Messages

Respectfully, I disagree with FieldGoodie and 62.  I don't think it benefits the team to have a contested game against an inferior opponent.  In looking at UCR's wins and losses, it seems that we should consider them significantly inferior.  Would we say that it's better for the team to have a contested game against a parks and rec league team?  No.  So, while we do want contested games, we don't want contested games when it should be a blowout wire-to-wire.

Maybe what you're saying is that you hope that UCR plays its best game of the year against Valpo, so that the game is marginally contested.  I guess that I would want that too, so long as it ends in a win.

I agree with FWalum's comment on rebounding.  A person can understand the other excuses, feeble as they are, but I don't get being out-rebounded.  To me, that simply means that the team got beat.

Others have guessed that Matt was experimenting with lineups, etc.  I have no insight other than what I saw at the game, but to me it looked like he was coaching to win.  Which, again, is troubling because it means that the team simply got beat.

I guess that the upshot is that this game will be a better learning experience than a 30 point blow-out.

I take three things from the list.

1. As stated by someone else, very glad to be in a better league.  Glad the team made the switch.
2. Seems like there are several conferences geographically close to MVC, with similar ratings.  I'd be on the phone with them to set up an annual challenge for scheduling purposes.  Maybe ambitious, but I'd like to see at least two challenges.
3. Horizon's slide is sad/unfortunate, and I don't see it turning around.  The problem with that conference is that it is predominantly comprised of commuter schools.  Commuter schools just don't have large followings.  They just don't.  That means that there are not a lot of alumni league-wide who care about the outcome of the games or the seasons.  If people don't care for a long while, then things will decline.  Based on that, it seems that the decline started with Butler's exit, and continued with Loyola and VU's exits (i.e., destination schools), and was exasperated with IUPUI's entrance.  I don't like to see anyone or entity not be successful, but I just don't see how the HL turns it around in the current environment of overall apathy.  Seems that it will be worse for them.  Very unfortunate.

2014, obviously I hope that everything you said is correct.  However, I do have a couple of thoughts.  First, they're not trending in any direction yet this year.  They haven't played any games yet.  Second, the beauty of college basketball is that every year is a transition period for every team. 

1314, that's the point - the team was previously better than it is now.  Ideally, the team proves that thought wrong, but if they don't, then as VU72 suggests, one has to question whether the team is trending up or down. 

I'm kinda with VU72 on this.  I think anything less than top third will be a disappointment.  Prior to joining the MVC, if you go back to 12-13 season, and remove the Loyola games (because they were terrible), VU's record against the Valley was 6-1.  Granted, VU didn't play Witchita State or Illinois State when they were really good.  However, to not muster a decent winning record would be disappointing.

Valpo95, you might be right that in that the .500 requirement may provoke middling P5 schools to schedule more high mid-majors.  But I disagreed in a separate post.  My view was that the middling schools would want more cupcake OOC matchups.  If a middling school could enter the P5 conference schedule with only 1 or 2 losses, then it would be easier to get to .500.

My question is: is their data to show that the .500 requirement for bowl games in college football has enticed schools to schedule tougher OOC matchups, or are there more cupcakes?  Seems like that might tell a person how a school would react to a .500 requirement.

It is possible that the two parties agreed to mediation after the loss on the motion to dismiss.  In other words, one party says to the other: "okay, now that we know that we will have to go to trial, let's not waste a bunch of money on discovery, but rather let's try to settle."  For bodies in the public eye, it's probably smart because they avoid a potential loss in court which would be public information.  On the other hand, if they settle in mediation, they can keep the outcome private.  No public embarrassments.

If that's the case, then it'll probably settle in the mediation, which means that the lawsuit could be done by Halloween, or Thanksgiving at the latest.  If the mediation is forced on them due to a contract clause (very unlikely) or a court rule (unlikely), then it likely won't settle.

