Should Dale Carlson be retained as Valpo Football coach in 2014?

historyman · October 06, 2013, 01:25:41 PM

Just to give everyone a chance to express some views on the whole situation.

usc4valpo · October 06, 2013, 01:36:01 PM

New coach required , and if you do not provide adequate funding, then get rid of football.

VULB#62 · October 06, 2013, 10:24:26 PM

H-Man. I'm unsure of the last "No" What is really meant there?

historyman · October 07, 2013, 05:31:00 AM

Quote from: VULB#62 on October 06, 2013, 10:24:26 PMH-Man. I'm unsure of the last "No" What is really meant there?

Not every successful coach has had to rebuild a program. If we hired a coach based only on how successful they were with no regard to whether they had rebuilt a program.

milanmiracle · October 07, 2013, 10:30:24 AM

I don't think there is any way Valpo can retain Carlson and have any credibility when it comes the football program. Actions speak louder than words. 3 wins over the same team in 4 years isn't building a program, it's digging a deeper hole. My hope is Carlson takes a good long hard look in the mirror and realizes he's not the right fit for this job and moves on voluntarily.

covufan · October 07, 2013, 10:59:12 AM

Quote from: milanmiracle on October 07, 2013, 10:30:24 AMMy hope is Carlson takes a good long hard look in the mirror and realizes he's not the right fit for this job and moves on voluntarily.

If he takes a good long look in the mirror, won't eight or ten Joel Osteen quotes come to mind about digging in and finishing the job?

bbtds · October 07, 2013, 11:23:05 AM

Quote from: milanmiracle on October 07, 2013, 10:30:24 AM
I don't think there is any way Valpo can retain Carlson and have any credibility when it comes the football program. Actions speak louder than words. 3 wins over the same team in 4 years isn't building a program, it's digging a deeper hole. My hope is Carlson takes a good long hard look in the mirror and realizes he's not the right fit for this job and moves on voluntarily.

I think in so many of these cases it makes an appearance of being voluntary but the AD makes it clear that the path of least resistance is to voluntarily quit.

I believe the exception at Valpo was former baseball coach Paul Twenge.

vu72 · October 07, 2013, 11:49:23 AM

Quote from: bbtds on October 07, 2013, 11:23:05 AM
Quote from: milanmiracle on October 07, 2013, 10:30:24 AM
I don't think there is any way Valpo can retain Carlson and have any credibility when it comes the football program. Actions speak louder than words. 3 wins over the same team in 4 years isn't building a program, it's digging a deeper hole. My hope is Carlson takes a good long hard look in the mirror and realizes he's not the right fit for this job and moves on voluntarily.

I think in so many of these cases it makes an appearance of being voluntary but the AD makes it clear that the path of least resistance is to voluntarily quit.

I believe the exception at Valpo was former baseball coach Paul Twenge.

You may be right but my discussions with Paul indicated a similar approach relative to the AD.

Now, back to Carlson. I just checked the records and found that we actually had a worse four year record during Koch's last year (0-10) and Horne's first three (0-10, 1-9 and 1-8-1) Is that improvement? Maybe. The next three were 3-8, 5-5 and 7-3. A record all of us would accept. Even the great Em Bauer started 1-7 his first year but then went 2-5-1, 4-5 and 7-2-1 over the next three.

If Carlson wins three this year, together with two very competitive losses, I might be inclined to give him one more year. Another 1 or 2 win year and we have to show him the door.

covufan · October 07, 2013, 01:56:01 PM

Quote from: vu72 on October 07, 2013, 11:49:23 AMIf Carlson wins three this year, together with two very competitive losses, I might be inclined to give him one more year.

Prior to the season, I would have agreed. We really needed to pull those two games out, as they were winnable. I don't see this team winning two more games, let alone having two more games that are within 10 points.

VULB#62 · October 07, 2013, 02:33:17 PM

Our best chances were St. Joe's (currently 4-1) and William Jewel (currently 1-4). Morehead is improving and has won two in a row (Davidson and Campbell) and score points in bunches.

covufan · October 07, 2013, 03:39:32 PM

Quote from: VULB#62 on October 07, 2013, 02:33:17 PMMorehead is improving and has won two in a row (Davidson and Campbell) and score points in bunches.

