ESPN Bracketology

[vu72]

Honestly, if I were these collection of schools

Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton

I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year. 

Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.

Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).

[/b]

Well perhaps you should do a little research before making such an assertion.  The Chapel addition was funded by two Lutheran pastors who met at the Chapel.  They are classmates of mine.  They also were the lead donors on the Union project.  One of the main purposes of the University is to advance its Lutheran tradition.  There was a great need to consolidate the various aspects of Theology/campus ministries, which were scattered all over campus.  They saw a need and responded accordingly.

As for the Welcome Center, I have no ideas how the Dusenbergs were approached.  The fact is that the Welcome Center is the very first point of entry for new students and their families.  The previous option was not very good and again had various players located in different spots.  As much as we might want better athletic facilities it still takes the financial commitments necessary. These funds do not ever come from the endowment.  Trust me, the athletic fund raising staff (which has been upgraded and expanded) is busy asking but it still takes a "yes" to proceed. There is a rumor floating about that a lead donor on the Rec Center may have been identified.  That's all I know.

[wh]

One way or the other Valpo will be making a commitment to an improved basketball venue, either proactively to take advantage of new opportunities that may come its way, or reactively after its flagship athletic program falls on hard times for a few years. With no announced facility improvement plan presently in the works valpo is already well down the road toward toward being left behind agin if anything new breaks loose.

That said it's important to remember that there are a lot of Valpo stakeholders who could care less about the mens bb program, including most of the faculty and administration, high dollar donors, and board members. They know there is only so much money to go around, and the last thing they want to see is a major investment being made on mens basketball. There is a second group (and I love these people) that is arrogant enough to believe that the success of the basketball program has to do with the institution (and them), and therefore the ARC is fine the way it is. They have no idea that 100% of the credit belongs to the Drew family.

[bbtds]

LaPorte Apostle would be very pleased this got turned into a facilities discussion!!   





Greatest accomplishment in 15 years!

[justducky]

Hmmm  Never really thought about the last 4 in but they are then positioned as play in games featuring a 10 vs a 10, and an 11 vs an 11. They get to warm up against opponents of equal strength. Then if victorious move on to play a 7 or a 6 seed.

Wasn't VCU the last team in on its way to the final 4?

[valpopal]

Want a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament

[bbtds]

Honestly, if I were these collection of schools

Wichita State
UNI
Murray State
Belmont
Valpo
Milwaukee
SLU
Dayton

I would leave out Valpo and add Evansville. Valpo's board has made no commitment to athletic facilities while making many commitments to housing and academics. A very uneven spending history lately. It's why Valpo isn't currently in the MVC and playing a team like Illinois State twice per year. 

Take off the brown and gold glasses and really take a look.

Of the donors to Valparaiso, how many do you think would endorse spending tens of millions on new athletic facilities over building new dorms and academic facilities. They are making progress at Valparaiso, but there are a whole set of dorms that were built in the 50s and 60s. If you are a parent looking at a higher end university and you visit one of those dorms and told this is where Freshmen and Sophomores live, you are going to think twice about sending your kids to Valparaiso versus alternatives that have way better housing. That said, I will still argue that the expansion on the chapel and the welcome center were capital spends that should have been much lower in priority (and I don't buy the argument that those principle donors came in and demanded their money be used for those projects - especially the welcome center).

[/b]

Well perhaps you should do a little research before making such an assertion.  The Chapel addition was funded by two Lutheran pastors who met at the Chapel.  They are classmates of mine.  They also were the lead donors on the Union project.  One of the main purposes of the University is to advance its Lutheran tradition.  There was a great need to consolidate the various aspects of Theology/campus ministries, which were scattered all over campus.  They saw a need and responded accordingly.

