MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[AndOne]

1. I'll just say that I think more people would believe that players would tend to be more protective toward their head coach than whatever number of people that would think they wouldn't be.

2. You don't care what the AD says? Really? 
By saying this you are saying the AD would criticize a staff member when no criticism was due.
I really don't think he would do such a thing.

3. With all due respect Tom, it's not me who is being dumb here.
And, sorry to shock you, but yes, I have seen many an open gym where a kid who really doesn't have "the skill level to participate" wants to. Furthermore, from experience, I know what often happens is the kid plays one game, realizes he is hopelessly out of his element, and removes himself from the scene. When a kid of a low skill level does continue to participate past a game or two, its usually because there are two such kids like that present that day. Maybe even four such players. One plays on one team and one on the other. Nobody passes the ball to either one very often, and they effectively cancel each other out and are basically non factors. Essentially, it's a four on four game. And lots of times the team guys don't care. They are often friends of the lower skill guys and know that they won't contribute much. Many times the team guys even bring the other kids to open gym so they will have multiple 5 member teams. And it's not like the lower basketball skill guys are complete non-athletes. Many times they are football guys, soccer players, or golfers. Kids who fall into the complete non-athlete description generally have enough sense not to try to force their way into a situation where they knew they will be nothing except embarrassed.
Maybe not at UWSP, but at most schools, not every open gym game every day is like an off season full team (only) practice.

I sincerely and honestly think you are seriously out of your element here Tom with regard to the level of experience you have vs mine concerning open gym observations. Not bragging because it's nothing to brag about. Just saying I'm pretty confident it's a fact.

* Lastly, we obviously have differing viewpoints on the subject. I tried to respond to your points honestly and objectively both quoting people involved with the situation/investigation and giving examples of situations I have personally observed. You may not agree with some or all of what I've said just as I don't agree with you. However, despite the fact we disagree, I didn't feel the need to label any of your opinions as "dumb." It would have been nice to have been treated in a like manner. 😏

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

AndOne has nailed a lot of this on the head. To not care what the current AD, who is a former basketball coach FYI, has to say is putting ones head in the sand. He has seen the investigation, talked with those involved and the NCAA, and clearly has come up with his own conclusions in connection to the NCAA's - which we still haven't seen the final version. If he says something is wrong, than I tend to think he of all people knows best.

As for the former AD, Montgomery, you are assuming a lot by saying he is getting no punishment. The NCAA has NOT come down with sanctions. They have not released their report and they have not announced their findings officially. The punishment UWSP handed itself in January was not the NCAA's punishment. That was a move to try and make the NCAA Division III Infractions Committee at least somewhat happy. It does NOT mean there aren't more punishments coming. UWSP is not responsible for Montgomery anymore, so they can't put any sanctions or punishment on him. That does NOT mean the NCAA can't do it and when this report is finally made public, I would be shocked if Montgomery doesn't find some kind of punishment - as little as a fine and extra NCAA reviews and reports he has to attend to as much as Show of Cause which would all but kill his career (depending on how long). So again, to assume Montgomery isn't being punished is being both short-sighted and not understanding how this works.

Let me also remind people who are watching the Louisville case and trying to make comparisons... Louisville could lose the 2013 National Championships. The NCAA states that the school has to vacate any games associated with the recruits involved in the prostitution problem. Any of those players playing in a game will result in that game vacated as best as I understand it. That means the 2013 title could be taken away (reminder, the 2013 year was the one Amherst beat UMHB in Atlanta during the 75th Anniversary celebrations; the only MBB Final Four I have ever attended as a result). Sure, Louisville can keep it's banners in the rafters and their rings, but the NCAA will ask for the trophy back and their record books will have to show they vacated the title.

Again, that is if the players involved in the investigation were playing in the game. Same was true with Thomas More. If Sydney Moss hadn't played in a couple of games that 2015 year, they would have those as wins. She played in all the games and thus they vacated the entire season.

So for those who think this is "unfair" in their comparisions... Louisville may lose a national title and UWSP may not (to be determined).

[tomt4525]

1. I'll just say that I think more people would believe that players would tend to be more protective toward their head coach than whatever number of people that would think they wouldn't be.

2. You don't care what the AD says? Really? 
By saying this you are saying the AD would criticize a staff member when no criticism was due.
I really don't think he would do such a thing.

