MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[phoenix_rising]

So, Mane hurts his ankle in the first half of his previous game but plays the remaining half; then, he sits out the Superior game. Was the injury worse than they originally thought? Did playing on it aggravate what could have been a minor (more minor) injury? Or did the coach sit Mane thinking he needed to rest him as much as possible for the Whitewater game? I guess what I'm really asking is, did coach overlook a possible loss to Superior? That doesn't seem likely, since the first game, there, was close and the second game, here, was a win for Superior. I understand there's a probability that no one had the chance to make a decision, that the injury did all the deciding for the game, and I guess that's what I'm wondering. Why am I even second-guessing? In the end, it served Superior well, because we didn't have to swim through that barage of 3s Mane would have dropped on us.

I don't suppose Whitewater's Mitchell sprained his ankle during practice this week--not that I'm wishing anything more serious than a temporary benching. One game, should do it.

And following the trajectory of the scoring in Whitewater vs. Superior games this season, I foresee possibility for a win on Thursday. My reasoning: Whitewater vs Superior, in Superior, W92, S73=19 point differential; Whitewater vs Superior, in Whitewater, W73, S60=7 point differential. Ergo, we should win this one, because we play better in Whitewater AND we're playing better against Whitewater.

If logic won games, I think Superior would take Thursday's game. Now, with some offensive rebounding, contributions from every player, a hot night of shooting, and some solid, relentless, oppressive, smothering defense, maybe we actually could win the game. Who's with me?

[Pioneer Hoops Fan]

Yeah...this reseeding stuff isn't any good.  It has nothing to do with the fact I'd rather have the Pointers play the lower seed, Superior, but why PUNISH them and make them go play the top seed. 

I'd say if you make #4 Stout go play #1 Whitewater, while #6 Superior gets to play #2 Stevens Point, you'd be punishing Stout, wouldn't you?

Exactly.

Whitewater deserved the right to play the lowest seed remaining over the course of the WIAC season by winning the most games.

[cubs]

Congrats Cubs, you called it all along.  Also congrats on getting a rise out of me, as I'm sure that is what you post was intended for.  Seems to me, I've certainly heard worse be said in games and no foul called.  I'm calling last nights game a conspiracy to favor the home team.    How else does the home team get a player on the other team to get a Tech for asking the official to tell the joke again?  That seems a little off for this guy to comprehend anyway.  All I can say, is that it must have been a really bad joke or the official is a really poor joke teller.

Not my intent....  Was just following along on the Live Stats and found it interesting considering the discussion that was on this board earlier in the season.  I have to admit, if what BDB said is true, I don't think a technical foul was deserved.

If you look at the stats, this game could have and probably should have been decided as the two teams combine to shoot 23-39 from the line.  UWP 11-17 for 65%.  They shot 78.8% on season.  Stout was 12-22 for 54.5%.  They have shot 68.8% on the season.  Both teams underperformed there, but that is also one area that either team could've taken the game.

Compare that with the Superior/La Crosse game, where both teams combined to miss just three free throws, shooting a combined 37-40 (92.5%.) 

[badgerwarhawk]

I agree Phoenix.  It isn't likely Koelbel was overlooking the Superior game and saving Mane for the second round.  If Mane's injury allowed him to play he would have played.  You don't sit your leading scorer if you don't have to no matter who you're playing.  You have to give Koelbel more credit than that.  

It was a tough break for LaCrosse.  

I was watching the webcast of the game and it looked like Hanson was mauled.  It wouldn't have been so bad but Stout also got the steal and Platteville lost possession.  Stout had already gained the lead by that point but it was a tough no call followed by an even tougher technical foul call.  Stout (Hostetter) made both free throws.  After that Platteville was fouled.  Wall missed the front end of a 1 and 1 and shortly thereafter the half ended.    I noticed JEM verbally question fouls called on him twice.  

[John Gleich]

All I'm saying is that the techbical proved to have a huge impact on the game.  I wasn't there and I didn't watch the live vid so I can't speak to the validity of the Tech or to the validity (or lack there of) of the no-call.  I do know that certain refs in the league have quicker triggers than others, and he may have had a "history" with Hanson, either from whining earlier in the game or from an incident earlier in the year.

But if a foul isn't called, there's no point in challenging a ref about it... it isn't like you're going to convince them to change their mind.  Players talk (amd talk down) to refs way, way too much.  It's kind of like dealing with a policeman... if you treat them with respect, you probably won't run into trouble.  If you don't, then there's a better chance you might run into some problems.

I'm personally of the opinion that if a player gets a Tech, he's earned some time on the pine, no matter what the situation.  That doesn't happen very often these days and players getting T'd up is not an uncommon thing.

[Pioneer Hoops Fan]

All I'm saying is that the techbical proved to have a huge impact on the game.  I wasn't there and I didn't watch the live vid so I can't speak to the validity of the Tech or to the validity (or lack there of) of the no-call.  I do know that certain refs in the league have quicker triggers than others, and he may have had a "history" with Hanson, either from whining earlier in the game or from an incident earlier in the year.

