MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Greek Tragedy]

When I wrote that, I had a feeling someone would say something like that...it was anticipated, but I wrote it anyway.

[AppletonRocks]

I wonder how all those folks in purple or yellow sweaters that have season tickets feel?  Maybe they will abandon the program after such acts are reported a second time?  I could see that as much as "we'll show them" attitude. More seats for visiting fans. 

Huh. Seats for visiting fans. Sounds like a familiar refrain for you. Oh wait, but you're not titan2000.

Roop:

While the proximity to Quandt will be an advantage, I would suggest you buy youself one of those cheap looking purple cardigan sweaters and get a season ticket, or the fine folks at Quandt will put you behind the band in the end zone.  And the girls in the Pointer Band aren't band camp material, ala American Pie anyway. 

I suspect if Tharp would have stayed at LU you could have switched your allegiance to that Beloit grad and began to enjoy the greatly improved Highway 10.

Let us know when you start feeling inferior.

T2K

I will be out of town so the Mrs. and I won't be there.  We'll be pullling for Carroll (girl's name) as they are the MWC team and well, everyone loves a Cinderella story. 

I do think the NCAA would be  better served to have these games at larger neutral sites, like the Kolf Center, but they won't because they are cheap.  Yet they could sell 6,000 tickets at Kolf vs. 2,800 at Quandt.  My economics training would suggest that it would be worth having these at large venues if you charge a fair price for the tickets, say $15 per game or $20 for two games. 

It could be at an NCAA institution and provide room for all the traveling fans, instead of the crammed in treatment they'll get at Quandt. 

I felt the same way about what we needed to do at Alex last year when LU hosted; that would have been a better situation if they could have moved it, even just to a local venue, say Appleton East,  that has more seats.  Kolf would have been perfect and the IWU fans would have had a better experience.  But LU had no option according to the NCAA.

I know about the high school sectionals, but if the NCAA guaranteed the facility, it wouldn't matter.  In fact, one could be played during the day and one at night, easily in the example of the Kolf Center.

Other venues in the other parts of the country could be established in advance. 

MAYBE NEXT YEAR?

I was told that the visiting team, SJU, is allowed 250 tickets.  Unused/returned tickets will then be sold.

Let us know if you have to sit behind the UWSP band.

Bulk:

Don't feel bad--the families of the opponent were shut out of Quandt that year as well. 

T2K

PS:

Covering a number of topics:

Grinnell recent success

If the oafs actually call the games, GC has about 4 more losses this year and are not in the running for the MWC title.   

Systemfan86 and Jeffp are probably at the game now, but when they read this there will be flames flying through the D3hoops server.  I don't care, I speak the truth.  Pat, if the server starts on fire, I'll pay for it.

LU loss prediction

As for my LU losing out prediction, I rescind that.  We have one game vs. Beloit remainng. 

Ripon "talent"

And someone mentioned earlier that the "talent" as missing at the Ripon game.  Most of the Ripon coeds work at the Mansion on Main for their physical education and psychology credits, so they were likely at work.

Quandt house of horrors?

And lastly, outside the MWC, I understand that the Titans made the basset hounds look pretty bad last week at the Quandt Vistiing Fan Abuse Center.  I couldn't attend, I couldn't afford the $500 seat license.

Pat: 

BTW, I did sit behind the band for one of the games when LU played at Quandt, so I suspect the above rant is relatively accurate. Can't remember if Roop was there or not, the games all run together. Roop was a great man; we visited Grinnell together once maybe 10 years ago, even went to a coffee shop I think that Jeffp owned.  Roop liked the System and I liked watching LU defeat it. I would have liked to hear his view on the Point dilemna, not sure the Pointers would have liked Roop's verdict.  As for monikers, I would have been Titan1984.....I survived the Bob White (nice guy) years, when Tony Carr and Gib Hinz and Terry Porter led the WSUC parade.   

RIP Roop. 

[John Gleich]

I am truly surprised at Augie's success so far. One would think losing their top 6 scorers from last year's great team would have resulted in a complete rebuild with the corresponding setbacks of a team relying on inexperienced talent. So all is good right now, but Augie's certainly benefitted from the injuries to Raridon and Seibring in the NCC and IWU games.

Going forward Augie has 7 of their last 11 games on the road, so there are lots of challenges ahead, as the road is seldom friendly in the CCIW. All in all the unlikeabke Coach G is once again validating his considerable coaching skills.

Wrong board?

[iwumichigander]

I have my doubts about this weekend with Point traveling to River Falls. Obviously with the self-imposed sanctions, Point isn't in any position for post-season play. However, I would love to see them challenge for the regular season crown. It will be tough sledding with Semling out of the picture this season and a killer conference schedule. As a WIAC fan, I love the fact that River Falls, Eau Claire and Stout are doing extremely well. Whitewater, despite being 0-3 in the conference, is still dangerous and La Crosse and Oshkosh have had big wins.