As for the Welcome Center, I have no ideas how the Dusenbergs were approached.  The fact is that the Welcome Center is the very first point of entry for new students and their families.  The previous option was not very good and again had various players located in different spots.  As much as we might want better athletic facilities it still takes the financial commitments necessary. These funds do not ever come from the endowment.  Trust me, the athletic fund raising staff (which has been upgraded and expanded) is busy asking but it still takes a "yes" to proceed. There is a rumor floating about that a lead donor on the Rec Center may have been identified.  That's all I know.

I made some comments earlier and then took them away.

One thing. I once met relatives of Richard Duesenberg in St Louis and they knew nothing of what was happening in Valpo athletics.

[valpo84]

Those projects to my understanding were targeted projects by the donors.  Some backdrop. I understand the group on here is among the most passionate fans/alumni about the program we have, and if we had our preferences the ARC would be upgraded tomorrow.  There is a master plan, be patient and continue to save your dollars so you all can contribute to it when the time is right.  Also, remember that the University has made upgrades to athletic facilities in the past few years, maybe not to all of your desires (basketball is one of many sports), but FITT and weight room are examples, not to mention commitment to salaries of basketball coaches and upgraded floor and Hilltop for practice.  The next big athletic project will likely be the Intramural/student athletic center.  That is another facility that is required to compete for the entire University (like the Union, Library and residence halls).  There is a steady drumbeat about the ARC, but it is right size for the program right now, there is expansion opps and it will come in the priority order.  I have been to lots of arenas around this country, and yes there are upgrades that would improve the viewing situation, but our viewing experience is still among the best in the Midwest, fans are close to the court, the noise level is great, it looks full on TV.  Kent, BG, Akron, Detroit, YSU, Oakland aren't better. Old barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new.  Others are new or upgraded arenas at public universities, or old big arenas that are empty of fans (CSU).  CSU is even abandoning that facility on multiple occasions this year to play at the Q (hence another white elephant appears to be ascending in the Cleveland horizon).  One of the nicest right now is Cintas in Cincy, but look how many years it took to get that.  They played in an old barn know as the Gardens til fairly recently.  Heck, the "greatest" venue by the so-called "media" experts is one of the oldest and most cramped places -- Cameron. Sometimes, we want a lot more than our budgets will permit.  That said, we must not settle, we must capitalize on this time in Valpo basketball history.  We must be out there creating the commitments to the program and the expansions of the facilities. I was among the more vocal proponents of this prior to 1998, during 1998, and subsequently (I've posted on here the letters to the then President about moving to the old MCC, the new HL, etc. and that we needed to move on this marketing-wise and fundraising-wise).   You all should continue your campaign and let the AD and President Heckler know what you think.  However, and a caution, emotion only goes so far. Bring the analytics -- how does it help the University in terms of admissions, funds raised, capital campaigns, etc.  Or, how does it save costs in other areas? There are case studies out there -- a few years ago on Gonzaga's new arena (not sure what paper).  Sometimes, I think you all shoot too low with these speculations about conferences.  The one that makes the most sense for Valpo because of the schools in it and geography is the Big Least.  And, you all talk about arena sizes, etc. need this, etc. to join.  We can compete in that conference in all sports on the court, pitch or field -- right now.  Dream big and do not settle.  Or, better yet, write a big check for $5 mill to kick off ARC renovation/expansion today (or tomorrow after the Powerball) or help find someone who can -- identify to the AD how to fund it.  But saying people are out there in this economy and the one we've had since 2008 and are ready to plunk down that kind of commitment, c'mon. Low hanging fruits aren't there. The next generations have to be cultivated or the vine will wither.   We have been good stewards with our funds and our endowment.  However, should we start investing/borrowing against that just for an arena, and when is the right time and do we have a strong endowment foundation, otherwise we're building a house on shifting sand.  Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that.  You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000.  There may be some donors who would do that. 

[oklahomamick]

Not just individual donors but must go after corporate donors in the region. 

