MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[John Gleich]

Look at who the 3 WIAC teams lost to. 

Point lost to (undefeated) MIAC (regular season and tourney) Champ St. Thomas, AT St. Thomas.  Point, if you'll remember, was 23-4 in the regular season, the WIAC champ in league play and the tournament.  They lost by THREE points... in a game where they never trailed by more than 6.  UST ended up losing to Wash U in the Elite 8.  Wash U won the National Championship.  They had played Cornell (IIAC 2nd place and IIAC tournament champ) the night before.

Platteville lost to 25-3 Wheaton, AT Wheaton.  Platteville was 22-5 in the regular season, one game behind champion Stevens Point in the WIAC and losers to the Pointers in the WIAC championship by just 3 points.  The game they lost to Wheaton (that I attended, as it happens) was a loss by just 5... in OT.  That game could easily have gone either way.  Skemp was able to do pretty much whatever he wanted, going for 38 points on 17/21 shooting.  Wheaton lost to Wash U in the Sweet 16 by just 3.  Again, Wash U won the National Championship.  The first night, they played Hope, MIAC 2nd place and MIAC tournament champ.

Whitewater lost to UAA Champ Wash U (who, again, won the National Championship) by 3 points on Elmhurst's floor.  They had played Elmhurst CCIW (reg season and tournament) 2nd place the night before, on Elmhurst's floor, in OT.  WW was second in the WIAC reg season and lost to Platteville by OT in the WIAC tourney semi's.


So let's look at those matchups.  I'll repost one of Tom's from a different board...

2nd round pairings...what a joke!

#4 Stevens Point at #1 St. Thomas
#5 Platteville at #3 Wheaton
#8 Whitewater vs. #2 Washington U. at Elmhurst

Yes, the D3hoops rankings hold absolutely zero bearing on anything the NCAA cares about.  But the #4, #5, and #8 teams in the country all as underdogs in the second round?!  And not only are they underdogs in the rankings, each of these underdogs either is playing the opposing team, on their own home court, or had to the night before (in WW's case).  And all of these games were very, very close.  Point and WW dropped their games by 3 points.  Platteville and Wheaton went to OT.  And ALL of these teams were in the same quadrant... Wash U beat Wheaton in the Sweet 16 and St. Thomas in the Elite 8.  These seedings were an absolute travesty.  And there WERE ways to split the teams up.

What probably was the biggest travesty was that none of the WIAC teams hosted.  All 3 WIAC teams could have easily hosted over Elmhurst... but the almighty dollar spoke louder than a pretty historical year for the top 3 WIAC teams.  The NCAA really screwed the WIAC last year.

Now, don't get me wrong... teams still have to win games, and the three WIAC teams couldn't do that in the second round.  But these matchups should have occurred in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 (or even Final 4), NOT in the second round.

[John Gleich]

Another couple of posts, reposted...

Through games of Feb. 22, 2009
1 St. Thomas (24)    25-0  624 1
2 Washington U. (1) 22-2   554 2
3 Puget Sound          23-2   542 6
4 Wheaton (Ill.)        22-3   517 7
5 UW-Platteville        21-4   491 4
6 UW-Stevens Point  21-4  487 5
7 UW-Whitewater      21-4  486
20 Elmhurst             19-6   151 21
25 Lawrence            16-6   36 —
29 Whitworth           19-5  18
37  Claremont-MS    18-6  2

Point Special,

Did I not say that UPS and UW-SP would be slotted for a rematch in the sweet 16?  Just like clockwork.   

Remarkable, really... especially because it could very easily could have (and arguably should have...) been slotted in such a way that they wouldn't match up until the Elite 8.

Point has the IIAC champ, then the undefeated #1 St. Thomas Tommies (MIAC conf champ and tourney champ) on their own home floor, then the one-loss-to-D3 competition UPS Loggers, then either Wheaton, Wash U, Lawrence (all conference champs and conf tourney champs, Wash U excepted), or WIAC foes Platteville or Whitewater in the Elite 8.  Tough, tough road for a conference champ and conf tourney champ... and likely all on the road too!

