MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Greek Tragedy]

Tough loss for the Pointers at home. Semling will probably start playing the younger players to prepare them for next year and future years. This year is probably a loss cause.

I'd check with the NCAA and see if you can just scrimmage with your gray shirts the rest of the year.  😇😇

+1k

[Greek Tragedy]

Wow. WIAC goes 6-0.

[Hoops_n_Golf]

Wow. WIAC goes 6-0.

So as long as the board is quiet, I will jump in and make an observation... I think that the WIAC is down this year. However I think I say that EVERY year. Some years it is that the upper echelon teams are just THAT much better than the rest. Other years it is because there aren't a few standout players. I think this year is the latter.

Remember guys like Melzer, Bailey, Clark, Enerson-Matthews, Rortdvert, Marsh, Kalsow, Bennett, Werner, Moses, Mane, Smith... It seems for the past fifteen years or so (about as long as I've been paying attention) there were always one, two or even three elite scorers/players in the league. Guys that came up with some buzz around them and took their team on their shoulders and won games. This year I just don't see who those guys are yet.

Maybe it is because I'm getting further away from the game. Admittedly this is the least attention I've given the WIAC but I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg. Am I less interested because there aren't any greats OR do I not think there are any greats because I'm not interested? Curious if anyone else is questioning this as well. I can see that the traffic here is diminished greatly and wonder quietly if that is indicative of less interest or not.

I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful to those that are playing that might mosey over here and read this. In some ways it could be that overall the talent has regressed to the norm - and the norm in the WIAC is very, very impressive. There are so many really good players I see in the box scores and in the limited streams I watch. Just fewer of the studs that I'm used to.

_{Side note: Stop charging to watch your live streams WIAC schools. Aside from close family, not many are willing to shell out $8 to watch a game. Live streams will not be a revenue mosnter for you. In fact it might actually hurt the bottom line to charge. Because if it's free I will watch, and I suspect I am not alone. However if I have to shell out $8 to watch it I will likely give my attention to something else. And if I'm not interested I probably won't make as many games. Now I realize that ticketing isn't a big revenue stream, but if overall interest dwindles because a lack of access I think you'll take a hit in a lot of areas. You see WIAC schools, it isn't attend OR stream. It is attend some AND stream some.}

Well that's all. Remember the reason for this thanksgiving season - commemorating that time when a group of refugees came here and obliterated the rightful occupants. Oh - and getting a 47" tv for under $350 bucks.

[John Gleich]

Wow. WIAC goes 6-0.

Including Point coming back from 10 down early in the 2nd half.

There are some really promising things in the Box Score, notably that SP only turned the ball over 3 times and shot 50% from the field.

But they only hit 27% of 3's and had just 8 assists. Plus, FT % was just 62% and they were outrebounded by 9. These are a bit discouraging... but all things that will come along as the team grows together, I think.

[John Gleich]

Wow. WIAC goes 6-0.

So as long as the board is quiet, I will jump in and make an observation... I think that the WIAC is down this year. However I think I say that EVERY year. Some years it is that the upper echelon teams are just THAT much better than the rest. Other years it is because there aren't a few standout players. I think this year is the latter.

Remember guys like Melzer, Bailey, Clark, Enerson-Matthews, Rortdvert, Marsh, Kalsow, Bennett, Werner, Moses, Mane, Smith... It seems for the past fifteen years or so (about as long as I've been paying attention) there were always one, two or even three elite scorers/players in the league. Guys that came up with some buzz around them and took their team on their shoulders and won games. This year I just don't see who those guys are yet.

Maybe it is because I'm getting further away from the game. Admittedly this is the least attention I've given the WIAC but I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg. Am I less interested because there aren't any greats OR do I not think there are any greats because I'm not interested? Curious if anyone else is questioning this as well. I can see that the traffic here is diminished greatly and wonder quietly if that is indicative of less interest or not.

I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful to those that are playing that might mosey over here and read this. In some ways it could be that overall the talent has regressed to the norm - and the norm in the WIAC is very, very impressive. There are so many really good players I see in the box scores and in the limited streams I watch. Just fewer of the studs that I'm used to.

_{Side note: Stop charging to watch your live streams WIAC schools. Aside from close family, not many are willing to shell out $8 to watch a game. Live streams will not be a revenue mosnter for you. In fact it might actually hurt the bottom line to charge. Because if it's free I will watch, and I suspect I am not alone. However if I have to shell out $8 to watch it I will likely give my attention to something else. And if I'm not interested I probably won't make as many games. Now I realize that ticketing isn't a big revenue stream, but if overall interest dwindles because a lack of access I think you'll take a hit in a lot of areas. You see WIAC schools, it isn't attend OR stream. It is attend some AND stream some.}

Well that's all. Remember the reason for this thanksgiving season - commemorating that time when a group of refugees came here and obliterated the rightful occupants. Oh - and getting a 47" tv for under $350 bucks.