3. With all due respect Tom, it's not me who is being dumb here.
And, sorry to shock you, but yes, I have seen many an open gym where a kid who really doesn't have "the skill level to participate" wants to. Furthermore, from experience, I know what often happens is the kid plays one game, realizes he is hopelessly out of his element, and removes himself from the scene. When a kid of a low skill level does continue to participate past a game or two, its usually because there are two such kids like that present that day. Maybe even four such players. One plays on one team and one on the other. Nobody passes the ball to either one very often, and they effectively cancel each other out and are basically non factors. Essentially, it's a four on four game. And lots of times the team guys don't care. They are often friends of the lower skill guys and know that they won't contribute much. Many times the team guys even bring the other kids to open gym so they will have multiple 5 member teams. And it's not like the lower basketball skill guys are complete non-athletes. Many times they are football guys, soccer players, or golfers. Kids who fall into the complete non-athlete description generally have enough sense not to try to force their way into a situation where they knew they will be nothing except embarrassed.
Maybe not at UWSP, but at most schools, not every open gym game every day is like an off season full team (only) practice.

I sincerely and honestly think you are seriously out of your element here Tom with regard to the level of experience you have vs mine concerning open gym observations. Not bragging because it's nothing to brag about. Just saying I'm pretty confident it's a fact.

* Lastly, we obviously have differing viewpoints on the subject. I tried to respond to your points honestly and objectively both quoting people involved with the situation/investigation and giving examples of situations I have personally observed. You may not agree with some or all of what I've said just as I don't agree with you. However, despite the fact we disagree, I didn't feel the need to label any of your opinions as "dumb." It would have been nice to have been treated in a like manner. 😏

2.  Again, yes I don't care what the AD has said or what his view is.  He's taking the words of a "concerned student."  He wasn't there to know exactly what happened.

3.  I'll agree that open gyms will be different everywhere you go, I never said what I laid out was what happened.  I laid out a scenario that was a possibility.  I've directly seen the scenario I laid out happen at UWSP.  I didn't see anybody not be allowed to play but i've seen members of the team in open gym settings playing against each other.  Most people in that setting wouldn't bother trying to play with them if they weren't at least former players.  You describing who could be this shunned open gym attendee is laughable to me, do you really think a friend of the players would write a letter to the University whining about not being able to participate??

What I also find laughable??  Your response about not being treated with the same respect.  You attack me on the CCIW board, other normal posters there basically say you were in the wrong...and you don't even have the decency to admit your mistake.  An eye for an eye.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Hey Tom - you need to move on from the "concerned student." That letter just started the process. Here's where things changed course: when an NCAA investigator showed up on campus. Once that happened, the letter from the "concerned student" was no longer relevant. Once the NCAA investigator showed up, he/she could investigate whatever they deemed necessary. Just like Robert Mueller being the special prosecutor re Russian contacts with the Trump campaign. It doesn't have to remain just what started the investigation. It can go in any direction the investigator deems necessary per answers to questions he has asked and things he discovers.

Case in point, the "concerned student" didn't say anything about recruits taking part in "open gyms" (which the investigation has revealed may not have actually been open gyms by definition) and thus "trying out" for the team. No one outside of the investigation knew about that, but suddenly when we see the UWSP decision to park Semling in January it is revealed there were many instances of recruits "practicing" with the team and Semling being in attendance. That is a major rule violation in Division III (on-campus tryouts of many variations have been shot down at several NCAA Conventions in the last five years alone).

So, you may feel the AD is only responding to a "concerned student," but you are either misinformed or refusing to see reality. Duckworth is responding to the NCAA findings. He is responding to what the investigator has told the school and Duckworth what he/she has found based on who they have talked to, documents they have reviewed, etc. The concerned student only started the process. That isn't uncommon at all. Happens all of the time. However, after that process started... it is what the NCAA finds and the AD is responding to them and them only.

By the way, it is never good when an NCAA investigator shows up on campus. As I indicated, them showing up on campus basically opens up EVERYTHING and could lead anywhere. However, there is one other sign that the NCAA is not happy (and by NCAA, I mean those in Division III only; the infractions committee is made up of Division III members only - the executive office for DIII at Indy doesn't even know any details of the investigation)... when the first infractions took place when Semling was an assistant and the then-AD reported them to the NCAA... the WIAC asked and was granted permission to conduct the investigation. Many said the program and school got maybe a slap on the wrist: loss of a couple of pre-season practices and a stern word or two. The WIAC asked if they could conduct the investigation this time around as well... the NCAA said no. They would handle it. Bad sign.

