Quote from: kiko on May 11, 2022, 02:54:01 PM

Quote from: north central on May 11, 2022, 12:13:23 PM
Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background theres no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Two thoughts on this.

First, you bring a guy like Kennedy into the interview process if you want your four finalists to all look very different from one another.  This is actually not a bad idea, as you can learn from individual candidates and can make an informed choice about what type of professional experience you may feel will best set your program up for success.  I have long thought that this is preferable to bringing in four candidates who all look really similar on paper.  He didn't get the offer, so clearly that trajectory was not what the hiring team felt was the best option.  No harm, no foul.  And potentially a useful exercise.

This, BTW, is one of the reasons why Todd Kelly was dead wrong with his righteous indignation a couple of years ago about the CalTech coach being part of the Augie consideration set when he was a finalist there.

Second, I am neither a Vince Kmiec fan nor a critic, but let's be honest here: he doesn't have seven consecutive winning seasons as a coach.  Todd Raridon does.  Vince played a part in that, for sure, but it is a stretch to credit these to the assistant -- especially when one of the main cogs on almost all of those teams shares DNA with the head coach.  And any committee that projects success as a coach from his success as a player would have no idea what they are doing

The point was if someone has been a member of a team or member of the coaching staff that has only won then that person is either part of the reason for the winning or at the very least has learned a great deal about what it takes to win and what winning culture looks like. BTW that comment was no shade on Todd Raridon who I have the utmost respect for.
In regards to the CAlTech comment, someone that has had 12 consecutive losing seasons has had more than enough time to prove if they can win and they have proven that they cant bottom line. No one with 12 consecutive losing seasons should ever have a chance to get a better position because they have clearly proved they cant get the job done. I stand on that

(modified by GS for formatting)

Something I just cant understand is how coaches are evaluated and how and why certain people are perceived as good candidates or not for a certain job. For example with the NCC search, I think many people would have put Kennedy ahead of Vince as a candidate for that position. It baffles me as to why/ how someone like that is even under consideration for that position. Someone who has had 7 consecutive losing seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive losing seasons as a player and no experience as a head coach or even at the d3 level should not even be under consideration for a spot like that. With that background theres no way you could expect him to do anything but lose. VK on the other hand has had 7 consecutive winning seasons as a coach and 4 consecutive winning seasons as a player so how are those two even looked at as comparable or even in the same stratosphere as a potential head D3 coach, IF YOUR GOAL IS TO WIN BASKETBALL GAMES. Someone please explain that to me.

Quote from: Gregory Sager on May 10, 2022, 11:52:20 PM

Quote from: USee on May 10, 2022, 03:52:36 PM
Greg would know better but I'm pretty sure Bosko was assistant at NPU for 8+ years before becoming HC for the first time and winning a few Natty's.

Bosko served as Dan McCarrell's primary assistant at North Park for ten years (1974-75 thru 1983-84) and played a big role in NPC's threepeat national championships. McCarrell took the head coaching job at D2 Mankato State (now Minnesota State) in the spring of '84, and Bosko was promoted to replace him.

The Vikings won their fourth national championship in his first season as a head coach (1984-85), and I can remember fans from other schools saying stuff about Bosko along the lines of, "Well, he won it with McCarrell's players," as if Bosko had had nothing to do with bringing those players to North Park and helping to mold them into a great team. Two years later, in his third year as a head coach, NPC won another national championship. That team was led by two All-Americans, Michael Starks (1987 CCIW Most Outstanding Player) and Mike Barach (1988 CCIW Most Outstanding Player); in 1986-87 Starks averaged 19.8 ppg and 9.1 rpg and Barach averaged 21.7 ppg. Both of them had been brought to Foster & Kedzie by Bosko after he had taken over as head coach. By that point, nobody was belittling Bosko's accomplishments anymore. (Oh, and by the way, that same school year the Vikings won the third of Bosko's four CCIW titles as NPC's head baseball coach.)

The point is this: Being a first-year head coach is often a lose-lose proposition. If you have a losing first season, then at best you're still on probation in the eyes of the public -- but there will nevertheless be people who are already condemning you. But if you have a winning first season, there will be people who will say the same thing opposing fans said about Bosko Djurickovic in 1985: "Well, he won with the previous coach's players, so he should only get a limited amount of credit for his team's success." And this lose-lose deal is magnified if, like Bosko, you've never been a head coach before.

