Messages

When it comes to VU football, the sad fact is that it doesn't matter what kind of coach Carlson is. The deck is stacked against him or anybody else who might one day take his place. Neither the university, the community, the students nor the alumni give any kind of real support to the program. It's an afterthought. Basketball, baseball, softball, bowling, volleyball, etc., have all had success, but football always lags behind. I graduated from VU in 1994, and I thought then, as I still do, that the university largely kept the program in place so that alumni would have a football game to attend for homecoming. Until the university makes football a real priority, the program will continue to win one or two games a year no matter what kind of coach is brought in, and maybe post an occasional season here and there with a couple more wins than that. There gets to be a point when a university has to ask itself honestly how committed it is to a particular sport and, if it isn't, why it continues to bother.

Not entirely surprising. As long as VU has the second-best facilities in town, behind Valpo High, this is what we can expect.

The MVC is an obvious step up from the HL.

If RPI were the be-all and end-all measure of conference success.  (Ask the MWC how that looks/feels right about now.)  It's not, and the entire difference between the two can be pretty much chalked up to OOC scheduling (MWC 5th toughest, HL 29th with all its Purdue Cals and Bowlings Green).  This explains it all when you consider that their OOC record without Creighton (64-43) is only 7 games better than ours (61-54).  They just did it against better teams. And let's stop with "the HL didn't support a better than a 14 seed".  That's ridiculous.  VU got screwed because we got screwed, not because the HL couldn't carry enough water for us.  If it were true that conferences affected seeding, then the Summit (19th) couldn't/shouldn't have gotten SDSU a 13, and Oregon should leave the PAC for a better conference because it only got them a 12. This is going from 12th to 9th or maybe 10th in terms of conferences.  Is it really worth uprooting the kids and upsetting the neighbors and packing up all our stuff just to move into pretty much the same house in a distant neighborhood just to have a pool?  Why not just get a Y membership instead? And again, we'd be playing in towns instead of cities...I've been to Northern Iowa (both the school and the generic cardinal direction).  Let's just say playing MVC 'cities' would be like an entire conference of Youngstown States, just not as fun nor convenient a drive. Make Bradley or ISU and Evansville an offer to come over here.  But don't condemn kids to have to attempt to forge rivalries with the Fighting Salukis now that we finally have some good rivalries going. PS--as far as money, don't forget to calculate how much more you will be spending by making the drive to Wichita rather than Chicago.  Whatever savings will burn up in fuel costs (a little too easily, these days...) and FTR: http://www.mvc-sports.com/television/default/ http://www.mvc-sports.com/media/2012-13/tv/2012-13TV_FullPageAd_1.pdf

Sorry, but VU didn't get screwed on seeding. We maybe could have been a 13 at absolute best, but I figured 14 was what we'd get, and that's what we got. Remember, we lost to Nebraska and Loyola, and our only win of any kind of national note all season was the win at Murray State. I do agree, however, with your point that it wasn't necessarily due to the Horizon being weak. Detroit and Wright State had pretty solid seasons. And I generally agree with your reasons as to why the HL is to be preferred to the MVC.

So which wonderful win did Montana have that made them more deserving of a 13 than Valpo?

I'd say its wins over Weber State were on a par with our win at Murray, and Montana had no losses that were as bad as losing at home to Loyola. Taking an objective view, if it came down between Montana and Valpo for a 13-seed, I'd say Montana ought to have gotten it. The teams that really got screwed on seeding were Oregon, Cal and Mississippi.

I'm torn. If we get the offer, we probably have to take it -- but again, I see what's happened to Evansville and I wonder if we wouldn't be setting ourselves up for a situation where we struggle to go .500 in league play year in and year out and never get back to the NCAA Tournament. In the Horizon League, we're always going to have a credible shot to win the tournament and get the bid.