I forgot one point about the hosting...  Last year was an odd-numbered year, so the women had precedence over the men in terms of hosting... Point's women hosted, Wash U's women hosted.  I don't remember the other gender-type issues in terms of mens teams hosting... but there may have been.

Even so, they could have broken up this bracket.

Poster Pabegg, who passed away after the season last year, put together power rankings and then compared these for tournament teams to determine individual teams' chances for winning the national championship.  Collaboratively, the so-called "Bracket of Death" had a better than 50% chance... higher than all of the other three brackets combined.

I've had many, many discussions about this before... but I just want to bring it up again.  Redshirting, which was banned prior to the 2004-2005 (Point's second national championship year) is, as of last year, no longer a factor at all.  Prior to last year, it is possible that players could have redshirted and still be on the roster.  However, with the 2008-09 season, every senior is a true senior... so at this point, the discussions about if the ban on redshirting has hurt the WIAC can really be talked about.

Now, I will concede that there are other factors that go into the whole redshirting discussion that may have had an impact prior to last year.  One of them is roster limits (self-imposed, I mean).  Teams that aren't redshirting anymore may not be keeping as many players as they had prior to the ban.  That can affect practices, and attrition, so the number of players that stick through to their senior years may be less.

But, if you look at last year's top teams...

Point, Platteville and Whitewater all had 4 seniors.

More later, maybe, if I can get back and do a bit more research... but I do NOT think that the WIAC was down last year, I think it was one of the top years in the league...  It didn't have the outcome we would have hoped for in terms of hardware from Salem... but it was a great year, nonetheless.

[Stout survivor]

Point Special- you make some great points and I was upset with the pairings in the tourney as well.  I know that the WIAC had to play one the road and having seniors that have played together for years helps a lot.  There is very good D3 basketball in the midwest and I understand why the brackets  are set up the way they are in D3. 

With that said I still feel that the non-conference schedual can make team stronger and better, plus, getting 1 or 2 WIAC team getting in the tourney but going further is better than 3 making it 1 or 2 rounds.  Not that 3 don't deserve to get in (and get a better raod).  I would like to see a WIAC school (hopefully Stout) make it to the elite 8 most years, is that too much to ask?

[chmarx]

That's also why Winona no longer plays us in football, in spite of the traditional rivalry.

I suspect there is a money factor involved as well, as home games do mean incoming revenue to both programs.  In addition most of the teams from that conference have only one non-conference game open on their schedule.

WSU has tried to beef up its non-conference schedule.  They're limited to one non-con game and usually they play a notable D2 opponent to aid in their attempt to get the the playoffs.  Last year it was Michigan Tech, this year it was Carson-Newman.

St Cloud several years ago played UW-Whitewater in a game that UWW nearly won but that was when SCSU had multiple non-con games on their schedule.

Money?  Have you ever attended a La Crosse/Winona football game?  SRO in Winona.  A good crowd in our (bigger) stadium.  No, it is mostly the need to play a D2 team they will get credit beating, and less embarrassment if losing.

[John Gleich]

(Warning... long post...)

But, honestly, how many WIAC teams truly have deserved to go to the tournament?  Last year, 3 certainly did.  Look at the teams' records... Point was 23-4.  WW and Platte were both 22-5.

And who did they play in the non-conference?

Point:
St. John's  -  In-region MIAC team, NCAA tournament team from a few years ago
Wisc Lutheran   - NATHCon (formerly LMC) won 18 games the year before
Southwestern (Tx)   -  won 18 games this year
Trinity (Tx)  - 24 wins this year, NCAA tournament team, 18 wins the year before
Lawrence  - 19 wins this year, NCAA tournament team, 22 wins the year before (inc NCAA) and historical opponent, NCAA tournament 5 of last 6 years
Elmhurst   - 20 wins this year, NCAA tournament team, 18 wins the year before
Edgewood  - In-region NATHCon team and historical opponent
Carroll  - In-region MWC team and historical opponent, two and three years ago in NCAA tournament
Viterbo  - NAIA team and historical opponent

Compare this with Point... who has made the NCAA tournament 6 of the last 7 years... it's hard for Point to get opponents!