Greg I agree this can happen but knowledgeable people would know that if your the assistant and the lead recruiter then they are just as much your players as the former head coaches players. so anyone making that remark would be completely off base.

First of all, congrats to Anthony Figueroa, who aside from being one of my best friends is an excellent basketball coach and will do well at North Central. I completely disagree that the candidate pool was not strong especially considering the pool of candidates for other CCIW job openings. Anthonys record at the JUCO (83-25 the last four years) was phenomenal and he has done nothing but win at a high level at Parkland. Vince is a excellent coach (68-26 the last four years) and I think was much more deserving of an opportunity to be a head coach than some guys that were hired at other CCIW schools. I also challenge anyone to find a coach who took a team from zero wins to over 20 wins in a three year period, that has also won multiple CCIW championships and been to a final four ( 70-39 the last four years). The candidate pool was really strong. There were several  successful head coaches that applied and were not finalist.  I have the utmost respect for Jim Miller but without going into further details much of what Mark said is spot on. I truly believe he had no say in this decision. There were just some things done throughout this search that were completely unprofessional and just not the way you do things when conducting a coaching search.Having spoke to several others involved , they all agree. Someone said there is a lot going on at North Central within the athletic department and that is an understatement to say the least.
I always have had the philosophy that if a program is winning and there is an assistant coach there that has been influential in the success then that person should be first in line for the job. However in this situation I was torn between one of best friends
and one of my former players who I recruited to North Central. Throughout this process it was clear the administration, not Jim Miller had an agenda and certain criteria that they wanted in the next coach, luckily that agenda landed them a great coach. I just hope the North Central alumni and supporters give Anthony a fair shot and appreciate all the hard work he has put in throughout his career to get to this point and know he not only deserves this opportunity but he EARNED it. I have 100% confidence that he will keep North Central at or near the top of the CCIW as long as he is there. Anthony along with Vince will make a great staff because both are extremely smart, hard working and flat out good dudes.

I dont think thats true in this instance. The assistant at NCC is clearly experienced and ready. I think people thought the coaches at Carthage and Augie were ready but look where those teams finished this year.

Quote from: Next Man Up on July 21, 2021, 04:17:53 PM
Congrats to former North Central All-American Class of '13 🏀 player Derek Raridon, announced today as having been elected to the North Central College Athletic Hall of Fame. His induction will take place in conjunction with this year's Homecoming festivities on Saturday, Sept. 25th. 👍

No brainer. Great player, great guy, was an absolute joy to coach.

Quote from: Titan Q on July 14, 2021, 02:03:25 PM
My conversation with Mike Rejniak, GM and Head Coach of We Are D3.  The team is 2 days from its round 1 game of The Tournament in the Wichita regional - 6pm CT Friday on ESPN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVbztjqBUR0

IWU alum Brady Rose is 1 of the 10 team members.

It was a shame that Max Hisatake wasn't on this team. He would have no question been a great addition and could have helped tremendously and could have matched the size and athleticism of many of the players they competed against.He will be going to play professionally in Japan next month and this would have been good for all parties involved. He was easily the most physically talented kid I've seen at the D3 level the last 20 years.

Quote from: hopefan on November 26, 2007, 02:02:40 PM
A real pleasure to watch the guys I've read about here from Auggie come down and play in St. Louis.  Collins, Swetella, Delp, and Wessels all played very well, as did Alex Washington off the bench. Coach G's activity from the bench was as advertised, and very entertaining.

I'm hoping the Auggie fan who screamed at the officials at the top of his voice every time down the floor is not a poster here.  While the rest of the Auggie crowd supported the kids and were great fans, and had little to say about the officiating, one idiot wrecked the game for all around him with vociforous condemnation of EVERY call that didn't go Auggie's way (Saturday and Sunday)- Well, my Irish temper got the better of me and I let him have it - it worked, didn't hear a peep in Sunday's 2nd half.  Anyways, if anyone from Auggie witnessed it and thought I was out of line, I apologize.

hoopfan that really took some stones to say something to an obnoxious fan. But please dont make a habit of that because the next time you never know what the results could be.

And millikin is off to a 2-0 start. Lets hope that continues. Go Big Blue

Quote from: Late nite on November 09, 2007, 12:39:13 PM

Quote from: Titan Q on November 08, 2007, 11:19:17 PM

Quote from: Late nite on November 08, 2007, 10:40:03 PM

Quote from: Titan Q on November 08, 2007, 12:10:12 PM

Quote from: AndOne on November 08, 2007, 11:49:41 AM
I certainly don't have all the answers, but I believe 100% in what I said about team chemistry and giving 100%. When facing a schedule containing such a number of tough opponents, I think chemistry and effort will go a long way toward building a successful season. Anybody disagree?