A person can probably roughly estimate the outcome of the settlement.  I don't remember the dollars involved, but if you take the net owed, and then bracket somewhere in the middle, then that will give a rough idea.  For example, if the HL is asking for $800,000, and VU is asking for $300,000, then a reasonable estimate could be that VU ends up paying $100K-$300K.  Doesn't always go that way, but no one should be disappointed if that's the range.  We'll likely never know the result since the settlement will likely be confidential.

Speaking as someone with absolutely no knowledge of the case, but as an attorney who has tried commercial disputes like this one, I will add a couple of cents.

This case is a year old.  I would not expect the case to be resolved within that time, but I'm also surprised that there is not much news.  If the Horizon League thought that it was owed some money then it seems that it would be pushing the action a little bit more.  Also, it seems that Valpo does NOT think that the relevant contract documents are in its favor on their face.  Otherwise, it would have filed a motion to dismiss by now.  (Maybe it did, but lost.)  Again, I have no knowledge, but I'm a little surprised at the inactivity.

Like elephtheria47, I looked at the on-line court docket, and could not find the case.  If I could read the docket, I could offer more.  I don't practice in Indiana, so I'm a little bit shorthanded.

One repercussion of requiring a winning record for an at-large bid is that it could force middling P5 schools to abandon scheduling against OOC teams that could result in a loss.  This could make scheduling for high mid-majors even more difficult.  For example, if the Illini view themselves as mid-pack in conference, then they may refuse a game in Chicago against Loyola at the United Center.  Probably not common, but yet another headwind.

I would not include No. 1 (Top 25 in a poll).  This would limit the mid-majors, and then you might end up with a scenario where there are not enough teams to fill the field.  If I recall correctly, top mid-majors in the past have not been top 25 (including Valpo's year when they went to the NIT final). 

Additionally, No. 2 might have a negative impact on highly performing mid-majors.  I could easily see an MVC conference champ getting knocked out in an early round. 

I'm not sure that you want your criteria to be that the team has to fulfill all three.  If the criteria is that the candidate has to fulfill one or two of the three, then it may help mid-majors, but the P5 won't go for it.  They may have a valid argument.

I do like the idea of criteria, similar to the football criteria for bowl games, i.e., to be bowl-eligible, you must have a winning record.  Seems that if there was a requirement to have a winning record, mid-level teams in P5 conferences would only schedule low-majors in the OOC, which would have a negative impact on mid-major scheduling.

I'm not sure that we should lay too much at the feet of the person from Happening Hoops.  It seems to me that the two main reasons for student lack of attendance are 1) the students just aren't interested, and 2) schedule conflicts with Greek activities.  (Just note, as for No. 2, I'm completely uninformed on this.  I simply got this from other postings on this board.)  It seems that if the Greek leaders/society wanted students at the games, then they could conform their activities to coincide with the basketball games.  Since they don't, it seems like they, like the other students, just aren't interested.  So, we're back at No. 1.

I'm asking this because I simply don't know, so don't read too much into it.  But, the HH guy says that he's no longer a student section leader.  What does that mean?  Are there section leaders that are supposed to do something?  How do they get that position? 

It seems that the leadership should really develop from the Greek crowd.  Is that right?  If so, that ain't happening, because they're not interested.

If anyone knows how all of that works, I'd like to hear.  Like I said, I truly don't know.  The only thing that I know about student life is what I learn from this board, and from going to basketball games.

It seems that mid-major conferences need to simply play themselves in challenges like the MVC-MWC challenge.  The conferences then need to grade their schools so that the top schools from each conference then play each other.  If MVC set that up with, say 3, fellow conferences such that, for example, Loyola would get games with schools like Belmont, Nevada, BYU, and St. Mary's, then its resume (if it wins) wouldn't be half bad.  Of course, the crappy schools would get stuck playing three other crappy schools, but that's all that they would be able to schedule anyway.  If the parties are contracted to do such things, then its more likely to happen.  Sometimes you gotta pick battles that you can win.