My point is that through interviews I've heard and posts I've read, it seems there are a few people out there that think Point's self-imposed ban on the post-season may have been the "easy way out" since they were just 6-5 (?) and they "weren't going to make the NCAA tourney anyway." Whether or not the NCAA thinks this, no one will know, but I suppose the sanction would look more severe if Point was in position to make the WIAC tourney and the NCAA tourney.

As a fan who grew up watching Pointer sports, all I can do is cheer them on and hope for the best. I really feel bad for the players who are new to the program, maybe even more so to the transfers that came to Point looking for conference titles and post-season glory (not to say I don't feel bad for everyone, I do). Hopefully they'll do really well despite the sanctions and hopefully the NCAA will not add any more santions and worse, take away anything...

In my experience, what a team could have done the upcoming season I don't think is every considered. Baruch has a post-season ban, though they may have put that on themselves, but I don't think a lot of people thought they would be in play for the post-season this year anyway (granted, they could have won the conference...). Thomas More does NOT have a post-season ban and are obviously a team that could easily go the distance yet again this season. If the NCAA wanted to send a strong(er) message, a post-season ban on TMC this year would have been even more of a killer.

There will be more punishments coming, mostly the administrative kind. There will most likely be a fine, administrators and even coaches will be required to attend far more compliance meetings than the normal requirement (sometimes once a year versus once every two or four years; can't remember the rule), the program and possibly the department will probably be put on probation (not that surprising), and they probably will have to report to the infractions committee once or more times a year for a certain period of time to prove they are in compliance and adhering to Division III rules. Sometimes an outside "audit" or reviewer is brought in and suggestions on what to do differently are required to be followed (maybe a full-time compliance person who has no other responsibilities on the campus?).

The trick will be, will Montgomery or Semling get a "show of cause" thrown on them. If that is the case, that will basically end their athletics careers in the NCAA. I am not saying that will happen, but it did happen at Baruch and this is a repeat offense. Who else that we are not aware of will get in trouble for this case? Could the title be stripped? I'm not sure, I could argue both sides of that one with confidence it is the right decision no matter which way I choose. Could there be a longer post-season ban? Doubtful, but it might be on the table. It really is these kinds of punishments that will be the signal from the NCAA (Division III) as to how they feel about this case.

Just thoughts based on experience. I have no knowledge of what the NCAA is actually thinking in this one - hardly anyone does as the infractions side of things is kept completely separate from the rest of the NCAA for good reason.

I will suggest the possibility of a larger question(s) which the NCAA will have to ask/examine 1) Does this problem extend to other teams/sports at UWSP?
2) Given the conference was involved in the prior investigation and the conference essentially represents State of Wisconsin athletics, does the problem exist at other schools in the WIAC? 

Number 1 will be examined IMHO. Why? because of the nature of a second violation and the Major violation status.  And, the NCAA is not going to be embarrassed by having another violation pop up after investigating this one.
Not too sure about 2 unless the investigation resulted in statements which indicate UWSP was 'doing what the conference was doing' in which case NCAA will have no choice but to investigate further.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

If it makes you feel any better, Tom, UWSP will potentially pick up a lot more fans for this season as a result of all this. Many people who root for the teams in the upper half of the CCIW, as well as fans of Chicago, Wash U, St. Norbert, Ripon, etc., are now likely to root for the Pointers as well. Why? Because the more that the Pointers win, the more it hurts the chances of the other WIAC teams to register in the Central Region rankings and get ahead in the Pool C line in front of those teams from the other leagues on Selection Monday. Since UWSP is itself ineligible for Pool C, the Pointers are therefore not a threat to anybody from outside the WIAC as far as regional rankings are concerned.

Yeah, it's a mercenary attitude, and it doesn't mean that outsiders are condoning what the UWSP program has done. But all's fair in love, war, and Pool C.

This created a question in my mind.  Should UWSP play well enough going forward, could they still be regionally ranked - in other words, if it is a self-imposed post season ban, does that "ban" them from being ranked?

[Just Bill]

If it makes you feel any better, Tom, UWSP will potentially pick up a lot more fans for this season as a result of all this. Many people who root for the teams in the upper half of the CCIW, as well as fans of Chicago, Wash U, St. Norbert, Ripon, etc., are now likely to root for the Pointers as well. Why? Because the more that the Pointers win, the more it hurts the chances of the other WIAC teams to register in the Central Region rankings and get ahead in the Pool C line in front of those teams from the other leagues on Selection Monday. Since UWSP is itself ineligible for Pool C, the Pointers are therefore not a threat to anybody from outside the WIAC as far as regional rankings are concerned.

