 1 is data.
Pretty much what you'd expect in the first round: the better the seed, the better win rate (on top of some of what's presumably noise? but from Table 2 it looks like they've chosen to include the odd results like 12>11 in their model).
If you want to get into the Sweet 16, 10-12 seeds are all pretty similar, and similar to 7. 9's worse than 13, and 8's only moderately better than 13.
If you want to get _past_ the Sweet 16, 8's as good as 7 or 10, and better than anything else below a 6.
That 10 line has done OK - but apparently never gotten to the final four.
Kyle Whelliston's site (used to?) has a pretty good database and query system, but I'm not sure if he's opened it up yet (usually that piece of the site is free around NCAA tourney time).
Quote from: agibson on February 13, 2016, 05:33:04 PMKyle Whelliston's site (used to?) has a pretty good database and query system, but I'm not sure if he's opened it up yet (usually that piece of the site is free around NCAA tourney time).
I believe you are talking about bbstate.com, and I assume that's always open. midmajority.com has been dead for a couple of years now.
The end of at large talk.
Paul
losing to a team that lost to UIC
Quit with this BS thread predicting anything higher than a 12 seed. It wasn't going to happen.
Quote from: agibson on February 13, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Did I miss the transition? It seems like we jumped from "always 41" on Lunardi's curve all the way to 35, deep into the at-large spots.
[tweet]698520393469009920[/tweet]
And several hours later Valpo will jump right back to 41 or lower.
Quote from: valpotx on February 13, 2016, 09:09:13 PMQuit with this BS thread predicting anything higher than a 12 seed. It wasn't going to happen.
It could have happened.
Now I am concerned that a late season tailspin might turn us into a 2 or 3 seed in the NIT. :'( Individual and team confidence is a very important and very fragile thing. How Bryce harnesses this setback into the team approach could determine the next 5 weeks of basketball.
Why did I wake up thinking about Feb of 2011?
Well that loss certainly hurt our seedline, funnily enough we didn't change who we'd play in the second round. We're still above the cut for an at large if we weren't the leader of the conference. That said, another loss certainly will take us out of the at large position, so we need to win the conference tourney.
(http://s8.postimg.org/5q0ay9dnp/Bracket.png) (http://s8.postimg.org/5q0ay9dnp/Bracket.png)
You can click on the image to make it bigger. We're the 10 seed in the top left bracket and playing Texas. We get the winner of Maryland-UAB
My first 8 out teams
Pittsburgh
South Dakota St.
Florida St.
St. Mary's
Butler
Oregon St.
Alabama
BYU
Automatic Qualifiers: Villanova, Kansas, North Carolina, Iowa, Kentucky, Arizona, Dayton, Wichita St., Monmouth, Gonzaga, Arkansas Little Rock, Valparaiso, Chattanooga, Stony Brook, Yale, Akron, San Diego St., UNC Wilmington, Hawaii, Temple, Stephen F. Austin, IPFW, UAB, Belmont, New Mexico St., UNC Asheville, Montana, Bucknell, Hampton, Texas Southern, Fairleigh Dickinson, Jacksonville
Quote from: bbtds on February 14, 2016, 02:35:46 AMAnd several hours later Valpo will jump right back to 41 or lower.
Could be about right. In ESPN's update today we're a 12 seed playing Duke in Denver (with a 12/12 play-in game).
Certainly stings to see St. Mary's an at-large (12 play-in), Gonzaga a 9, Wichita State an 8, Monmouth a 10.
Time to get back on our horse...
Quote from: agibson on February 15, 2016, 04:16:50 PMTime to get back on our horse...
Are you saying we could get back on our horse by playing the Norse?
Quote from: bbtds on February 15, 2016, 06:10:17 PM
Quote from: agibson on February 15, 2016, 04:16:50 PMTime to get back on our horse...
Are you saying we could get back on our horse by playing the Norse?
I have a feeling that was a joke made bad by force. (horse...Norse...force, see it rhymes. Oh nevermind.)
Eamonn Brennan on the latest bracketology update "We hate to do it, but Valparaiso's home loss to Wright State on Saturday earns it the boot from this space and probably from serious at-large consideration moving forward. The Crusaders are a good team, and good teams sometimes lose games at home. See Maryland on Saturday night. But the Crusaders' resume is not so good that it can withstand a damaging L like that, especially not on their home floor."
