What does success look like for next year?

[valpo64]

Well spoken, valpo84.

[oklahomamick]

There is one reason why despite having bad facilities Valpo has 9 NCAAT appearances since 1996.  Good consistent coaching staff.  Sometimes the people (human capital) outweighs the facilities (physical capital).   

[NativeCheesehead]

Point well made. But everyone on this board would trade 9 NCAA appearances for one Final Four run.

[VUGrad1314]

There is one reason why despite having bad facilities Valpo has 9 NCAAT appearances since 1996.  Good consistent coaching staff.  Sometimes the people (human capital) outweighs the facilities (physical capital).   

Point taken but what happens when you have neither good facilities nor good coaching?

[FWalum]

QUESTION:  How do you turn 20% (or lower) three point shooters into 40% shooters?

Just shooting the same old shot 200 times every day isn't gonna guarantee improvement. If mechanics are wrong it merely reinforces  bad habits. Will Valpo bring in consultants to remedy this or will the staff just tell players to just keep shooting. Well, they better bring in shooting experts. The investment will pay back ten-fold. It's just another way to effectively utilize the MBB budget.  .........

And then there is free throw technique ........... is there a current practitioner of the Virgil Sweet method available to the program?  Heck, the fallback is to just Google the major rules and it should help. I did. There are 20 specific steps.  I was at Valpo from 1962-1966. Chuck Kriston, a Valpo HS grad, was a VU starter. He shot over 80% for his career at Valpo.  VHS set a state record for shooting close to 80% as a team. Why are we not mining this incredible resource?

To be honest, right now I'd rather see $50K spent on these two things than an upgrade to the ARC.  Man, we gotta win and improving these two techniques can turn things around big tme.

Today, there are ways to digitally record and assess body mechanics for specific movements. Valpo has a big problem here and this might be a way to address this. But it has to be sooner than later.

There are many ways to digitally record and assess body mechanics, now there is a system using LIDAR that tracks ball flight angle and hoop entry position.  Pretty cool, wish we had this when I was coaching. MAKE MORE SHOTS. WIN MORE GAMES.

[a3uge]

QUESTION:  How do you turn 20% (or lower) three point shooters into 40% shooters?

Just shooting the same old shot 200 times every day isn't gonna guarantee improvement. If mechanics are wrong it merely reinforces  bad habits. Will Valpo bring in consultants to remedy this or will the staff just tell players to just keep shooting. Well, they better bring in shooting experts. The investment will pay back ten-fold. It's just another way to effectively utilize the MBB budget.  .........

And then there is free throw technique ........... is there a current practitioner of the Virgil Sweet method available to the program?  Heck, the fallback is to just Google the major rules and it should help. I did. There are 20 specific steps.  I was at Valpo from 1962-1966. Chuck Kriston, a Valpo HS grad, was a VU starter. He shot over 80% for his career at Valpo.  VHS set a state record for shooting close to 80% as a team. Why are we not mining this incredible resource?

To be honest, right now I'd rather see $50K spent on these two things than an upgrade to the ARC.  Man, we gotta win and improving these two techniques can turn things around big tme.

Today, there are ways to digitally record and assess body mechanics for specific movements. Valpo has a big problem here and this might be a way to address this. But it has to be sooner than later.

There are many ways to digitally record and assess body mechanics, now there is a system using LIDAR that tracks ball flight angle and hoop entry position.  Pretty cool, wish we had this when I was coaching. MAKE MORE SHOTS. WIN MORE GAMES.

Look at Brook Lopez. He made 3 total three pointers in his first 8 seasons, and is now shooting 37%, making 2.4/6.4 a game. Certainly possible.

[FieldGoodie05]

Point well made. But everyone on this board would trade 9 NCAA appearances for one Final Four run.

Final Four is legit, sorry guys but at this point in time Loyola has the street credibility that trumps our Sweet 16 + sustained success (appearances).  This is only a snap shot in time though, so we as a university decide where that snap shot goes from here.

Personally, I think Loyola really screwed an important piece to their snap shot by missing NCAA this year.  If they don't start getting an appearance every 3 to 4 years they will fall right back to earth and then some.  I still think we win the head-to-Head recruiting battles if in 4-years we've righted the ship and they keep missing the tournament as they have for most of the last 30+ years.