Yeah, it's a mercenary attitude, and it doesn't mean that outsiders are condoning what the UWSP program has done. But all's fair in love, war, and Pool C.

This created a question in my mind.  Should UWSP play well enough going forward, could they still be regionally ranked - in other words, if it is a self-imposed post season ban, does that "ban" them from being ranked?

I wouldn't think so. The regional advisory committee's purpose is to identify and rank teams for tournament selection. There's truly no reason to include an ineligible team.

[Greek Tragedy]

Are they eligible for the D3hoops poll?       

[Just Bill]

Are they eligible for the D3hoops poll?       

I would say yes. That poll is not intended to be a prediction/selection tool for the NCAA Tournament. So if they are playing they could theoretically be ranked. But I don't make those decisions.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I will suggest the possibility of a larger question(s) which the NCAA will have to ask/examine 1) Does this problem extend to other teams/sports at UWSP?
2) Given the conference was involved in the prior investigation and the conference essentially represents State of Wisconsin athletics, does the problem exist at other schools in the WIAC? 

Number 1 will be examined IMHO. Why? because of the nature of a second violation and the Major violation status.  And, the NCAA is not going to be embarrassed by having another violation pop up after investigating this one.
Not too sure about 2 unless the investigation resulted in statements which indicate UWSP was 'doing what the conference was doing' in which case NCAA will have no choice but to investigate further.

To your first question, the NCAA investigator on campus and the investigation itself is never limited to just the complaint. I think we have already seen that in the fact that there was a problem with "tryouts" for prospective student-athletes (recruits). The investigation goes where ever the questions and answers take it. If it is revealed that other programs are having a similar problem, we will know about it. I will say that I don't think we will see that for two reasons: it wasn't addressed in the recent punishments and I have enough background information to feel comfortable that this was isolated primarily to basketball. Now that being said, the fourth allegation points at an overall lack of compliance on the part of the department and does not directly point at basketball (if memory serves; I don't have the allegations in front of me right now). That could be a hint of bigger problems, but nothing I have heard on or off the record is pointing in that direction. This seems to be a men's basketball problem primarily.

Per the second question, I think the WIAC definitely treated the first investigation "kindly" in retrospect and that is the exact reason why the NCAA didn't allow them to investigate this time. I do NOT think this is a problem across the board in the WIAC. Maybe there are others, but certainly not across the board. I have had enough conversation with people elsewhere to feel confident others are not circumventing any of the rules. However, the conference very well may have tried to treat one of its members with kid gloves the first time and was unable to do that again, even though we certainly do not know if they would have.

I am quite sure nothing in the investigation will reveal that UWSP was 'doing what the conference was doing' in the slightest.

If it makes you feel any better, Tom, UWSP will potentially pick up a lot more fans for this season as a result of all this. Many people who root for the teams in the upper half of the CCIW, as well as fans of Chicago, Wash U, St. Norbert, Ripon, etc., are now likely to root for the Pointers as well. Why? Because the more that the Pointers win, the more it hurts the chances of the other WIAC teams to register in the Central Region rankings and get ahead in the Pool C line in front of those teams from the other leagues on Selection Monday. Since UWSP is itself ineligible for Pool C, the Pointers are therefore not a threat to anybody from outside the WIAC as far as regional rankings are concerned.

Yeah, it's a mercenary attitude, and it doesn't mean that outsiders are condoning what the UWSP program has done. But all's fair in love, war, and Pool C.

This created a question in my mind.  Should UWSP play well enough going forward, could they still be regionally ranked - in other words, if it is a self-imposed post season ban, does that "ban" them from being ranked?

I wouldn't think so. The regional advisory committee's purpose is to identify and rank teams for tournament selection. There's truly no reason to include an ineligible team.

I actually disagree. By leaving out UWSP (if they are worthy of being ranked), you end up hurting even more teams than just UWSP or the WIAC. If UWSP was undefeated and the best team in the region, they better be regionally ranked number one because those who played them deserve to have that vRRO - or better, if they had two or three losses, the teams that beat them deserve to have the advantage of a win in the vRRO category over them. Removing them hurts an opponent's resume and now we are doing a disservice to those who have absolutely nothing to do with UWSP or the case.

Furthermore, they changed the rule recently that teams in the process of joining Division III would be count as in-region opponents and for regional rankings (especially the years they were full members, but not eligible for the NCAA tournament). This was done because many conferences were getting screwed with top teams having two games not counted, but had to be played for conference reasons. St. Mary's (Md.) comes to mind with Southern Virginia. Granted they were 2-0 against a sub-par team, but their overall record suddenly had two less wins on it that was not in their control. Seemed a little unfair.

