Top 25 talk

[Greek Tragedy]

Everyone has their own version of the sieve cheer and I can say that I was doing it back in the late 80s/early 90s when UWSP was dominating the D3 men's hockey landscape. But it wasn't the sieve cheer that I remember so fondly, it's the Rowdy Crowdy cheer originated by some student lifer named Marvin. I'll refrain from posting the whole song, but it lasted about 3 minutes and basically said we have a winning coach, team and crowd and you have a losing coach, team and crowd.. and by the way, your goalie is a sieve, sieve, sieve, sieve....

Nothing like having your parents let you and your best friend hop on a bus at 16 yrs old and trek out to Rochester, NY with a bunch of drunk college students to watch hockey.  Proud to have seen all four hockey titles (4 in 5 years) and all 4 basketball titles.     

[WUPHF]

At a recent game I was working, a visiting parent was so bad in the opening minutes of the game he actually yelled at the home coach... and the coach responded! He turned around and said, "I'm not talking to you." At that point an event staff member was parked at the front of the bleachers were the parent was sitting and he got the message real quick. But not before yelling and screaming about 3 seconds violation on the home team.

Parents are far worse in my experience.

Especially, at girls high school basketball games.

[pg04]

Reading more it seems like this is all an over reaction or at least an 18 year old too late reaction

From http://www.wissports.net/news_article/show/598062

"Now, let's look at the WIAA's Sportsmanship Guidelines which caused the offending tweet in the first place, and have begun to catch national attention.

For one thing, it is important to note that these aren't new, despite what several journalists have falsely indicated. The Sportsmanship Guidelines have been around for years, with the WIAA's Sportsmanship Committee founded in 1997. Currently, the committee consists of 11 members, including school administrators, an officials representative, and a member of WACPC (Wisconsin Association of Cheer/Pom Coaches).

The Sportsmanship Guidelines were developed and approved by the member schools. Every member school receives the guidelines as part of their tournament information. It is up to the member schools to enforce them as they see fit.

Every state association has similar guidelines, though not all go into specific detail about "inappropriate sportsmanship" cheers as the WIAA guide does. However, all identify taunting, disrespectful, and demeaning cheers or chants as "inappropriate sportsmanship"."

[Just Bill]

It is. It's a lot of thunder about nothing really. It's the same guidelines they've had for years. The WIAA doesn't set rules on what chants can and can't be done. The WIAA sets the Sportsmanship bar as high as possible and then it's up to the member schools to decide what is and isn't acceptable. Just about every school does a fine job allowing the students to have fun without crossing the line. It's worked this way well for decades.

[Gregory Sager]

How about we focus on parent and adult behavior at these games first?

I only recall once that I went to a high school game and thought the students' chants/cheers really went over the line. But I can recall several incidents of parents and adults behaving like absolute a**holes.

I'm usually far more irritated by things that adults (presumably the parents of players for the most part, although that's not always true) yell during the course of a game than anything that students chant. College students are only semi-grownups, and the judgment center of the brain isn't fully developed until age 25, anyway; real grownups, on the other hand, ought to know better. Of course, some would say that, as North Park's former chant leader back during the '80s, I have a greater tolerance for student nonsense than I really ought to have.

The Sportsmanship Guidelines were developed and approved by the member schools. Every member school receives the guidelines as part of their tournament information. It is up to the member schools to enforce them as they see fit.

The CCIW has a Sportsmanship Statement that's supposed to be read before every athletic event. If you go to a CCIW gym or stadium, you'll no doubt hear it recited faithfully over the P.A. sometime during pregame -- and it will then promptly be flouted by a large percentage of the people on the premises.

How does one chant "sieve" anyway? Wouldn't "strainer" or "colander" be better choices? Or "kit-chen u-ten-sil to strain out im-pur-i-ties"? Oh, burn!

The Sieve chant is a Wisconsin Badgers hockey staple. Here's a sample:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-M9tPqA75I (Back when the Kohl Center was full. Rough times there.)

I've never heard the "sieve" chant before. I suspect that it's mostly a college hockey thing, and college hockey is not a hot sports item in Chicagoland.

Michigan students used to cheer "ugly parents" when the opponent scored a goal and the small band of fans in the corner stood to cheer.  Maybe the Wisconsin high school kids should try that one.

One of the chants that NPU"s Carlson Crazies used for years in the crackerbox whenever an opponent was at the free-throw line was, "Your mom is hot! Your mom is hot! Your mom is hot!", since quite often the bulk of the visiting fan section consists of the parents of the opposing players. The exception was whenever Illinois Wesleyan came to town. As some of you are already aware, IWU's got a fan bus that transports several dozen septuagenarians and octogenarians (and beyond, no doubt) to every Titans road basketball game. This zealous batch of green-wearing senior citizens (who are treated to free donuts on the bus courtesy of a Bloomington funeral home, surely the best example of target-constituency marketing in all of McLean County) is the most noticeable element, and sometimes the biggest, of the visitors section whenever the Titans are on the road. (A former Titans player once said to me, "At other schools, the back of the fan bus has a keg. At IWU, the back of the fan bus has a defibrillator.") So whenever IWU was the visiting team in the crackerbox and a Titan was at the free-throw line, the Carlson Crazies would alter their chant to, "Your grandma's hot! Your grandma's hot! Your grandma's hot!")

