MBB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[woosterbooster]

A Wittenberg win, which was what Wooster needed, but in the process we got to see the Wallies squirm.

How exactly would a Wittenberg win last night have benefited Wooster?  Regional Rankings?  Tournament seeding?

I'm guessing he meant to say a Wabash win was what Wooster needed.  Having to pull for either Witt or Wabash can have negative effects on your thought process which is pretty evident by WooBoo's typo...  

Exactly.  It was a typo due to the extreme mental fatigue brought about by such a dilemma.  I hope I'm never faced with such a choice again.

[ScotsFan]

...largely super-sub Derek Bailey and Jordan Surenkamp making shots during that stretch.  I believe Aaron Zinnerman also had a couple of big baskets during that run as well (one big bomb with the shot clock expiring...that was a killer shot).  Total team effort from the LGs last night on a night when they had to have it.  It was a lot of fun to be in the gym last night. 

So where did this Jordan Surenkamp come from and why hasn't he been getting more minutes?  I was following the game last night and didn't recognize the name at all.  So I went and looked up his stats and he's only appeared in 14 games all year for Wabash.   Also, he's only averaging just over 6 minutes/game on the season.  Last night he played 21 minutes.  And, he had only scored 25 points all season before dropping 13 on Witt last night.

So, again, where has he been and why hasn't he been getting more minutes?  Has he been battling injuries?

[wally_wabash]

...largely super-sub Derek Bailey and Jordan Surenkamp making shots during that stretch.  I believe Aaron Zinnerman also had a couple of big baskets during that run as well (one big bomb with the shot clock expiring...that was a killer shot).  Total team effort from the LGs last night on a night when they had to have it.  It was a lot of fun to be in the gym last night.  

So where did this Jordan Surenkamp come from and why hasn't he been getting more minutes?  I was following the game last night and didn't recognize the name at all.  So I went and looked up his stats and he's only appeared in 14 games all year for Wabash.   Also, he's only averaging just over 6 minutes/game on the season.  Last night he played 21 minutes.  And, he had only scored 25 points all season before dropping 13 on Witt last night.

So, again, where has he been and why hasn't he been getting more minutes?  Has he been battling injuries?

Jordan has been just out of the regular rotation last year and for most of this year, with some spot minutes here and there.  It would appear that over the course of the season, he has worked his way into the second unit.  I'm speculating here, but I think the increased time for Jordan is probably a result of his improvement over the course of the season and Sutherlin's slumping/hurting.

21 minutes last night was a big spike for Jordan, but this is a pretty standard Mac Petty move.  Coach Petty will "let it ride" with a hot player, especially off the bench.  Jordan got the call to play a few minutes in the first half, he scored five points, guarded well, and earned some more minutes in the second half.  I'll not be surprised to see him get 15+ minutes off the bench on Saturday.  

[David Collinge]

Tie-breakers, as I understand them...

I got confirmation on the tie-breakers today, and I believe what I have written in the above-referenced post is correct.  Furthermore, it should be noted that, if Witt and Woo both win Saturday and are co-champions at 14-2, and there is a coin toss, the winner of that toss gets to choose whether to be the overall #1 seed or to have the right to host the semi-finals and finals.  That winner will almost certainly choose to host, which would mean they'd be the #2 seed and face Denison and, if they win, the winner of Kenyon vs. #3 (probably Wabash), while the #1 would face Allegheny and, if they win, the winner of Hiram vs. #4 (probably OWU).  Interesting choices.

[sac]

Tie-breakers, as I understand them...

I got confirmation on the tie-breakers today, and I believe what I have written in the above-referenced post is correct.  Furthermore, it should be noted that, if Witt and Woo both win Saturday and are co-champions at 14-2, and there is a coin toss, the winner of that toss gets to choose whether to be the overall #1 seed or to have the right to host the semi-finals and finals.  That winner will almost certainly choose to host, which would mean they'd be the #2 seed and face Denison and, if they win, the winner of Kenyon vs. #3 (probably Wabash), while the #1 would face Allegheny and, if they win, the winner of Hiram vs. #4 (probably OWU).  Interesting choices.