WW:
Wisc Lutheran
Carroll
Whitman
Lewis and Clark
Edgewood
North Central
Cardinal Stritch  - NAIA
LeTorneau
Mary Hardin-Baylor

None of these teams were tournament teams but all except Cardinal Stritch were in-region.


Platteville:
Viterbo  - NAIA
Clarke  -  NAIA
Loras  -  NCAA tournament the year before
Anderson  
Wooster  -  NCAA tournament team the last 7 years+
Ind-Southeast  - NAIA (in a tournament)
Dubuque
Carthage  
St. Norbert  18 wins last year (lost 5/7 or they would have been an NCAA team too)

Anderson and Wooster were not in-region (neither were NAIA).  All the rest were.


The WIAC teams basically have to take what they can get.  Each of the top 3 had to take on NAIA schools to fill out their schedules.  In each situation, they're doing what they need to do to make the tournament (possibly with the exception of Platteville with their non-region games... but they still made the tournament!).  

And many times, games are scheduled years in advance.  Coaches don't know what a program will be like at that point, or even where their program will be.  Heck, Platteville played at Hanover, who traditionally is the best team in that league... and they took care of one perennial NCAA team... and the hosts didn't do their part.  They got Indiana Southeast and drilled them.  And ISU won 24 games this year and last (though they are NAIA... they play about 10 more games than D-III).


I guess I'm not sure what you really want...  You said you want the Elite 8... but if WIAC teams are slotted in the brackets in such a way as having the top 7 teams in the country in the same bracket, then the Elite 8 game really becomes the National Championship game... and the second round really becomes the Elite 8.  We can't help it if the NCAA makes Salem a midwest joke.  (To all of you non-midwesterners... this is tongue in cheek, I realize that non-midwest teams have won championships 2 of the last 6 years).

But wouldn't it make sense that having MORE teams in the tournament would be a good thing... and that it would increase the possibilities of there being a WIAC team in the Elite 8?  It isn't like they're letting in UW Milwaukee School of the Blind...  

If we must, though, let's look at the last, oh, I dunno... decade.

We got 3 in last year, and all three teams had an opportunity to get hot and go for a National title.  All three teams were good enough and they all lost tight games against other teams that, like them, were top teams in the country.  A few bounces the other way, and EACH team makes it to the Sweet 16.  They were slotted in such a way, however, that they were ALL underdogs in the second round.  If a conference gets 3 bids, there's no way that EACH of these teams should be underdogs in the second round... especially when they match up favorably to pretty much the ENTIRE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

But even so... they were good enough to win on that night... and they almost did.  And it wasn't like they lost to slouches...  The composite record of the three WIAC schools:  70-14.  Their opponents on that night: 80-5.  Unbelievable, really.  And they were all right there.  These are the types of match ups that are supposed to happen in the Sweet 16 or Elite 8.

Trust me, I've been deep in the NCAA tournament... you need to be good to go deep, but you also need the balls to bounce in your favor.  I mean, seriously... we hit half court (or deeper) shots going into halftime in back-to-back nights out in Tacoma, and we won one of those games in OT.  LU and Williams BOTH missed wide open threes with under a minute... from two guys who had each already hit SIX threes previously in the game.


And each of the three teams this last year could have made similar runs.  They were just that good.  They ran into other really good teams and it just wasn't their night... it just happened to be on the same night.  Ironically, all three teams had lost on the same night earlier in the year... on Dec 30, all three of these teams lost to non-conference opponents.  Platteville and Whitewater both lost in conference the second-to-last game of the conference season, too.

But I digress.  I guess I don't really understand why getting multiple teams in is really a problem.  The NCAA tournament is expanded... so more teams that "deserve" to get in are going to get in.  And records that 7 years ago couldn't get an at-large bid are getting one now.

