Messages

I am definitely in the non-D2 coach camp.

That's a move you make when things are going well and you have a stable program, with sustained success. That's when you can take a big swing. We are not in that situation. D2 coaches are high risk and high reward. But, they bring no name recognition (to fans or players) and are in a completely different recruiting pool (so, they have no prior relationship with any potential transfers or HSers). Those are two major, major negatives.

We need someone to galvanize the program. Think about some of the options. I think Dusty May is overrated but at least he can say "hey I have coached a top 25 team." Big Ten assistants can say "I can make you the next TJD or Ayo, here is what I did with them." Plus, you might be able to get a player to come with them (someone like Anthony Leal is not getting playing time at Indiana, bring his assistant, maybe you get him to come him.

Whatever Valpo does. It has to benefit recruiting and it has to get players/fans excited. Picking a D2 coach no one has ever heard of is the complete opposite. No matter how good a coach he is, if we don't have the players/talent or the excitement around the program, it's not going to succeed. I would rather keep the current staff and save up some money than go D2.

I completely understand it. Let's be honest, St. Peter's is not going to be as good next year, so why not leave and improve your situation? If you have the opportunity to go to Seton Hall with your old coach or even just go to a more competitive team (or a better school academically), you might as well take advantage of the situation. They are still going to be legends at St. Peter's even if they leave.

Think of it like a regular job. If you're an accountant at a small firm in the middle of nowhere, even if your boss was nice, wouldn't you leave to go to a bigger firm with a better salary in a better city? Mobility is a good thing. If you can improve your situation, you should always do it (if you want to).

JBC –

1)  I'm still confused as to why you keep taking such a confrontational tone and keep trying to say I am prejudiced despite all evidence. It's especially awkward since we actually agree on several points, mainly that neither of us have all the answers, we want what's best for the University, and that neither of us are opposed to leaning more religious or away from religious marketing as long as it results in long-term viability.

There is really only one area in which we differ. You keep saying that I don't understand my own comments, but it's really quite simple. As I have described several times on here, (1) I don't dispute that becoming more religious focused in marketing may result in higher enrollment in the short-term but (2) I'm not confident that being religious focused in marketing is best for the long-term viability of the University. That's it. It's pretty simple. I'm not sure what you find confusing.

What's best in the short term isn't always what's best in the long term. You say focus on the short-term and don't worry about the long-term. That's a plausible, fine argument. I say, we should take a more business-like approach and be cognizant of both short-term and long-term sustainability. [as an illustration, I would argue the Valpo law school had short-term goals. They wanted to increase enrollment. By doing so, it lowered its standards to attempt to bring in more students and eventually was stripped of certain accreditations which sped up its downfall. By not considering the long-term vision of the school, it may have resulted in it not being viable... Or, it could have been doomed all along. We will never know. Again, I'm just saying short-term and long-term goals can both affect viability.] You and I have two different approaches and both are reasonable, are they not? It's okay to present differing arguments.

2) Yes, you're right, diverse does not necessarily mean good. But, if you don't have differing viewpoints and there are no debates, you don't always know what's "good" or "bad". Similarly, in an educational setting, it's important to not only present arguments but also force people to back up their argument with reasoning and evidence (just like we are here on this message board). That's an important life skill to develop and another reason why diversity of speech can be important with young adults. That's all I was saying.

3) Again, you keep assigning a prejudicial tone to my words when none is existent. You keep saying I am equating non-religious focused with "positive" and religious focused with a negative reputation/identity. I never said this.

I have continually said having a religious-focused marketing plan means the University has a different reputation/identity in public perception. I never said whether that was good or bad, it's just different. It's all about how you are perceived and what schools you are roughly associated with by the general public. Depaul and Calvin College have different perceptions to the public. Which is better? Who knows! They are just different. Again, I never said good or bad. You are just putting words in my mouth for some reason.

If you read my previous comments, you are clearly misrepresenting what was said in regards to the "refined" identity. I explicitly stated Valpo has two primary considerations at the moment – expanding enrollment and "creating a more refined reputation/identity."