I don't see Valpo being a .500 team in league play. A majority of the time a move up is a good thing. Sometimes it doesn't seem to work out but I think it will help recruiting as players see it can be a multiple bid league and they have a team in the Final 4 this year, which most definitely will look good to see Wichita appear twice on our schedule next season and many seasons to come. If Valpo does make the jump, I think this sadly spells the beginning of the end for the Horizon League. Losing two historically elite mid-majors in Butler and possibly VU, will be it's demise. Only being 8 teams strong and Detroit your best team, not good for the Horizon.

You might not see it, but I see it very clearly. In most years, I think we'd do awfully well to go 9-9 in the MVC, with maybe a breakout season here and there in which we might go 11-7 or 12-6. The MVC is a very strong league and, unlike the Horizon League, has a lot of programs with very strong traditions. Wichita State didn't just get good this year. This program has been making noise, off and on, since the 1980s, though clearly never as much as this year. Southern Illinois, Northern Iowa, Missouri State, Illinois State, Indiana State have also all had some great teams on repeated occasions. It's been a little longer since Bradley was very good, but that team is usually still competitive. The only teams in the league I'd say the Valpo program is on a par with, or better than, on a year-in, year-out basis, are Bradley, Evansville and Drake.

Look, I'm a proud VU alumnus and a strong supporter of the Crusaders, but I'm also objective. I felt the move to the Horizon League would ultimately be a good one for our program, and it was -- because it gave us a lot of games in a lot of places where recruits would want to play, against programs that were either on our level or catchable in a few years' time. Could it be that going to the MVC will raise our program to new heights? Sure. But it's also possible that the recruits we are getting now, who are eager to play in Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee and Detroit, might not be as enthusiastic about playing in Evansville, Terre Haute and Peoria, and I don't think at our current level or worse that we are going to contend for conference championships or NCAA bids in the MVC. Had we been in that conference this year (taking Creighton out of the equation), we might have topped out at second, and it's not a given that second place would have gotten us a bid. (The league got two bids this year, and Creighton was the other one.) And this was, frankly, one of the best teams in VU history, which means second would have been our top-out point. We were 7-1 on the road in the HL this year. Against the MVC, going 4-5 on the road would probably be close to our high-water mark.

So those are some arguments for staying. Here's an argument for going: with Butler gone, the Horizon League has lost a lot of prestige. While I doubt any of the rest of the league will leave (as I don't see many other leagues that will be eager to pick up anybody but Valpo), it's also not going to have the level of national respect it previously had. We came into the league at a great time, and our stock has risen as a result. But with the departure of Butler, I doubt our stock is going to rise any higher than it is now, and it might even go down. We could have a rough year next year with all the seniors we lost -- and I know we've got some good talent coming up, but it's hard to see how we don't slip a notch or two, with Wright State, Detroit and Green Bay likely to be pretty solid. This might be a case of now or never. And we saw what happened when we hung around the Mid-Con too long. We finally got stale and got passed up by the other leading teams in the league, and when that happened, all the shine of our Sweet 16 run in 1998 got dull and forgotten. The same could happen if we stay in the HL, which doesn't really have any chance at nabbing a replacement for Butler that is anywhere near Butler's level.

Weighing all those arguments, I think maybe the better move is to go to the MVC, if invited. But I don't think the decision is a slam-dunk, and I think there are some fine reasons to consider sticking around.

The MVC is an obvious step up from the HL.

