Valpo to be visited by MVC this week, thoughts?

[VU2014]

Just a note of interest for those of you not following the MVC board.  Jimmy is making quite a strong case for adding UWM as the 12th team in the MVC. Tex is on there duking it out with him. 

http://www.mvcfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4679&start=36

The MVC board also seems to keep bring Belmont up.          Belmont wants to be the King of the OVC hill for now and forever.  They barely get 2000 to their games, so the only recourse is to win the Automatic Bid as the OVC champion.  They'd be competitive in the MVC but they don't want to settle for that.  They want to be solitary auto-bid on an annual basis. And if Murray state leaves for the MVC, that almost assures them of that.  Big difference in philosophy.

Haven't read the Jimmy posts yet, but wasn't he a year ago complaining how awful Amanda Braun is and how terrible she's run the program?

Jimmy can't stand her but it was all about her dislike for Jeter and doing everything to undermine him.  Now she has her guy in there and has tied herself to his success.  Jimmy feels that she will do whatever it takes to make him successful.  That is the angle that I see in his MVCFANS posts.  They have the arena, the enrollment, the population and there may be a new practice facility in the works, so they could be a contender.  IMO, way better than UMKC or UNO - plus it brings in Milwaukee.  He's pushing for Murray, Valpo and UWM for 12.  BUT that's on the MVC fan board -- who the heck knows what's going on in the MVC offices??.

He just posted this. I like Valpo being in a Conf with MKE. Good town and we have a large/active alumni base up there.

https://twitter.com/PantherU/status/855575583253835777

[a3uge]

UWM has finished inside the top 100 RPI only once in the past 10 years - that was a 94 RPI to finish in 2011. They've been outside of the top 100 kpom rankings every year since their 2006 tournament appearance. They've had 4 200+ RPI finishes since then, with a 310 finish scattered in there. They have an average RPI of 174.7 over the past 10 years and an average RPI of 217.4 over the past 5 years.

For reference, Valpo has had 7 top 100 RPI finishes in the past 10 years, and only 1 season outside the top 200. They have a 10 year average of 113 RPI and a 5 year average of 84.2.

Then take Murray State - 3 top 100 RPI finishes with 1 200+ RPI finish, and a ten year average of 118.1 and a 5 year average of 133.2.

UWM just hasn't had any sustainable success. Touting a practice facility that could maybe possibly exist in the future, and an arena everyone wanted to tear down a few years ago isn't a good enough selling point. "Hey trust us, it's not really our fault" isn't a good argument.

That program has really had a decade of mismanagement and poor play, from the APR ban, to the Klotsche Center debacle, to the coaching transition. It's really spanned multiple athletic directors, chancellors, and state governors. For they sake of the Horizon, I hope all of Jimmy's promises start to come true, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[valpotx]

I don't know where the 'duking it out' comes from, other than me pointing out the fact that they have had troubles over the last few years (academics/postseason ban, AD turmoil, etc).  I don't mind Milwaukee being in the MVC, as long as we get in.  They do have a good basketball history before the last few years.

[NativeCheesehead]

If the MVC fans were concerned about our sustained success without a Drew, Milwaukee still hasn't proved they can have sustained success without Bruce Pearl.

[wh]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

[vu72]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

[valporun]

If the MVC fans were concerned about our sustained success without a Drew, Milwaukee still hasn't proved they can have sustained success without Bruce Pearl.

Milwaukee probably could have had that sustained success without Bruce Pearl, but the college administrative powers made mistakes in athletics because they wanted big names in charge, to bring in big names in coaching staff. Andy Geiger was a joke, and really brought the program down significantly. Amanda Braun was probably in the right to bring in someone to change the environment around Milwaukee basketball, but how she publicly handled it was bad for the university. They would be a good addition with Valpo, but they need to get their administrative ducks in a row first.

[VULB#62]

I don't know where the 'duking it out' comes from, other than me pointing out the fact that they have had troubles over the last few years (academics/postseason ban, AD turmoil, etc).  I don't mind Milwaukee being in the MVC, as long as we get in.  They do have a good basketball history before the last few years.

I probably should have put 3 smiley faces instead of just one.  My bad. And I agree with what you just said and the exact way you stated it.