[a3uge]

Those projects to my understanding were targeted projects by the donors.  Some backdrop. I understand the group on here is among the most passionate fans/alumni about the program we have, and if we had our preferences the ARC would be upgraded tomorrow.  There is a master plan, be patient and continue to save your dollars so you all can contribute to it when the time is right.  Also, remember that the University has made upgrades to athletic facilities in the past few years, maybe not to all of your desires (basketball is one of many sports), but FITT and weight room are examples, not to mention commitment to salaries of basketball coaches and upgraded floor and Hilltop for practice.  The next big athletic project will likely be the Intramural/student athletic center.  That is another facility that is required to compete for the entire University (like the Union, Library and residence halls).  There is a steady drumbeat about the ARC, but it is right size for the program right now, there is expansion opps and it will come in the priority order.  I have been to lots of arenas around this country, and yes there are upgrades that would improve the viewing situation, but our viewing experience is still among the best in the Midwest, fans are close to the court, the noise level is great, it looks full on TV.  Kent, BG, Akron, Detroit, YSU, Oakland aren't better. Old barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new.  Others are new or upgraded arenas at public universities, or old big arenas that are empty of fans (CSU).  CSU is even abandoning that facility on multiple occasions this year to play at the Q (hence another white elephant appears to be ascending in the Cleveland horizon).  One of the nicest right now is Cintas in Cincy, but look how many years it took to get that.  They played in an old barn know as the Gardens til fairly recently.  Heck, the "greatest" venue by the so-called "media" experts is one of the oldest and most cramped places -- Cameron. Sometimes, we want a lot more than our budgets will permit.  That said, we must not settle, we must capitalize on this time in Valpo basketball history.  We must be out there creating the commitments to the program and the expansions of the facilities. I was among the more vocal proponents of this prior to 1998, during 1998, and subsequently (I've posted on here the letters to the then President about moving to the old MCC, the new HL, etc. and that we needed to move on this marketing-wise and fundraising-wise).   You all should continue your campaign and let the AD and President Heckler know what you think.  However, and a caution, emotion only goes so far. Bring the analytics -- how does it help the University in terms of admissions, funds raised, capital campaigns, etc.  Or, how does it save costs in other areas? There are case studies out there -- a few years ago on Gonzaga's new arena (not sure what paper).  Sometimes, I think you all shoot too low with these speculations about conferences.  The one that makes the most sense for Valpo because of the schools in it and geography is the Big Least.  And, you all talk about arena sizes, etc. need this, etc. to join.  We can compete in that conference in all sports on the court, pitch or field -- right now.  Dream big and do not settle.  Or, better yet, write a big check for $5 mill to kick off ARC renovation/expansion today (or tomorrow after the Powerball) or help find someone who can -- identify to the AD how to fund it.  But saying people are out there in this economy and the one we've had since 2008 and are ready to plunk down that kind of commitment, c'mon. Low hanging fruits aren't there. The next generations have to be cultivated or the vine will wither.   We have been good stewards with our funds and our endowment.  However, should we start investing/borrowing against that just for an arena, and when is the right time and do we have a strong endowment foundation, otherwise we're building a house on shifting sand.  Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that.  You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000.  There may be some donors who would do that.

I think you might be a bit low on your estimates... UWM has a proposed practice facility estimated at $11,800,000 with $1,000,000 in yearly maintenance. I could be wrong, but I believe they're doing this within their budget (thanks taxpayers!)

Athletic upgrades to the ARC probably won't happen until the new REC center is built. Then you won't have the basketball team practicing on the same court that intramurals plays floor hockey. Once the REC center is built, they can get rid of the track and place chairbacks in the entire lower section. Lots of dominos have to fall in place first, so it still seems years down the road.

[FWalum]

Old barns like IPFW and Wright State and Hinkle aren't that special or new.

Not really sure this is an accurate statement. With the major renovations to Hinkle and the Memorial Coliseum in Fort Wayne it is hardly accurate to call them "Old barns". IPFW also splits their games between the Coliseum and the Gates Center which is a small 2,000 seat arena that is part of the IPFW Athletics Center.  I would also say that any trip to Hinkle is "special".