If RPI were the be-all and end-all measure of conference success.  (Ask the MWC how that looks/feels right about now.)  It's not, and the entire difference between the two can be pretty much chalked up to OOC scheduling (MWC 5th toughest, HL 29th with all its Purdue Cals and Bowlings Green).  This explains it all when you consider that their OOC record without Creighton (64-43) is only 7 games better than ours (61-54).  They just did it against better teams. And let's stop with "the HL didn't support a better than a 14 seed".  That's ridiculous.  VU got screwed because we got screwed, not because the HL couldn't carry enough water for us.  If it were true that conferences affected seeding, then the Summit (19th) couldn't/shouldn't have gotten SDSU a 13, and Oregon should leave the PAC for a better conference because it only got them a 12. This is going from 12th to 9th or maybe 10th in terms of conferences.  Is it really worth uprooting the kids and upsetting the neighbors and packing up all our stuff just to move into pretty much the same house in a distant neighborhood just to have a pool?  Why not just get a Y membership instead? And again, we'd be playing in towns instead of cities...I've been to Northern Iowa (both the school and the generic cardinal direction).  Let's just say playing MVC 'cities' would be like an entire conference of Youngstown States, just not as fun nor convenient a drive. Make Bradley or ISU and Evansville an offer to come over here.  But don't condemn kids to have to attempt to forge rivalries with the Fighting Salukis now that we finally have some good rivalries going. PS--as far as money, don't forget to calculate how much more you will be spending by making the drive to Wichita rather than Chicago.  Whatever savings will burn up in fuel costs (a little too easily, these days...) and FTR: http://www.mvc-sports.com/television/default/ http://www.mvc-sports.com/media/2012-13/tv/2012-13TV_FullPageAd_1.pdf

Sorry, but VU didn't get screwed on seeding. We maybe could have been a 13 at absolute best, but I figured 14 was what we'd get, and that's what we got. Remember, we lost to Nebraska and Loyola, and our only win of any kind of national note all season was the win at Murray State. I do agree, however, with your point that it wasn't necessarily due to the Horizon being weak. Detroit and Wright State had pretty solid seasons. And I generally agree with your reasons as to why the HL is to be preferred to the MVC.

If they're considering Valpo, UMKC and Loyola and UIC, there are pluses and minuses to each.

VALPO: Of the three, Valpo has the biggest name and, at the current time, the best program. By far. It's a credible pick. Nobody will say, "Wow, you're really weakening your brand by taking Valpo." It also gives Evansville and Indiana State another nearby conference rival. On the flip side, Indiana is on the periphery of the MVC, and the Valley already has two Indiana schools. Valpo gets the league into the periphery of the Chicago market, but if the Chicago market is what's important to the MVC, it is far more likely to pick Loyola or UIC. I don't know how Valpo's facilities compare to UMKC's, but if it comes down to facilities, VU loses out to Loyola and UIC for sure.

LOYOLA: Loyola just upgraded all its facilities and is in a rich recruiting area. But Loyola hasn't even finished .500 in the Horizon League in forever, so the Ramblers aren't going to have an immediate impact, and the name isn't as credible as Valpo's. Still, that gets the MVC into the Chicago media market. Theoretically, Loyola looks like it could be getting ready to make a move upward, and MVC membership could help its recruiting, but that would also be true for either Valpo or UMKC.

UIC: Has basically the same advantages, and the same disadvantages, as Loyola.

UMKC: Geographically, this is the best option, but UMKC offers virtually nothing else. The program is not as strong as Valpo's or even Loyola's, and if you have a choice between the Chicago media market and the KC market, it's a no-brainer. I suspect this is more of a courtesy call on the Valley's part than anything else, because I just don't see how UMKC improves the MVC's brand.

In short, if these are the four options, I think Valpo is the likeliest choice, and Loyola's probably the dark horse. I'd be really surprised if UMKC got the offer.

Now, here's the flip side: is Valpo better off going to the MVC, or staying in the Horizon League? The answer may seem like a no-brainer, but consider the advantages offered by the Horizon League -- it's a little more geographically compact, and Valpo gets to play in major cities (Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland) throughout the upper Midwest. Games in Terre Haute, Evansville, Springfield MO, etc., might not be as interesting to recruits. As a cautionary tale, look at Evansville, which was very strong for many years when it was in the Horizon (then the MCC), but has never risen above mediocrity since joining the Valley.

The opposite end of that argument is that the MVC is obviously a much stronger conference and could do for Valpo what joining the Horizon League did for us -- after a few tough years of adjustment, it raised the level of Valpo's program, which had stagnated in the Mid-Con. And the MVC has much more potential for multiple bids than the Horizon, which now appears to be a perennial one-bid league with Butler gone.

