Poll: Preseason Conference Predictions & Expectations

[VU2014]

Conference Schedule:
Jan. 2         Illinois State     
Jan. 5         at Missouri State
Jan. 8         Bradley
Jan. 12       at Southern Illinois
Jan. 15       at Loyola
Jan. 19      UNI
Jan. 23       at Indiana State
Jan. 26      Drake
Jan. 29      Missouri State
Feb. 2         at Evansville
Feb. 5         at Illinois State
Feb. 10      Loyola
Feb. 13      Indiana State
Feb. 16       at Drake
Feb. 20      Southern Illinois
Feb. 23       at UNI
Feb. 27       at Bradley
Mar. 2        Evansville

[wh]

A roster loaded with improved returning players, the addition of a very talented and experienced Ryan Fazekas (who could become our no. 1 option), and 2 hotshot Freshmen, I think the Crusaders could finish anywhere from 1st to 4th. Thus, I went bold and predicted 2nd.

[valpotx]

3rd for all of the reasons mentioned above.

[VULB#62]

4th for all of the reasons mentioned above while being mindful that this is a 6 place leap up the standings for us from last season.  Not bad for year #2.

[VUGrad1314]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

[vu72]

I picked fourth as well.  But, we may be better then we think.  Here's why:  In spite of all the problems, inexperience and health issues associated with last years team, our last place Crusaders lost EIGHT conference games--on the road--by 9 or less, four by 6 or less and one of those losses was against a Final Four team.  Against an over-matched Missouri State team, we improved from losing by 17 (at home) to a road loss of 7 and then a tourney loss of only 4. We avenged road losses against Bradley and Illinois State.

Granted that we lost a great player in Tevonn and that other teams didn't stand pat, but, the squad we will put on the floor should be VERY competitive.  Can't wait!!

[wh]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

I hope you're wrong for a couple of reasons:

• I'm not going to look again, but I recall that we have the highest player star average in the league. Before anyone pounces, I know that doesn't equate in all cases, I know that neither AP nor Ryan were 3-Star players and look where they ended up, blah, blah, blah. I get all that. But I also get this - the most talented team on paper should not equate to a 6th place finish. If having a bunch of experienced 3-Star players doesn't put us in a position to compete for a mid-major championship (as a 6th place finish would indicate), something is wrong.
• I seriously doubt that Matt or Mark are looking at this season as merely a stepping stone to next year. They know that this team is talented - and experienced. I'm sure their expectations (not hopes) are much higher than a bottom half finish. Why should the fan base expect less?
• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

[VUGrad1314]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

I hope you're wrong for a couple of reasons:

• I'm not going to look again, but I recall that we have the highest player star average in the league. Before anyone pounces, I know that doesn't equate in all cases, I know that neither AP nor Ryan were 3-Star players and look where they ended up, blah, blah, blah. I get all that. But I also get this - the most talented team on paper should not equate to a 6th place finish. If having a bunch of experienced 3-Star players doesn't put us in a position to compete for a mid-major championship (as a 6th place finish would indicate), something is wrong.
• I seriously doubt that Matt or Mark are looking at this season as merely a stepping stone to next year. They know that this team is talented - and experienced. I'm sure their expectations (not hopes) are much higher than a bottom half finish. Why should the fan base expect less?
• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

I was with you until your last sentence. This move can NEVER be called a mistake. The elevated recruiting, the increased regional and  national exposure, and Loyola's run and the money and press it generated for the conference have settled that question without equivocation or doubt.

[wh]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

I hope you're wrong for a couple of reasons:

• I'm not going to look again, but I recall that we have the highest player star average in the league. Before anyone pounces, I know that doesn't equate in all cases, I know that neither AP nor Ryan were 3-Star players and look where they ended up, blah, blah, blah. I get all that. But I also get this - the most talented team on paper should not equate to a 6th place finish. If having a bunch of experienced 3-Star players doesn't put us in a position to compete for a mid-major championship (as a 6th place finish would indicate), something is wrong.
• I seriously doubt that Matt or Mark are looking at this season as merely a stepping stone to next year. They know that this team is talented - and experienced. I'm sure their expectations (not hopes) are much higher than a bottom half finish. Why should the fan base expect less?
• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

I was with you until your last sentence. This move can NEVER be called a mistake. The elevated recruiting, the increased regional and  national exposure, and Loyola's run and the money and press it generated for the conference have settled that question without equivocation or doubt.

Nothing is "settled without equivocation" after only 1 year and a 10th place finish. No one ever questioned that the MVC is a much better league and provides opportunities for better recruiting, exposure, etc. The question is how quickly and to what extent we take advantage of said opportunities. There is no way of knowing at this point whether we will be a "the cream always rises to the top" story or become mired in mediocrity at the other extreme.