From PatherU's perspective, I'll bet it's both good and bad.  If they get an invite they'll upgrade BB-- good,  !  If they get an invite it will cement Braun as the AD of the future -- Bad 

[VULB#62]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

I agree. The contingency has to clearly be spelled out.  Inside of 5 years, expansion is off the table and it is a 'no' as 72 says.  A 10 year phased plan for expansion (northside) with visible upgrades to existing conditions (retractable chairback seating* in the south lower bowl, additional permanent, retractable bleachers on the east end line - possibly with chairbacks as well, additional restrooms and moved concessions), new sound system all completed within 5 years a definite 'yes.'  The initial 5-year phase will do an awful lot to remove the HS gym stigma right off the bat but not destroy the great game time ambiance, and these are largely cosmetic, not structural.  It preserves the space for non-game use by more than just basketball until there is enough money to complete the northside addition and the expansion that can go with that.  In the meantime, we have a 5 year period to assess the level of attendance and improve our outreach and marketing to justify 6,500 seats (and I am of the opinion that a university of our size should not go beyond 6,500).  There is much to be gained by keeping the home environment a close-in, fans-on-top-of-the-floor venue. As we demonstrated even in our current configuration vs. St. Mary's and Florida State, with the crowd in the game it's a tough place to get a visiting win.

* If additional chairbacks are installed I'd recommend also replacing the north side at the same time for a cohesive look. 

Here's a website of an American company that produces this kind of seating: 
http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/vipplatform.html  (nicest)
http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/comfobackoption.html  (still very nice)

Check out these chair back (called VIP and Comfoback) retractables.  They have come a long way since the ones we have were developed. It would be nice to have a brown "V" chair pattern on a gold background on both sides as well. But, from the website it looks like we would only be able to have contrasting bases and backs or alternating same color sections (brown, gold, brown, gold).  I would also replace the student bleachers with Larson regular bleachers (without chairbacks) for a fully cohesive "bowl" look. http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/plasticsculptureseat.html

[oklahomamick]

If the MVC fans were concerned about our sustained success without a Drew, Milwaukee still hasn't proved they can have sustained success without Bruce Pearl.

Cheating Bruce Pearl at that.....

[oklahomamick]

And....correct me if I'm wrong, but is the MVC now going after Murray St and Milwaukee but not Valpo?  Or am I just paranoid we are being left out for those guys?

[VULB#62]

And....correct me if I'm wrong, but is the MVC now going after Murray St and Milwaukee but not Valpo?  Or am I just paranoid we are being left out for those guys?

From what I can ascertain, the UWM rumor is mainly spinning off the MVCFAN board posts.

[FieldGoodie05]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

I strongly agree with this statement.  A major reason we are referred to as a kiddie gym is because of the retractable seating.  If we can't do that, then chairbacks in the entire lower bowl is a big step forward.

[crusaderjoe]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

I strongly agree with this statement.  A major reason we are referred to as a kiddie gym is because of the retractable seating.  If we can't do that, then chairbacks in the entire lower bowl is a big step forward.

When your "lower bowl" consists of two rectangles and a square as it does now, the only thing chairback seating will do is provide back support to watch the game from a hot garbage sight line.  That is not enough.  And, by the way, I've read reference on more than one occasion on this board about the "lower bowl." Lulz...Que?  There is no lower bowl--you have two rectangles and a square.  That's it.

[VULB#62]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

I strongly agree with this statement.  A major reason we are referred to as a kiddie gym is because of the retractable seating.  If we can't do that, then chairbacks in the entire lower bowl is a big step forward.

When your "lower bowl" consists of two rectangles and a square as it does now, the only thing chairback seating will do is provide back support to watch the game from a hot garbage sight line.  That is not enough.  And, by the way, I've read reference on more than one occasion on this board about the "lower bowl." Lulz...Que?  There is no lower bowl--you have two rectangles and a square.  That's it.

Awfully picky, Joe.  Lower Bowl is as good as anything to describe the lower spectator area as a whole.  And I disagree with your assessment that all it will do is add back support.  Check out the links and ideas I provided below in my previous post on this issue.  By replacing all of the seating in the "bowl" "lower spectator seating", "whatever," the ARC takes on a whole different, modern look and feel -- at a minimal investment.  If the MVC wants an indication of commitment to facilities, that should be a good first step out of the blocks. 

Besides just painting the MVC logo on the court, refitting the seating would be an excellent way to announce and depict a truly NEW era in Valpo Basketball.

[UNIFTW]

And....correct me if I'm wrong, but is the MVC now going after Murray St and Milwaukee but not Valpo?  Or am I just paranoid we are being left out for those guys?