The year before last, Point (22-6) and WW (24-4) both deserved to get in... and they both got knocked off early in the tournament in tight games that could have easily gone the other way.  Platteville stayed at home with 7 losses and didn't have the body of work to get in... but if that had been this year, they very well might have gotten in (Elmhurst got in this year with a 20-8 record... and they got to host).

In 06-07, Point dominated... nobody else really got a look... but Oshkosh was 21-6.  Point made it to the Sweet 16.

In 05-06, 3 got in... you guys at 21-6, WW @ 22-5, and LaX at 20-7.  LaX got knocked off in the first round, Stout and WW in the second.  

In 04-05, Point was the only team that got in... Platteville at 19-7 won a share of the conference title... but didn't get in.  Championship #2.

In 03-04, RF won the league, but at 20-7, they didn't get in.  Heck, even WW didn't get in at 20-6.  I'd like to think that we would have gotten in even if we hadn't won the conference tournament... but at less than 23-5 (22-6, or possibly 21 or 20 wins with 6 losses) I'm not so sure.  We did what we needed to... and got Championship #1.

In 02-03, Point ran away with the league by 3 games but we got knocked off by Oshkosh in the second round of the WIAC tourney.  We went into the NCAA's with a 24-3 record... and got knocked off by eventual runner-up Gustavus Adolphus.  Oshkosh knocked off WW (who didn't get in at 21-7) by 5 in the tournament final... and got to the Elite 8.

In 01-02, there was a three way tie for the conference title with Point, WW, and Oshkosh.  Oshy was the only team that got in to the tourney... WW knocked Point off and Oshy beat WW by 1... and got to the Sweet 16.

In 00-01 (the year of the upset... Seeds 1, 2, and 3 all got knocked off in the first round of the WIAC tourney and 6 teams were within 2 games in the final standings, all 9 teams within 5 games) EC got the auto bid and made it to the second round.  Point and WW had shared the reg season title.

In 99-00, Point won the league with EC two games back.  Both made the tournament and plowed their ways to the Elite 8.  A Sherm Carstensen 26 footer downed the Pointers... and EC lost in the National Championship game to Calvin.

So let's take a look at what we have in the last 10 years...

Two National Championships
One National Runner-up
Two Elite 8
Two Sweet 16
Eight Second Round
Two First Round

That's 17 bids in 10 years, and a composite record in the tournament of 30-15 with two National Championships and one runner-up.  If you want to go back another two years, we can add Platteville's championships from 98 and 99.  But I'm not sure what the point is.  We're in a different situation now than we were then.


Now, it's true that the WIAC is 7-9 the last 4 years... but there have been 9 bids in the last 4 years.  I think that is certainly an improvement over 8 bids in the previous 6.  I mean, think about it.  Aubrey Lewis-Byers never got a chance at the NCAA's.  Neither did Rich Melzer.  Vince Thomas stayed home in March too.  The entire Oshkosh team with guys like Capelle and Gibson never made it.  Perhaps they wouldn't have with more available bids...  But maybe they would have.  

And even if a WIAC team had won all four of those years, the WIAC would have racked up 5 losses... from the teams that didn't win it all.  It's inevitable that WIAC teams are going to lose sometimes against non-conference foes.  I do still believe this is the best league in the country... but it isn't (and honestly, never really was) so far ahead of everyone else that it isn't competitive.  It that were the case, then it really would be meaningful to discuss the WIAC moving to D-II.  

But when you sit down and really look at it, this league is good because of the players, the coaches, the fans and the communities around us.  These haven't changed (with the exception of coaches who have retired... but they've been replaced with great guys who have taken up the WIAC banner and held it high).

Oh, and by the way... if you look at Point's schedule for next year, 5 of their 8 opponents ended the year in the top 25.  Is that a tough enough non-conference schedule?