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

If anyone is interested in my Top 25 blog for this week, here it is: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/01/12/daves-top-25-ballot-week-5-4/

We have had some technical issues the last few weeks that we at least found a temporary solution to.

[sac]

If anyone is interested in my Top 25 blog for this week, here it is: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/01/12/daves-top-25-ballot-week-5-4/

We have had some technical issues the last few weeks that we at least found a temporary solution to.

"I can only assume that is based on the Benedictine beat Carthage, Carthage beat Augustana, thus Benedictine would also beat Augustana theory. It is a theory I just can't buy into"

You might want to edit that little part written under the Benedictine section

[David Collinge]

O-ver re-ac-tion! [clap clap clap-clap-clap]

[pg04]

People really enjoy getting mad or offended about things that people get mad or offended about these days 

[Titan Q]

If anyone is interested in my Top 25 blog for this week, here it is: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/01/12/daves-top-25-ballot-week-5-4/

We have had some technical issues the last few weeks that we at least found a temporary solution to.

Thanks for posting, Dave.  I do have some questions on your Benedictine comments...


"Benedictine is clearly a good team, but in a sub-par conference. They clearly have gotten it done out of conference (five games, five opponents from the CCIW)."

* With wins at #2 Elmhurst and at #25 North Central - probably a better 2-win combo than any of the 5 teams you ranked ahead of Benedictine have - why does the strength of BU's conference matter? 
-----

"My concern is someone in their conference is going to beat them and that will raise more questions than it answers."

* Shouldn't you wait until after someone in the NACC beats Benedictine before you hold it against them?
-----

"I also don't think Benedictine would be able to beat Augustana. So I moved the Eagles up, but I'm not sure I can move them much higher."

* Benedictine traveled to Elmhurst and led 47-19 at halftime, and beat them in a game that was never close...Elmhurst beat Augustana in the same gym.  Why are you assuming BU would not be able to beat Augustana?  I get that A beating B, and B beating C, does mean that A would automatically beat C...but aren't you taking that to the opposite extreme in assuming BU would not beat Augie?

* And I guess I don't understand how you can have Whitworth #3, Hope #4, and St. Thomas #5 but not go higher than #6 with BU?  Outside of name brand, what is the case for those 3 being higher than Benedictine?
-----

It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16.

[Titan Q]

For what it's worth, Massey has Benedictine #1.

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb2016&sub=11620

[Greek Tragedy]

Greg, for what its worth, the "ugly parents" comment wasn't mine. You quoted me but I didn't post that.   

[Ryan Stoppable]

"Benedictine is clearly a good team, but in a sub-par conference. They clearly have gotten it done out of conference (five games, five opponents from the CCIW)."

While the NCAA Tournament results from previous seasons are obviously not there, how true is that this year? In addition to Benedictine, the Massey ratings have five other NACC teams ranked #104 or higher (so basically in the top quarter of D3), and the conference as a whole is over .500 in non-conference play.

(For that matter, our current second place Aurora also beat the aforementioned North Central; Benedictine demolished the Spartans by 28 in their first meeting.)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I'll preface this by saying, usually it doesn't matter what I write in response. I have found with many people on these boards they rather just tell me I am wrong than listen to my point of view - the view of one single voter. I do these blogs because they provide me a chance to do my homework in even more detail and really think through my decisions as a voter. I appreciate that you don't have to agree with me just as I don't have to agree with you (being generic here), but I find it rather surprising how many people would rather tell me I am wrong and tell me how to vote than anything else. Just needed to get that off my chest, please don't take it personally.

If anyone is interested in my Top 25 blog for this week, here it is: http://www.d3blogs.com/d3hoops/2016/01/12/daves-top-25-ballot-week-5-4/

We have had some technical issues the last few weeks that we at least found a temporary solution to.

Thanks for posting, Dave.  I do have some questions on your Benedictine comments...


"Benedictine is clearly a good team, but in a sub-par conference. They clearly have gotten it done out of conference (five games, five opponents from the CCIW)."

* With wins at #2 Elmhurst and at #25 North Central - probably a better 2-win combo than any of the 5 teams you ranked ahead of Benedictine have - why does the strength of BU's conference matter? 
-----

Hope has some good wins especially if I look outside of Division III which in the past posters have felt I should do more often. Furthermore, you say they have a win over #25 NCC based on the overall poll, but I haven't ranked NCC as of yet (I want to see how they do this week) and thus that win doesn't hold as much weight. It holds weight, but not as much. I appreciate that Benedictine may have "more" in those two wins than Whitworth (who beat Calvin in a game I called and now Whitman who is also ranked), but feel Whitworth is a deeper team with more weapons on the floor at any given time. I have also seen St. Thomas (called one of their games as well) and feel the Tommies wins over Emory (while not as strong as in the past), UWSP, and Bethel (now - not before I voted last time) are more significant.