I don't disagree that team chemistry is vitally important.  I do think, however, that a team can have all the chemistry in the world, but if it's out-manned night in and night out, it's probably not going to do very well over the course of the season.

I'd rather have Keelan Amelianovich or Rick Harrigan or Drew Carstens or Joel Kolmodin or Ryan Knuppel or Antoine McDaniel or Jason Wiertel or Korey Coon or Bryan Crabtree or Chris Simich or Matt Nadlehoffer or Kirk Anderson, etc. first, and then figure the chemistry thing out second.  We'll go bowling as a team...or maybe get together and watch Hoosiers.


"You've got to get off the bus with the best players." - Dennie Bridges

I don't necessarily agree with Bridges---I recall a team just two years ago with 3 All-Americans that finished 3rd in the CCIW and couldn't win the inaugural conference tourney---They rallied late to play up to their potential in the NCAA, but the chemistry that season didn't match their superior talent

The 2005-06 Titans soundly defeated MWC champ Carroll in Round 1 of the NCAA tournament.  The next night, they dominated WIAC champion UW-Whitewater on the Warhawk's floor.  In Round 3, IWU defeated the #1-ranked team in the nation, 25-0 Lawrence, on their floor.  They earned a trip to the final four by beating a good Puget Sound team in the Sectional final.  In the national semifinal, the Titans led for most of the game, before falling by 2 points to the eventual national champions, Virginia Wesleyan.  The next day, they knocked off Amherst (who would go on to win the national title the next year) for 3rd place.

The Titans had a strange conference season that year, but it wasn't team chemistry that was to blame.  Afterall, the same exact group of players won the league the season before at 12-2.  In the end, the talent on that team carried them to Salem, where they just got beat by a great Virginia Wesleyan team by a bucket.

I disagree---You can't tell me that losing that many close games that year in the CCIW with all that talent had nothing to do with chemistry---They were beaten out by a very talented NCC team that had no depth and an Augie team that was upproven and unknown before the season began---The team with the best players (by far) didn't win the conference---Good chemistry also includes the coaching staff in their dealings with the players---

Bottom line regarding talent is the more talent you have the better your chances of winning. For example look back at the past NCAA d 1 champs, the team with the most NBA players usually wins.

Quote from: muskiefanillinois on November 07, 2007, 01:21:31 AM
Millikin33,
               Couldn't disagree with you more,a good D3 team could keep up with a bad D1 school. Size is a very big factor I agree, I'm new to the CCIW but put 6 inches on Kent Raymond and maybe somebody like Villanova University or West Virginia may have called. You can teach somebody to play ball but you can't teach him to be tall, there is alot of talent in D3 that could be good D1 players. Look at NIU's  Michael Hart I couldn't tell you how he played at Carthage but he was starting at Center the two nights I saw him and I think he will do well at NIU.Why should D3 schools lose by 20 points? If D3 schools had athletic scholarships you would see a smaller gap between D3 and D1, how many players did your school lose because they couldn't afford to go to schools like Millikin or North Central that ended up at a CC  or yet smaller D3 school? How many D1 players would rather play at a D3 school than sit at a D1? Maybe I'm getting off track but I really believe a good D3 can compete with bad or average D1 and not expect to lose by 20.

Muskie fan your points are very valid. I think if you add 3 inches then 80 percent of cciw  d 3 players would be d 1. And ofcourse if d 3's had scholarship they would be able to compete with d 1's And those d 1 players who would sit at a d1 usually go d 2 or NAIA or juco instead of  d 3 if they are d 1 level talents. And for the exact reason you mentioned is why d 3's sholud lose to d1's because its usually a 2-4 inch height advantage at every position and usually a quickness advantage as well.  And actually if Kent Raymond  or any other very good d 3 player had six incches then like Sager said he maybe could be in the league one day.

