All in all -- it's essentially come down to (at least for the time being) having to take things one year at a time. Any incoming player in need of development who has the ceiling is likely to leave once they prove they can compete at the mid major level.
- Players with a ceiling relatively equivalent to what Valpo can offer and who feel they are getting the minutes they deserve will stay. Ex: Shaw, Monegro, Sepp, McNair, Staffford, Schmidt.
- Players who feel they are not getting the minutes they deserve will look to leave, whether that's transferring up or down. Ex: I have no idea but candidates could be the likes of Ellis & Scroggins. Again, I have no idea on who these players are.
- Players who are performing above average will leave ... and, personally, it's hard for me to find fault when 6+ digit dollars are being tossed around. Ex: Cooper & Wright.
- Players who are walk-ons and do not expect to see playing time will stay and fill their roles. Ex: Vick, Lombardi
Clearly there is an argument to be made for dropping down to a lower level conference - the main reason seems to be that it would be better for VU to be closer to the top of a lower-ranked and less competitive conference than to be in the far more competitive MVC.
A few counter-points:
1) Although in recent years the MVC has been a one-bid league, there is still a much greater chance of two bids in the MVC than in the HL or SL. For example, this year Drake could have lost in the conference tournament and very likely would have received an at-large bid. Similarly, last year Indiana State was incredibly unlucky or unfortunate to not have received an at-large bid. That possibility does not exist in the SL or HL as currently constructed.
2) Due to the strength of the league and recent tournament success, the payouts to the MVC for basketball in 2024 were $4.4M, and $2.1M to the HL and $2.7M to the SL. (This is because the payouts occur for being in games over six years, and that included Loyola's final four run in 2018 and sweet sixteen in 2021). You can learn more about the unit payout structure here: One Shining Check - The Value of a March Madness Win Valpo gets a cut of that larger payout by virtue of being in the MVC. (I cannot compare the costs of being in the MVC versus the HL or SL without more data.)
3) My sense is that there is not as big of a difference between Valpo and the top teams as some suggest. It is easy to point to the standings, yet clearly, making the conference semi-finals and losing a competitive game with Bradley shows that the gap is not that large.
4) Top to bottom, the schools in the MVC more like Valpo's peer aspirants for athletics and academics - I would rather that VU is mentioned alongside Drake, Bradley, Northern Iowa and Belmont than Robert Morris, Cleveland State and Youngstown State for example (that is not meant to be a knock on those schools, just the facts of their more regional reputations). In addition, we should not only be focused on success in Men's basketball, as the conference has many other sports.
5) The quality of competition in the MVC *may* make it easier to recruit players in the NIL era. It is easier to point to recent success by Cooper Schwieger and All Wright and their potential paydays at P5 schools in bringing in the next set of players. I'm not as convinced that the difference in MVC NIL money makes it impossible for Valpo to compete in the MVC. (Schwieger may get more NIL money than the entire budget of several MVC teams for example.) Of course, NIL differences matter, yet it is not the same as the difference between any MVC school and a P5 school.
In sum, other than it being an easier road to an automatic bid in Men's basketball, there are good reasons to stay in the MVC fewer compelling reasons to consider switching to a less-competitive conference.
@valpo64 he is the brother of the Jackson twins on our women’s team. Great basketball family to say the least.
1) Although in recent years the MVC has been a one-bid league, there is still a much greater chance of two bids in the MVC than in the HL or SL. For example, this year Drake could have lost in the conference tournament and very likely would have received an at-large bid. Similarly, last year Indiana State was incredibly unlucky or unfortunate to not have received an at-large bid. That possibility does not exist in the SL or HL as currently constructed.
Yes it is true that 5% chance of getting a second bid is 5 times greater than a 1% chance. 14 team SEC teams made the tournament. If you still think the committee is going to do better next time.....ummm....would you like to buy a bridge?