1314, we may both be right, but I truly hope that things happen that strongly show that your are right, and that I'm dreadfully wrong.

Sorry, I'm not technically savvy, and don't know how to copy in quotes from other posters, but 1314 posted this in response to my comment that the University has to do more than improve the team and opponent scheduling:

Team performance and (perceived opponent quality are huge factors at games. The fact that Butler Purdue Missouri State the year they won the MVC New Mexico Murray State Rhode Island  SLU Florida State and St Mary's represent our largest recent home gates recently is no accident.

1314's point is that team quality and opponent quality both matter.  I wish that were the case, but the numbers suggest otherwise.

In 15-16, VU went 30-7, had 3 NIT games (one was an all-time attendance record), and a top 25 opponent (RI), and averaged 3573 per home game.  Not bad.

In 03-04, VU was in the Summit/Mid-Con (not nearly the quality of opponent of today) and went 18-13.  I.e., 12 fewer victories and 6 more losses.  The average home attendance was 3944.  For the UMKC game on Valentine's Day (not a big night for guys wanting to attend sporting events, nor a Div. I powerhouse), the home crowd was 4214.

In 04-05, VU was in the Summit/Mid-Con and went 15-16, and averaged home attendance of 4174.

So, in two seasons with far less quality on the floor, and far less quality in opponent, VU drew an average of more than 500 more per home game.  Yes, it is true that a good team may draw a decent crowd for the occasional opponent, but on average attendance will be down.  When I went to those games in those years, I don't ever remember seeing a completely vacant student section when school was in session.  That is common now.

Attendance is down.  Student attendance is abysmal, and to think that today's student will come to a game simply because it will likely be a good game simply ignores the statistical facts.  I wish that were not the case, but it is.  It is generational, and it is not the fault of the guys at Happening Hoops.

My only point is that free T-shirts and other trinkets won't change that.  Better teams and better opponents will only slow the bleeding, but that's all.  I wish that I had an answer.

Unfortunately, attendance woes is a problem that is widespread.  Which means that the difficulties in reversing the trend at the ARC are not simply issues under University control that it can fix.  Seems that the problem is generational.  That is not meant to be critical of the younger generation, it is simply that tastes change over time.  My generation did not do things that college-aged kids of previous generations liked to do, and current students don't like to do what my generation liked to do, which was to go to games.  The two links below discuss attendance issues at other schools, including student attendance, which is down.  It's a universal problem.

2014 makes an excellent point, that I had not thought of before - down student attendance now translates to fewer donations later.  If it were not for that point, I would simply suggest that the University forget about trying to get someone to come to a game that they clearly don't want to come to, and move on to solving other problems that can actually be solved.  Use the space in the student section for something else.

If the University wants to increase student attendance, then they have to look at the solution as convincing a generation of people to do what they wouldn't ordinarily want to do, i.e., change behavioral patterns.  Universities are reluctant to do that.  Rather, they tend to like to react to student trends, and go with the flow of that trend.

I don't have any suggestions, but I will say that offering free stuff at the games, and having better opponents and a better team on the floor will not move the needle.  To increase student attendance, the University is trying to lift a single boat in a lowering tide, and traditional attractions won't work.

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/college/men-s-college-basketball-programs-facing-attendance-declines.html#!

https://www.seccountry.com/kentucky/kentucky-basketball-rupp-arena-attendance-numbers-down-john-calipari-reacts

He would likely reply to your query that it is not apples-to-apples.  Not sure that I agree with it, but nonetheless, it would be the explanation.

I wouldn't put Tevonn Walker in the "dime-a-dozen" category.  Point is that average 6-1 to 6-2 SG's are dime-a-dozen, as you say, but good one's aren't.  I would never shy away from kicking the tires simply because the size is common.