Otherwise I agree completely that we must capitalize on this special time.  If this team meets some of the high expectations we all have for them then the administration must immediately move to initiate projects that capitalize on this success.  I am not saying that the priority of major projects should change, what I am saying is that the perception of alumni is an important motivator and it should be perceived that steps are being taken to maintain or increase the achievements of the MBB program.  There are few things that a university can give back to an alumni after the commencement of a degree... PRIDE, whether it be the recognition of a schools academic achievements or, the much easier of the two in today's society, its athletic prowess. The academic accomplishments, perhaps of more logical importance to the alumni of a university, are published in magazines, newspapers and online news services, while the athletic are broadcast across the globe in almost every media including all the social forms.  If you want alumni and corporate sponsors to give more to the university simply make them proud to be associated with the success of a widely recognized successful institution.

[VULB#62]

........  Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that.  You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000.  There may be some donors who would do that.

I've spoken with ML on this approach in general for all sports and also to Dave Cecchini as it relates to football.  There are real "projects" out there right now that require funding, but most of us aren't privy to what they are.  And here I disagree with the administration -- they prefer to solicit individual benefactors to underwrite these.  Two good examples were the new weight training facility and the FB locker room.  Each was substantially underwritten by a lead donor who was solicited for that project.  That's great.  But what about the rest of us who want to help but who don't have $100K to donate? I would like to see a publicized and promoted "2016 project list" or a "3 Year Project List" that  allows casual donors (ones that might not have deep pockets) to target a project they personally want to see implemented and be associated with ("I helped fund that") and donate specifically to that project fund.  I might be wrong in my interpretation, but the current approach is grounded in the philosophy that to do so would be viewed by potential donors as always asking for money (kind of like that telemarketer who never stops calling you).  I think a balance can be struck that offered that annual project list while also pursuing the solicited lead donor.

[a3uge]

........  Another plan might be to start promoting what it would take to improve certain aspects of the ARC with price tags and get the available donors to buy into that.  You want an upgraded concession area -- $50,000. You want upgrade sound system and Wi-Fi/electronics -- $25,000.  There may be some donors who would do that.

I've spoken with ML on this approach in general for all sports and also to Dave Cecchini as it relates to football.  There are real "projects" out there right now that require funding, but most of us aren't privy to what they are.  And here I disagree with the administration -- they prefer to solicit individual benefactors to underwrite these.  Two good examples were the new weight training facility and the FB locker room.  Each was substantially underwritten by a lead donor who was solicited for that project.  That's great.  But what about the rest of us who want to help but who don't have $100K to donate? I would like to see a publicized and promoted "2016 project list" or a "3 Year Project List" that  allows casual donors (ones that might not have deep pockets) to target a project they personally want to see implemented and be associated with ("I helped fund that") and donate specifically to that project fund.  I might be wrong in my interpretation, but the current approach is grounded in the philosophy that to do so would be viewed by potential donors as always asking for money (kind of like that telemarketer who never stops calling you).  I think a balance can be struck that offered that annual project list while also pursuing the solicited lead donor.

Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!

[valpo84]

62--you hit a good theme.  The Advancement Office has been stuck in a model of look for the "big donor" and rely on those gifts and oh by the way don't interfere with the capital campaign.  Rather, unless you ask about smaller projects, you don't necessarily hear about them.  The Advancement Office needs to have the smaller development opportunities team that essentially utilizes the new models for fundraising -- crowdsourcing type things.  Athletics could post on the its website or even this board -- hey we need helmets for the baseball team at $2000, people could then donate $1 or $2000 til they reach their goal for that project. Accomplishes 3 things (i) that's how millennials respond and donate, (ii) cost effective fundraising and (ii) broadens your donor base.  Really crazy, crowdsource the whole $10 million ARC expansion project! 