But if a foul isn't called, there's no point in challenging a ref about it... it isn't like you're going to convince them to change their mind.  Players talk (amd talk down) to refs way, way too much.  It's kind of like dealing with a policeman... if you treat them with respect, you probably won't run into trouble.  If you don't, then there's a better chance you might run into some problems.

I'm personally of the opinion that if a player gets a Tech, he's earned some time on the pine, no matter what the situation.  That doesn't happen very often these days and players getting T'd up is not an uncommon thing.

There's no way of knowing that if he doesn't get that T that Stout still doesn't get those two points some other way either before the first half ends or to start the second half.  I checked the past four seasons.  Curt has 1 other Tech to his name in his career.  He got one, TEAM got one, their opponents got 3 total.  5 T's called in that game.  Now with the other team getting one more, did that prove to have a huge impact on the game?  BTW, the final of that game was 92-73 UWP won.

Thing is, IMO.  Technical fouls really only have a huge impact on the game when momentum is completely changed as a result of the technical.  Last nights is one where I don't think momentum changed or was impacted at all by the outcome of the Technical foul.

Example where they have huge impacts?  Look no further than Whitewater at Platteville last year.  UWP was rolling after back to back threes inside 5 minutes left in game and extending lead to 11 pts.  Foul on Charlie Lohoff, gets a reaction from Coach Combs which resulted in technical foul at 4:35 mark left in game.  Whitewater makes 3/4 to make it 8 point game.  Goodwin hits three at 3:54 mark.  Now its 5 points.  See where momentum is now?  Goodwin hits another 3 at 3:32 mark, he says something he shouldn't to students in front of ref which results in a technical foul.  Miller upset, also gets a technical foul.  Pioneers make 4 fts, get ball back due to point of interuption now up 6.  Skemp gets fouled, makes two more now up 8.  Momentum?  Now with UWP.  Whitewater gets no closer than 5 rest of way, and the rest is history.  Those are technicals that proved to have a huge impact on the game.

[02 Warhawk]

Yeah...this reseeding stuff isn't any good.  It has nothing to do with the fact I'd rather have the Pointers play the lower seed, Superior, but why PUNISH them and make them go play the top seed. 

I'd say if you make #4 Stout go play #1 Whitewater, while #6 Superior gets to play #2 Stevens Point, you'd be punishing Stout, wouldn't you?

The NFL does it's playoff the same way as the WIAC i believe. I guess this system rewards the higher seed for finishing first in the regular season.

[wcbsas]

So, Mane hurts his ankle in the first half of his previous game but plays the remaining half; then, he sits out the Superior game. Was the injury worse than they originally thought? Did playing on it aggravate what could have been a minor (more minor) injury? Or did the coach sit Mane thinking he needed to rest him as much as possible for the Whitewater game? I guess what I'm really asking is, did coach overlook a possible loss to Superior? That doesn't seem likely, since the first game, there, was close and the second game, here, was a win for Superior. I understand there's a probability that no one had the chance to make a decision, that the injury did all the deciding for the game, and I guess that's what I'm wondering. Why am I even second-guessing? In the end, it served Superior well, because we didn't have to swim through that barage of 3s Mane would have dropped on us.

I think the issue with Mane is that he hurt it in the previous game but with adrenaline and lack of swelling at the time the injury wasn't significant to keep him out ... but once the ankle sits over-night swelling occurs and limits mobility.

No way Mane sits if he could've played through it.

[John Gleich]

We could go through hypotheticals all day... Stout could have gone on a 90-6 run in the second half too... but they didn't.  We can only go with what happened, and those two points were the result of an action that was completely unforced and took place after the whistle blew.  The fact that it was Hanson is completely a moot point.  Even if the T had been called on the bench, the argument can be made that, assuming everything else happened the same, it had a huge impact.  It's the difference between a 9 point lead with 1:53 and a 7 point lead that didn't stand the test and allowed E-M's 3 at the buzzer to snag the lead and the win.  By all accounts, Platteville played better in the second half than Stout did, especially for the first 18:07.  They' outscored the Blue Devils 36-23 up until that Point.  If Platte is up 9 with 1:53 instead of 7, that very well might change Stout's tactics... but I'm not 100% sure.  

After a missed Buchholtz 3, Stout fouled right away, Allen missed the front end of a 1&1, Stout got the board and scored 10 seconds later.  Now, Buchholtz missed a FT that could have brought Stout closer, but, without the two T FT's, Platte is up 7 with 1:32.  I don't know of too many coaches that will just play straight up at this point, down 7, and allow the other team to simply run :30 seconds off the clock, but down 5, it's a differenţ story.  Stout DID defend and not foul, and Hanson turned it over with :58.  This allowed Fant to hit a 3 10 seconds later and bring the UWP lead down to 2 with :48.  If that had been 4, most coaches are not going to let the other team run another :30 off the clock and have to secure a rebound and score and either foul (now down 2 or 1) with less than probably 5 seconds.  You'd foul at 45 seconds down 4, or you'd go for the stop down 2, which Stout did and allowed E-M to hit the shot that won it.

