Hutton: Homer Drew was too good to be true

[agibson]

Er, something like that. 

But, yeah, back to the base note.  Students should take advantage of quality D1 entertainment options in their backyard.  And, Homer was something else!

[vuweathernerd]

I totally agree on the acts that got Matt Hensley locked up....and certainly wasn't trying to say anything positive about him....my point is, and was, that when the VU Crew (which is no longer under the new marketing people) was led by students who really cared about the games and student participation, we had students at the games....we need to get the VU Crew back and we need that type of student participation....they are why the ARC was so tough to play in for opponents.

Not totally clear here...was the Valparaizone under the new marketing group in terms of organizing students?  And, if so, when did it change to no longer be under their control?  This sounds like a change for the better...but we really need a motivated student or two to take charge or it won't matter.

it's not a change for the better, trust me. there's been a lack of communication on the part of imc to educate the students as to what was going on. there are "student leaders" but they do not do anything compared to what the leadership of the vucru did. they don't organize/lead cheers, get the rest of the students riled up, etc. i had the pleasure of experiencing the vucru in its waning moments as we prepared to depart the mid-con and join the horizon. my freshman and sophomore years, it was great. starting with 08-09 things fell apart as vucru essentially ceased to exist.

as for the guy in the orange shirt, away from the arc, he is a mild-mannered guy. pretty chill. during the game, all bets are off however. you need to have a little more restraint, even when you disagree with what you feel was a blatant missed call.

[crusaderjoe]

Tom Smith, the last basketball coach at Valparaiso University whose last name wasn't Drew, politely answered a few questions about VU for a story I did a few years ago about their success.

He didn't give me much.

The message was clear by the end of the conversation: The VU experience, particularly the final years, really weren't a good time for him. Don't call again about that subject.

Smith was worn down by the lack of resources, no recruiting budget, no real arena and no support from the administrators. Yet they were expected to play a real Division I schedule. Apathy drove him back to Missouri to coach. He was beat down by indifference. It was all a bitter memory for him, even years later.

Nothing ever beat Homer Drew down.

When Drew arrived from Bethel in 1988, the Crusaders' Division I basketball history was a vast pit of emptiness, pain and defeat. VU had a combined record of 115-201 since they started Division I play in 1976. They weren't even a local laughing stock. Nobody in the extended community cared enough for that to happen.

Read the full article

Back to the OP in this thread...

I really enjoyed reading this article.  Good stuff by Mike Hutton.  A couple of points though:

1)  Tom Smith was more closely aligned with VU's D-I transitional years than Homer Drew.  To state that Homer Drew was given the same box of circumstances as Tom Smith is a bit of a stretch for that reason.  Tom Smith bore more of the brunt of the transition IMO, so I do not believe the circumstances between the two are entirely equal.

2)  I have a ton of respect for Homer Drew.  I give Homer Drew an inordinate amount of credit for sticking around VU with very limited resources and even less administrative support for the basketball program.  He is the coach that put VU on the map, no question.  However, at the same time, I think the article is a bit naïve in that it was only the university that benefited from the relationship.  While Valpo was certainly fortunate enough to have a guy like Homer Drew take over the program in the late 80's, in my mind Coach Drew was also fortunate enough to have Valpo in one main respect:  back then, the University never measured athletic success by wins or losses.  In many respects, that mindset was too good to be true as well since head coaches are generally defined by such statistics.  I mean lets face it, just about any D-I coach who is 13-66 over three years is probably going to be let go, but that didn't happen in the early 90's because of that mentality.  That mentality kept Homer Drew here, and then what blossomed after the old Mid Con broke up in 1994 they say is history.   I think in some respects both the school and the coach were somewhat fortunate to have each other particularly early on, at least more so than the article portrayed. 

[wh]

Tom Smith, the last basketball coach at Valparaiso University whose last name wasn't Drew, politely answered a few questions about VU for a story I did a few years ago about their success.

He didn't give me much.

The message was clear by the end of the conversation: The VU experience, particularly the final years, really weren't a good time for him. Don't call again about that subject.

Smith was worn down by the lack of resources, no recruiting budget, no real arena and no support from the administrators. Yet they were expected to play a real Division I schedule. Apathy drove him back to Missouri to coach. He was beat down by indifference. It was all a bitter memory for him, even years later.

Nothing ever beat Homer Drew down.

When Drew arrived from Bethel in 1988, the Crusaders' Division I basketball history was a vast pit of emptiness, pain and defeat. VU had a combined record of 115-201 since they started Division I play in 1976. They weren't even a local laughing stock. Nobody in the extended community cared enough for that to happen.

Read the full article

Back to the OP in this thread...