[FieldGoodie05]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

I hope you're wrong for a couple of reasons:

• I'm not going to look again, but I recall that we have the highest player star average in the league. Before anyone pounces, I know that doesn't equate in all cases, I know that neither AP nor Ryan were 3-Star players and look where they ended up, blah, blah, blah. I get all that. But I also get this - the most talented team on paper should not equate to a 6th place finish. If having a bunch of experienced 3-Star players doesn't put us in a position to compete for a mid-major championship (as a 6th place finish would indicate), something is wrong.
• I seriously doubt that Matt or Mark are looking at this season as merely a stepping stone to next year. They know that this team is talented - and experienced. I'm sure their expectations (not hopes) are much higher than a bottom half finish. Why should the fan base expect less?
• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

I was with you until your last sentence. This move can NEVER be called a mistake. The elevated recruiting, the increased regional and  national exposure, and Loyola's run and the money and press it generated for the conference have settled that question without equivocation or doubt.

Never say never.  Big fish in a medium size pond that goes to the NCAA tournament 50% of their seasons is one heck of a feather in the cap.  This only happens in the MVC with sizable improvements on all fronts for the VU program.  And let me say now, there is no metric we can use that crosses the Belmont approach vs the Valpo approach.  Simply put we are different schools, in different markets with different priorities.

But yes, I get where you are coming from.  Even this cautious optimist can see the long term benefits that Belmont can reap in the OVC.  You have to remember that nearly all college athletics departments are simply a value-add and not how the university steers the ship.

[EddieCabot]

• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

It will be a challenge, but if Valpo can dominate the MVC the way it did the Horizon, the sky is the limit.  Both Creighton and Wichita were able to leverage MVC dominance into power conference invites.

[VUGrad1314]

I really want to predict a top 4 finish but it's really difficult for me to do so. There's too much returning talent among the Illinois teams UNI and Missouri State have a lot of talent still. Indiana State will be better and Drake and Evansville may not fall as far as you think. If literally everything breaks right we can finish maybe 2nd or 3rd but realistically I think we should be aiming to be the best of the second tier (5-8 place). 19-20 is our year to go for the top.

I hope you're wrong for a couple of reasons:

• I'm not going to look again, but I recall that we have the highest player star average in the league. Before anyone pounces, I know that doesn't equate in all cases, I know that neither AP nor Ryan were 3-Star players and look where they ended up, blah, blah, blah. I get all that. But I also get this - the most talented team on paper should not equate to a 6th place finish. If having a bunch of experienced 3-Star players doesn't put us in a position to compete for a mid-major championship (as a 6th place finish would indicate), something is wrong.
• I seriously doubt that Matt or Mark are looking at this season as merely a stepping stone to next year. They know that this team is talented - and experienced. I'm sure their expectations (not hopes) are much higher than a bottom half finish. Why should the fan base expect less?
• Valpo doesn't have a history of "taking turns." It has out performed sister programs in 2 different leagues over 3 decades. It dominates.
We should never be satisfied with less. If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

I was with you until your last sentence. This move can NEVER be called a mistake. The elevated recruiting, the increased regional and  national exposure, and Loyola's run and the money and press it generated for the conference have settled that question without equivocation or doubt.

Nothing is "settled without equivocation" after only 1 year and a 10th place finish. No one ever questioned that the MVC is a much better league and provides opportunities for better recruiting, exposure, etc. The question is how quickly and to what extent we take advantage of said opportunities. There is no way of knowing at this point whether we will be a "the cream always rises to the top" story or become mired in mediocrity at the other extreme.

So you're basically saying if we don't win the MVC every year it's a bad move?

After SIU's last win in 06-07 Here's the list of champions through 11-12):

Drake
Creighton
UNI
Missouri State
Wichita State (first of five out of six but this is also the point where WSU's budget really began to severely outstrip the rest of the conference)

This is the kind of era I think we may be in. NOBODY'S going to dominate this league in all likelihood. We should worry when we cease to consistently turn in top 75-100 seasons. And to be fair it took 4 mediocre years in the HL before we started dominating and attrition--particularly losing Butler-- helped us sustain that. But we're expecting to dominate a tougher league in year two and if we don't it's a mistake? Without this move to the MVC we don't have the impetus to do all the things we're doing now that fans have been calling for for years. That alone makes it worthwhile.

[justducky]

If this  move becomes the Peter Principle, it was a mistake.

We may already be holding the best cards for the 2019-20 MVC championship. So any talk of us having risen to to our level of incompetence seems a bit misplaced. 