As the Oxford English Dictionary states "refined" is defined as "developed or improved so as to be precise or subtle."

That's exactly what I said and what I meant – we need a more precise reputation/identity... Refined = Precise. We need a plan and we need to execute it. It could be your plan or my plan or someone else's plan, just as long as it's a plan!!

This statement was made as a thesis statement and was not a commentary on whether being religious was refined or unrefined. It was identifying a completely different noun. What needs refining is the reputation/identity. Again, you are misrepresenting my statements and trying to assign value that isn't there.

I think everyone agrees that under a new administration the University needs a precise reputation/identity moving forward. That's what I was saying. Please stop accusing me of being prejudice. I don't understand why you keep resorting to name-calling in a simple argument about marketing plans and logos and nicknames. It's perfectly fine to have differing opinions. One does not need to resort to personal attacks for no reason. I have never said anything bad about religion or religious people (in fact, I am one).

Finally, I agree with the idea to create a more Jesuit-style marketing approach.

And, IndyValpo, you're right! This argument has gone too far. Can't wait to get back to arguments about the hardwood! Go Valpo!

JBC –

1) Your argument about doing what's best to grow quickly is perfectly fine. I have said from the beginning that Valpo has two considerations – expanding enrollment and creating a more refined reputation/identity. These goals could be different or they could be the same. It's just a matter of your preferred plan for the future.

Your argument that what is best for today is what's best for tomorrow is completely plausible. You may be right. You keep acting as if I have some superiority and believe all plans besides mine are inferior and should be ignored. Quite the contrary! I am just presenting another school of thought (a.k.a. my preferred plan).

2) The idea that we would be "sacrificing the viability of the University" by welcoming people of diverse backgrounds is a little far-fetched. You act like diversity of speech is something new, but it has always been part of the University's mission. The University has always openly stated that it wants people from different parts of the country, different economic statuses, different races/ethnicities, and different religions to come together on campus. This is part of Valpo's values and also part of the Lutheran-values of the University of being welcoming to all types of people. This isn't some radical agenda, it's something that has always been at the core of the school.

I understand your point of Lutheran-only marketing would be best for quick expansion (that may or may not be true), but I don't think you have to abandon the school's mission of diversifying the student body in order to grow. Again, I want to emphasize that the University should continue its Lutheran and Christian marketing efforts; however, I disagree that it should be our ONLY marketing efforts... Or even our primary marketing efforts.

3) I am not sure why you keep trying to weirdly label me as being prejudice. Just because I don't think the chapel should be in our primary logo (or that I don't believe we should have religious-only marketing) that means I am supposed to be a bigot? It's kind of awkward and I'm not sure what you are trying to gain by this line of thought.

It's not that religious-only marketing or appealing to conservative students is a bad thing for your reputation/identity. As I have said multiple times on here, I am just saying it's a different reputation/identity. And, therefore, one has to decide which reputation/identity they prefer moving forward. If it were me, I would rather have the reputation/identity of Loyola, as opposed to that of Taylor or Calvin College. I believe it is best for Valpo (and its efforts to grow in both students and name recognition) to associate itself with other mid-majors and not other small hyper religious schools. Again, Loyola and Depaul have religious principles but also make a point of being welcoming to all types of students. I think that's the best plan, because if you focus only on Lutheran students you're going to alienate those of other religious/nonreligious backgrounds

WH – my apologies. It was 78Crusader that said we should emulate Taylor and Calvin. I misquoted you. My bad.... Also, I never said running a successful business should not be the priority. I only said there are other considerations besides finances.... FWalum, It was 78Crusader who suggested we should take a marketing approach similar to Taylor and Calvin and go with a Lutheran-only, religious focus marketing approach. So yes, people on here did suggest that. I would copy the section, but for some reason the "quote" feature of the message board is not working.