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bubblewatch)
Just want to say, my top 12 seeds are all locks according to ESPN. And only one team outside of my top 12 is a lock (Dayton, though I agree wholeheartedly that Dayton is a lock). Good to see my formula is working!
There was a TON of upheavel yesterday. The top 4 stayed the same, but the 2-4 seeds had some big changes. This has been a fun exercise for me to see where one game might affect quite a few seeds. There's a new feature for the K.Y.L.E. bracketology, the big movers and dropped out and new additions from the last edition. The movers are based on their spot on my s-curve. Figure a movement of 2 or 3 spots is 1 seed line, 4-7 is 2 seed lines and 8+ is 3 or more seed lines. Again, the image is clickable for you all to look at it bigger.
Dropped outSt. Bonaventure, Vanderbilt, IPFW, FAIRLEIGH DICKINSON, JACKSONVILLE
New AdditionsAlabama, Pittsburgh, SOUTH DAKOTA ST., NORTH FLORIDA, WAGNER
(http://s8.postimg.org/68kusrw45/Bracket.png) (http://s8.postimg.org/68kusrw45/Bracket.png)
| Big Movers Up :) | | | Big Movers Down :( |
| AKRON | 10 | | Colorado | -9 |
| VCU | 9 | | IOWA | -8 |
| Seton Hall | 7 | | North Carolina | -6 |
| STEPHEN F. AUSTIN | 7 | | South Carolina | -6 |
| YALE | 6 | | Syracuse | -5 |
| UAB | 5 | | Michigan | -5 |
| Xavier | 4 | | Wisconsin | -4 |
| KENTUCKY | 4 | | NEW MEXICO ST. | -4 |
| Texas Tech | 4 | | STONY BROOK | -3 |
| BUCKNELL | 4 | | California | -3 |
Last 8 outButler
St. Mary's
Vanderbilt
Oregon St.
George Washington
Florida St.
BYU
St. Bonaventure
I'm not going to republish, (I'll try to keep it to Mondays and Thursdays) but I've been updating my bracket daily (I almost have it completely automated, if only the one site I use to pull some data pulled names the same way as the RPI names pull... bastards.) and Valpo moved up 4 spots on the s-curve and is now a 9 seed playing Wichita with Oklahoma waiting in the wings. Holy crap would that be a fun test for our guards, Van Vleet and Baker and if we get past them Buddy Hield. Tevonn would give 2 inches to Buddy and Baker, but oh the battles would be glorious.
Our good friends a car trip south on I-65 are currently the last team in and play Michigan in the 12 game thanks to Wisconsin's loss last night. A trip down the toll road gets us to the 5 seed playing Akron. We've got some really good midwest games and would be fun to watch. That said the bracket's going to get nuts this weekend.
Wichita State and then Oklahoma would likely be in Oklahoma City. That would not be a good situation.
Is that any better than Texas and Maryland in Raleigh, NC? That's where we were previously.
Quote from: vu84v2 on February 19, 2016, 10:07:55 AMWichita State and then Oklahoma would likely be in Oklahoma City. That would not be a good situation.
love it. and remember the shot happened in OKC.
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 19, 2016, 09:53:47 AM
I'm not going to republish, (I'll try to keep it to Mondays and Thursdays) but I've been updating my bracket daily (I almost have it completely automated, if only the one site I use to pull some data pulled names the same way as the RPI names pull... bastards.) and Valpo moved up 4 spots on the s-curve and is now a 9 seed playing Wichita with Oklahoma waiting in the wings. Holy crap would that be a fun test for our guards, Van Vleet and Baker and if we get past them Buddy Hield. Tevonn would give 2 inches to Buddy and Baker, but oh the battles would be glorious.
Our good friends a car trip south on I-65 are currently the last team in and play Michigan in the 12 game thanks to Wisconsin's loss last night. A trip down the toll road gets us to the 5 seed playing Akron. We've got some really good midwest games and would be fun to watch. That said the bracket's going to get nuts this weekend.