Right now Loyola > Valpo

[NativeCheesehead]

So I thought it interesting to resurrect this thread on the eve of the season, and ask the question again: What does success look like for this season?

For me it's three things:

1. Finishing near or above .500 in overall record and in conference
2. No more than one major contributor transferring at the end of the season
3. An announcement of fundraising and/or concrete plans to renovate the ARC within a five year time period

These three things set us up very well going into the 20-21 season, and would speak well to the overall health of the program going forward.

[oklahomamick]

The bar should be higher.

[IrishDawg]

So I thought it interesting to resurrect this thread on the eve of the season, and ask the question again: What does success look like for this season?

For me it's three things:

1. Finishing near or above .500 in overall record and in conference
2. No more than one major contributor transferring at the end of the season
3. An announcement of fundraising and/or concrete plans to renovate the ARC within a five year time period

These three things set us up very well going into the 20-21 season, and would speak well to the overall health of the program going forward.

Valpo was 7-11 in the MVC last year, so my guess is most fans won't be happy unless the team finishes in the top half of the league this year. Also, most schools don't announce renovation plans until they've got the funding for it and the work is going to happen in the very near term, so I'd shrink that 5 year window to 1 or maybe 2 depending on the renovation plans.

I do think this team has plenty of potential, particularly at the guard and wing positions. Will be interesting to see how the Center position develops over the course of the year.

[4throwfan]

So I thought it interesting to resurrect this thread on the eve of the season, and ask the question again: What does success look like for this season?

For me it's three things:

1. Finishing near or above .500 in overall record and in conference
2. No more than one major contributor transferring at the end of the season
3. An announcement of fundraising and/or concrete plans to renovate the ARC within a five year time period

These three things set us up very well going into the 20-21 season, and would speak well to the overall health of the program going forward.

Valpo was 7-11 in the MVC last year, so my guess is most fans won't be happy unless the team finishes in the top half of the league this year. Also, most schools don't announce renovation plans until they've got the funding for it and the work is going to happen in the very near term, so I'd shrink that 5 year window to 1 or maybe 2 depending on the renovation plans.

I do think this team has plenty of potential, particularly at the guard and wing positions. Will be interesting to see how the Center position develops over the course of the year.

Once the transfers were gone, and the new faces showed, I made the comment that I'd rather see the newcomers finish 10th than watch the incumbents finish 9th (which is where they finished last year).  That's still true.  In terms of measuring success, that comment may be misplaced, and could be a reminder to myself that expectations and wishes should be measured in long term perspective.  However, long term perspective should not measure year 3 in comparison to year 2.  "Success" in Year 3 in the short term perspective could be defined as finishing 7th or 8th, since it's better than the previous two years.  However, Year 3 should be where VU wanted it to be on the day that it accepted.  I don't think that sub-500 in year 3 should have defined "success" on that day. 

So, with that being said, I agree with the three comments above, except, in No. 1, I'd delete the words "near or" as a measure of success.  I suspect that this team will have extreme inconsistency due to youth and newness.  But, even with the inevitable ugly moments and embarrassing dumb losses, there should be enough solid play and thrilling victories to advance.  At year 3, as measured by long term perspective, "success" should not be sub-500.

[oklahomamick]

We have lowered our expectations based on our recent results, coaching changes and player exodus. 

Would we expect a middle of the pack finishing with the old coach and how the program was going then?

My expectations have not changed.  The replacement should be expected to hold ground or improve.   

[valpo95]

Let's put this in a little perspective here, especially about how tough MVC is and how Loyola did in its first years in the conference. Over the last six years, if a team finished 10-8, it would have ranked as follows (inclusive of ties):

3rd (2018-19)
3rd (2017-18)
3rd (2016-17)
6th (2015-16)
4th (2014-15)
3rd (2013-14)

Over the same period, if a team finished 8-10, it would have ranked as follows (again, inclusive of ties)

8th (2018-19)
6th (2017-18)
5th (2016-17)
6th (2015-16)
6th (2014-15)
6th (2013-14)

What that says is that the league is tough and balanced, as a slight winning record likely puts that team into third place, even as a slight losing record means that team could finish 6th to 8th.