I really enjoyed reading this article.  Good stuff by Mike Hutton.  A couple of points though:

1)  Tom Smith was more closely aligned with VU's D-I transitional years than Homer Drew.  To state that Homer Drew was given the same box of circumstances as Tom Smith is a bit of a stretch for that reason.  Tom Smith bore more of the brunt of the transition IMO, so I do not believe the circumstances between the two are entirely equal.

2)  I have a ton of respect for Homer Drew.  I give Homer Drew an inordinate amount of credit for sticking around VU with very limited resources and even less administrative support for the basketball program.  He is the coach that put VU on the map, no question.  However, at the same time, I think the article is a bit naïve in that it was only the university that benefited from the relationship.  While Valpo was certainly fortunate enough to have a guy like Homer Drew take over the program in the late 80's, in my mind Coach Drew was also fortunate enough to have Valpo in one main respect:  back then, the University never measured athletic success by wins or losses.  In many respects, that mindset was too good to be true as well since head coaches are generally defined by such statistics.  I mean lets face it, just about any D-I coach who is 13-66 over three years is probably going to be let go, but that didn't happen in the early 90's because of that mentality.  That mentality kept Homer Drew here, and then what blossomed after the old Mid Con broke up in 1994 they say is history.   I think in some respects both the school and the coach were somewhat fortunate to have each other particularly early on, at least more so than the article portrayed.  

I think you're right about the early years, but the longer time has gone on the more the pendulum has swung in favor of Homer doing more for the university than vice versa.  We were kept from moving to a better conference years longer than we should have by an A.D. with misplaced allegiances, and to this day we suffer from administrative leadership that thinks we can have our cake and eat it too with woefully inferior facilities.  At the end of the day, all the credit for Homer's career accomplishments belongs to Homer himself.  

[dcvalpo]

Tom Smith, the last basketball coach at Valparaiso University whose last name wasn't Drew, politely answered a few questions about VU for a story I did a few years ago about their success.

He didn't give me much.

The message was clear by the end of the conversation: The VU experience, particularly the final years, really weren't a good time for him. Don't call again about that subject.

Smith was worn down by the lack of resources, no recruiting budget, no real arena and no support from the administrators. Yet they were expected to play a real Division I schedule. Apathy drove him back to Missouri to coach. He was beat down by indifference. It was all a bitter memory for him, even years later.

Nothing ever beat Homer Drew down.

When Drew arrived from Bethel in 1988, the Crusaders' Division I basketball history was a vast pit of emptiness, pain and defeat. VU had a combined record of 115-201 since they started Division I play in 1976. They weren't even a local laughing stock. Nobody in the extended community cared enough for that to happen.

Read the full article

Back to the OP in this thread...

I really enjoyed reading this article.  Good stuff by Mike Hutton.  A couple of points though:

1)  Tom Smith was more closely aligned with VU's D-I transitional years than Homer Drew.  To state that Homer Drew was given the same box of circumstances as Tom Smith is a bit of a stretch for that reason.  Tom Smith bore more of the brunt of the transition IMO, so I do not believe the circumstances between the two are entirely equal.

2)  I have a ton of respect for Homer Drew.  I give Homer Drew an inordinate amount of credit for sticking around VU with very limited resources and even less administrative support for the basketball program.  He is the coach that put VU on the map, no question.  However, at the same time, I think the article is a bit naïve in that it was only the university that benefited from the relationship.  While Valpo was certainly fortunate enough to have a guy like Homer Drew take over the program in the late 80's, in my mind Coach Drew was also fortunate enough to have Valpo in one main respect:  back then, the University never measured athletic success by wins or losses.  In many respects, that mindset was too good to be true as well since head coaches are generally defined by such statistics.  I mean lets face it, just about any D-I coach who is 13-66 over three years is probably going to be let go, but that didn't happen in the early 90's because of that mentality.  That mentality kept Homer Drew here, and then what blossomed after the old Mid Con broke up in 1994 they say is history.   I think in some respects both the school and the coach were somewhat fortunate to have each other particularly early on, at least more so than the article portrayed. 

I think you're right about the early years, but the longer time has gone on the more the pendulum has swung in favor of Homer doing more for the university than vice versa.  We were kept from moving to a better conference years longer than we should have by an A.D. with misplaced allegiances, and to this day we suffer from administrative leadership that thinks we can have our cake and eat it too with woefully inferior facilities.  At the end of the day, all the credit for Homer's career accomplishments belongs to Homer himself. 

I think the players may get a bit of credit too  But, yes, I pretty much agree completely with you guys.  Wonderful, insightful discussion here...thanks for participating!