Kyle - General question on the selection process. I would have thought that all 1st round games (i.e., the play-in games) should be for the 16 seed. But they are all over the place (16, 11, 12). Why is that?
There are two play-in games (from now on officially known as "First Four") that are for the last four teams on the seed list (16's)
There are two that are for the "last four in", so they get slotted in at the back end of the at large pool, in the area of 11-12-13.
Quote from: VULB#62 on February 19, 2016, 02:17:04 PM
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 19, 2016, 09:53:47 AM
I'm not going to republish, (I'll try to keep it to Mondays and Thursdays) but I've been updating my bracket daily (I almost have it completely automated, if only the one site I use to pull some data pulled names the same way as the RPI names pull... bastards.) and Valpo moved up 4 spots on the s-curve and is now a 9 seed playing Wichita with Oklahoma waiting in the wings. Holy crap would that be a fun test for our guards, Van Vleet and Baker and if we get past them Buddy Hield. Tevonn would give 2 inches to Buddy and Baker, but oh the battles would be glorious.
Our good friends a car trip south on I-65 are currently the last team in and play Michigan in the 12 game thanks to Wisconsin's loss last night. A trip down the toll road gets us to the 5 seed playing Akron. We've got some really good midwest games and would be fun to watch. That said the bracket's going to get nuts this weekend.
Kyle - General question on the selection process. I would have thought that all 1st round games (i.e., the play-in games) should be for the 16 seed. But they are all over the place (16, 11, 12). Why is that?
I can try to answer that.
The selection committee first ranks every team in the field, regardless of their auto-bid status. The First 4 (play-in games) are the last 4 at-large bids. Say if Valpo, Monmouth, Stony Brook and a slew of strong auto-bids are deemed better than Butler and Washington (bubble teams), Valpo and the other mid major auto bids would have an 11 seed and Butler, Washington would play each other for the 12 seed.
Then geography can shift teams up or down a couple seeds as well.
Finally, the last 4 automatic bids play in 16vs16 seed games.
Quote from: agibson on February 15, 2016, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: bbtds on February 14, 2016, 02:35:46 AMAnd several hours later Valpo will jump right back to 41 or lower.
Could be about right. In ESPN's update today we're a 12 seed playing Duke in Denver (with a 12/12 play-in game).
Certainly stings to see St. Mary's an at-large (12 play-in), Gonzaga a 9, Wichita State an 8, Monmouth a 10.
Time to get back on our horse...
We're back up to an 11 for Lunardi, aganist Texas A&M. The at-large play-in games are both 12-12 this time (including Butler).
From 2001 to 2010 the bracket was 65 teams and they had the "play in" game for 16 seeds. In 2011 they expanded the field to the 68 it is today and created the "First Round" which is now the "First Four" (the first round is back to being the round of 64). It's always had 2 games of 16 seeds with other seed lines playing the other games.
2011: 11 seeds and 12 seeds
2012: 12 seeds and 14 seeds
2013: 11 seeds and 13 seeds
2014: 11 seeds and 12 seeds
2015: Two games of 11 seeds
I've found there's a bit of a break in the autoqualifiers that allows me to seed the 13s to 16s straight and then throw in the remaining AQs in with the at large bids. Right now the best 13 seeds (Yale and Stony Brook) are 47 and 49 on my s-curve so they are getting seeded down one line for my laziness. Everyone else is below the at large bids on the s-curve.
I also think it's just easier to put the bottom 11 seeds and the bottom 12 seeds and have them face each other for s-curve purposes. Not exactly scientific, but bracketology isn't a science, it's performance art. When my final bracket comes out I'm going to take match ups into consideration, so we don't get first or second round rematches, actually put locations as where I think teams will play and place the play-in games on the seed lines they belong on. If we get a lot of upsets in the minor and mid-majors and have 22 teams with rankings on my s-curve of over 50 then we're going to have play in games at the 11 seed. If it's under 14 teams then the play in games will be down around the 13 line. The conference championships are going to have a lot to do with where I place the "first four" games.