JBC – First, I never said your opinion had less value than mine. I presented an opinion and others asked me to provide reasoning for my opinion. I never said my opinion was better than yours or anyone else's.... As far as short-term goals, if you do any business case studies, they always tell you focusing only on short-term goals is a trap. Often, the best option for businesses is to build a sustainable strategy that can be successful both now and in the future.

In terms of the reputation/identity question you had, it's my personal view the University should take more of a Loyola or Gonzaga-style approach. I agree that the Lutheran heritage is important to the University, I just don't think it should be the primary focus of the marketing strategy. If you look at Loyola, they do a very nice job of promoting religious principles but not throwing it in your face. I fear that leaning heavily into religious marketing can be dangerous because you are potentially eliminating silos of students that could be attending the University. Religious numbers are continuing to drop across the country. Moreover, Valpo has stated its intentions to grow and compete more with Midwestern mid-majors. A religious focused marketing strategy changes course to competing with more religious focused universities and not Northern Illinois, Western Michigan, Evansville, IUPUI, etc. because kids who are not looking for a religious-heavy school will continue to choose those universities over us.

Finally, completely disagree on diversity of speech. That should always be a focus of the University, particularly if you want to expand.

And, Valpopal is right. The shield logo is a better design overall and also is better from a marketing perspective because of its broad appeal.

Okay, let's handle these comments in order.

Valpopal – exactly. That's a great mission statement, "community of learning" that is "grounded" in Lutheran traditions. It emphasizes the Christian-based values of the University while also noting that it is a community of learning first and foremost with those values guiding the way.

WH – you are correct, Valpo is a business. But, businesses make decisions all the time based on not only financials but also reputation and principles. For example, a lot of goods can be made cheaper under poor working conditions overseas, but businesses often choose to make products in the US even if it costs more. Again, it's a cost-benefit analysis that includes several different factors (profit is just one of those factors – but you rightfully note, it is among the most important).... Additionally, no idea what you are referring to where you say the University has not staffed itself with people that are fully committed to the University's mission and values. But, I have only had wonderful interactions with staff members and haven't heard any complaints otherwise. Interested to see what you have to say on this.

Vu72 – it was WH that suggested the University should become uber-religious and disregard non-Lutheran marketing strategies. This was beyond the chapel logo (obviously that would not tip us upside down), but it was about a complete change in market strategy. WH believes we should compare ourselves to religious schools like Taylor, Calvin, and others. If this strategy was taken, things would change because it is in contrast to the University's marketing strategy of the last 35 years (and maybe more). Sure, if we take this path, it's highly unlikely we would end up like Bob Jones, but we would end up like Taylor and those other schools that are super religious. Similarly, if we were to have a heavy religious marketing strategy, our competitors in the marketplace begin to shift from Ball State, Loyola, Western Michigan, etc. to schools like Taylor, Liberty, Calvin, and others. So, even if we are different, we will be grouped with them. And, for the record, yes I did go to Valpo. That's why I care about the University's direction.

JBC1824 –

To your first question, I have lived in Indiana my entire life and have interacted with several hundred students and even more Indiana natives who are friends/family. I have also been a student at Valpo. And, I have also worked in Chicago, where I have routinely discussed Valpo with people from all over the country. So, I believe this is a decent sample size to at least put forth a credible opinion on the perception of the University to outsiders. Even on this board, there have been several who have agreed that university is not viewed as "super religious" to non-Lutherans (and some believe this is to the University's detriment). So, if you don't believe me, there is other circumstantial supporting evidence. But, again, this is my perception.

Next, it's perfectly fine if the only objective is the business of the University. But, if that was the case – why close the Confucius Institute? It was bringing in business from Asia. The reason why it was closed was because it was in the University's best interest from a reputation perspective. Not everything can be black-and-white. Sometimes making the "right" or "idealistic" decision can reap rewards, even in the face of momentary financial constraints. The more substantial debate is what is considered the "right" thing to do. Also, focusing only on expanding numbers right now is flawed logically because you are focusing only on the short-term future of the University, not long-term growth. One could argue that the "ideals" that you brushed aside could actually be more beneficial in the long run. But again, you make several valid points. I just think you're being a little shortsighted in your argument. All businesses understand the most successful are those that can balance short-term goals with long-term objectives. All I'm saying is that the short-term goal of increasing student population must also be balanced with what the University "wants to be" in the future. Sustainability (and staying open) is essential. I just would argue that sustainability and forging a powerful reputation/identity are not mutually exclusive.