And while we're on it, another thing Advancement started doing is disincentiving givers to target gifts.  If you don't give X amount to the Valpo Fund, then you don't qualify for the "big givers" lists.  So, although you might give $2500 to the athletic department, the University doesn't recognize that gift in their publications under the appropriate giving levels the University recognizes, you only show up in the Athletics Department section under its levels.  So, it makes athletic donors, or even CC-only designated donors, 2d class citizens to dear ol Valpo.  In an age when more folks want more control over their gifting, that thinking is old school.

[valpo84]

Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!
[/quote]

The University generally doesn't commit to those types of projects unless they have received commitments in for the entire or nearly entire amount.  For example, your seating project would only be committed to when there were sufficient pledges. 

[a3uge]

Valpo has never been shy about asking for money! But I think a problem with soliciting donations for specific projects is that the university is essentially on the hook for them if they fall short. Say they create a drive for $250,000 renovations to the seating and only get 100 donations averaging $50... Oops!

The University generally doesn't commit to those types of projects unless they have received commitments in for the entire or nearly entire amount.  For example, your seating project would only be committed to when there were sufficient pledges.
[/quote]
I don't think they'd take donations from hundreds of people and not end up completing the project... It would probably turn off those people from donating in the future.

[Valpower]

62--you hit a good theme.  The Advancement Office has been stuck in a model of look for the "big donor" and rely on those gifts and oh by the way don't interfere with the capital campaign.  Rather, unless you ask about smaller projects, you don't necessarily hear about them.  The Advancement Office needs to have the smaller development opportunities team that essentially utilizes the new models for fundraising -- crowdsourcing type things.  Athletics could post on the its website or even this board -- hey we need helmets for the baseball team at $2000, people could then donate $1 or $2000 til they reach their goal for that project. Accomplishes 3 things (i) that's how millennials respond and donate, (ii) cost effective fundraising and (ii) broadens your donor base.  Really crazy, crowdsource the whole $10 million ARC expansion project! 

And while we're on it, another thing Advancement started doing is disincentiving givers to target gifts.  If you don't give X amount to the Valpo Fund, then you don't qualify for the "big givers" lists.  So, although you might give $2500 to the athletic department, the University doesn't recognize that gift in their publications under the appropriate giving levels the University recognizes, you only show up in the Athletics Department section under its levels.  So, it makes athletic donors, or even CC-only designated donors, 2d class citizens to dear ol Valpo.  In an age when more folks want more control over their gifting, that thinking is old school.

The crowd-sourcing model has many appealing qualities. especially if it has a truly public reach.  In addition to those you mentioned, it has an infectious, momentum-building quality in that contributions will tend to accelerate as the projects near the required funding levels.  However, to work well, campaigns have to have accurately-defined costs and a sense of urgency (an expiration date).  The latter requirement exposes administrators and the school to the possibility of publicly-failed campaigns, which could be a liability to the school's reputation.  To a degree, the risk could be mitigated by only opening up projects to crowd-sourcing when they've been funded up to a certain level through traditional means, but I don't think the conservative (and often, overly self-assured) administrators could handle any level of such risk.

[justducky]

Want a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament

Updated this morning and we are down to a six. My preseason thinking was that this would be theoretically possible (Murray St did it in 10-11?). So the only thing standing between us and a great seed is, is, is, is---------OK never mind. This is still the impossible dream.

My apology for for hijacking the bracketology thread away from facilities and donors.

[agibson]

Updated this morning and we are down to a six.

http://bracketmatrix.com/
shows a bunch of folks giving us great seeds, and one even a five
http://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-tournament/bracketology/

A couple of slots better than Monmouth, and a couple of spots into the at-larges.  We'll see.

In "actual" ESPN Bracketology news
[tweet]688086948028747776[/tweet]
while they were prepping for the Dayton-GWU game together, presumably.

For Lunardi's latest S curve:
[tweet]688383077274484736[/tweet]
with us, again, a couple of slots into the at-larges.  He's got Monmouth as "not at-large", and not even in first twelve out. 

