Recruiting from the Transfer Portal: Matt vs Bryce

[Just Sayin]

There are 1392 transfers according to the latest from Verbal Commits.
Bryce's first year at GCU. Matt's fifth year at Valpo.

GCU commits ranked by star:

Star
Rank
4.3   SF   Taeshon Cherry   JR   8-Jun   210      Arizona State to   GCU
4   PF   Aidan Igiehon   SO   10-Jun   245      Louisville   to GCU
3   SG   Walter Ellis   JR   5-Jun   190      Bucknell to   GCU
2   PF   Yvan Ouedraogo   SO   9-Jun   260      Nebraska to   GCU


Valpo commits ranked by star:

Star
Rank
2   PG   Trevor Anderson   RS SR   2-Jun   200   Yes   Wisconsin   to Valparaiso
2   SF   Kevion Taylor   SR   5-Jun   220   Yes   Winona State to  Valparaiso
2   PF   Thomas Kithier   JR   8-Jun   230   Yes   Michigan State to  Valparaiso

[vok22]

There are 1392 transfers according to the latest from Verbal Commits.
Bryce's first year at GCU. Matt's fifth year at Valpo.

GCU commits ranked by star:

Star
Rank
4.3   SF   Taeshon Cherry   JR   8-Jun   210      Arizona State to   GCU
4   PF   Aidan Igiehon   SO   10-Jun   245      Louisville   to GCU
3   SG   Walter Ellis   JR   5-Jun   190      Bucknell to   GCU
2   PF   Yvan Ouedraogo   SO   9-Jun   260      Nebraska to   GCU


Valpo commits ranked by star:

Star
Rank
2   PG   Trevor Anderson   RS SR   2-Jun   200   Yes   Wisconsin   to Valparaiso
2   SF   Kevion Taylor   SR   5-Jun   220   Yes   Winona State to  Valparaiso
2   PF   Thomas Kithier   JR   8-Jun   230   Yes   Michigan State to  Valparaiso


I think it would be more meaningful to compare what they have done in college so far instead of how many stars they are.

[valpo64]

Isn't it about time to forget Bryce Drew?  It is time to forget the past and to quit beating a dead horse.  These comparisons are getting old and many of them are not valid either.  How about some forward thinking.  The past is gone, it is over, deal with it.  Bryce and the Drew crew are gone forever as far as VU basketball is concerned.  Some of us are tired of the comparisons day in and day out.  In this day of the covid, new transfer rules, etc. it is time  to talk about the new environment  in which we are involved and the new future that lies ahead in the "new" world of college basketball.    Let's move forward!

[crusader05]

It's really easy to win an argument that no one is making

[Just Sayin]

Exactly what you see in the replies to the OP.

[crusader05]

I think what you're seeing is people don't understand the point of these posts.

[Pgmado]

One coach went 0-18. Another didn't.

[JBC1824]

Not so sure the point about 0-18 is relevant.

Perhaps you were trying to highlight what you percieved to be the irrelevance of JustSayin's post by relaying another irrelevant piece of information?

[Pgmado]

Not so sure the point about 0-18 is relevant.

Perhaps you were trying to highlight what you percieved to be the irrelevance of JustSayin's post by relaying another irrelevant piece of information?

Absolutely.

[JBC1824]

You don't believe the old coach's ability to attract talent from the transfer pool this offseason as compared to the current coach is relevant whatsoever then?

[crusader05]

Relevant to what. Is anyone on here saying that Matt is better than Bryce?

I don't think that there are many people on this board, including those that defend Matt who wouldn't say that Bryce was or is currently a better coach right now. I just don't understand what the point of the posts are or what type of conversation it's supposed to spur?

[JBC1824]

It is relevant to this forum because Bryce is the program's old coach and Matt is its current coach. Comparisons between different aspects of how the two are performing should be expected.

Is it the most relevent thing in the world? Perhaps not. But there is a clear relevancy.

I can only explain my own approach in being as consistently critical as I am....

Unfortunately, there seem to be more legitimate reasons to be pessimistic/critical than there are optimistic right now. And my attitude is a reflection of this.

[valpo64]

I am not saying that Matt is a better coach than Bryce.  But some of us get tired listening to the comparisons, some of which are very unfair and are not relevant.  The point is, who cares?  I just find it hard to believe how many people keep bringing up Bryce Drew when talking about Matt Lottich.  It doesn't matter.  Perhaps some would like to compare Matt with Gene Bartow...who cares?  Or maybe Tom Smith...who cares.  Times change, rules change, today's recruits are different, schools change conference affiliations. etc. It just seems that comparing coaches that were employed in different eras and settings is a waste of time, and in some cases unfair to Coach Lottich.  I guess that I prefer to look ahead rather than dwell on the past accomplishments/failures of coaches that often are meaningless comparisons to the accomplishments/failures of Matt Lottich.

[valpo95]

Perhaps a better thing to say is look how successful coaches have been who have been at Valpo in the modern era. This is despite the limitations of the ARC and other limitations mentioned by this board. BTW, Bryce Drew got a $16M contract to go to Vanderbilt, so it isn't like Valpo was going to keep him! Scott Drew did pretty well after leaving Valpo as well.

Others to mention:

Roger Powell (VU assistant 11-16, now assistant at Gonzaga)
Emanuel Dildy (VU assistant 17-18, now assistant at Oklahoma)
Rex Walters (VU assistant 03-05,  FAU, SF, now assistant New Orleans Pelicans)

Could also highlight Jared Nuness (VU '01, now assistant at Baylor)

[VUGrad1314]

Another relevant point of information is that it is probably easier to recruit players to Phoenix than it is to recruit them to Northwest Indiana. Everyone knows that Bryce is a better coach but you can't ignore that that could very well play a role. I seem to recall that Dan Majerle had no problem recruiting players to Grand Canyon either. They were pulling in 4 star transfers in his era too. It's what they do on the court that matters and Valpo has overall a very strong record with the transfers they have brought in.