Those two points had a huge impact on the game because either Stout would have had to foul earlier (not likely) or they would have had to come up with another possession somewhere and score 10 in the last 1:52, not 8.

I mean, technically the argument could be made about any individual play during the game... but the major differeince for me is that this didn't occur during play, uit happened after the play and was 100% avoidable.  I can't think of a single instance where a Tech ISN'T avoidable.. and that's  why I always come down so hard on them.  The only instance where it might, possibly, be acceptable is when a coach gets one to fire up his team, but that's debatable too.  I'm old school (heck, I'm more old school than Old School!).  I'm of the opinion that players should keep their mouths shut.  I also think coaches should coach from the bench instead of rome the sidelines (Sorry Coach Bennett!) and the theatrics of the game should take place on the floor, not elsewhere (more directed at refs than anything else, but coaches and players get into that too, especially with stuff like trash talking) but unless there is a concerted effort like a rule change (i.e. if a coach stands up it's a T, if a player looks sideways at a ref it's a T), then these things won't be the norm.

[phoenix_rising]

I think the issue with Mane is that he hurt it in the previous game but with adrenaline and lack of swelling at the time the injury wasn't significant to keep him out ... but once the ankle sits over-night swelling occurs and limits mobility.

No way Mane sits if he could've played through it.

Then, I suspect the game must have been agony for him to sit through. You tell a guy like that, "You have next year," but looking ahead to months of waiting for next year isn't very consoling. Of course, it all evens out, but I feel for him. I feel good for Superior, but I appreciate what it means to have to watch a season end from the bench. Mane had an outstanding season.

[Pioneer Hoops Fan]

You make valid points. With the two of us on each side of the arument say "what if", "but".  We probably could come up with many many different scenarios of why each of us is right.  As my wife says, "IF, ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas"  (she teaches, must work in 1st grade, BUT she tries that with me too when I get on a tangent).  Was ideal?  I'd say no it wasn't, but if the defense holds, there isn't even this discussion.  Would they have been up 9 instead of 7?  I don't know.  I still stand by my argument before that it didn't change momentum of the game so it wasn't that big of a deal.  "What about those two points though?  Lost by 1, gave them 2...it's a no brainer"  IMO, the way the the two teams were shooting in that game, those two points were going to be included at some point of the game in a different way they were already scored (does that make sense you all?)

Coach Bennett, btw, was never on the sideline.  He was your sixth person on the floor.  

[frodotwo]

So, Mane hurts his ankle in the first half of his previous game but plays the remaining half; then, he sits out the Superior game. Was the injury worse than they originally thought? Did playing on it aggravate what could have been a minor (more minor) injury? Or did the coach sit Mane thinking he needed to rest him as much as possible for the Whitewater game? I guess what I'm really asking is, did coach overlook a possible loss to Superior? That doesn't seem likely, since the first game, there, was close and the second game, here, was a win for Superior. I understand there's a probability that no one had the chance to make a decision, that the injury did all the deciding for the game, and I guess that's what I'm wondering. Why am I even second-guessing? In the end, it served Superior well, because we didn't have to swim through that barage of 3s Mane would have dropped on us.

I think the issue with Mane is that he hurt it in the previous game but with adrenaline and lack of swelling at the time the injury wasn't significant to keep him out ... but once the ankle sits over-night swelling occurs and limits mobility.

No way Mane sits if he could've played through it.

I watched him in the 2nd half vs UWSP and he had no cutting ability, mostly just stood around on offense (but was able to shoot jumpers). Defense was where I thought SP could make inroads, but he did fine and I give him credit. Just very difficult to come back a few days later and play with what appeared to be a pretty severe sprain.

[chmarx]

No doubt in my mind that Mane is a warrior.  It was a tough break to miss the playoff game, but injuries are part of sports.

Mane has improved his game tremendously.  When he first came to La Crosse, he'd rather watch his man shoot than a teammate.  Now, he plays hard, effective defense, and is quite willing to dish the rock.

I'm looking forward to his senior year.

[Greek Tragedy]

Yeah...this reseeding stuff isn't any good.  It has nothing to do with the fact I'd rather have the Pointers play the lower seed, Superior, but why PUNISH them and make them go play the top seed. 

I'd say if you make #4 Stout go play #1 Whitewater, while #6 Superior gets to play #2 Stevens Point, you'd be punishing Stout, wouldn't you?

Your not punishing Stout for something they did though.  Chalk would have Stout playing Whitewater anyway.  So, basically you're rewarding Stout because La Crosse couldn't hold up their end of the donkey. 

[badgerwarhawk]

La Crosse couldn't hold up their end of the donkey. 

You've been listening to too much Homer.