This will lead to an interesting shuffle of minutes for the tournament.  Assuming that Valpo would do well, and win some games, then it would mean that Bakari would play 40 minutes per game for 4 games in 4 days.  That's a lot to ask.  It seems that Max (the only other viable point guard) will need to pick up some of that time, which (in my mind) leads to additional minutes by Mileek.  I.e., when Bakari is resting, then Max - 1; Walker - 2; Golder - 3; Mileek/Kiser - 4; Sorrolla/Smits - 5.  Walker and Golder were going to need to play a lot of minutes anyway.  It's just that Max's minutes at the 2/3 has to be reduced (so that he can pick up time at 1), and picked up by someone else (Golder), which means that Golder's time is dedicated to 3, rather than 3/4, which means that Mileek needs more minutes.

Valpopal, there are no valid excuses for not coming.  They just aren't interested.

NativeCheesehead, "former glory" is not coming back.

Today's 18-22 year-old is not going to do what yesterday's 18-22 year-olds did.

Given that, the Athletic department should move on.  The debate should simply be: what does "move on" look like.

Valpotx, that may be true, but if Nikkila would have been redshirted, then maybe he would have given 3 or 4 productive years, rather than two.

I'm not a fan of redshirting for that purpose, especially in an age of graduate tranferring, but I believe that increased window of production was the point of the earlier posters.

Let's not be too quick to be antagonistic toward the guys at Happening Hoops.  It's not their fault that other students aren't interested.

On the other hand, the guys at Happening Hoops should not blame the University, or take that blame public.  The University gives free tickets, a winning tradition, sometimes free food, on-site arena, etc.

Remember, those of us lamenting student attendance are "on the same team".  It doesn't help to bash each other.

Maybe we should simply look forward, and accept that the days of a raucous student section are over.  Creativity and self-entertaining activities are in decline society-wide.  If we accept that changing dynamic, then really, we should simply forget the students, and re-purpose those seats.  Eg., give them to the parents of the kids playing at half-time or singing the national anthem, rather than making the parents pay.  Or maybe give them to any high school student.

In any event, it doesn't help to antagonize the students (like at Happening Hoops) who do care, and who do show up.

I saw some videos of past games, and noticed how lively the student section, and then I realized why students don't come to games.  It's because they're bored at the games.  They're bored at the games because they themselves are boring people.  Historically, for the students, the game itself is only half of the entertainment.  The other half comes from their own antics and good times.  Since these students don't know how to make their own fun, then the game experience is only half the fun that it was in years past.  I cannot imagine this student crowd doing some of the things that the students did just a few years ago.  I honestly don't think that they understand that no fun will come as a group if everyone in the group is texting.

So, my suggestion for the suggestion box in getting better student attendance is to either 1) get new students, or 2) show the students that the missing fun needs to come from themselves.  Maybe ask them to put down the phones for a minute, and then show on the video board videos of past experiences - that it is possible to make one's own fun.  Those videos are on Youtube.

Speaking of win by Loyola,

Here's a nice story on the MVC from the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/jeff-gordon/tipsheet-mvc-flexes-its-mid-major-muscle/article_394be194-c8a7-55f0-aba2-cf17021ae2f9.html


So maybe there is life after Wichita State after all for the Missouri Valley Conference.

In its first since the Shockers bolted for the American Athletic Conference, the MVC still features impressive depth. That was evident again Wednesday when Loyola-Chicago won at No. 5 Florida 65-59, scoring still another impressive non-conference victory for the St. Louis-based league this season.

As ESPN noted, the Ramblers had lost 29 of their last 31 games against Associated Press-ranked teams. Their last victory over Top team came Dec. 22, 1984 over No. 4 Illinois.

The Ramblers (9-1) were also playing without star point guard Ben Richardson, who is sidelined with a broken hand. But Porter Moser, a former SLU assistant coach, has built a team strong enough to overcome that loss.

The program is off to it's best season start since the 1965-66 season.