For the record, I am well aware that the founding fathers never used the term marketplace of ideas (it was Justice Douglas and Holmes who popularized the phrase); however, anyone who has studied constitutional history or read the Federalist papers knows that the basis of the phrase originates all the way back to Jefferson and the founding fathers. You will often hear Jefferson credited for the principal. I agree featuring Lutheran heritage does not compromise free speech in itself, but creating monolithic groups does limit diversity of speech, which can be problematic. It's never good to be in an echo chamber.Appealing to Lutherans is perfectly fine. But, when you get to the point where someone like WH says we should ignore all other religions and focus only on ourselves, that's when diversity of speech can be in jeopardy.Once again, it's important to note, I agree with continuing our Lutheran traditions. I just disagree with WH's Lutheran/Christian only focused marketing strategy.

As to your final point, you misread the exchanges. WH argued that we should not market at all to people of different religions, not that we should market to conservatives. So, yes, if you disregard people of other faiths, that will make it less likely for them to attend the University. That's just common sense. Perhaps, the word "ignore" is more precise than "reject", but the results are the same.

Agreed. Valpo should always be a basketball-first institution 

WH –

You make two excellent points: (1) everyone has a different opinion on how to mesh religion and education (and that's a good thing), and (2) most successful marketing campaigns focus on a niche and hammer it home (i.e. a bakery that sells everything likely will not be a successful financially as one that only sells cupcakes and has a stronger reputation/identity). Everyone that knows anything about marketing understands that focusing on the target market typically results in the best output.

Where I challenge your argument is that you are conflating what is best from a marketing perspective with what is best from the University perspective. Now, certainly, this is an area of contention and (going back to excellent point #1) people have differing opinions on this. But, there are two competing ideals here. We want growth, but we also want a sustainable, reflective university identity.

If you are only concerned about expansion numbers, yes, you can probably grow the quickest by leaning hard into the uber-religious, Lutheran focused, super conservative right-wing crowd. You can go niche and make it work. You will have a smaller target market, but have a larger share of that market. That's one avenue. This is the avenue you prefer WH, where you say forget about atheists and Muslims because they don't fit your market. The only question is – is that what's best for the University's reputation and identity? It sounds like several people on here say yes. And that's certainly one way to look at it.

Others, like me, may say the University is not better off by rejecting people of other faiths and only targeting people with conservative trains of thought. People like me follow Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers ideal that we should make marketplaces of ideas where people of different backgrounds and opinions can meet and express themselves. And that this will create a better product and a better society. Under this viewpoint, it may not be prudent to go down the Taylor University or Bob Jones University route.

Currently, Valpo has a decent mix of both concepts. We have academic based priorities splashed with religious principles. It is possible to have a middle ground. That's where we live right now.

So yes, if you want to go and change the direction of the University to be super-Christian, that's one path and, you're right, that may be the quickest to growth. But is it best for the University overall? My only point is that you are equating two very different goals as one.

Also, I have no problem with a "churchy" logo... Just as long as it's not the primary logo

Exactly. To most non-Lutherans, Valpo is not even thought of as a super religious school. That's a good thing. Neither is Loyola, Georgetown, Gonzaga, or several others institutions that also celebrate Christian values.

The point of the University is not to be a religious school, but an academic school with a splash of Christian values. That's why several of us have been saying making the chapel the primary logo would be a mistake, because it goes against the perception of the University, as well as the goals of the University.

And, you're right, much of this discussion is theoretical because the University does not own the rights and likely will never acquire them because of several reasons we have laid out in this discussion. I agree, it's a cool logo, I just don't think it's realistic to want to acquire it as our #1 primary logo.