And believe me... I think that a good non-conference schedule DOES prepare you for your conference sked... but in a league that beats you up as much as the WIAC does, sometimes you do need a game here or there that isn't against a world beater.  Even WIAC teams have kinks that need to be worked out... and scheduling a cupcake can do that.  But I don't really think that the WIAC is scheduling poorly... they're honestly scheduling what they can get.  I don't really know that scheduling an extra tough team in the non-conference is going to help teams though...

Two years ago, Pete Rortvedt got dinged up in the conference tournament final against Whitewater and missed the NCAA tournament.  After spotting U of Chicago an 17 point lead, Point stormed back, took a lead going into half, and won running away.  In the next game, they lost to Buena Vista by 1...  had they pulled that out, then Pete likely would have been back the the next round of games.  But because of the grueling schedule, he missed those two games... and Point could have gone to the Sweet 16 (or beyond) if he had been healthy.  In 02-03, Iserloth got dinged up... and it cost us down the stretch.  Though we were able to pull through in the conference schedule, he was pretty ineffectual in the WIAC tournament and we dropped the our first NCAA game in the second round.  Theoretically, we could have gone on... but he faltered down the stretch.  Nick Bennett missed 4 games late in that season too.  

Don't get me wrong... there are definite advantages to playing tough non-conference schedules... but there are enough tough games in conference to more than make up for things... especially if good teams won't schedule you!

[Stout survivor]

Phew... long post.  PS, maybe I am focusing on the recent record and not the last ten + years.  We wil  have to see how Point does with a tough non-conference D3 schedual, which I like.  Maybe making it all about D2 schools is missing the point of playing a tougher non-conference schedual.  I know the WIAC is tough, the year we made it in we lost 2 conference games on last second shots at home (Lax and StP) and the ball does need to bounce your way.

Since the tourney expanded it has opened the door for more WIAC teams that do deserve to get in, no doubt.  It has also made for some tough rounds early on but we cannot change how the set it up.  But if you include 98 and 99 through 05 (point championship #2), before the touney expanded in 06, the WIAC had 4 National Championships and only 1 year where we did not have a sweet 16 team at least in the 8 year span.  Was D3 weaker then? 

Any one of the teams last year could have made a run, true. But if the WIAC has three of our best teams in the tourney I expect more then second round comparing it too that 8 year span before the expansion.

I have the utmost respect for you and any player that can acheive a high level.

[John Gleich]

I may need to defer to someone who was around in the late 90's and before...  My answer would be twofold, but I'm not sure it's right.

First off, I'd say that D-III was weaker then... because, across the board, the competition is higher now.  Things have gotten better... and, honestly, the WIAC may have a decent impact on that fact. 

Prior to 1997, the WIAC was the WSUC and was an NAIA conference.  There were individual teams that crossed over (notably Whitewater and Platteville, who won D-III championships, but also Oshkosh, if my memory serves me correctly)... but these were individual teams, not the entire 9-team conference. 

When the cross-over occurred, the WIAC was "available" to D-III opponents for non-conference games... as many as 81 games if all are played against D-III opponents.  Now, as a caveat, the WIAC likely played teams in D-III prior to the switchover as a conference.  But they wouldn't have any direct incentive to do so, as they do now...  In-Region D-III games "count" when teams are being compared for post season play, whereas non-D-III games never do.  Thus, the D-III competition would get better by virtue of playing better competition.


Secondly, I think that the competition has gotten better because of an expanded tournament field.  More teams are able to play later... and these are (generally...) high-pressure games in front of big crowds.  They have more to play for.  Also, more teams that would have been on the cusp prior to '06 (teams with, say 5, 6, or 7 losses from good conferences that took their knocks but are really good teams) are getting in the tournament.  Deep conferences that tend to beat themselves up (like the WIAC) are the prime beneficiaries of this... but others, like the CCIW, UAA, etc benefit too.

And I don't really think that simply playing D-II's is the answer to anything.  Yes, many of the D-II's are good... better than all of the D-III's.  But plenty are not.  And, of course, there is the whole matter of getting the D-II's to play us...  I have a high respect for Coach Luke at Michigan Tech... but when Coach Bennett approached him about playing in the regular season, Luke said no.  Point and MTU scrimmage on a regular basis now... and during the years that Coach Bennett was inquiring about it, Michigan Tech was REALLY good... ranked #1 in D-II.  But there wasn't much incentive from the D-II team's standpoint.