From what I can ascertain, the UWM rumor is mainly spinning off the MVCFAN board posts.

It's actually seeming to come from beat writers of the MVC and Murray State. I've seen references to it from Murray State, Indiana State, SIU and brief potential mention from UNI (who is an Indiana State alum)

I'm not sure I buy it yet, but there appears to be a smolder behind it. I wouldn't be shocked if Valpo and Murray were this year and a 12th was a year behind.

As for the arena upgrades: I don't care about expanding your capacity. If you can fill 5,000 then have 5,000. Though I'd guess filling 5,000 against UWGB and Youngstown State probably means 6.500 against UNI, Illinois State, Loyola, etc... is possible but so be it.

As I said earlier, I think the main concern upfront would be making it look like a D1 arena and not a large HS gym. New seats. Better lighting. I have no idea what the score board looks like.  You would be shocked the difference modern lights and new seat backs would make in just making. The place feel brand new. Maybe a fresh coach of paint. I know your school colors are brown and yellow, but every game I watch on TV/photo o see the facility has a yellow and brown tint in the air. Not in the "school color" way but in the dark and old school lighting kind of way.

Drakes Knapp center isn't great. But they recently replaced the lights and upgraded the lower level seats and it looks brand new inside the seating area. It was all cosmetic but makes a big difference.

Old knapp


Upgraded seating, lights scoreboard and court not stained with a yellow base stain

[VULB#62]

And....correct me if I'm wrong, but is the MVC now going after Murray St and Milwaukee but not Valpo?  Or am I just paranoid we are being left out for those guys?

From what I can ascertain, the UWM rumor is mainly spinning off the MVCFAN board posts.

It's actually seeming to come from beat writers of the MVC and Murray State. I've seen references to it from Murray State, Indiana State, SIU and brief potential mention from UNI (who is an Indiana State alum)

I'm not sure I buy it yet, but there appears to be a smolder behind it. I wouldn't be shocked if Valpo and Murray were this year and a 12th was a year behind.

As for the arena upgrades: I don't care about expanding your capacity. If you can fill 5,000 then have 5,000. Though I'd guess filling 5,000 against UWGB and Youngstown State probably means 6.500 against UNI, Illinois State, Loyola, etc... is possible but so be it.

As I said earlier, I think the main concern upfront would be making it look like a D1 arena and not a large HS gym. New seats. Better lighting. I have no idea what the score board looks like.  You would be shocked the difference modern lights and new seat backs would make in just making. The place feel brand new. Maybe a fresh coach of paint. I know your school colors are brown and yellow, but every game I watch on TV/photo o see the facility has a yellow and brown tint in the air. Not in the "school color" way but in the dark and old school lighting kind of way.

Drakes Knapp center isn't great. But they recently replaced the lights and upgraded the lower level seats and it looks brand new inside the seating area.

Old knapp [IMG]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170422/c163d78eca4833af5bf41e3b0d0b0d99.jpg[/img]

Upgraded seating, lights and court not stained with a yellow base stain

That! 

Plus, we already have a big 4 sided scoreboard with video capability hanging over midcourt -- very nice.

[VU2014]

https://twitter.com/EnthusiAdams/status/855799134623760384
https://twitter.com/EnthusiAdams/status/855801585158561792

[VU2014]

Just wondering what others think:

If the MVC were to invite Valpo to join, contingent on a commitment to upgrade the ARC within 5 years, what would be our answer?

Define "upgrade".  If the definition was to take the capacity up to 7500 or 8500, then no.  If it was to upgrade lower bowl seating to chair backs and expend restroom and concessions then I would think the answer could be a yes.

I agree. The contingency has to clearly be spelled out.  Inside of 5 years, expansion is off the table and it is a 'no' as 72 says.  A 10 year phased plan for expansion (northside) with visible upgrades to existing conditions (retractable chairback seating* in the south lower bowl, additional permanent, retractable bleachers on the east end line - possibly with chairbacks as well, additional restrooms and moved concessions), new sound system all completed within 5 years a definite 'yes.'  The initial 5-year phase will do an awful lot to remove the HS gym stigma right off the bat but not destroy the great game time ambiance, and these are largely cosmetic, not structural.  It preserves the space for non-game use by more than just basketball until there is enough money to complete the northside addition and the expansion that can go with that.  In the meantime, we have a 5 year period to assess the level of attendance and improve our outreach and marketing to justify 6,500 seats (and I am of the opinion that a university of our size should not go beyond 6,500).  There is much to be gained by keeping the home environment a close-in, fans-on-top-of-the-floor venue. As we demonstrated even in our current configuration vs. St. Mary's and Florida State, with the crowd in the game it's a tough place to get a visiting win.