I think there are a number of factors. And, truly, the league was better in years past, at least in terms of winning percentage. In the early oughts, the league as a whole won 80%+ of their non-conference games.

I also think that Wisconsin high schools have been recruited heavier in the last 10-15 years than in the past. Perhaps this is due to increased exposure from things like AAU... but maybe it's just due to the success of other Wisconsin colleges with mostly Wisconsin kids.

Interestingly, some of the kids who have had the greatest impact in the league of late have been transfers from D-I and D-II schools and have "come home."

I also think that the landscape of college sports has changed as our culture has changed even more so into a me-first culture (I'll explain).

Kids want what they want, when they want it (like the McD, credit card world we live in) and they may not be willing to work for it. So fewer are sticking it out.

How many programs have more than 2 or 3 seniors on their roster these days? Not many.

[AppletonRocks]

Wow. WIAC goes 6-0.

So as long as the board is quiet, I will jump in and make an observation... I think that the WIAC is down this year. However I think I say that EVERY year. Some years it is that the upper echelon teams are just THAT much better than the rest. Other years it is because there aren't a few standout players. I think this year is the latter.

Remember guys like Melzer, Bailey, Clark, Enerson-Matthews, Rortdvert, Marsh, Kalsow, Bennett, Werner, Moses, Mane, Smith... It seems for the past fifteen years or so (about as long as I've been paying attention) there were always one, two or even three elite scorers/players in the league. Guys that came up with some buzz around them and took their team on their shoulders and won games. This year I just don't see who those guys are yet.

Maybe it is because I'm getting further away from the game. Admittedly this is the least attention I've given the WIAC but I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg. Am I less interested because there aren't any greats OR do I not think there are any greats because I'm not interested? Curious if anyone else is questioning this as well. I can see that the traffic here is diminished greatly and wonder quietly if that is indicative of less interest or not.

I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful to those that are playing that might mosey over here and read this. In some ways it could be that overall the talent has regressed to the norm - and the norm in the WIAC is very, very impressive. There are so many really good players I see in the box scores and in the limited streams I watch. Just fewer of the studs that I'm used to.

_{Side note: Stop charging to watch your live streams WIAC schools. Aside from close family, not many are willing to shell out $8 to watch a game. Live streams will not be a revenue mosnter for you. In fact it might actually hurt the bottom line to charge. Because if it's free I will watch, and I suspect I am not alone. However if I have to shell out $8 to watch it I will likely give my attention to something else. And if I'm not interested I probably won't make as many games. Now I realize that ticketing isn't a big revenue stream, but if overall interest dwindles because a lack of access I think you'll take a hit in a lot of areas. You see WIAC schools, it isn't attend OR stream. It is attend some AND stream some.}

Well that's all. Remember the reason for this thanksgiving season - commemorating that time when a group of refugees came here and obliterated the rightful occupants. Oh - and getting a 47" tv for under $350 bucks.

I think there are a number of factors. And, truly, the league was better in years past, at least in terms of winning percentage. In the early oughts, the league as a whole won 80%+ of their non-conference games.

I also think that Wisconsin high schools have been recruited heavier in the last 10-15 years than in the past. Perhaps this is due to increased exposure from things like AAU... but maybe it's just due to the success of other Wisconsin colleges with mostly Wisconsin kids.

Interestingly, some of the kids who have had the greatest impact in the league of late have been transfers from D-I and D-II schools and have "come home."

I also think that the landscape of college sports has changed as our culture has changed even more so into a me-first culture (I'll explain).

Kids want what they want, when they want it (like the McD, credit card world we live in) and they may not be willing to work for it. So fewer are sticking it out.

How many programs have more than 2 or 3 seniors on their roster these days? Not many.

I was not good enough to play D-3 ball, but am still a fan.  So I have an observation for discussion for the board:

Wouldn't a really balanced program, one that plans ahead and keeps its culture, likely have 3-4 seniors along with 3-4 juniors, 3-4 sophomores and 3-4 freshman, with a few extra frosh at bench end to squad up?  And if you had to start almost from scratch (e.g. Juckem at UW-Oshkosh 4 years ago) you have the risks of having to load up one class just to field a team, and balancing after that. Not optimal but possible, as he is proving.

I know there are going to be extenuating circumstances, but most D-3 programs are not going to be built on a constant transfer in process like Pat Miller has done at Whitewater.  So recruiting a relatively even number of new players each year, with expectation of some exits as time goes on (seems like 8 new minus 4 non-seniors seems to be a good algorithm), allows for some balance and allows for the development of a permanent team culture, rather than one that is revised annually.

I think a team with a good team culture will lose some players who just don't pan out, but will hold more players over time---winning can still be heralded, but it's not the only thing a player seeks if he is really honest about his expectations.  Life long relationships and memories are worth as much or more than championships.  If you can do both, it's because the permanent team culture allowed that to happen.

Love to hear everyone's thoughts, critiques, arrows, rocks 

[frankiet]

 Anyone have updates on these players and when they will return? All of them have played in their first non-con game, but now out.