So you're saying that the only way we can beat Morehead is if they step out of bounds on what would be a 60-80 yard scoring play, then turn the ball over; then repeat?

VULB#62 · October 07, 2013, 03:46:30 PM

They scored 45 in each win. They won at home and they won on the road. Gave up 14 to Davidson and 36 to Campbell. So in answer to your speculation, those might be plausible scenarios.

Valposter · October 08, 2013, 04:24:31 PM

Where exactly would "lots of money" come from. Taking away from other successful athletic programs at Valpo like basketball, baseball, softball, golf. No, I don't vote for that. I would go the opposite direction and eliminate football and re-direct the funding devoted to football to build an on-campus stadium for baseball with lights, chairback seating, decent concourse. A facility similar to Niscwitz Stadium at Wright State. Our baseball program deserves (and has EARNED) a nice on-campus home to be proud of. Softball has it. Basketball has it. Baseball needs some LOVE too!!!!!

VUOR63 · October 08, 2013, 07:11:28 PM

Obviously we need some football alumni to win Power Ball.

usc4valpo · October 08, 2013, 07:26:07 PM

Where are the friends of the program when you need them?

we need to build on our strengths - baseball needs some love. more cash to basketball is always a good thing for a proven commodity. If you want to be creative - build a hockey rink! Crusader hockey is on the air!! I would love to see the Crusader mascot on skates!

VULB#62 · October 08, 2013, 10:04:57 PM

Take it from a New Englander, where hockey is kind of big, hockey is an expensive endeavor.

What's required:
Rink rental (if nearby) appropriate for a D-I program OR building a 1,500-2,000 seat arena from scratch, equipment, scholarships (18), travel, etc. are costs I don't think Valpo can afford. And going non-scholarship means you's have a ice-based football program.

Also, if men's hockey is added, a women's sport (also hockey?) with an equal amount of scholarships needs to be added or other men's programs dropped.

historyman · October 08, 2013, 11:10:14 PM

Quote from: Valposter on October 08, 2013, 04:24:31 PMWhere exactly would "lots of money" come from. Taking away from other successful athletic programs at Valpo like basketball, baseball, softball, golf. No, I don't vote for that. I would go the opposite direction and eliminate football and re-direct the funding devoted to football to build an on-campus stadium for baseball with lights, chairback seating, decent concourse. A facility similar to Niscwitz Stadium at Wright State. Our baseball program deserves (and has EARNED) a nice on-campus home to be proud of. Softball has it. Basketball has it. Baseball needs some LOVE too!!!!!

That is one opinion.

There is a place to vote for a coaching change and no infusion of money.

The goal for some is to have a successful football program. Some believe an infusion of money to upgrade the football program is what is needed whether you change the head coach or not in 2014. If the board of directors can find money for all the recent upgrades to other non-athletic facilities why do we take their word that Valpo can not get money for athletics? These are all decisions made by a group of people. Other decisions can be made. Maybe Valpo needs to change the board of directors.

usc4valpo · October 09, 2013, 06:28:34 AM

Quote from: historyman on October 08, 2013, 11:10:14 PM
Quote from: Valposter on October 08, 2013, 04:24:31 PMWhere exactly would "lots of money" come from. Taking away from other successful athletic programs at Valpo like basketball, baseball, softball, golf. No, I don't vote for that. I would go the opposite direction and eliminate football and re-direct the funding devoted to football to build an on-campus stadium for baseball with lights, chairback seating, decent concourse. A facility similar to Niscwitz Stadium at Wright State. Our baseball program deserves (and has EARNED) a nice on-campus home to be proud of. Softball has it. Basketball has it. Baseball needs some LOVE too!!!!!
That is one opinion. There is a place to vote for a coaching change and no infusion of money. The goal for some is to have a successful football program. Some believe an infusion of money to upgrade the football program is what is needed whether you change the head coach or not in 2014. If the board of directors can find money for all the recent upgrades to other non-athletic facilities why do we take their word that Valpo can not get money for athletics? These are all decisions made by a group of people. Other decisions can be made. Maybe Valpo needs to change the board of directors.