In case anyone was curious for our esteemed conference mates Oakland and Green Bay would be 15 seeds and everyone else would be a 16 seed. Granted a lot is going to change and if they won the tourney they may be boosted a seed. Right now Wright St and Milwaukee have the best odds of moving off the 16 line. Everyone else is basically SWAC level and would be lucky if they aren't in the first four.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/02/21/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-bubble-teams-college-basketball-march-madness/80699606/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2016/02/21/ncaa-tournament-bracketology-bubble-teams-college-basketball-march-madness/80699606/)
USA today has us as a 12 playing Arizona in Denver. Would rather trade with 12 seeds with Arkansas Little Rock against Texas. We would match up with Texas better.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/230 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/230)
Espn has us a 12 against Duke in Denver. That would be cool.
It took a little while, but Shaka finally got Texas on the right path. I think they will be a tough out in the tourney IMO
No doubt Texas is good. I like our match up with the guards. Plus we have luck in OKC.
So I'm currently trying to put together the bracket without having second round rematches, ala the real bracket, as opposed to a straight S-Curve. There are too many Big 10 teams and ACC schools. That damn challenge is causing all sorts of S-Curve silliness. Throw in the SEC-Big 12 challenge and these major conferences are too incestuous.
As I recall, we went through all these gyrations last year and much to our surprise ended up being a throw-in with the other Indiana schools based on geographic proximity. Not trying to put a damper on bracketology fun, but haven't we played ourselves into a similar situation this year?
Quote from: Kyle321n on February 22, 2016, 11:04:24 AM
So I'm currently trying to put together the bracket without having second round rematches, ala the real bracket, as opposed to a straight S-Curve. There are too many Big 10 teams and ACC schools. That damn challenge is causing all sorts of S-Curve silliness. Throw in the SEC-Big 12 challenge and these major conferences are too incestuous.
Yes but without these challenges half of them would be playing zero OOC road games. Then a bidding war would break out in their scramble to schedule SWAC level competition for their roadless non conference sitzkrieg. Then they would have to expand the number of D-1 teams just to keep their costs down and profits up! So yes it is incestuous but like any profit driven capitalist they are just trying to keep the money within the family. ;)
Here's this week's Kyletology. Again the top 4 seeds see no change, just slight movement as Oklahoma moves above Virginia in the s-curve. As always the image is clickable to embiggen. The one that's interesting to me is Gonzaga, despite losing their conference lead stayed in the tourney at the play in game. They dropped 3 seed lines, but in the long run they might be in a better position to advance further.
Dropped outSyracuse, Alabama, Butler, UNC ASHEVILLE
New AdditionsST. MARY'S, St. Bonaventure, Wisconsin, WINTHROP
(http://s29.postimg.org/nprjfttvr/Bracket.png) (http://s29.postimg.org/nprjfttvr/Bracket.png)
| Big Movers Down :( | | Big Movers Up :) |
| CHATTANOOGA | 24 | Pittsburgh | -13 |
| MONMOUTH | 14 | UAB | -13 |
| Gonzaga | 10 | TEXAS SOUTHERN | -12 |
| Colorado | 9 | STEPHEN F. AUSTIN | -11 |
| Dayton | 8 | BUCKNELL | -10 |
| USC | 8 | Baylor | -9 |
| West Virginia | 7 | Utah | -8 |
| Notre Dame | 6 | STONY BROOK | -8 |
| Texas | 6 | Texas Tech | -7 |
| St. Joseph's | 5 | NORTH CAROLINA | -6 |
| | | WICHITA ST. | -6 |
| | | SAN DIEGO ST. | -6 |
| | | BELMONT | -6 |
Last 8 outSouth Dakota St.
Syracuse
Oregon St.
Vanderbilt
Butler
George Washington
BYU
Alabama
Quote from: bbtds on February 14, 2016, 02:35:46 AM
Quote from: agibson on February 13, 2016, 09:36:20 AM
Did I miss the transition? It seems like we jumped from "always 41" on Lunardi's curve all the way to 35, deep into the at-large spots.
And several hours later Valpo will jump right back to 41 or lower.
A week later, presumably after the Wright State loss, and the CSU and Oakland wins (but before the Detroit win), we were #43 on Saturday's S-Curve from Lunardi. The last four were 44, 45, (Monmouth 46), 47, 48.