2) Due to the strength of the league and recent tournament success, the payouts to the MVC for basketball in 2024 were $4.4M, and $2.1M to the HL and $2.7M to the SL. (This is because the payouts occur for being in games over six years, and that included Loyola's final four run in 2018 and sweet sixteen in 2021). You can learn more about the unit payout structure here: One Shining Check - The Value of a March Madness Win Valpo gets a cut of that larger payout by virtue of being in the MVC. (I cannot compare the costs of being in the MVC versus the HL or SL without more data.)
Once again the case that we will get more money to keep finishing last is just an odd argument. I don't understand why fans care about $$ more than wins.
3) My sense is that there is not as big of a difference between Valpo and the top teams as some suggest. It is easy to point to the standings, yet clearly, making the conference semi-finals and losing a competitive game with Bradley shows that the gap is not that large.
We have never finished with a better than .500 record in the MVC. But we're right there. Like how can we really take this "sense" seriously.
4) Top to bottom, the schools in the MVC more like Valpo's peer aspirants for athletics and academics - I would rather that VU is mentioned alongside Drake, Bradley, Northern Iowa and Belmont than Robert Morris, Cleveland State and Youngstown State for example (that is not meant to be a knock on those schools, just the facts of their more regional reputations). In addition, we should not only be focused on success in Men's basketball, as the conference has many other sports.
I'd rather win games than liking how words sound together. And honestly I am a basketball fan. I want us to be the Harvard of the Midwest in academics. But I really don't care the names on the jerseys that we are beating. I just want to win again. I don't feel better about losing to teams just because they have solid engineering programs.
5) The quality of competition in the MVC *may* make it easier to recruit players in the NIL era. It is easier to point to recent success by Cooper Schwieger and All Wright and their potential paydays at P5 schools in bringing in the next set of players. I'm not as convinced that the difference in MVC NIL money makes it impossible for Valpo to compete in the MVC. (Schwieger may get more NIL money than the entire budget of several MVC teams for example.) Of course, NIL differences matter, yet it is not the same as the difference between any MVC school and a P5 school.
Correct in my world, we would almost certainly end up with lower level talent. But again, I would rather win with the Washington Generals than lose with the Harlem Globetrotters.
In sum, other than it being an easier road to an automatic bid in Men's basketball, there are good reasons to stay in the MVC fewer compelling reasons to consider switching to a less-competitive conference.
Sorry, not too much compelling in your list. Your case it is better to keep finishing last with better talent as long as we get more $$ and the teams we lose to have some solid academics. Oh and that we are actually pretty good compared to the other schools already, we just don't beat them.
At this point, you have to assume that any player represented by an agent is going to leave.
https://twitter.com/TravisBranham_/status/1902448639768998061
Stafford transferring is even more disheartening than the others because Valpo helped him with a recovery year and a redshirt season.
Interesting article about a player who decided to stick around at American University.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2025/03/18/matt-rogers-american-ncaa-tournament/
@mj08 FREE PARKING! That’s our leverage.
Seriously, whatever. That kid was also loyal to who got him there.
I tend to disagree with @cmack but he has some valid points. A team gets better with better competition and not with warm fuzzy wins over ham and eggers. This is analogous to my years as a dance dad, where dancers feel great for top rankings from the a lame competition. But as long as we feel we are on the top of world - who cares!
regarding more payout being in the MVC in the NCAA tournament - after you split it, the delta is no more than an extra $200k to Valpo. In the great scheme of things, that’s insignificant.
Does it mean that colleges withdraw a kid's scholarship in a situation like Stafford? He has the stats from 2 seasons ago, gets hurt, and you know he is likely to leave. If I am a mid-major coach, I am not wasting a scholarship on someone that is injured for a full season. Cold-hearted, yes, but these kids don't give an F, and they are taking up a roster spot. If we're making it a business, consider it a layoff for someone that is not going to have work for a full year.
I'm completely gutted.
I think we will have to withdraw scholarships for injured players that have not signed a contract committing X number of playing years(if possible to enforce). I do not believe teams have a choice anymore.
I do not know what sort of legal issues come into such an arrangement. But I don't see much of a choice for teams to protect themselves and their scholarship funds.
What a mess, thank Emmert and the idiots from the NCAA.
I’m hoping this is a situation where Roger is going with a different style of play and thus Stafford isn’t the right fit…