The big conference teams, of course, will have in-season chances for quality wins.  So, we'll see what develops...

[a3uge]

Want a shot of optimism? ESPN has the current BPI brackets ranking Valpo at #28 (#27 without SMU) and projecting the Crusaders as a #7 seed:


http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/type/tournament

Updated this morning and we are down to a six. My preseason thinking was that this would be theoretically possible (Murray St did it in 10-11?). So the only thing standing between us and a great seed is, is, is, is---------OK never mind. This is still the impossible dream.

My apology for for hijacking the bracketology thread away from facilities and donors.

BPI is a horrible projection of seeding and isn't what Lunardi uses in his Bracketology predictions. The best website to gauge seeds is http://www.bracketmatrix.com/ - typically seeds are within 1 or 2 of the consensus order. Valpo's average seed is a 10.27, with a low of 5 and high of 13. Lots of 7s and lots of 12s. If Valpo somehow got a 13, it would mean 3 or 4 losses in conference and someone in the team sleeping with a couple wives from the selection committee.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

[agibson]

The best website to gauge seeds is http://www.bracketmatrix.com/

He casts a pretty wide net - any idea how many of his sources are garbage?

But, fun to follow, horse race style, for sure.

[Valpower]

...If Valpo somehow got a 13, it would mean 3 or 4 losses in conference and someone in the team sleeping with a couple wives from the selection committee.

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

AND getting caught.  5 if they didn't.

[justducky]

I just did a brief review of some of the high mid-majors surrounding us in the bracketology conversations.

Team          RPI          Sag          True OOC Rd games       Pomeroy

VU             17            34            7                                 19
Dayton       11            35            1                                 44
Wichita St   40            32            3                                 23
Gonzaga     62            26            1                                 37
St. Marys   46             19            1                                 17
George Wash 33         55            3                                 62
VCU          72            38            2                                  33

On selection Sunday any or all of these could be seeding or even at-large bid competitors. Most commentators with their "Big Conference" orientations would incorrectly lump us into this category. Looking at the true OOC road games it becomes apparent that we have nowhere near the scheduling selection powers that they do.

[agibson]

If we want to compare scheduling power, we also have to see what they did with those home games. Did they get decent opponents?  Presumably we _could_ have paid more of the RPI 300 set to visit Valparaiso, but chose not to.

I'll throw in Warren Nolan's RPI-based non-conference SOS.

Team          RPI          Sag          True OOC Rd games       Pomeroy  non-conference SOS (Warren Nolan, RPI style)         

VU             17            34            7                                 19            31
Dayton       11            35            1                                 44            3
Wichita St   40            32            3                                 23            4
Gonzaga     62            26            1                                 37            15
St. Marys   46             19            1                                 17            179
George Wash 33         55            3                                 62            106
VCU          72            38            2                                  33            158
Monmouth 22            61            7                                  45            7

Where I also added in Monmouth as someone who could definitely be seeding or at-large competition, and is doing it more Valpo style.

So, yes, it would seem that Dayton and Gonzaga have a lot more scheduling pull than Valpo.  Getting quality opponents to travel.

St. Mary's? Not so much.

Getting high quality in-season tournaments, with neutral court games, would be a good intermediate step.  We've discussed this in the past, but I don't know if there's any consensus as to why we can't get into the "better" events.

[valpo4life]

Up to a 10 seed vs. Wichita State in Lunardi's latest bracketology. Monmouth also a 10.

Palm (CBS) has us as an 11 vs. Kentucky.

[agibson]

Up to a 10 seed vs. Wichita State in Lunardi's latest bracketology. Monmouth also a 10.

Nice.  So he's claiming that Monmouth and we are firmly in the at-large, it would seem. At least five at-larges below us... (Rounding up by two spots doesn't seem so likely, but maybe it's allowed...)

Wichita State would be profoundly unkind, of course.  Mid on mid violence, and all.