In today's bracket, after bumping down to a 12 after Wright State, then back to an 11 we're... back down to a 12. Bwah? With Monmouth an 11? Do they get points for escaping on the road? Is this just a geography thing?
He's got us (12) against IU (5), could be fun, in Oklahoma City. The best of the 12's, maybe.
An 11-11 play-in (including Gonzaga who was all the way up at 34 on his S-Curve, but then they lost at home to St. Mary's) and a 12-12 (including Butler).
St. Mary's went from bubble-out to an 11 seed on the strength of that win on the road. (Baylor got a 6 seed...).
Monmouth an 11 against Utah in Providence (is it only the top few seeds that get geographic protection? that seems awfully close to New Jersey).
Here's the midweek Kyletology. We've got a new #1 seed, say hello to Xavier. In the movers and shakers, Wisconsin and Colorado are having themselves a nice surge moving squarely off the bubble into legitimate status. Florida on the other hand is in jeopardy of falling out of the bracket and Baylor is down to a 7 seed. They still have work to do to solidify their spots in the tourney. I want to point out the B1G has 4 teams in the 4-5 seed range and that caused Michigan to go from a high 12 seed to the 11 play in game.
Oh and the beloved are still in the 8-9 game in OKC, this time facing Seton Hall.
Dropped outVCU, Providence, WINTHROP
New AdditionsVanderbilt, South Dakota St., UNC ASHEVILLE
(http://s9.postimg.org/nju0bv6mn/Bracket.png) (http://s9.postimg.org/nju0bv6mn/Bracket.png)
| Big Movers Down:( | Change | Big Movers Up:) | Change | | Florida | 16 | Wisconsin | -12 | | AKRON | 10 | Colorado | -10 | | USC | 9 | HAMPTON | -7 | | Baylor | 8 | Tulsa | -6 | | St. Bonaventure | 8 | WAGNER | -6 | | Pittsburgh | 7 | YALE | -5 | | HAWAII | 5 | SAN DIEGO ST. | -5 | | Iowa | 4 | BELMONT | -5 | | Texas Tech | 4 | ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK | -4 | | Arizona | 3 | MONMOUTH | -4 | | STEPHEN F. AUSTIN | 3 | | -6 | | NEW MEXICO ST. | 3 | | -6 |
Last 8 out
Providence
Oregon St.
VCU
George Washington
Syracuse
Butler
BYU
Hofstra |
There was quite a bit of movement, Virginia moved back to a 1 seed, Oklahoma fell to the 2 line, the B1G continues to be insane with 5 teams in the top 5 seed lines and we moved up.
Frankly, while I'm at work (for not sure how much longer) I've got chills and am dizzy right now, so looking at a spreadsheet to figure out where to remove rematches and where teams are going to play doesn't sound like something my mind is up for. Here's what you all care about...
- Valpo is a 7 seed playing UCONN
The 2 seed in our bracket is Oklahoma, playing Weber St. - Before I move things around Butler and Providence are in the play-in game, without too much research Butler is out due to 0-2 vs Providence and a weaker SOS
- Indiana and Purdue are 4 seeds. Notre Dame is an 8 seed. IPFW is a 15 seed.
- Oregon is a 2 seed, Oregon St. is the first team out (or in the play-in game, depending on the Butler outcome) Belmont is a 15 seed
Lunardi's Feb 27 S-Curve is up on twitter: Valpo down one slot to #44 and behind St. Mary's, Monmouth, Temple, but ahead of at-larges Vanderbilt, Cincinnati, Tulsa, Butler.
And his bracket, from today, is up. Valpo somehow still down at a 12 seed, playing Purdue. Not sure why he doesn't go with at least one 12-12 play-in. On the strength of their holding serve at home this weekend (and almost guaranteeing they'll end at least the regular season top-50 in RPI) he's got Oregon State in an 11-11 play-in.
Vanderbilt and Cincinnati get 10's, St. Mary's and Monmouth 11's. (Geography pushing Valpo down to a 12?)
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/246 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology/_/iteration/246)
Still the 12 against Purdue at OK City. Monmouth and St. Mary's with the 11's, Temple with the AQ at 12, Oregon State, Butler, Gonzaga, and Michigan in the 11-11 play-ins. Indiana to a 3.