"My concern is someone in their conference is going to beat them and that will raise more questions than it answers."

* Shouldn't you wait until after someone in the NACC beats Benedictine before you hold it against them?
-----

Why? I'm already ranking them sixth. I am simply stating what worries me about the team and the conference. Nothing more. But the same argument can be made about NYU. There are many here who don't understand why the Violets are so highly ranked, or ranked period, versus a weak out of conference schedule when many of us feel they may not be .500 in the UAA. I am not getting questioned for not voting for NYU because I am concerned they are going to get killed in the conference. Nothing is perfect, but reading into the information I have and trust along with watching what I can online makes me believe that a loss in the NACC will give me more questions than it actually answers. Just as I have felt with teams like Albertus Magnus in the past and, again, not the same concern that I didn't rank them high enough.

"I also don't think Benedictine would be able to beat Augustana. So I moved the Eagles up, but I'm not sure I can move them much higher."

* Benedictine traveled to Elmhurst and led 47-19 at halftime, and beat them in a game that was never close...Elmhurst beat Augustana in the same gym.  Why are you assuming BU would not be able to beat Augustana?  I get that A beating B, and B beating C, does mean that A would automatically beat C...but aren't you taking that to the opposite extreme in assuming BU would not beat Augie?

* And I guess I don't understand how you can have Whitworth #3, Hope #4, and St. Thomas #5 but not go higher than #6 with BU?  Outside of name brand, what is the case for those 3 being higher than Benedictine?
-----

Because the information I have in front of me plus what I have been able to see online, I don't feel Benedictine is better than the teams ahead of them despite beating one of them (and that team beating another). Trust me when I say, I am not the only voter who feels this way though as I have talked to several who have the same opinion, though out of respect for them and to not give away information, I won't name them or what regions they represent. They got the win over Elmhurst in a game that clearly was not the Blue Jays best and clearly was one of the best for the Eagles. I am just not of the opinion I am going to let that one game trump all.

It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16.

That may seem like a great political-style one-liner, but if that was truly the case and I was voting on simply traditional perceptions... you could argue Benedictine would not be in my Top 25 let alone knocking on the door of the Top 5. That statement borders on hyperbole that may sound great, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

For what it's worth, Massey has Benedictine #1.

http://www.masseyratings.com/rate.php?s=cb2016&sub=11620

It actually means nothing to me to be honest. I check out Massey to make sure there isn't a team slipping through the radar, but considering five of Benedictine's 14 games are against CCIW opponents and thus their schedules, I am not making much of it. We can go around and around about Massey, but I feel the system has it's flaws and one of those flaws is it tends to add value somehow to WIAC and CCIW teams and those those who play them. I have said in the past I don't put much stock in the rankings other than to help me make sure there isn't someone I'm missing. I am certainly not going to rank based on them, either - though I am sure some voters do.

You all are making a big deal out of something I don't think is a big deal. Benedictine is sixth on my ballot and fifth overall. Considering someone gave them a first place vote, there are others who have them lower on their ballots than I do. I pretty much have them where they reside overall. So you may not like what I say about Benedictine and that's fine, but if you don't like where they are ranked it doesn't appear I'm the guy who is dismissing them.

[Mr. Ypsi]

It seems like you are voting based on traditional perceptions of Benedictine, and not what they actually have and are doing in 2015-16.

That may seem like a great political-style one-liner, but if that was truly the case and I was voting on simply traditional perceptions... you could argue Benedictine would not be in my Top 25 let alone knocking on the door of the Top 5. That statement borders on hyperbole that may sound great, but it couldn't be further from the truth.

I have quibbles with several other of your replies to Q, but this one burned me up.  As you know (since you posted supporting me) I also believe that 'tradition' (especially continuity in great coaching, institutional support, etc.) is and should be a factor in voting, I'm shocked that you would accuse Q of being the one to use hyperbole and 'a great political-style one-liner' in this exchange.  Anyone who would even mention Benedictine not being in the top 25 is not engaging in 'history'; they are down Alice's 'rabbit-hole'.  Talk about hyperbole!

And it is rather silly to talk about their weak conference when conference games have barely begun (and they went 5-0 against the CCIW, which is rarely called a 'weak conference').  Personally, I suspect they will sweep and go 25-0 entering the tourney (or 26, or 27, or whatever), but since nearly every team stumbles at some point, so what?

I am NOT a Benedictine fan (in fact, since they've beaten IWU two years in a row, I'm becoming a 'hater'! ), but based on THIS year's evidence, I think it is incontrovertible that you ARE thinking on traditional grounds.