78Crusader – Of course Valpo should still promote its Christian-based values! I'm not saying they should abandon one of the unique aspects of the University. I'm just saying it should not be the primary logo. You can continue to appeal to Lutheran students, without making the chapel the logo. That's all I'm saying. Abandoning the Lutheran/Christian principles of the school would be a mistake – I 100% agree – I just don't think it should be the focus of the primary logo that is supposed to attract people of all walks of life (including non-religious or other religious affiliated people).

Next, 21.8% of the student population being Lutheran is super high. I don't know how people can say we are not succeeding with Lutheran students when over 1 out of every 5 students on campus identifies as at least partially Lutheran. That's still a huge number.

You can't base conclusions off of one high school lol. That's like saying Indiana high school basketball sucks because Evansville Central High School didn't produce any D1 players this year. Your sample size is just too small.

Finally, while I agree on continuing our tradition of Lutheran/Christian values, I disagree that Calvin, Wheaton, and St. Thomas are schools we should emulate. With all due respect to those fine institutions, Valpo should be aiming higher. I don't like the idea of Valpo being pigeonholed into being a school where the perception is that religion comes first. I know a great deal of students back in high school who would not even consider those schools because people (rightfully or wrongfully) thought they were focused more on religious values than education. Again, I'm not saying this is the correct perception, but that is the perception to high school students. We should be competing with other mid-major schools, not niche institutions. Valpo should focus more on competing with schools like Loyola, Xavier, Ball State, UW-Milwaukee, Belmont, Dayton, Iona, Gonzaga, Toledo, and Northern Illinois, not Calvin and Wheaton. (Or Taylor, which is a school you mentioned that I have never even heard of)

Sorry lol. Usually, saying you are "coming" for a building typically means trying to get it canceled or torn down. It sounded like that's what you were referring to. There have been a lot of weird conspiracy-esqe generalizations made on these message boards recently (from denying the Crusades to the University supposedly "ignoring" alumni poll questions), so I apologize for jumping to conclusions.

Finally, in the words of Norm McDonald, if I couldn't tell it was a joke, that means you need to be funnier 

Valpopal – no one is "coming" for the chapel. There is no need to be dramatic. No one wants to tear down the building. We are just trying to have a civilized conversation here about what is best for the University, let's not engage in conspiracy theories and drag the conversation into the gutter.

Several people who are Lutheran have objected to a religious symbol being in the primary logo. Saying so does not mean you are anti-religious.

I agree with mp91, to compare Valpo with Notre Dame is ridiculous. There is no way an University of Valpo's scale can afford to be niche with its marketing and put religion directly in the school's primary logo. Notre Dame is a different breed, they can get away with that, we can't.

ml2's data is telling. Lutheran populations are shrinking (as are almost every religion's). The best way to market yourselves is to always have a specific target market in mind, but the data is telling us the Lutheran population is not that market. We are already succeeding with Lutheran students, the best way to expand is to tap into other markets and not shrink our student pool by labeling ourselves as religion-first.

Your point is well taken about it being the school's biggest architectural feature. That's definitely true. But, if the primary logo of your university is a chapel/church/cathedral, it's hard to differentiate the religious aspect of the building from the logo.

Imagine if you're a random student in Michigan checking out colleges. You hear about Valpo and you do a quick Google search. When you first see in this logo you're going to think: (1) oh that's a church, the school must be very religious or (2) what is that? Is that a building?... You're not going to think "ah that's an architectural feature of the University." Instant reactions are important and I'm just not sure if this symbolism is the best moving forward.

Chairback – let's not be dramatic, no one is saying tear down the chapel.

Crusadermoe – you make several good points. First, the unique roof is definitely hard to distinguish if you are unfamiliar with the school. Secondly, the University definitely has to come up with a clear plan for how they want to be viewed by the general public. Maybe they do, perhaps it will be revealed in time. But, having an identity is crucially important, you're right.... Although, where I will disagree is that I don't think identifying as a religious institution above all other considerations is the best move. Societal trends show that school religious affiliations are becoming less and less important and that younger generations are becoming less and less religious. So, to directly tie yourself to religion as your #1 identity seems weird. It should be a identity, but not THE identity.