So feel free to pretend what Duckworth has said or done is because of a concerned student. He isn't. He doesn't have any skin in the game. He took the job after the investigation began (or at least the school was told the NCAA would be investigating). He is reading what the NCAA investigator has told him, he is working in the process of the infractions committee to make sure the department doesn't take too hard a hit (i.e. lose a championship, lose a coach to "Show of Cause," have more post-season bans, etc., etc., etc.). I would take what he says and realize... he knows far better than you where this is headed and how bad it could be. When the report comes out, he won't be surprised by it's findings ... though you might be. The only thing he may not see coming is how severe or not severe the punishments are (I get varying reports from this and previous cases how aware schools are to the punishments).

I get you don't want to admit this isn't good. I get you, as a fan, don't want to see your school be in the dirt. I would feel the same way. However, you have to stop being so dismissive of this. I highly suspect the report is going to reveal widespread problems, plenty of violations, and an atmosphere of noncompliance (it may even reveal those in the department warning of problems and being dismissed - that's a gut feeling). I suggest you read up on Baruch women's basketball (and other teams), Thomas More women's basketball, and York (N.Y.) men's basketball cases from just the last year alone... it shows the infractions committee and the Division has had enough. The penalties have been pretty stiff including TMC losing a national title. UWSP case is the only case of a repeat offender in this group.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

No one seems to have mentioned that the NCAA found no evidence Pitino knew what was going on.  We can all say, "of course he knew," but without proof, they can't suspend him for it.  Pitino is getting five games for something someone else did; Semling is under investigation for something he did directly (and repeatedly, despite warnings - allegedly).

That's the apples to oranges.

Is D1 going to be more lenient on coaches because they have big contracts, attract donors, and make money?  Absolutely.  Can't we unify around that being one of the reasons we prefer d3 basketball?

Pitino should've known what was going on, that's for sure, and he's getting suspended for it.  If anything, this might indicate just how little day to day control some of these coaches have over their programs.

[Gregory Sager]

Well said, Ryan.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

No one seems to have mentioned that the NCAA found no evidence Pitino knew what was going on.  We can all say, "of course he knew," but without proof, they can't suspend him for it.  Pitino is getting five games for something someone else did; Semling is under investigation for something he did directly (and repeatedly, despite warnings - allegedly).

That's the apples to oranges.

Is D1 going to be more lenient on coaches because they have big contracts, attract donors, and make money?  Absolutely.  Can't we unify around that being one of the reasons we prefer d3 basketball?

Pitino should've known what was going on, that's for sure, and he's getting suspended for it.  If anything, this might indicate just how little day to day control some of these coaches have over their programs.

I was trying to allude to the "big contracts, attract donors, and make money" part of DI coaches in my early comments, but didn't say it nearly as well as you did, Ryan. Great point.

And yes... that is exactly why we rally around DIII!

As for big programs, I can understand why a behemoth program in DI is hard to fully monitor like Louisville. And I can understand why Pitino may not have know about strippers, but at the same time the NCAA tends to believe that isn't an excuse. A coach is responsible for their program and know what is going on.

Tough to do in big programs in DI. I get that. However, in DIII... not even remotely an excuse and we have seen that told to DIII institutions over and over and over again.

Well said... Ryan.

[badgerwarhawk]

Two things bother me about this whole situation. 

1.  It's a repeat violation.  You would think that after getting burned once that the staff at Point would have a better idea of what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to recruits and practicing. 

And if they did and didn't care that leads me to #2.

2.  The dismissive attitude.  I know Jack Bennett doesn't speak for the university but referring to something the NCAA considers a significant violation as akin to "jaywalking" clearly indicates a disconnect from the culture of DIII athletics.  I don't think he did anyone any favors giving that interview. 

What sanctions should the Pointers face?  Admittedly I'm not informed enough to make that judgment.  However it's clear that the league imposed sanctions the first time around were insufficient to send the message.  I've got a feeling that this time the NCAA will impose sanctions, whatever they are, that does.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Two things bother me about this whole situation. 

1.  It's a repeat violation.  You would think that after getting burned once that the staff at Point would have a better idea of what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to recruits and practicing. 

And if they did and didn't care that leads me to #2.

2.  The dismissive attitude.  I know Jack Bennett doesn't speak for the university but referring to something the NCAA considers a significant violation as akin to "jaywalking" clearly indicates a disconnect from the culture of DIII athletics.  I don't think he did anyone any favors giving that interview.