As for 2018-19, I can easily imagine the #1 seed finishing with a 13-5 MVC record and a cluster of tiebreakers sorting out a complete mess at and near the top. With that as my starting point I'll go with 11-7 and 4'th. No--- I can not logically explain my thinking.

[VULB#62]

The Peter Principle states that everyone eventually reaches the level of their incompetence if they choose to continually rise up whatever ladder they are climbing -- e.g., The great computer programmer who sees himself making more money as a manager only to find out that he can't relate well to people.  The high school football star who washes out of an FBS program because he couldn't adapt to the faster pace.  The bonus winning salesperson who starts their own company only to find out that they lack management skills and fnancial acumen. 

What WH stated is quite accurate in this regard and at this point in time.  But what he inferred by "mistake" is not to be confused with "it was a mistake to join the MVC last year."  In the Peter Principle, you only realize the mistake (if it indeed was one) AFTER the move up the ladder is made -- and it often takes a while to establish your "incompetence."  Basically, Valpo has to give it their very best shot and leave nothing on the table along the way.  And if, after 5-6 years, we can't break out of the bottom half of the league (or worse, we turn into a consistent MVC  bottomfeeder), then we can acknowlege that we've reached incompetency and invoke the mistake card.

[VUGrad1314]

It's still not a mistake because of the other benefits incurred and a program is always one hire away from turning everything around.

[VULB#62]

It's still not a mistake because of the other benefits incurred and a program is always one absolutely incredible hire away from turning everything around.

I adjusted your statement a bit because you can make a number of hires until the right guy comes along, so it, too is a gamble.   

Ours was a great move.  I'm not aguing that.  I'm merely addressing how the Peter Principle can really screw stuff up.   Our move is not a mistake now and will not be a mistake for several years (if ever), but there are other components at work here to rising above incompetence and those might be out of the control of the Athletic Department and any MBB staff.  This is not just one person involved in a move up the ladder; it is an entire university that stepped on the next rung upward.   

[nkvu]

I picked 5th because I tend to be conservative about predictions and like to leave room to be pleasantly surprised.

My opinions are based solely on my impressions and if the stats don't support them, chaulk it up to advancing age.

To finish higher than 5th, our bigs have to show the kind of defensive improvement Vashil did between his second and third year. Now neither of our bigs have Vashil's athleticism, but they both need to improve a lot more than average on defense and rebounding.

Unless Mileek jumps from a freshman straight to a junior performance level or Ryan channels his inner Alec Peters and becomes a steady defender and rebounder we will be weak in those areas at the four. Mileek has the potential, and Ryan has the shot to make up for some weaknesses. But other than Ryan's own statements that he is working hard on the other things i don't recall any observations that he is showing great improvement in the inside part of his game either on offense or defense. And if John Kiser gets major minutes at the four (much as I like and admire the kid) we will be hurting there.

I think Golder will be great at the three. He really showed improvement over last season. If Ryan plays a lot of three rather than the four he will be a major three point threat, but may have problems defensively against smaller, quicker players.

We have a lot of guards who will be looking for playing time. Bakari also improved a lot over last season, but I'm not convinced he wouldn't be better at the two rather than point. Micah had another horrendous shooting performance last year but did show some improvement toward the end of the season, particularly in ball handling and distribution once he stopped throwing up bricks and looked to be a playmaking point. If he could improve to just an average shooter who looks to penetrate and distribute first, he could find a lot of time. Where Lavender will fit in, I haven't a clue. The two freshman would have to become contributors quickly to make me think this group can take us higher than fifth.

All in all, a lot of potential but too many questions as to how much improvement there will be over last year for me to perdict higher than 5th.

[crusadermoe]

If I had to put money down, I would take 6th place.  So that's my vote.  But we have huge upside...in fact we have 14 feet of unharnessed upside (Jaime and Smits).   And of course Liberty and the transfers. I won't bet the farm on the towers or melding fast enough as a team.   We are built for 2019-2020.

I killed some time at Walgreens yesterday and there is a pre-season mag out already.  Can't recall which.  I think Street and Smiths.   They ranked us #5 behind Loyola, Illinois State, SIU, and Bradley.  They didn't like MoSU. 

[VUGrad1314]

Rebounding is going to be a huge issue again and may cost us some games unless we cover it up with superior offense. Smits must continue his offensive improvement and learn to at least defend passably. Sorolla must become at least semi-credible on offense.I don't think we'll be plagued by as many long and frustrating scoring droughts as I believe Evelyn Golder and Fazekas all have go-to-scorer potential. Freeman and Sackey too, but so many games will be decided up front on the glass and until they prove otherwise, we have HL bigs going against MVC competition. That's why it's hard for me to pick us higher than 5th.