[vuny98]

I think it is fair to point out that our current coach is not performing as well as past coaches. But I don't think its an argument any one would disagree with.

The biggest flaw in the post here though is taking the stars a player had and then putting that as an indication of if we did a good job in relation to Bryce and GCU in the transfer portal or not.

Taeshon Cherry 4.3 stars. Last year at ASU he played in only 7 games, averaged 16 mins, shot 36% from the field, 32% from three, 2.3 rebounds, 3.9 pts.
Aidan Igiehon 4 stars. Last year at Louisville he played only 5 games. averaged 8 mins. Shot 71% from the field, 1.6 rebounds, 2.6 pts. 

Meanwhile our two Big 10 gets:
Thomas Kithier  2 stars. 26 games, 11 mins, 65% from the field, 2.5 rebounds, 2.4 pts per game
Trevor Anderson 2 stars. 29 games, 14 mins, 53% from the field, 54% from three, 1.4 rebounds, 3.1 pts per game

Who's the better player? Are the two 4 star guys that much better than our two 2 star guys?

I think all of them are good gets for their respective programs. Bryce and GCU did a great job in picking up transfers in the portal. I also think Matt has done a great job not only with the freshmen class but in picking up some quality transfers to fill holes we had in our team.  Using stars of a player 3-4 years removed from high school is about as accurate as using a high school yearbook picture to compare who has the hotter wife. Things change.

[valpo64]

I totally agree on the success stories of former VU coaches after they left Valpo, whether it be Bryce or some of the asst.'s.   I believe that the problem in comparing coaches from 4 or more years ago  to Matt's record may be unfair to Matt because of the tremendous changes in the Div 1 college basketball environment 4 years ago vs. today and competing in the MVC vs. the Horizon League, Mid-Con, etc.  Some of the criticisms attributed to Matt could also be applicable to other MVC coaches who have had varied successes/failures in the MVC.  While I agree that some of the comments that are directed at Matt  may be legitimate, others are often unfair.  While he often deserves our criticisms, let's not forget his  positives.  Remember, we have improved our MVC play every year, granted the improvements have been small, but it has been steady improvement every year.  I too wish the progress had been greater and quicker.  Let's hope we see a big improvement this coming year.

[wh]

This is amateur hour Matt trashing. If you guys really want to make him look bad, compare Matt this year to Scott this year, not Bryce this year.

[Just Sayin]

Fully embrace mediocrity.

[Pgmado]

Using recruiting rankings to talk about transfers is like when college juniors list their ACT on their resume. Who gives a  ? The ACT got you to college, now what have you done with your life? Those recruiting rankings, if they ever mattered at all, mattered for about 20 minutes. Just saying.

[Just Sayin]

8 division 1 wins.

[JBC1824]

Fully embrace mediocrity.

They fkn love it.

[JBC1824]

Using recruiting rankings to talk about transfers is like when college juniors list their ACT on their resume. Who gives a  ? The ACT got you to college, now what have you done with your life? Those recruiting rankings, if they ever mattered at all, mattered for about 20 minutes. Just saying.

They definitely mattered at one point.

And they are suggestive of a player's raw talent.

[justducky]

Valpo commits ranked by star:

Star
Rank
2   PG   Trevor Anderson   RS SR   2-Jun   200   Yes   Wisconsin   to Valparaiso
2   SF   Kevion Taylor   SR   5-Jun   220   Yes   Winona State to  Valparaiso
2   PF   Thomas Kithier   JR   8-Jun   230   Yes   Michigan State to  Valparaiso

No candidates for any MVC awards or many highlight reel clips here but I am cautiously optimistic that their fresh start maturities might improve the team. Role players are great when they know where they fit. Will they fit?

[VUGrad1314]

I'm as skeptical of Matt as anybody on this board but come on. Seriously? Star rankings from years ago when they washed out at their previous schools? The eight division one wins is a far better argument and I would stick to that one. Use his overall record outside of his first year. Use his record in the MVC  Use the fact that he's whiffed a few times in recruiting (no coach bats 1.000 but Matt has his fair share of misses.) All fine. All factual. All fair game. But recruiting stars is a pretty big reach and a weak argument and this is coming from a skeptic\detractor RE: Lottich. Let's also remember that Matt tried the star power approach when we entered the MVC. I seem to remember at that time that we had the most "Star power" of any team in the conference. Those recruiting stars netted us a 10th place finish followed by a 9th place finish before they all hit the bricks. After that, we had our best season in terms of conference record in the MVC followed by our best finish (albeit with a worse record than last year). The decline in record doesn't fill me full of warm fuzzy feelings but facts are facts: last year WAS our best finish). Missouri State has also brought in a lot of flashy names and while they have performed respectably they aren't exactly dominating the Valley by any means. Contrast that with Drake and Northern Iowa. Look at the stars of Jacobson's recruits (outside of Green which is a special case). Look at the stars of DeVries's recruits (outside of his son which is again a special case). Not exactly setting the recruiting trail ablaze with the name recognition but they have a plan and a style. They know who fits that style and that is who they target recruiting stars be darned. Maybe Matt has finally found his formula for what works for him. For all our sake I hope he has. I think next year is going to tell us definitively and beyond any shadow of doubt whether Matt Lottich is indeed the man to lead this program into the future. There are plenty of good arguments to be made against Matt Lottich. This is not one of them.