UWRF - Grant Erickson - knee out until after December
UWEC - Tyson Kalien - ?
UW-Stout - Ahsenmacher - ?  and Speer - ?

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks to Tuesday's 6-0, the WIAC is now 17-15.

Tough sledding today as both WIAC teams in action take on ranked opponents. River Falls takes on #15 St. Olaf.

Whitewater  (2-1) takes on 2-1 Ohio Northern 5-0 Ohio Wesleyan team that ranks #13 and boosts 2 preseason All-Americans in Claude Gray (3rd team) and Nate Axelrod (HM).

River Falls (1-2) takes on #15 St. Olaf. They are just 1-1, which includes a 3-pt loss at Stevens Point.

Thanks Q.

[Titan Q]

Thanks to Tuesday's 6-0, the WIAC is now 17-15.

Tough sledding today as both WIAC teams in action take on ranked opponents.

Whitewater  (2-1) takes on a 5-0 Ohio Wesleyan team that ranks #13 and has preseason All-American Claude Gray.

River Falls (1-2) takes on #15 St. Olaf. They are just 1-1, which includes a 3-pt loss at Stevens Point.

Busy day for Ohio Wesleyan, with games at both Illinois Wesleyan and UW-Whitewater!

[Greek Tragedy]

Wesleyan...Northern...whatever!

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks to Tuesday's 6-0, the WIAC is now 17-15.

Tough sledding today as both WIAC teams in action take on ranked opponents.

Whitewater  (2-1) takes on a 5-0 Ohio Wesleyan team that ranks #13 and has preseason All-American Claude Gray.

River Falls (1-2) takes on #15 St. Olaf. They are just 1-1, which includes a 3-pt loss at Stevens Point.

Busy day for Ohio Wesleyan, with games at both Illinois Wesleyan and UW-Whitewater!

Wesleyan sounded so much better!

[John Gleich]

Love to hear everyone's thoughts, critiques, arrows, rocks 

So your idea makes sense at the outset... But there are a few holes.

Starting out with just 3-4 freshmen isn't a recipe for sustained success. Here's why.

1) Kids are recruited based on potential. But not everyone's potential actually realizes itself as success. So if you start with 3 players and two turn out to be just mediocre or frankly bad, then you're "stuck" with kids that you're developing that just don't pan out.

2) Kids may get hurt and either not want to take the risk of added injury or not be able to continue to play.

3) Kids either get sick of riding the pine (a near inevitability for young players in top programs) or they get other interests that they decide to spend their time on, so they quit.

So that's why it's smart to recruit more players as freshmen. And it's also why nearly every program has lots more underclassmen than upperclassmen.  I reread your post and note that you said some of these things, but I think that these are much more commonplace.

The last thing, though, is that there may be certain needs that teams have year by year.   Do they have to recruit for a big guy or s point guard.

Or that they have opportunities to get great players at positions that they don't need, where they're already deep. So do you forego those players? I say no. You get the best players you can and then adjust the system to the personnel.

Maybe we're not saying that much different. But I just don't think you can build a program around the assumption that you're going to have every kid that starts with the program stick around for four years.

[AppletonRocks]

Love to hear everyone's thoughts, critiques, arrows, rocks 

So your idea makes sense at the outset... But there are a few holes.

Starting out with just 3-4 freshmen isn't a recipe for sustained success. Here's why.

1) Kids are recruited based on potential. But not everyone's potential actually realizes itself as success. So if you start with 3 players and two turn out to be just mediocre or frankly bad, then you're "stuck" with kids that you're developing that just don't pan out.

2) Kids may get hurt and either not want to take the risk of added injury or not be able to continue to play.

3) Kids either get sick of riding the pine (a near inevitability for young players in top programs) or they get other interests that they decide to spend their time on, so they quit.

So that's why it's smart to recruit more players as freshmen. And it's also why nearly every program has lots more underclassmen than upperclassmen.  I reread your post and note that you said some of these things, but I think that these are much more commonplace.

The last thing, though, is that there may be certain needs that teams have year by year.   Do they have to recruit for a big guy or s point guard.

Or that they have opportunities to get great players at positions that they don't need, where they're already deep. So do you forego those players? I say no. You get the best players you can and then adjust the system to the personnel.

Maybe we're not saying that much different. But I just don't think you can build a program around the assumption that you're going to have every kid that starts with the program stick around for four years.

So 3-4 frosh you expect to last plus 4 more to squad up provides the cushion.  I think we agree, overall.  Just not a fan of transfers down into D3. 

[fredfalcon]

RF 80, No. 15 St. Olaf 78, in St. Olaf. Oles led by 5 at half. All Conference Grant Erickson still not  playing.

[AppletonRocks]

RF 80, No. 15 St. Olaf 78, in St. Olaf. Oles led by 5 at half. All Conference Grant Erickson still not  playing.

So Concordia of Wisconsin buries RF a week or so ago, then RF defeats St. Olaf?  I guess that is why they play the games