Let's try to put it this way - if the adminsiitration does not care about football, and/or the university does not have sufficient funding to sustain a football program of at least acceptable quality, then bag football. This same logic can be applied to other products or services Valpo has in their portfolio. Don't commit to something you cannot commit to. Put your money or energies into strengths that you are passionate about.

VULB#62 · October 09, 2013, 06:42:56 AM

I would argue that Valpo has increased it's funding for the FB program these past three plus seasons. Where the lack of funding is more evident, and it is reflected in more than just FB, is in facilities upgrades. This program can win between the sidelines regardless of whether the games are played in a spanking new stadium or present Brown Field. The program infrastructure has been put in place and sufficient upgrades internally evidence program growth. But it all seems to falter on the practice field and on game day. That points to the coaching staff.

usc4valpo · October 09, 2013, 08:08:32 AM

Quote from: VULB#62 on October 09, 2013, 06:42:56 AMI would argue that Valpo has increased it's funding for the FB program these past three plus seasons. Where the lack of funding is more evident, and it is reflected in more than just FB, is in facilities upgrades. This program can win between the sidelines regardless of whether the games are played in a spanking new stadium or present Brown Field. The program infrastructure has been put in place and sufficient upgrades internally evidence program growth. But it all seems to falter on the practice field and on game day. That points to the coaching staff.

62 - agree completely, and it is more just funding for football and facilities. However, the issue is energy and interest by the university and administration. If they would have cared, they would have taken actions awhile ago. If the uiniversity has no interest, then why should the students and alums and the community? The university and administration is just alowing the football program to rot.

VULB#62 · October 09, 2013, 08:30:19 AM

It would seem so,

at least based on what we can see on the surface and what little we really know.

covufan · October 21, 2013, 02:06:05 PM

I've been looking at Points For, Points Against and the delta for each Valpo football team. The three Carlson years are very close in comparison to the last year of Koch and first two years of Horne. I fully expect the remaining games to take the 2013 team to the top 8 in Ave/game. That would give Carlson four of the worst 8 teams in Valpo history. Sometimes you can use the PF/PA to gauge how a team is doing compared to last year, and previous years. Carlson has done better each year, but still worse than Adams' last season, for which Adams was fired.

If the quality of player has been increasing the last four years, as some have attested to, why is the team continueing the losing ways?

Valparaiso Yearly Totals

Year   Coach     Win   Loss   Tie   Pct.   PF   PA   Delta   Ave/game
2010   Dale Carlson     0   11   0   0   100   514   -414   -37.63636364
1988   Bill Koch     0   9   1   0.05   76   452   -376   -37.6
1929   J.M. "Jake" Christiansen   1   7   0   0.125   25   301   -276   -34.5
1989   Tom Horne     0   10   0   0   100   431   -331   -33.1
2011   Dale Carlson     1   10   0   0.09091   177   500   -323   -29.36363636
1990   Tom Horne     1   9   0   0.1   97   370   -273   -27.3
2012   Dale Carlson     1   10   0   0.09091   202   496   -294   -26.72727273
1981   Bill Koch     1   9   0   0.1   48   265   -217   -21.7
2005   Stacy Adams     3   8   0   0.27273   187   424   -237   -21.54545455
1927   Earl Scott     1   5   0   0.16667   21   148   -127   -21.16666667

LaPorteAveApostle · October 21, 2013, 04:38:18 PM

I think you could make the case that to truly be the worst team, you have to be winless.

Then I would separate those by the percentage of total points scored (i.e. VU pts / Opp pts, expressed as percentage) to correct for eras with more or less scoring.

But that's just me.

willy · October 25, 2013, 10:45:48 AM

With four games left against the top teams in the conference I don't see another win coming. That would put Coach Carlsons record at 3-41. If the university does not see that the current situation absolutely needs to be addressed they truly do not care, like many of you have inferred. The university needs to send a message to the current players that they support the football program or I can see a major player defection.