* If additional chairbacks are installed I'd recommend also replacing the north side at the same time for a cohesive look. 

Here's a website of an American company that produces this kind of seating: 
http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/vipplatform.html  (nicest)
http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/comfobackoption.html  (still very nice)

Check out these chair back (called VIP and Comfoback) retractables.  They have come a long way since the ones we have were developed. It would be nice to have a brown "V" chair pattern on a gold background on both sides as well. But, from the website it looks like we would only be able to have contrasting bases and backs or alternating same color sections (brown, gold, brown, gold).  I would also replace the student bleachers with Larson regular bleachers (without chairbacks) for a fully cohesive "bowl" look. http://larsoncompany.com/productsservices/bleacherseating/plasticsculptureseat.html

I don't think the MVC would require a promise to renovate just from talking to a few people who didn't think the facilities were that big of an issue. Also seating capacity is not an issue from what I've heard. Thats just something fans often bring up.

But that doesn't change the fact that the ARC is in NEED of a pretty sizable facelift. If the MVC did require Valpo to make upgrades then I'm not sure Heckler or the Board would oblige them unless they were minor improvements.

It sounds like the first step for the University is the Student Rec Center and then the upgrades to the ARC. The giant fundraising efforts for the University has been doing has ZERO $ going towards the Rec Center or ARC improvements. The fundraising for these projects have been left completely to the Athletics Department to do and as Mark LaBarbera has stated recently that he has been unable to find a 'Lead Donor' for the Student Rec Center yet.

The Student Rec Center should be a University effort since it an amenity/selling point to ALL potential students and not just the Athletics Department.

[vu72]

As I said earlier, I think the main concern upfront would be making it look like a D1 arena and not a large HS gym. New seats. Better lighting. I have no idea what the score board looks like.  You would be shocked the difference modern lights and new seat backs would make in just making. The place feel brand new. Maybe a fresh coach of paint. I know your school colors are brown and yellow, but every game I watch on TV/photo o see the facility has a yellow and brown tint in the air. Not in the "school color" way but in the dark and old school lighting kind of way.

Not sure where  are getting the lighting thing from.  The lighting in the ARC is very good and bright.  Not sure when it was upgraded if it needed to be.  As for the scoreboard, it was installed in 2011. This is from the facilities section on the athletic site:

Most recently, the arena underwent an upgrade in the summer of 2011, as a four-sided full color video display board was installed above center court.  New side scoreboards were also installed, as well as new shot clocks and LED lights around the backboards.

[wh]

If the MVC did require Valpo to make upgrades then I'm not sure Heckler or the Board would oblige them unless they were minor improvements.

It sounds like the first step for the University is the Student Rec Center and then the upgrades to the ARC. The giant fundraising efforts for the University has been doing has ZERO $ going towards the Rec Center or ARC improvements. The fundraising for these projects have been left completely to the Athletics Department to do and as Mark LaBarbera has stated recently that he has been unable to find a 'Lead Donor' for the Student Rec Center yet.

The Student Rec Center should be a University effort since it an amenity/selling point to ALL potential students and not just the Athletics Department.

The commitment to modern, upscale facilities was a big selling point for Loyola 4 years ago. Missouri State's President said as much publicly. In fact, he said that Loyola's commitment to facilities was by far superior to the other candidate schools (that means Valpo).

Now, fast forward 4 years. Only 3 weeks ago ml was quoted as saying that not only is there no plan for upgrading the ARC, that he and mh haven't even discussed it. The only "plan" they have is install A/C in Hilltop and fix the roof. That means they don't have a vision, strategy, financial plan, roadmap, timeline, or anything else necessary to even begin the process of upgrading the ARC. IMO if anything blows this opportunity to move to the MVC, this will be it. If the search committee was turned off 4 years ago by the University's lack of commitment to raising the profile of its flagship sport, imagine how they're feeling now.

The bottom line is this. If they're simply looking for the best available men's bb program, we're a shoe-in. If, however, they're using the same scorecard metrics from 4 years ago - best program, University commitment, and access to new markets - we're dead.

By the way, it doesn't matter if we think these other considerations are unimportant, it only matters what they think.