You are more than right. And I think what you said in "2" is the reason for "1." Bennett said the same things when they got dinged the first time... as he did the second time. That it is akin to "jaywalking" and I can say with authority that those comments are doing them absolutely no favors. But if he thought the first time it was jaywalking and Semling understood that feeling... why would Semling feel otherwise in the future. That's where usually compliance and/or an AD would make sure Semling understood otherwise. It appears in this case that maybe... and I stress "maybe" because we haven't seen the report... the former AD allowed it to happen. That is where things could lead to a "failure to control a program" for Semling and an "atmosphere of noncompliance" (sic) for the school and/or former AD. There just is now telling where this could go.

What sanctions should the Pointers face?  Admittedly I'm not informed enough to make that judgment.  However it's clear that the league imposed sanctions the first time around were insufficient to send the message.  I've got a feeling that this time the NCAA will impose sanctions, whatever they are, that does.

Yeah... this is the part that has me on both sides of the fence. I could see where the NCAA comes down really hard... and I could see them just falling short of hard. Does that mean a national title (because of vacated games) or Show of Causes for individuals? What about a longer probation (probably) or longer post-season bans? No clue. There isn't another case to really point to. All I can see is that the infractions committee has been showing signs of laying down significant punishments in three cases of late. One would argue, they weren't harsh enough with Baruch... but they sure have been harsh with Thomas More and York (N.Y.). But to be honest, it is hard to compare cases when all three (four counting UWSP) involved different types of infractions.

As you indicated, the fact this is a repeat case I think is the most damning part of this... right now. Anything I think about punishments is just speculation. I think UWSP may have an idea of what is coming (and doing their best to mitigate as much as possible), but otherwise it still may be a "surprise" to them when it is finally decided.

Heck... maybe the NCAA gives them a slap on the wrist. Anything is possible. That said, a slap on the wrist may just encourage others to break the rules ... which may be why UWSP is in this mess. "What? We only lose a couple of 'pre-season' practices for overseeing and guiding the team in the off-season? So be it. We can handle it. Heck, last time we lost pre-season practices we won a national title."

[Pat Coleman]

If it's a relative slap on the wrist, then I'd have thought we'd have gotten the ruling by now.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

That... is a very fair point. That said, since much of this process is rather quiet and not many are privy to exactly what is going on... I am not really sure. However, I do think it can be a fair assumption that the longer this goes the more likely the Infractions Committee (or investigator) is pushing for some harsh penalties... and UWSP is trying to mitigate them as best as possible. I think that is a real possibility, but again... I'm speculating.

[Greek Tragedy]

Stout's nonconference 2017-2018 schedule

The Blue Devils started out 9-2 last year before finishing with a 4-10 conference schedule.

at Wisconsin (scrimmage)
Vs Crown 8-17
Vs Marian 8-17
Vs Superior 9-16 or vs Colorado College 11-15
Vs St. Scholastica 17-10 (at Superior)
At Superior 9-16
Vs Bethany Lutheran 15-10
Vs Northwestern 20-8
At Silver Lake
Vs Finlandia 7-18
At Whitworth 23-5
At Puget Sound 12-13

Opponent's winning % is just over 50% at 130-129.

I used Colorado College's record as opposed to Superior's twice and I didn't include Silver Lake's since they are non-D3

[tomt4525]

Stout's nonconference 2017-2018 schedule

The Blue Devils started out 9-2 last year before finishing with a 4-10 conference schedule.

at Wisconsin (scrimmage)
Vs Crown 8-17
Vs Marian 8-17
Vs Superior 9-16 or vs Colorado College 11-15
Vs St. Scholastica 17-10 (at Superior)
At Superior 9-16
Vs Bethany Lutheran 15-10
Vs Northwestern 20-8
At Silver Lake
Vs Finlandia 7-18
At Whitworth 23-5
At Puget Sound 12-13

Opponent's winning % is just over 50% at 130-129.

I used Colorado College's record as opposed to Superior's twice and I didn't include Silver Lake's since they are non-D3

Looks like Stout is starting to schedule a few JV games.  This is something I wish more WIAC teams would do.  Getting a lot of your freshmen some JV experience I would assume would better develop them rather than just practicing and sitting the bench during varsity games.

[tomt4525]

Former East Troy and Bryant & Stratton standout, Jake Nixon, will transfer and play at UWSP.  Spent 1 year at Bryant & Stratton.  Was ranked 35th in his Senior Class Player Rankings.

[tomt4525]

Adams-Friendship standout guard, Joe Duty, will play basketball at UW-Stout.  Very good athlete and good get for the Blue Devils.