Leave Marty Morningweg out of it.

[wally_wabash]

Due to extenuating circumstances, I'd forgo the tiebreak rules and award Wooster the #1 seed and the host site for the semifinals and finals.  What extenuating circumstances?  Kenyon @ Wittenberg.  That game was never played.  Why should we assume that Witt would have won that game and why should Wittenberg be allowed to benefit from that assumption?  I hammered Kenyon when that news broke, probably a little prematurely.  A follow up story would seem to indicate that Wittenberg did not do their level best to try and play that game either...there's some stank around that "result" and it's unfair to Wooster and the rest of the league that played 16 games that Wittenberg got a free win out of that.  

[ScotsFan]

Due to extenuating circumstances, I'd forgo the tiebreak rules and award Wooster the #1 seed and the host site for the semifinals and finals.  What extenuating circumstances?  Kenyon @ Wittenberg.  That game was never played.  Why should we assume that Witt would have won that game and why should Wittenberg be allowed to benefit from that assumption?   I hammered Kenyon when that news broke, probably a little prematurely.  A follow up story would seem to indicate that Wittenberg did not do their level best to try and play that game either...there's some stank around that "result" and it's unfair to Wooster and the rest of the league that played 16 games that Wittenberg got a free win out of that. 

You bring up some interesting points Wally.  The question I bolded is one I'd like to hear explained a little better by the league office.  It seems to me that when the story first broke, things seemed to be pointing Kenyon's way as far as the blame game went.  If this was the end of the story, I could understand awarding Witt the W in forfeit.  However, that didn't appear to be the end of the story as things came out that pointed towards Witt being equally or even moreso to blame.  What I can't figure out is how the NCAC came to the result they did so easily.  Why was Witt awarded the W and Kenyon the L?  Why would this game just not count since both sides seemed to be equally to blame in not making a concerted effort to get the game played (IMO, Witt made the least effort of the two schools). 

I'm almost of the opinion that this game shouldn't count at all in the conference standings or should carry less weight than a TRUE win and with that, should Wooster win Saturday, the Scots should be awarded the #1 seed by virtue of actually playing every conference opponent on their schedule and not benefitting from a questionalbe at best win by forfeiture.  I mean, Wooster played and actually beat Kenyon twice.  Witt?  Not so much... 

[kiltedbryan]

Due to extenuating circumstances, I'd forgo the tiebreak rules and award Wooster the #1 seed and the host site for the semifinals and finals.  What extenuating circumstances?  Kenyon @ Wittenberg.  That game was never played.  Why should we assume that Witt would have won that game and why should Wittenberg be allowed to benefit from that assumption?   I hammered Kenyon when that news broke, probably a little prematurely.  A follow up story would seem to indicate that Wittenberg did not do their level best to try and play that game either...there's some stank around that "result" and it's unfair to Wooster and the rest of the league that played 16 games that Wittenberg got a free win out of that. 

You bring up some interesting points Wally.  The question I bolded is one I'd like to hear explained a little better by the league office.  It seems to me that when the story first broke, things seemed to be pointing Kenyon's way as far as the blame game went.  If this was the end of the story, I could understand awarding Witt the W in forfeit.  However, that didn't appear to be the end of the story as things came out that pointed towards Witt being equally or even moreso to blame.  What I can't figure out is how the NCAC came to the result they did so easily.  Why was Witt awarded the W and Kenyon the L?  Why would this game just not count since both sides seemed to be equally to blame in not making a concerted effort to get the game played (IMO, Witt made the least effort of the two schools). 

I'm almost of the opinion that this game shouldn't count at all in the conference standings or should carry less weight than a TRUE win and with that, should Wooster win Saturday, the Scots should be awarded the #1 seed by virtue of actually playing every conference opponent on their schedule and not benefitting from a questionalbe at best win by forfeiture.  I mean, Wooster played and actually beat Kenyon twice.  Witt?  Not so much... 