[a3uge]

And....correct me if I'm wrong, but is the MVC now going after Murray St and Milwaukee but not Valpo?  Or am I just paranoid we are being left out for those guys?

From what I can ascertain, the UWM rumor is mainly spinning off the MVCFAN board posts.

It's actually seeming to come from beat writers of the MVC and Murray State. I've seen references to it from Murray State, Indiana State, SIU and brief potential mention from UNI (who is an Indiana State alum)

I'm not sure I buy it yet, but there appears to be a smolder behind it. I wouldn't be shocked if Valpo and Murray were this year and a 12th was a year behind.

As for the arena upgrades: I don't care about expanding your capacity. If you can fill 5,000 then have 5,000. Though I'd guess filling 5,000 against UWGB and Youngstown State probably means 6.500 against UNI, Illinois State, Loyola, etc... is possible but so be it.

As I said earlier, I think the main concern upfront would be making it look like a D1 arena and not a large HS gym. New seats. Better lighting. I have no idea what the score board looks like.  You would be shocked the difference modern lights and new seat backs would make in just making. The place feel brand new. Maybe a fresh coach of paint. I know your school colors are brown and yellow, but every game I watch on TV/photo o see the facility has a yellow and brown tint in the air. Not in the "school color" way but in the dark and old school lighting kind of way.

Drakes Knapp center isn't great. But they recently replaced the lights and upgraded the lower level seats and it looks brand new inside the seating area. It was all cosmetic but makes a big difference.

Old knapp


Upgraded seating, lights scoreboard and court not stained with a yellow base stain

Has it really made a *big* difference? Drake has lost 70 games in the past 3 years. They've literally declined in attendance every year for the past ten years.

I'm just dubious of the notion that the MVC knows how to spend Valpo's money to improve their basketball team more than Valpo themselves. Are valpo recruits really concerned about the seating situation at the arena, and choosing to attend Bradley and Drake instead?

[Dave_2010]

If the MVC is serious about adding a school with an athletic department as dysfunctional as Milwaukee's it proves they learned nothing from the Loyola decision last time. I totally understand losing out to Murray State, but UWM is inexcusable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[valpopal]

As I said earlier, I think the main concern upfront would be making it look like a D1 arena and not a large HS gym. New seats. Better lighting. I have no idea what the score board looks like.  You would be shocked the difference modern lights and new seat backs would make in just making. The place feel brand new. Maybe a fresh coach of paint. I know your school colors are brown and yellow, but every game I watch on TV/photo o see the facility has a yellow and brown tint in the air. Not in the "school color" way but in the dark and old school lighting kind of way.

Not sure where  are getting the lighting thing from.  The lighting in the ARC is very good and bright.  Not sure when it was upgraded if it needed to be.  As for the scoreboard, it was installed in 2011. This is from the facilities section on the athletic site:

Most recently, the arena underwent an upgrade in the summer of 2011, as a four-sided full color video display board was installed above center court.  New side scoreboards were also installed, as well as new shot clocks and LED lights around the backboards.

I have taken exact measurements of the light on the court in the past, and it is uneven at times. On some occasions not all the lights have been fully lit, which can leave the court seemingly dark in pictures. The photographers might have to boost their ISO to 4000 or more as a result. Also, there is a definite yellow cast that is caused by coloring from the yellow paint in the lanes, the center court logo, and when the overhead scoreboard is lit in yellow, which often happens because yellow is a dominant color for Valpo graphics—as well as the orange and yellow McDonald's logo on the underside of the scoreboard. (When the scoreboard graphic is pure white, the lighting improves 100%.) Unless correct white balance over-compensation is made, images of the ARC almost always have a yellow tint, and the players sometimes appear to have a touch of jaundice.   

[78crusader]

The photo of the Knapp Center at Drake reminds me of what I believe the biggest drawback is to the ARC -- it feels way too dark and ... I'm not sure of the right word -- confined, I guess.  The photo of the Knapp Center in this thread doesn't really show how the windows, which are on the south side, make a big difference in the lighting and feel of the place. I live in Des Moines and have been to dozens of games at Knapp.  It is way, way better than the ARC. 

Windows along the north or west side would make a huge difference.  Throw in chairback seats and get rid of the concession stand on the south end, and there you have it.  Problem is, installing windows would entail redoing one of the main walls, and the board would probably never green light that kind of formidable expense.  Too bad. 

Paul