I think the school has done a great job in the last 15 years of keeping Christian values but also not shoving them down your throat. I hope this trend continues. I for one know that in my classes at Valpo, probably only 5-10% chose the school because of the religious history of the University. Like I said, it is still important, but should not be the primary focus (if the University plans on growing and wants to bring in more students).

Bryan's designs are decent aesthetically. But, to be honest, I don't think our primary logo should be a religious symbol. The entire point of getting rid of the Crusader moniker was to be more inclusive. Making the face of the University a religious chapel is the opposite of broadening the school's appeal. A great chunk of the University's student population doesn't identifying as religious.

I'm not saying we shouldn't tap into those values or even celebrate the Lutheran heritage of the school. But, I don't think it should be the primary logo. If you look across the country, really only Notre Dame makes a religion an outwardly facing marketing tool. Other schools like Georgetown, Boston College, Loyola, Depaul, and others are religious but don't make it a focal point.

So, I think it would be best for the University to not have a chapel as the primary logo.

Vuny98 –

There were definitely people on the message board saying the Crusader name change was based on "inaccurate history." I also believe you can argue the merits of the change, but you can't call "fake news" on this one (as many tried to do on here). And, no one is arguing there weren't reasons for trying to get back the land, literally no one here has argued that. Also, I don't think people are changing the meaning of "Crusaders" or other terms you talk about. I just think more people are becoming more aware of what happened. In past decades, all you learned in school about Columbus was that he was an explorer and sang songs about his ships. There really wasn't much history involved. Now, people are telling both sides of the story. That's not necessarily all bad. You can't learn how to avoid pitfalls of the past if you aren't aware of them. The so-called agenda to change history is a little far-fetched. People have learned more about the past in the Internet age and, therefore, perceptions have changed. Sure, there always be some wackos arguing differently – on both sides of the aisle – but they are few and far between and don't represent the majority of people. (Side note: you brought up Columbus Day. Obviously, the destruction of the native peoples is problematic, but similarly are we also sure we want to celebrate a guy who tried to go to China and ended up going West, landed in America, but believed he was in India? LOL. I'm joking, but also serious)

But this is a tiring discussion...

More importantly, very happy to see the administration embracing name, image, and likeness policies. The AD had some good statements about that in the video.

@Just Sayin –

First, whether a war is justified is largely based on your perspective (let's remember your source is the Catholic Church which is not exactly an unbiased source). Secondly, even if it was justified (and I believe that issue can be validly argued), that is irrelevant to the point.

Whether justified or not, the Crusades resulted in mass casualties of people of different religions (and Christians who did not "follow" along). That's a fact. Whether justified to start or not, the Crusades resulted in suppression of thought. That's a fact. How the battle started is irrelevant. You keep saying people are ignorant of history, but you are the one overlooking the details.

Today, everyone seems to live in an echo-chamber, where people try to bend the truth to their particular opinion. But, history is carved in stone. We know what happened. Nonetheless, history is complicated. It's not cut and dry, it's often nuanced. It's possible for something to be both justified and harmful at the same time. But, that doesn't mean we have to name a school mascot after it. Why pick a controversial name when other universities have such innocuous mascots? Why keep a name that is surrounded by negative connotations? We know a great deal of students, administrators, and alumni were aware of the problems with the name. It's perfectly fine if you disagree, but trying to rewrite history and call historical events inaccurate is a bizarre decision.

Just wanted to chip in on a couple topics...

1. Not hiring a design firm is worrying and a poor decision. I'm actually not mad at the logo, could be better, but it's not terrible imo. But still, should have used a consulting firm regardless of outcome.

2. Not sure where bbts is shopping, but I've never seen Valpo merchandise at any Target or Walmart outside of Valpo. And, hardly ever see it at malls. I agree this is a problem. Northwest Indiana schools should be prominently marketed in Northwest Indiana. Point blank.