Well, I think under league rules the Friday date was accepted as a viable date for when to make up the game...therefore when Kenyon refused to travel to Wittenberg to play the game on that date, they took the loss from the league's perspective. Brown sounded like he was holding the line on following the league rule that the game should be made up on the first available date, which was Friday, as Wittenberg had been closed on both Wednesday and Thursday. I guess the scheduling prerogative goes to the home team, with the visitors generally having to accept the home team's date, which Kenyon refused in this case.

[BogeyMan]

I find it hard to believe that the league would rule basketball over academics in this case.  The priority of the student-athletes in college is what?  Brown took a tough stand and showed his true colors when refusing to work with Kenyon on this.  Kenyon had athletes that could not get out of going to class on that Friday and Brown said too bad, league rules are league rules.  Shame on the NCAC and shame on Brown!

[smedindy]

A pox on both their houses!

[David Collinge]

When the story first broke, at least from my vantage point, it was broken by David Jablonski of the Springfield News-Sun, who had access to Bill Brown (and quoted his take on the situation, as I recall).  There was no indication that he'd talked with Witt AD Garnett Purnell, and it's clear he hadn't talked to anyone from Kenyon in that early report.  Thus, the first report was essentially the POV of Wittenberg, and specifically of Bill Brown.  Jablonski then got hold of Kenyon coach Dan Priest, and got his side of the story, and updated his own story in the News-Sun with Priest's comments as well as some fairly inflammatory comments from Brown.  It was that version of the story that made Witt look like the bad guy and Kenyon the white knight, especially when Brown's comments were considered.  However, it's not at all clear that Brown was responding specifically to, or was even aware of, Priest's version of the story.  Perhaps more importantly,  it's still not clear at all to me if Purnell actually offered Monday as a make-up date to Kenyon (as Priest contends), or if he did, whether he cleared it with Brown, who seems to have put the kibosh on that plan, insisting on Friday (and not without good reason, I might add.)  

In a nutshell, then, what we got was Witt's unrebutted side of the story, making Kenyon look bad, followed by Kenyon's mostly unrebutted side, making Kenyon look good and Witt at least look internally disorganized.  I think the true story lies somewhere in between (and for all I know, Jablonski has reported it; I don't subscribe to the News-Sun!)

[Witt4ever]

Yes, blame Wittenberg for following NCAC rules.

[wally_wabash]

Yes, blame Wittenberg for following NCAC rules.

But did they?  The "rules" would say that postponed games need to be played on the next available day.  The next available day was Thursday and it had been communicated to Kenyon by Wittenberg that they would play on Thursday.  Kenyon's players shuffled their academic obligations accordingly, then Wittenberg apparently changed their mind about playing on Thursday.  So who isn't playing by the rules? 

But Wittenberg was closed on Thursday, you say.  I say who cares.  We don't go to class on Saturdays but we certainly do play basketball.  The entire league schedule was postponed on that Wednesday and the next day everybody else traveled and played their games all through Ohio.  Why not Kenyon and Wittenberg? 

To me, what's clear is that this isn't simply a case of Kenyon saying "nah, we'll go ahead and pass on this one".  There was some miscommunication from the host institution that contributed to the scheduling conflict which ultimately led to the game not being played.  Wittenberg has some responsibility in what happened and as such, IMO, do not deserve credit for winning a game they never played. 

[Pat Coleman]

The university may feel differently about how its facilities are used when the school is closed because of weather. It is so NOT the same as just a normal Saturday.

At many schools, this is not the athletic department's decision, it's a university and facilities decision, and it applies campus-wide with no exception for athletics.

So, you may say who cares, but Wittenberg doesn't really care whether you care or not.

[wally_wabash]

Oh, I'm quite aware that Wittenberg couldn't give a flip about what I think and that's fine.  But if Wittenberg told Kenyon that they were going to play Thursday and then reneged on that, they still aren't free from being partially responsible for the chain of events that led to the cancellation of the game.  And if they share responsibility, they probably shouldn't be getting a win credit.