Now, historically, those teams have played.  Heck, you guys played MTU a few years ago.  And, at the time, Point hadn't lost a non-conference game in about 4 or 5 years.  But the D-II coach made the decision that it wasn't a risk he wanted to take.




As an aside...

I wanted to test this theory out... that the NAIA WSUC didn't play too many D-III opponents.  Here's Point's schedule in '91-92, just grabbed out at random:

UW-Stevens Point (27-2, 15-1)
Head Coach: Bob Parker
11/26 St. Norbert W 83-52
11/30 Marian W 97-58
12/3 at UW-Parkside W 87-68
12/6 St. Scholastica (MN) W 84-56
12/7 Olivet Nazarene (IL) W 99-63
12/11 at UW-Platteville L 80-87 (OT)
12/14 at UW-Superior W 91-74
12/27 Viterbo W 83-76
1/3 Washington College W 78-51
1/7 Grace (IN) W 92-79
1/11 at UW-La Crosse W 79-61
1/14 UW-Oshkosh W 85-78
1/17 UW-Eau Claire W 52-43
1/18 UW-River Falls W 82-67
1/22 at UW-Stout W 83-57
1/25 UW-Whitewater W 91-73
1/29 UW-Platteville W 58-40
2/1 at UW-Oshkosh W 87-84
2/7 UW-Stout W 110-71
2/8 UW-Superior W 72-53
2/10 at Michigan Tech W 96-66
2/14 at UW-Eau Claire W 72-57
2/15 at UW-River Falls W 76-75
2/19 UW-La Crosse W 76-71
2/22 at UW-Whitewater W 86-81
3/8 UW-River Falls% W 63-60
3/10 UW-Eau Claire% W 66-51
3/16 vs. Western State% W 58-54
3/17 vs. Erskine% L 64-66

There are a few schools that are now in D-III... but I'm not sure what their affiliation was then.  A few D-II schools and present NAIA schools.


What's interesting is that I discovered that no WIAC teams participated in the NAIA championship after the '92-93 season.  That year, Point and EC played in the NAIA tournament and Platteville and Whitewater played in the D-III... but up until the '96 season, I'm fairly confident that the conference was still, technically, and NAIA conference.

'92-93, Point and EC in NAIA, PV and WW in D-III
'93-94, PV and WW in D-III
'94-95, PV and WW in D-III
'95-96, PV, WW, and Osh in D-III
'96-97, PV, WW, Osh and Point in D-III

And from then on, all members were part of D-III.

Does anyone know for certain?  And does anyone know the details of PV, WW, and Oshkosh's dual membership with NAIA and D-III?  The first tournament PV played in the D-III tournament was 1991... and they made annual trips up through 1999.  WW made their first trip in 1983... and participated every year thereafter in the 80's except for 1987.  WW didn't participate in '90 or '91... but then they did every year from 92-97.  And, as previously mentioned, Oshkosh participated in '96 and '97, as well as '98. 

During these years, I know the selection process was different... and I think there was a full 64 team tournament during at least a few of the years in the late 90's.

There's plenty more that could be discussed... I do have to say that, for as poor as I find the NCAA's pairings the last few years, I think it's definitely an improvement to the mid 90's, when WW and PV played in the first or second round five straight years from '92-'96...  and then in '97 where PV played Oshkosh in the first round, Point in the second.  In '98, PV and Oshkosh played in the second round.  In '00, Point and EC met in the Elite 8.  As bad as these matchups were, though... it ensured that a WIAC team made it to the next round (or beyond).  But I don't think we want to go back to that.

[Stout survivor]

Point Special, I have enjoyed this talk and your post are insightful.  When Stout was trying to build towards a future we played a couple D2 schools (concordia st paul, Upper Iowa)  The concordia game I will always remember as the game that we started to believe we could win at a high level when we lost a close one at the end. 