(modified by GS for formatting)

Quote from: coebball70 on November 06, 2007, 08:15:13 AM
I made the trip to Dekalb last evening as well and, I must admit, it was a waste of time.  Both teams played quite poorly.  The difference-maker in the game was the intensity of NIU's defense.  Augie could not have played worse in the first half.  Maybe it was the jet-lag from the China trip.  Whatever it was, had the Vikings been mentally prepared to play, they would have given NIU a game.  They did play like they were 'scared' and not ready to compete, which is a surprise considering how experienced the team is.  My prediction is this game will be a wake-up call and the Vikings will dominate the CCIW this year if everyone stays healthy.  They have more size, strength, and depth than every other CCIW team.  I would like
to add talent to the Vikings advantages as well, but last night it didn't show up.  I will be surprised if they have more than two conference losses this year. 

It seems alot of you were disappointed with Augies showing vs. NIU  but remember we must put this in perspective. To lose to a d 1 team by 14 points is pretty good for ANY d 3 team. We must remember Augie was supposed to lose to a team that should have more athleticism, size and talent. You guys should not worry Augie will be fine. In addition there are some d 3 players that dont play against d 1 players alot  so some were probably shell shocked . Also I did not see the game but it appears that NIU was the team that did not play well. D 1 teams should beat d3 teams by at least 20 points  so actually from seeing the score augie has to be pretty decent and NIU is probably go

Quote from: Titan Q on November 05, 2007, 07:34:31 PM
Chicagoland NAIA power Robert Morris had to forfeit all of its games from 2006-07 for using ineligible players.  Their record is listed at 0-29...

http://naia.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/103107aaa.html

http://www.okbu.edu/news/view_article.php?id=1667


Robert Morris was ranked #1 in NAIA D1 all of last year, and was 32-0 before losing in quadruple OT in the national semifinals to Concordia (CA)...

http://naia.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/103107aaa.html

ing to be really bad this year.

There is usually always some controversey or some kind of eligibility issues with the really good NAIA school because most of them feast on d 1 transfers who are given a second chance so thats not at all surprising

Quote from: Titan Q on October 31, 2007, 04:32:46 PM
Augustana Picked First in CCIW Men's Basketball Preseason Poll

NAPERVILLE, Ill. – The Augustana Vikings were predicted to win the College Conference of Illinois & Wisconsin (CCIW) men's basketball title in 2007-08 according to a poll conducted by the head coaches of the CCIW Wednesday.

Augustana picked up 47 points and six first place votes in the poll and is coming off back-to-back regular season titles in the CCIW, having clinched an NCAA Tournament bid in each of the last two seasons. Elmhurst was second in the poll with 43 points and two first place votes.

Wheaton placed third with 37 points, North Park was fourth with 29 points and Carthage was fifth with 26 points. North Central (18), Illinois Wesleyan (16) and Millikin (eight) rounded out the poll.

The CCIW men's basketball season begins November 16.


Team   Points   First   Place Votes
 
1.) Augustana  47 (6)
2.) Elmhurst  43 (2)
3.) Wheaton  37 
4.) North Park  29 
5.) Carthage  26 
6.) North Central  18 
7.) Illinois Wesleyan  16 
8.) Millikin  8


http://www.cciw.org/winter_bball_m/index.php

It appears Millikin is in its usual place for the pre season voting( not that im disagreeing) I just cant wait for the day  when I see Millikin at the top of that list. 

Quote from: Gregory Sager on October 31, 2007, 01:23:46 AM

Quote from: millikin 33 on October 30, 2007, 12:59:42 PM

Quote from: Titan Q on October 30, 2007, 10:55:15 AM

Quote from: millikin 33 on October 30, 2007, 10:31:54 AM
Sometimes the quality of play is good but then again lets realize these are Division 3 players that cant even play on varsity at their d3 so its not like there is great talent on the floor.

Boy, that is not the brand of JV basketball I am used to watching.  In 2002-03, IWU's starting JV team was:

G Matt Arnold
G Jason Fisher
F Keelan Amelianovich
F Steve Schweer
C Cory Jones

The JV bench included Chris Jones, Mike McGraw, and Class A all-stater Mike McKean.

All five of these guys started at some point in their varsity career and, along with Adam Dauksas, formed a nucleus that won 2 CCIW titles and went to the Final Four.  Amelianovich, an all-stater, was the CCIW's M.O.P. his sophomore year, one year removed from JV, and became a 1st Team All-American.  Jason Fisher was a Class A all-stater the year before.

Or I remember this JV team from 1995-96 (a year the varsity went to Salem):

G Tony Pacetti
G Nathan Hubbard
F Matt Hoder
F Brent Niebrugge
C Andy Boyden

The bench included John Baines, among others.