[FieldGoodie05]

I picked 5th because I tend to be conservative about predictions and like to leave room to be pleasantly surprised.

My opinions are based solely on my impressions and if the stats don't support them, chaulk it up to advancing age.

To finish higher than 5th, our bigs have to show the kind of defensive improvement Vashil did between his second and third year. Now neither of our bigs have Vashil's athleticism, but they both need to improve a lot more than average on defense and rebounding.

Unless Mileek jumps from a freshman straight to a junior performance level or Ryan channels his inner Alec Peters and becomes a steady defender and rebounder we will be weak in those areas at the four. Mileek has the potential, and Ryan has the shot to make up for some weaknesses. But other than Ryan's own statements that he is working hard on the other things i don't recall any observations that he is showing great improvement in the inside part of his game either on offense or defense. And if John Kiser gets major minutes at the four (much as I like and admire the kid) we will be hurting there.

I think Golder will be great at the three. He really showed improvement over last season. If Ryan plays a lot of three rather than the four he will be a major three point threat, but may have problems defensively against smaller, quicker players.

We have a lot of guards who will be looking for playing time. Bakari also improved a lot over last season, but I'm not convinced he wouldn't be better at the two rather than point. Micah had another horrendous shooting performance last year but did show some improvement toward the end of the season, particularly in ball handling and distribution once he stopped throwing up bricks and looked to be a playmaking point. If he could improve to just an average shooter who looks to penetrate and distribute first, he could find a lot of time. Where Lavender will fit in, I haven't a clue. The two freshman would have to become contributors quickly to make me think this group can take us higher than fifth.

All in all, a lot of potential but too many questions as to how much improvement there will be over last year for me to perdict higher than 5th.

NKVU does an outstanding job describing my thoughts on this years upcoming season and our weakness.  I too like to be pleasantly surprised and I don't see us breaking into the top half of the league just yet (6 is my vote).

1) Ours bigs defensively need juevos
2) We have a lot of unproven play set to get big minutes with both potential F positions
3) Golder and Bakari need to be go-to players for scoring next year
4) Bakari is not a true PG
5) Micah is a true PG once he starts to make smart (distribution first) decisions, he is simply not consistent enough at FG/3pt/FT to warranty high volume of shots
6) Our freshmen will not consistently contribute on this years team, as good as they look there is no reason to think they should

I predict we will be competitive in very nearly all our MVC games and that we should be 9-9 MVC and 7-5 OOC for an overall record of 16-14 before MVC tournament or post season.  I also predict we will not choose to participate in post season play because NIT won't come calling with that record.

Just too many questions marks on this Junior and younger team with (5) new players and (2) transfers sitting out.

(7) returning players with minutes last year
(5) first timers (Fazekas, Lavender, Sackey, Freeman and Langston Stalling)
(2) transfers sitting out

Not enough consistency to break into the top 4 when around 41% of your available roster is first-timers in a VU uniform.  Good news is, depending on how we play MVC, 9-9 was good enough for 5th last year.

[VUfan]

7Th lets play into a higher ranking

[VU2014]

https://twitter.com/CBB_Central/status/1038077940880297984

[VUGrad1314]

In what is expected to be a loaded MVC might that be good enough to get us into the NIT?

[VU2014]

In what is expected to be a loaded MVC might that be good enough to get us into the NIT?

I think it depends on the OOC results. But the MVC's lowest RPI team was like a 160 something and ISUr still didn't get a invite to the NIT. So much disrespect. The conference really beat each other up in conference play last year.

[FieldGoodie05]

In what is expected to be a loaded MVC might that be good enough to get us into the NIT?

I think it depends on the OOC results. But the MVC's lowest RPI team was like a 160 something and ISUr still didn't get a invite to the NIT. So much disrespect. The conference really beat each other up in conference play last year.

And the ironic part to my mind is teams in the (say Horizon or other mid-major tournaments) might be more invested in playing hard and drawing a crowd since nothing is guaranteed in our world.  Maybe I am wrong here, but P6 schools almost certainly have a larger fan base but what are the chances they show up in volume to a tournament that is "below them"?

Also, NIT is a big enough tournament for mid-major players while maybe P6 seniors say "mehhhh, I am going to go prepare for NBA or Europe instead of playing in this tournament".  To my mind, most Valpo players have played the NIT and even CBI in the years that Valpo has elected to participate.

I believe Valpo had a mindset of it's a team vote and if the team votes Y then everyone plays?