If UWSP has a resume that deserves to be ranked, they should be ranked. This allows any of their opponents to not be punished. It is not that hard if UWSP were to be ranked higher to come to the "table" for an at-large to skip over them and select the next team in the rankings. Leaving UWSP out of the rankings goes too far.

(That all said, I will reach out to those I need to chat with to see how UWSP will be treated.)

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Are they eligible for the D3hoops poll?       

NESCAC teams make the D3football.com Top 25... no reason UWSP wouldn't be eligible as well for that. However, their record obviously keeps them out right now.

[Flying Dutch Fan]

If it makes you feel any better, Tom, UWSP will potentially pick up a lot more fans for this season as a result of all this. Many people who root for the teams in the upper half of the CCIW, as well as fans of Chicago, Wash U, St. Norbert, Ripon, etc., are now likely to root for the Pointers as well. Why? Because the more that the Pointers win, the more it hurts the chances of the other WIAC teams to register in the Central Region rankings and get ahead in the Pool C line in front of those teams from the other leagues on Selection Monday. Since UWSP is itself ineligible for Pool C, the Pointers are therefore not a threat to anybody from outside the WIAC as far as regional rankings are concerned.

Yeah, it's a mercenary attitude, and it doesn't mean that outsiders are condoning what the UWSP program has done. But all's fair in love, war, and Pool C.

This created a question in my mind.  Should UWSP play well enough going forward, could they still be regionally ranked - in other words, if it is a self-imposed post season ban, does that "ban" them from being ranked?

I wouldn't think so. The regional advisory committee's purpose is to identify and rank teams for tournament selection. There's truly no reason to include an ineligible team.

I actually disagree. By leaving out UWSP (if they are worthy of being ranked), you end up hurting even more teams than just UWSP or the WIAC. If UWSP was undefeated and the best team in the region, they better be regionally ranked number one because those who played them deserve to have that vRRO - or better, if they had two or three losses, the teams that beat them deserve to have the advantage of a win in the vRRO category over them. Removing them hurts an opponent's resume and now we are doing a disservice to those who have absolutely nothing to do with UWSP or the case.

Furthermore, they changed the rule recently that teams in the process of joining Division III would be count as in-region opponents and for regional rankings (especially the years they were full members, but not eligible for the NCAA tournament). This was done because many conferences were getting screwed with top teams having two games not counted, but had to be played for conference reasons. St. Mary's (Md.) comes to mind with Southern Virginia. Granted they were 2-0 against a sub-par team, but their overall record suddenly had two less wins on it that was not in their control. Seemed a little unfair.

If UWSP has a resume that deserves to be ranked, they should be ranked. This allows any of their opponents to not be punished. It is not that hard if UWSP were to be ranked higher to come to the "table" for an at-large to skip over them and select the next team in the rankings. Leaving UWSP out of the rankings goes too far.

(That all said, I will reach out to those I need to chat with to see how UWSP will be treated.)

Thanks Dave - that was my thinking as well - look forward to the official answer

[Gregory Sager]

Furthermore, they changed the rule recently that teams in the process of joining Division III would be count as in-region opponents and for regional rankings (especially the years they were full members, but not eligible for the NCAA tournament). This was done because many conferences were getting screwed with top teams having two games not counted, but had to be played for conference reasons. St. Mary's (Md.) comes to mind with Southern Virginia. Granted they were 2-0 against a sub-par team, but their overall record suddenly had two less wins on it that was not in their control. Seemed a little unfair.

The new rule actually only counts provies that are in year three or year four of the D3 provisional membership pipeline. Provies that are in year one or year two still don't count as in-region opponents or for regional rankings.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Furthermore, they changed the rule recently that teams in the process of joining Division III would be count as in-region opponents and for regional rankings (especially the years they were full members, but not eligible for the NCAA tournament). This was done because many conferences were getting screwed with top teams having two games not counted, but had to be played for conference reasons. St. Mary's (Md.) comes to mind with Southern Virginia. Granted they were 2-0 against a sub-par team, but their overall record suddenly had two less wins on it that was not in their control. Seemed a little unfair.

The new rule actually only counts provies that are in year three or year four of the D3 provisional membership pipeline. Provies that are in year one or year two still don't count as in-region opponents or for regional rankings.

Correct... but third and fourth years can't participate in the NCAA tournament. It used to be all four years didn't count. At least they loosened it to the final two years or it could have really hurt some conferences and teams.

[Gregory Sager]

Right. And it was a good rule change, IMO. I was just clarifying the parameters with regard to which games count against provies and which ones don't.

[Pat Coleman]

Yes, full Division III members who are otherwise ineligible for the NCAA Tournament are nonetheless eligible for the D3hoops.com Top 25 (and the relevant poll in other sports we cover).