The next year ('96-97), 4 of those guys started at some point and all were in the rotation, along with Bryan Crabtree and Korey Coon, on a national championship team.  Niebrugge, a high school all-stater at T-Town, became a CCIW MOP and All-American.

I remember watching Augustana grad Rick Harrigan, an all-stater from Brother Rice, play JV for Augustana in 2002-03 against IWU's Amelianovich-led JV team.  Harrigan, like Amelianovich, went on to be a CCIW M.O.P. and All-American.

To say that, "these are Division 3 players that cant even play on varsity at their d3 so its not like there is great talent on the floor" is very, very misleading.  I guess it depends on how good the school's overall basketball program is.  At the really good Division III schools, there is tremendous talent on JV teams.

Titan  Q IWU's  JV program is the exception  but those kids, Boyden. Hubbard ., Niebrugge  were not that great as JV players and their experience on JV made them a lot better along with practicing with the varsity guys daily. Don't get me wrong those guys were good in high school but im just saying they improved alot on JV  which is and should be the purpose of JV.
Oh and by the way being a class A all stater does mean much to me because there are Class a all staters that would not see the floor on the top 10 teams in chicago.

Overall I think the JV programs are very benificial. I played the first 10 games on JV at Millikin and It was a confidence booster for me and as iwumichagander said it helped me get acclamated to the system and adjust to d 3 bball.

You said that "it's not like there's great talent on the floor" on the JV level. You were clearly wrong. There often is great talent on the floor in a JV game. What JV players tend to lack is varsity-caliber skill level and experience, two things that are very, very different than talent. Skills development, as cciwgrad discussed, is a major part of what having a JV program is all about. Freshmen and sophomores get the opportunity to strengthen the weak parts of their games, especially because they get more personalized attention from a coach than they'd get if there was no JV and they were simply unused uniform-fillers among 15 to 20 members of a varsity program. And the experience gained from game situations on the JV level is obvious.

North Park has never tended to emphasize the JV team as a farm system as much as has Augustana and Illinois Wesleyan, not even when the Park was a national powerhouse, but there have been plenty of talented players who've worn North Park JV livery over the years. The most obvious example is Michael Harper, who was almost exclusively a JV player as a freshman in 1976-77. All Harper went on to do after that, of course, was win three CCIW MOP awards, three NABC All-American awards, an NABC D3 Player of the Year award, two D3 national tournament MVP awards, score over 1,800 points and grab over 1,100 rebounds in leading the Vikings to three national championships and three CCIW titles, play two years with the Portland Trailblazers, spend another decade as a star in the Spanish and French premier leagues, and have his #33 retired by his alma mater. Not bad for a guy who, since he was originally a JV player, clearly must not have had great talent.

Dan Mulkerin (NPC '88) spent two years on the North Park JV team learning his craft, since he had only played one year of basketball at Chicago's Taft HS and as a big man was on a somewhat slower developmental curve, anyway. As a junior he finally made the varsity -- and promptly became a first-team All-CCIW center and a linchpin on the '87 national championship team. (He was an All-CCIW second-teamer as a senior the following year.) More recently, Brett Mathisen -- an All-CCIW third-teamer in 2004-05, and one of the better post players in the league on some very bad NPU teams -- was another example of a future star who began his North Park career as a JV player.

Contrary to your statement, I look at this year's likely NPU junior varsity players and I see a lot of talent. I see a lot of guys who have some skill areas that need improvement and who could use additional game experience, yes; but there's talent aplenty there. I fully expect some of them to contribute to the NPU varsity somewhere down the road. Anyone who shows up at 5:15 in the crackerbox to see Coach Aaron Schoof's NPU junior varsity this season will get to see some very good basketball players.

Well Sager I think we have different definitions of what talent is. From my perspective Talent is skills plus athletic ability.  Skills are your shooting,passing and ball handling ability.  For example Larry Bird was not talented, he just was the most skilled player probably ever. Jordan was talented.  so from my definition there is usually not great talent on the court in JV  but there may be a ton of potential. Usually what i see at JV games are players that are really skilled but not athletic or strong enough to play varsity or players who are very athletic or physically inposing but lack skills. Whats your definition of talent.

Quote from: Titan Q on October 30, 2007, 10:55:15 AM

Quote from: millikin 33 on October 30, 2007, 10:31:54 AM
Sometimes the quality of play is good but then again lets realize these are Division 3 players that cant even play on varsity at their d3 so its not like there is great talent on the floor.