I'm torn. If we get the offer, we probably have to take it -- but again, I see what's happened to Evansville and I wonder if we wouldn't be setting ourselves up for a situation where we struggle to go .500 in league play year in and year out and never get back to the NCAA Tournament. In the Horizon League, we're always going to have a credible shot to win the tournament and get the bid.

[mental toughness]

Epic choke by VU. Up 9 with five minutes left, fail to score again and lose? Against a team that came in 3-7? Pitiful.

It's looking pretty clear that this team not only failed to improve during the offseason, but actually regressed. Obviously, we are only about a third of the way through the season, so there's plenty of time for VU to put things together, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the Crusaders' ability to do so, based on what they've shown me so far. As has been the case so often in the last 15 years, the Crusaders failed to put away a game when it was completely in their grasp. This team in recent years has had a maddening inability to hold onto a lead. Two words: mental toughness. VU doesn't have it and hasn't had it in a long, long time.

[New Mexico 77, Valpo 54]

I would love to see Valpo actually beat somebody it isn't supposed to beat, but until it actually happens again (and I think the last time was probably when VU beat Ohio State in, what, 2001-02?), I'll believe it when I see it. This program is a good, solid mid-major program, but it never built on the momentum of its Sweet 16 run the way other programs such as Gonzaga, Xavier and Butler have done. I'm not sure why, but it just hasn't happened. It's a chicken-and-egg thing, but Valpo is never going to be on that level if it can't start winning these kinds of games. VU just always seems to play badly against most of the top teams or "name" teams on its schedule. The game at Nebraska was a disgrace. Nebraska's slow and not especially talented, but VU came out and played without any kind of confidence, poise or discipline; I couldn't believe the bad shots, the airballs, the turnovers. It was awful. The Crusaders finally made a run at the end only when it was too late -- i.e., when the pressure was off, and they stopped being psyched out and just played basketball. And that, I think, is the key: they get on a Big Ten team's court, or up against a Top 20 team, and they make a bunch of mental mistakes they don't make against schools "on their level." It's a head game. When they can get past this psychological barrier they seem to have, they'll start winning some of these games. Until then -- New Mexico 77, Valpo 54.

Hey 72, I agree strongly with your analogy to Kansas.     Hope you can see from other posts that I deeply want Valpo to improve. Given all the headwinds, I do think Tom Horne should get a lot more credit for the two championships he won.     All I ever seemed to hear about him were complaints.   As I said before, entering D-1 and the Pioneer was actually a help and he capitalized.  Don't have time to analyze, but I do think other posters have pointed out that we had a stretch not long ago where we played .500 ball on average. I truly do think there is some merit in targeting certain high schools steadily.   One of the best HS programs in Chicago had a VU alumnus head coach John Belskis for many years in 90s and 00s.   He is also a VU HOF members as a player.  That league in Hinsdale area could have been a pipeline and still could.

I'm glad to see somebody mention Tom Horne. I was there for the first few years of his tenure. It is beyond question that he left the program in a far better condition than he found it. His first year, VU made national news for losing to Grand Valley State, 91-0. But the team improved every season, and by his fifth year, we had a competitive program. I think he doesn't really get the credit he deserves because he was very intense and sometimes rubbed people the wrong way. But he did a terrific job at Valpo, especially considering the headwinds you mentioned.

The bottom line is that Valpo really doesn't care about football or emphasize it in any way. It also does not help that we do not offer scholarships in football. Although this is also true of the rest of our league, each one of those programs either had a much stronger tradition than Valpo has, or are relatively new programs that don't have the stigma of decades of losing and losing badly. A program in as bad a shape as Valpo's is a tough sell to recruits, especially if you can't give them scholarships.