On the other side we played some roll over teams and I felt it was not pushing us to be a better team.  Personally I enjoyed playing up or playing other great programs (wooster, st. thomas... those were fun games) and wish that we could schedual more of those kind of games. 

We both love the conference and want to see it achieve a high level, I wish I had the time to do some research of my own but I appreciate you doing yours.  Now I ma all pumped up for the season and it seems so far aways still.

[bulk19]

Point Special, I have enjoyed this talk and your post are insightful.  When Stout was trying to build towards a future we played a couple D2 schools (concordia st paul, Upper Iowa)  The concordia game I will always remember as the game that we started to believe we could win at a high level when we lost a close one at the end. 

On the other side we played some roll over teams and I felt it was not pushing us to be a better team.  Personally I enjoyed playing up or playing other great programs (wooster, st. thomas... those were fun games) and wish that we could schedual more of those kind of games. 

We both love the conference and want to see it achieve a high level, I wish I had the time to do some research of my own but I appreciate you doing yours.  Now I ma all pumped up for the season and it seems so far aways still.

I echo Stout survivor's thoughts... Gentlemen, my vote is for you to continue to keep this discussion going, if you so choose... (It's good to see you both still have the passion for the sport, despite no longer being WIAC gym rats...)

(And don't worry about lengthy posts; us junkies will read it all, since we enjoy the insiders' takes you offer!)

[John Gleich]

Well... this is getting me geared up for the season too!

I see it two ways.  In one respect, if you play a lot of tough teams, it can prepare you for tough games that will come in the conference... and hopefully beyond.  However, if you play TOO tough a schedule, then it may wear on the players, and they may get injured or just plain tired down the stretch.  If those early games are losses, it may also damage your confidence some too.

On the other hand, if you play a cupcake schedule, then you may be rested and you may rack up the wins... but you may not be prepared for the tough games in conference, and because of that, you'll take your licks... and maybe a few extra, and you may miss out on the tournament anyway.

[wcbsas]

In post #8960 above you mentioned something about redshirting being banned in D3 ... which is true but you still have a fair number of 4th year juniors and 5th year seniors with the acceptance of transfers.

Any number of D2 and D1 transfers come into the WIAC having used a redshirt year at that level. 

Is the practice of grey-shirting common in WIAC basketball?

[John Gleich]

The number of players who transfer from D-I and D-II is relatively small... just a handful of players (at most) in a conference... and probably not even all conferences at that.  The number of those players who redshirted at that D-I or D-II school will be just a portion of the total number, too, I should think.

The idea of banning the practice of redshirting applies just to D-III institutions in terms of redshirting.  D-I or D-II transfers do not lose a year of eligibility... unless the particular institution or conference decrees this (I don't know of any individual schools that would handcuff themselves like that... but there are conferences, such as the MIAC, that do not recognize a redshirt year at a different institution).  I myself redshirted at Michigan Tech before transferring to Point... though I likely would have been grandfathered in if they had completely outlawed the ability to redshirt and then transfer.

As an aside, I don't know of any D-II or D-I program that would even begin to entertain the idea of "recruiting" and redshirting a player for the purposes of providing that redshirt year for the a player... with the sole intentions of that player transferring to a D-III school.  It's laughable even to think about... and though I can't speak for other conferences, I know that the WIAC coaches and conference as a whole has too much integrity not to try such a stunt.

In terms of gray-shirting... I wouldn't call the practice common by any stretch of the imagination, though I'm not close enough to the current programs to really say with absolute certainty.  It would be on a case-by-case basis... and there would be a lot of factors that came into it...  Roster limits (conference or self-imposed), the player's desire to do this, the writing on the wall in terms of players ahead/potential playing time, etc.  In many respects, a lot of the same factors that were put before a player considering a redshirt year apply to the grayshirt as well... but that player doesn't have the advantage of being "groomed" for the season in question.