Consider Loyola's first four years in the conference, compared to Valpo:

Loyola   year                      Valpo
8-10   (2016-17)                  n/a
7-11   (2015-16)                  n/a
8-10   (2014-15)                7-11     (2018-19)
4-14   (2013-14)                6-12     (2017-18)

All of that to say that if Valpo goes 7-11 this year and next year, it would have the exact same record as Loyola in their first four years in the conference. I think most fans would be disappointed in that outcome, yet most would expect them to win more than 14 conference games over the next two years. I see the potential for finishing in the upper half of the conference if the current trajectory continues.

With all of the roster changes and comparative inexperience of several of the players, I'm thinking that a 8-10 finish this year would show reasonable growth in a competitive conference. Next year a 10-8 or 11-7 finish would be achievable. Is that disappointing? Perhaps, yet it is realistic given the level of competition.   
   

[4throwfan]

Let's put this in a little perspective here, especially about how tough MVC is and how Loyola did in its first years in the conference. Over the last six years, if a team finished 10-8, it would have ranked as follows (inclusive of ties):

3rd (2018-19)
3rd (2017-18)
3rd (2016-17)
6th (2015-16)
4th (2014-15)
3rd (2013-14)

Over the same period, if a team finished 8-10, it would have ranked as follows (again, inclusive of ties)

8th (2018-19)
6th (2017-18)
5th (2016-17)
6th (2015-16)
6th (2014-15)
6th (2013-14)

What that says is that the league is tough and balanced, as a slight winning record likely puts that team into third place, even as a slight losing record means that team could finish 6th to 8th.

Consider Loyola's first four years in the conference, compared to Valpo:

Loyola   year                      Valpo
8-10   (2016-17)                  n/a
7-11   (2015-16)                  n/a
8-10   (2014-15)                7-11     (2018-19)
4-14   (2013-14)                6-12     (2017-18)

All of that to say that if Valpo goes 7-11 this year and next year, it would have the exact same record as Loyola in their first four years in the conference. I think most fans would be disappointed in that outcome, yet most would expect them to win more than 14 conference games over the next two years. I see the potential for finishing in the upper half of the conference if the current trajectory continues.

With all of the roster changes and comparative inexperience of several of the players, I'm thinking that a 8-10 finish this year would show reasonable growth in a competitive conference. Next year a 10-8 or 11-7 finish would be achievable. Is that disappointing? Perhaps, yet it is realistic given the level of competition.   
   

I disagree with your approach.  VU was better than Loyola when Loyola joined the MVC.  In Loyola's final 6 years in the HL, VU's win-loss record against Loyola was 7-5.  The record was 6-2 over the final 4 years.  So, had VU joined the MVC at the same time, VU should have expected a better record.  Since that time, Creighton and WSU have left.  Over the VU's final 10 years in the HL, VU was 7-1 (excluding record against Loyola) against the MVC.  If Loyola's time in the HL is included, then VU's record was 14-6 against MVC teams.

VU's record against the MVC, coupled with the departure of Creighton and WSU tell me that VU should have expected a better win-loss percentage in its first year.  If each year should produce an incrementally better win-loss record, then in year 3, the reasonable expectation, as measured by history, should be better than .500. 

I don't think we should be setting our expectations based on Loyola's performance at the time of its entry.

[oklahomamick]

You are comparing a Loyola that finished last or near last the last 4 years of the HL and then moving to the mvc....of course they will finish last in mvc. 

Then you take a Valpo team that owned the HL for 5 years and move them to the mvc.....I don't expect them to have the same difficulties as Loyola.

[VUGrad1314]

Or at least not for as long. We really need to start seeing some real results again this season or it is definitely time to question the direction and leadership of this program.

[SanityLost17]

I don't care if we are the 3rd best 6th best or 10th best.   I just want to be healthy and playing our best basketball the last month of the season.   If we can do that I will be happy. 