If Valpo is serious about football (which I would say it absolutely is not), it needs to leave the PFL and become a scholarship program again, as it was when it was Division II in football (through 1993). Obviously we are precluded from going back to D-II due to the NCAA ruling in 1993 that D-I schools could not play D-II or D-III in football, but we could become an FCS independent, offer scholarships, and build the program. We could continue to play a similar schedule as we are playing now -- it's not unprecedented for non-scholarship schools to play nonconference games against scholarship schools -- until we elevate the program enough to possibly join a scholarship-based FCS league. It's the only way VU is ever going to have a chance to compete in football.

If we are not going to invest in football and attempt to build a winner, it's time to admit that we really don't have a football program and put an end to it.

Oakland's a pretty decent program, but hasn't really arrived yet. OU had a few nice wins or near misses a couple seasons ago but got crushed in the NCAAs. I'd have to look up how many times the Grizzlies have made the tournament, but I don't think it's been very many. Three or maybe four, all-time? I don't know if I'd say Oakland's body of work surpasses Murray State's, and its name certainly doesn't. If I recall correctly, Murray State knocked out Vanderbilt a couple years ago and nearly beat Butler. Oakland has done nothing nearly as impressive. The win at Tennessee when UT was ranked #7 was a nice win, but if it's not a tournament win, it doesn't get nearly as much notice.

If we got Murray State, I think people would take notice and be somewhat impressed. If we got Oakland, there'd be a lot of "Really? They got a team from California?" I know, I know, Oakland University is in Michigan. But I'd bet a lot of basketball fans don't know that.

The league lost a big name. If we replace it with a lesser name (and just about anybody we could realistically get would be a lesser name than Butler), it doesn't help us. Oakland's day may come, but let's let Oakland notch a tournament win or two before extending an invite.

To be honest with you, I don't know if the HL has very many GOOD expansion options. I doubt we'd get Murray State, by far the best option, because of its long association with the OVC, where it has all of its natural rivalries. Ditto for Morehead State and Eastern Kentucky, neither of which are as good an option as Murray.

No way in hell we'll get Northern Illinois, because NIU has FBS football and will stay in the MAC for that reason, if no other.

We're not getting George Mason or Drexel, who are both in a more prestigious league than the HL.

Oakland? Probably the best program we have a realistic chance to get, but I'm not excited about OU.

Evansville and Bradley? No way either one of them is leaving the MVC for the HL.

As to the others, why would we want any of them? None of them are "name" schools, even at the mid-major level. I don't want to water down the league with third-tier programs like IUPUI or IPFW, who have neither the facilities nor the fan followings to be top-level members who really bring any value to the league.

In short, I think the Horizon League really gains nothing by adding any of the teams that it has a realistic chance to add. I think we should stay with the nine schools we've got. We're not going to get anybody that has Butler's prestige (or better), so any move we might make does not achieve any useful purpose. And if we end up with a 16-game conference schedule, as compared to 18, that's two more quality nonconference games each team can add to the schedule. That will do far more for our RPI, collectively and individually, than adding a low-level team to the league. Let's not add members who bring no real value just for the sake of adding more members.

Based on returnees and transfers, VU should be the overwhelming HL favorite next year. I don't understand why Katz is so high on Butler, aside from its recent history. It looks like Butler's got one shooter coming in, but the Dawgs lose Nored, and the rest of the team couldn't throw the ball in Lake Michigan standing on the beach. Butler's solid on defense but very shaky on offense. Anyone who thinks VU isn't a solid favorite over Butler next year didn't see either team play last year.

Now, that said, VU is going to have to find some toughness to go with its talent and experience. We all saw how Detroit ran Valpo out of its own gym in the HL title game, and the key thing that happened was that the tougher team won. VU is going to have to get a little more hard-nosed, mentally and physically, to win the league and make any noise in the NCAAs. I hope the Crusaders do toughen up over the offseason, because this club has the talent to be the best VU team since 1998, if not better. If the team plays to its potential, VU could win 25 games or more.