There's a thread about grayshirting in the General D-III Issues board HERE.  I (and others) have commented about it there.

Like I said, I don't think it's common... if it was, then we would likely hear about it and to my knowledge, the WIAC schools that have taken part in it have disclosed this in the recruiting process (or, at the very least, early on in the year).  And you can tell, too... look at the players that a program announces in the spring that will be on campus the next year.  Are those guys on the roster?  If so, then they didn't grayshirt.  Are they at school but didn't play?  Well, we'll have to wait until next year to see if they're on the team then. 

In terms of coaches deciding to "participate" in grayshirting (and any potential recruiting disclosures, should the coach deem that necessary)... Because of the volatility and turnover with rosters that we deal with in non-scholarship athletics, a coach really can't know for certain what his roster will look like and what needs he may or may not have once a season starts.

This really is akin to a player trying out for a team and getting cut... and making himself a better player in the offseason, just to make the team the next year.  The difference, of course, is that it is more planned by the program... and the player stays and "tries out" with the team until the last possible moment, when he is "cut."

And certain coaches may simply have decided that they won't mess with it.  It's tough enough dealing with everything the D-III season has to offer, especially in a tough league like the WIAC.  And the other thing you have to think of, too... if a program is thinking about this, then they have to take those players into account in terms of their recruiting for the next year.  How do they match up with potential incoming Freshmen, etc.



Hey look Point Special posted again... do you have a half hour to read it?!

[Assassin14]

Former WIAC Superstar tearing it up in the land down under!

http://www.nbl.com.au/index.php?id=46&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=13938&tx_ttnews[backPid]=44&cHash=f95bca88c5//

Click on News, scroll down to Rich Rewards for Toil

[wcbsas]

It is difficult to discern completely but looking at last year's rosters and this year's announced recruits I was able the gleen the following transfers who will be or have come into the conference with a redshirt used.

UWL - Tony Mane (Chicago State)
UWO - Dane Seckar-Anderson (North Dakota)
UWSP - Matt Smith (Winona State) and Dan Tillema (UM-Duluth)
UWS - Marcus Helland (UM-Duluth)
UWW - Lucas Burns (Concordia St. Paul)

6 players out of the 100+ players on a WIAC roster does quite make a quorum but it does give these players (and they're schools) and advantage IMO.

[John Gleich]

I thought I commented on this last night, but apparently I didn't hit "post" before I shut my computer down and went to bed....  oops!

+k for running that info down!

I don't think Tillema redshirted, though.  In his profile in the recruiting release, it mentions he's been "away from the game," though he will come in as a sophomore... I'm not sure if that means eligibility-wise or credit-wise...  Looking at UM-D's yearbook from last year, he played in 9 games in 07-08, but then wasn't on the roster last year... so, seemingly, he would still have the full 3 years if he would choose to use them.  And it doesn't appear that last year was used as a redshirt year... just a year off.  Coach Semling's comments in the profile would agree with that, too.   (.... for some frustratingly unknown reason, I can't copy and paste... so I'd provide you with those links...)

In my estimation, even with the 07-08 year under his belt (or a portion thereof... he played in 9 games, averaging 12 minutes...  from that I presume that he didn't finish out the year... though it may have been because of injury, though that isn't cited in Sem's quotes) it may not be to his distinct advantage.  The one advantage he has over incoming freshmen is 1) physical maturity and 2) some semblance of how the college game differs from high school... but he's still been away for a year(+?).  'Course, that can get the hunger up mighty quick!  And I don't have any insight to the situation... I'm just making  suppositions based on what I'm seeing in the yearbook and in on Point's website.  And, of course, over anything else, I hope that UWSP is a great fit for him.

Point does continue to be a program with family connections, though... Dan comes to Point with is younger brother, Tyler, and we all know about other brother connections... the Bennetts, the Kalsows (if only for one year, but the football program benefited from that!), the Krulls, the Rortvedts... and now the Tillemas. 

It always seems like forever until the season starts... and then once practice starts, it seems like forever until games!