[valpo95]

I disagree with your approach.  VU was better than Loyola when Loyola joined the MVC.  In Loyola's final 6 years in the HL, VU's win-loss record against Loyola was 7-5.  The record was 6-2 over the final 4 years.  So, had VU joined the MVC at the same time, VU should have expected a better record.  Since that time, Creighton and WSU have left.  Over the VU's final 10 years in the HL, VU was 7-1 (excluding record against Loyola) against the MVC.  If Loyola's time in the HL is included, then VU's record was 14-6 against MVC teams.

VU's record against the MVC, coupled with the departure of Creighton and WSU tell me that VU should have expected a better win-loss percentage in its first year.  If each year should produce an incrementally better win-loss record, then in year 3, the reasonable expectation, as measured by history, should be better than .500. 

I don't think we should be setting our expectations based on Loyola's performance at the time of its entry.

I agree that VU should / could have been better than Loyola in its first two years in the MVC. I also don't want to make this only about a VU / Loyola comparison. That said, I'm trying to be realistic about where this current team with the current coach will be this year and next year given the level of competition. 10-8 is good for third place in the conference in many years, and third place in conference would be a stretch goal this year.

If the team is less than 8-10, it would be disappointing. As a fan, I'd be happy to be surprised with a 12-6 record this year, but I don't see it happening. That means 8-10, 9-9, 10-8 or 11-7 are successful outcomes. They show improvement, and potential for the future.

[VUGrad1314]

Below .500 is an improvement\sign of success... Tougher conference or not that is a bad sign that members of our fanbase have allowed their expectations to drop to such a degree.

[EddieCabot]

Below .500 is an improvement\sign of success... Tougher conference or not that is a bad sign that members of our fanbase have allowed their expectations to drop to such a degree.

After what I saw on the Canada trip, less than .500 in the MVC would be a disappointment.  I understand that winning games and/or advancing to the NCAA tourney will be tougher in the MVC, but I feel like the overall quality of the team has fallen off from the teams of 2012 to 2017.  Possibly expected, since those teams had NBA players and I don't see any of those on this year's team.

[vu72]

since those teams had NBA players and I don't see any of those on this year's team.

Fair enough.  And no, I am not predicting that Ben Krikke will end up in the NBA, but he is an interesting talent.  He is listed at 6'9" 220#.  Alec was 6'8" 225# as a freshman and Rowdy was 6'6" 185# as a freshman!  Obviously he has the size and has shown some serious skills playing for Canada.  He and Donovan are two freshman that should be legit contributors this season.

[vuny98]

since those teams had NBA players and I don't see any of those on this year's team.

Fair enough.  And no, I am not predicting that Ben Krikke will end up in the NBA, but he is an interesting talent.  He is listed at 6'9" 220#.  Alec was 6'8" 225# as a freshman and Rowdy was 6'6" 185# as a freshman!  Obviously he has the size and has shown some serious skills playing for Canada.  He and Donovan are two freshman that should be legit contributors this season.

We could have an NBA talent and not know it. I don't think even after their freshman year anyone would be able to say with any confidence that Alec or Rowdy were NBA caliber players. And many also thought that Parker Hazen was an instant star and destined to follow in Alec's footsteps. Hopefully we will be pleasantly surprised. All I know is we have some interesting players with talent on this team and hopefully we have a strong season that will be the building blocks to get us back to being a yearly contender. If a true star emerges from the bunch, all the better.

[VU2014]

https://twitter.com/aspireacademyky/status/1173015103081525249?s=21

[bbtds]

What does success look like for next year?

I hope we now have a good idea of what success looks like. 

[VULB#62]

Even if we had lost last night, the team that represented Valpo on the court yesterday in terms of attitude, scrappiness, hitting the boards, movement on offense, and tight D,  is what I will accept for the entire season and rate that a success.

But one thing they have to work on — keeping their mouths shut. The MVC is not playground basketball, and directing emotions right at opponents in their faces or the refs can undo some good work. I'm thinking primarily of Mileek and Sackey. But I do have laugh a bit about Sackey. He is such a physical pest out there on defense, that just his presence alone can be frustrating to ball handlers.  But he is also constantly jabbering all the time  . That to me is okay.  It's the dead ball dustups that worry me. It's a small thing, but that kind of stuff could cost us a game here or there.