"It's huge for us," Moser said. "We're just trying to turn the culture of the program. It's huge for us because of Florida's program. They've been to Final Fours. They were in the Elite Eight last year. They're fifth in the country.

"I'm not going to undersell the importance. It was a really good win for us and I'm really proud of our guys. ... Obviously, when you win a game like this, it's a good spotlight on you. But you want that spotlight to burn even more inside as we prepare and get better as the season goes on."

This victory proved Loyola is ready to take a run at the MVC title. Missouri State and Northern Iowa also look ready to bid for the title, newcomer Valparaiso is 8-0 heading into its game at No. 21 Purdue and SIU Carbondale could factor in the race if key forward Thik Bol returns from his knee injury.

The Salukis took a good run at the good Billikens Wednesday night but faded after center Kavion Pippen fouled out.

Here are some other key, ratings-building victories for the MVC this season:

Indiana State 90, Indiana 69 at Bloomington in the debut of new Hoosiers coach Archie Miller.
Drake 77, Wake Forest 74 in the relocated Paradise Jam. The Bulldogs knocked down 15 three-point shots against their ACC opponent.
Illinois State 69, South Carolina 65 in relocated Puerto Rico tipoff. Former Billiken Milik Yarbrough scored 18 against the SEC's Gamecocks.
Illinois State 85, Tulsa 68, also in the Puerto Rico tipoff. Keshawn Evans scored 29 points against Frank Haith's Golden Hurricane.
Northern Iowa 61, SMU 58 in the Battle 4 Atlantic tourney in the Bahamas.
Northern Iowa 64, North Carolina State 60 in the second round of the Battle 4 Atlantis. The Wolfpack upset No. 2 Arizona to reach this game.
Northern Iowa 77, UNLV 68 in overtime at home. The Runnin' Rebels were 6-0 coming into the game, with a lopsided victory over Utah -- which hammered Mizzou earlier this season.
Evansville 59, Fresno State 57 in the Cancun Challenge in Mexico. That was a notable upset of a high-scoring that is 7-1 otherwise this season.
SIU Carbondale 81, Winthrop 66 on the road. The Salukis beat a traditional mid-major powerhouse shorthanded, playing without both Bol and guard Marcus Bartley.
At last check, the MVC ranked seventh in conference Ratings Percentage Index, behind only the Power 5 conferences and the Big East.

I put this in the category of pipe dream, but was still wondering about other thoughts,

To help with scheduling issues, and to drum up some excitement and attendance in some new areas of the country, what if the NCAA did something like this:

Divide all Div I teams into two categories - home and away.  Each team would alternate each year between home and away status.  Then have the away teams (figuratively) each draw from a hat containing the names of the home teams.  Then, on a given weekend (e.g., first weekend in December while students are in town), have the away teams play at whichever team location they drew.  For example, if VU draws Gonzaga, then VU is going to Spokane for that weekend.  On the other hand, if NC draws Valpo, then NC is coming to VU.

Obviously, this would be a boon for a few lucky low majors.  They would have the chance of having teams like Kentucky and Duke come to their home gym.  However, what's in it for Kentucky or Duke in that circumstance?  Not much, other than a packed house and helping the low major generate interest.  On the other hand, it also helps bad teams in P5 conferences schedule good teams in P5 conferences that might not otherwise go there.  (For example, I don't see Kentucky going to Lincoln, NE anytime soon)  But again, for the Cornhuskers, it helps ease scheduling difficulties, and generates interest when they get a lucky draw.  Just looking at the numbers, most of the 160 something games would probably simply be between two low or mid major teams who don't do anything for each other.

For me, it is simply a way of getting well known programs into new venues in order to generate excitement for the game.

I predict most comments to this concept being something like "will never happen", and I understand that, but is there a way to modify it to make it more attractive to the blue chip programs and to the lesser P5 programs who fear getting thumped at good mid majors?