3. Soccer is definitely expensive. But, whoever said they weren't successful is simply incorrect. They were a very well-respected program and even had players drafted into the MLS. You can argue cost, but you cant argue the program wasn't successful.

Here's a few accomplishments for the record:
– 2008, soccer program ran 1000 miles in five months to provide money for lights at the football field
– 2008, takedown #25 Bradley
– 2008, 10 victories
– 2009, 9 victories
– 2011 regular-season title; Avery wins HL Coach of the Year
– 2014, defeat #7 Michigan State
– 2014, Valpo ranked #25 nationally
– 2015 and 2016, 7 victories and 10 victories

How many other programs at the school won league titles, had multiple victories over top 25 teams, and were ranked nationally during the same time period? Very few.

For the record, proposals indicate schools and conferences will not be allowed to facilitate endorsements. Sure, some will try to find loopholes, but that's already happening now in different ways.

It can definitely have some drawbacks. But I think the benefits of the players is much greater than the downside. From my perspective, I don't care if a player from Valpo makes five dollars or $5 million from a Gatorade commercial. That's not going to change if I cheer for them or not.

If you're interested inName image and likeness proposals, check out this article from my friend who is a Valpo alum:
https://indianahq.com/ncaa-supports-compensation-for-name-image-and-likeness/

Lottich's teams have shown significant improvements from the beginning of the season to the end... But let's be real, there are some problems with in-game adjustments and, most importantly, it's clear most of the team does not respond well to him.

Everyone that was around the Bryce-era knows that he did a great job motivating and empowering his players. They always played w/ energy and joy. That has been significantly tampered down of late. In the college basketball world, fun is often undervalued as a criteria for success. If you look at successful teams (even the most disciplined), they all have fun.

I think this is what he needs to work on. Man management. If the players were empowered and enjoying their experience, they would be less likely to transfer. Plain and simple.

I would agree that he appears to be a competitive minded coach. But, I get the impression as a neutral observer that he does not appear to have full control of the team.

Finally, some people on here are being extremely unfair to younger generations. From disregarding their opinions to saying they need "warm and fuzzy" coaching and cannot handle tough coaching. I think this is completely inaccurate. If we listen to the players, they tell us that Lottich's main problem is that he is not tough enough. If he doesn't have control of the team, no wonder why people want to leave.

I think some people are misinterpreting the article here. It says he chose the school because of faith, but that sometimes faith is not enough.

This seems to imply it was not a religious issue., but was unrelated to religion. I don't think anyone is going to leave Valpo because it's not Lutheran enough lol.

The school and staff was probably just not what he was looking for. It's as simple as that. It's unfortunate. But, this kind of thing happens all the time.

Q1: eh not really. Mediocre success at best
Q2: no

Indiana parted ways with Archie Miller... Could it be time for Scott Drew to come home? He built a powerhouse at Baylor but I think this might be the only job he would consider leaving for. Thoughts? Does Scott have any skeletons in the closet?

Tate Frazier floated the idea of Robbie Hummel one day coaching Valpo on his podcast. Obviously, Robbie has the Olympics this year and is still doing broadcasting. But, perhaps in a year or two, he could be a potential candidate. Definitely would be an attention grabbing name for the University.

Absolutely. Also, most schools have at least two logos. Purdue has the "P" and the train symbol. IU has the cursive script and the trident... It's totally reasonable to continue using the shield symbol even if the name changes to something different, whether that be the dunehawks or the Trailblazers or the golden guard. You can still have another logo. The shield can still stick around no matter the new name

@Alecpeters101

I agree with your reporting. It's clear that the players don't respond/admire him the same way that they did for Bryce. I've also heard some rumblings about not connecting well with the coaching staff.

Just curious – do you have any information to further elaborate about why they think he is a "douche"? Is it a personality thing, like he is a jerk, or is it more of a basketball thing like they don't respect his coaching/knowledge/concepts/style?