Boy, that is not the brand of JV basketball I am used to watching.  In 2002-03, IWU's starting JV team was:

G Matt Arnold
G Jason Fisher
F Keelan Amelianovich
F Steve Schweer
C Cory Jones

The JV bench included Chris Jones, Mike McGraw, and Class A all-stater Mike McKean.

All five of these guys started at some point in their varsity career and, along with Adam Dauksas, formed a nucleus that won 2 CCIW titles and went to the Final Four.  Amelianovich, an all-stater, was the CCIW's M.O.P. his sophomore year, one year removed from JV, and became a 1st Team All-American.  Jason Fisher was a Class A all-stater the year before.

Or I remember this JV team from 1995-96 (a year the varsity went to Salem):

G Tony Pacetti
G Nathan Hubbard
F Matt Hoder
F Brent Niebrugge
C Andy Boyden

The bench included John Baines, among others.

The next year ('96-97), 4 of those guys started at some point and all were in the rotation, along with Bryan Crabtree and Korey Coon, on a national championship team.  Niebrugge, a high school all-stater at T-Town, became a CCIW MOP and All-American.

I remember watching Augustana grad Rick Harrigan, an all-stater from Brother Rice, play JV for Augustana in 2002-03 against IWU's Amelianovich-led JV team.  Harrigan, like Amelianovich, went on to be a CCIW M.O.P. and All-American.

To say that, "these are Division 3 players that cant even play on varsity at their d3 so its not like there is great talent on the floor" is very, very misleading.  I guess it depends on how good the school's overall basketball program is.  At the really good Division III schools, there is tremendous talent on JV teams.

Titan  Q IWU's  JV program is the exception  but those kids, Boyden. Hubbard ., Niebrugge  were not that great as JV players and their experience on JV made them a lot better along with practicing with the varsity guys daily. Don't get me wrong those guys were good in high school but im just saying they improved alot on JV  which is and should be the purpose of JV.
Oh and by the way being a class A all stater does mean much to me because there are Class a all staters that would not see the floor on the top 10 teams in chicago.

Overall I think the JV programs are very benificial. I played the first 10 games on JV at Millikin and It was a confidence booster for me and as iwumichagander said it helped me get acclamated to the system and adjust to d 3 bball.

Well  Dr N. it is kinda like Sager said they can be very benificial or it can be a burden on your budget if not used properly. For the most part I look at it like there will be probably 3 or 4 players per year on JV that will eventually contribute on varsity, but from what I have experienced  probably 60% of the players lose interest in basketball and dont play after JV.
Sometimes the quality of play is good but then again lets realize these are Division 3 players that cant even play on varsity at their d3 so its not like there is great talent on the floor. CCIW  JV teams are probably as talented as schools like Eureka or Blackburn or MacMurrays varsity teams

Quote from: DrN on October 29, 2007, 10:55:49 PM
I have been lurking on this thread since last year when a relative of mine was being recruited by CCIW schools. He is now a freshman at one of the schools.

One thing he noticed that appeared to be different about CCIW schools relative to others recruiting him (e.g., Univ. of Chicago, UW-XXXX) was that all schools in the CCIW have JV teams and play a full JV conference schedule.

I am curious what this group thinks of the JV programs in the CCIW. Does anyone go to the games? Are they quality games? 

Just curious. I have enjoyed reading your comments.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 15, 2007, 01:45:34 PM
On another board a poster talked about 'walk-ons', and someone (Smedindy?) pointed out that (with no scholarships or letters of intent) technically ALL d3 players are walk-ons.  I responded that it was still a useful distinction, differentiating recruited players from those who truly were discovered on campus (whether open tryouts, dominating IMs, etc.).

So, Ron Rose (and hopefully his interpreter Q!) - what exactly is a 'recruited walk-on'?!  Was Rose simply very honest with the kid: 'I'd really like you to come and I'll give you an honest chance, but frankly your chances of seeing the floor much are slim'?

Mr Yipsi   a recruited walk on is just what you explained Ron Rose said to the kid. A recruited walk on would be the d 1 equivalent of a preferred walk on,  someone who the coaches know about and probably lightly recruited but has little chance of getting playing time. or it could be a kid that contacted the coaching staff first who they knew about prior to arriving on campus. Actually the term walk on is now being used at the high school level  which is outragous considering 8th graders are now getting recruited.

(Editted for quoting format by Titan Q)