MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[badgerwarhawk]

I'll bet that even the implication that this Warhawks squad is going to be the greatest UW-Whitewater D3 team of all time is enough to make BW do a facepalm.

It did.  Plus I knew it would cause all kinds of comments here and as soon as we lost, which honestly I knew would happen sooner or later, the forum's horse's ass would be sure to rub it our face.  Even though not one single WARHAWKS fan had bought into it. 

My all time greatest WARHAWKS team is the 1989 National Championship team.  Elbert Gordon, Ricky Spicer, Jeff Seifriz, Pat Miller, Duane Vance and I've forgotten some others that made significant contributions.  The team holds the single season wins record with 29.  They only lost twice and averaged 94 points a game.  They were just so much fun to watch.  I've got the national championship DVD and I watch it two or three times a year.  Ya, I know I need to get a real life. But at my age I doubt that will happen.

[/b]

But you still bowl, don't you, BW?

No, we haven't bowled for a few years now.  Thank god, the only thing worse than watching the Stagg Bowl on the tv situated over alley 5 is having to change shoes so you can run out to your car to catch the score. 

It's good to have you back SG. 

[stoutguy]

UW-Stevens Point

As a former UWSP player who played under Jack Bennett (with Bob Semling as the top assistant for two years) and who was a member of two of Stevens Point's four national titles, I'm very familiar with the program and how it is run. I also know the men who have run and are currently running the program.

However, I didn't play on a Bob Semling-led team. I do know dozens of other alums who did and they say that these allegations have no merit. I believe them because they were there. The current AD was not. The school administration was not. The NCAA was not. That's all that I really can say about it.

I do, however, have an issue with a word that was used repeatedly used in the interviews. Please know, though, Dave, that I'm trying my best to be fair and level headed under what has become an unfortunate situation.

But I believe that you did, at the very least, misspeak. (Note: I wrote this post before hearing Alex Richard's comments on Hoopsville. That they are nearly identical should only reiterate the level to which former players know what did and did not happen with how the program was run and what activities took place both in and out of season).

In the interviews, you talked about out-of-season practices. Practices is the word that I have an issue with. The implication of "practices" is that Bob Semling had his whistle in his mouth and was running team drills in September and in April. Actively coaching. Stopping play mid-stream to teach our instruct.

But the four violations don't mention practice.

If practices had occurred, it would have been a major NCAA violation. But it didn't happen.

Further, no practices were conducted with recruits. That allegation makes no sense. UWSP practices are held in the mid-afternoon, while prospective student athletes would be in school (at the very least) or at their own practices. And, as stated, practices only occur during the season...

The whole thing began with a gutless, anonymous letter that unfortunately wasn't addressed by the administration. This (unsigned) letter accused the basketball team of practicing prior to Oct 15th. The only things that occur prior to OCT 15th when I played was university conditioning class that did not include any balls whatsoever that is open to all students (and a few non-basketball players tried to do it but I don't remember then being able to finish it), and player-led open gyms.

Based upon all the conversations that I've had with former players who played after me, that's all that had continued to happen.

But, like I said, the Chancellor didn't respond to the October 2015 letter that accused the program of practicing early.. And because of this, the administration ultimately has over-reached to compensate for it.

As an alum, I had thought highly of the administration up until now. Based on their actions (or inaction), I think that they may need to be replaced. Had Chancellor Patterson addressed the issue when it initially came across his desk, then this likely wouldn't be the issue that it is today. It was only after that letter was forwarded to the NCAA that Patterson responded and the investigation dug into. If UWSP had self-reported violations, then it's entirely likely that this may have stopped at the initial practice relinquishment.

NCAA letter
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=11

Patterson's reprimand:
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=19

UWSP investigation report:
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=18


And, finally, you mentioned that Jack Bennett had issues with practices. This also is, at best, inaccurate.

http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/sports/2016/06/23/ex-coach-uwsps-violations-akin-littering/86210262/

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt for an incident that happened a dozen years ago.

Coach Bennett observed a preseason, player-led, open gym. This was a violation and, as I recall, we had two player-led practices after Oct 15th as a result, with the suspension being handed down by AD Frank O'Brien.

Since the early days of WIAC basketball for me, (including early Bennett days to the present), I have aways had nothing but respect for the way SP has competed in this conference.  Bob Semling has been a class act from the first time I met him.  I look at this situation as nothing more than a witch hunt  probably started by someone jealous of the best d3 program around. 

[John Gleich]

I thought you had to sit out a year to transfer to another WIAC school. Not sure if there are exceptions.

My understanding is that if you've been in a program for one year you can transfer without sitting out.  But if you've been in that program two years or longer you may have to sit out.  I say "may" because I believe that can be waived if your coach agrees to it.  That's under normal circumstances which certainly aren't the case here.

Per the WIAC handbook (across all sports) if a player has played fewer than 2 seasons, they're eligible right away. If they've played two or more, they must establish a year of residency (ie they have to sit out a year). But, you can't transfer mid-year and play.

Handbook is found here: http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/wiacsports.com/documents/2016/7/14/201617WIACHandbook.pdf?id=3636 The Transfer section is appendix C.

13.5 Intraconference Transfers. Student-athletes who have been charged with fewer than two (2) seasons
of participation are eligible immediately upon transferring to another conference institution provided
they have met all other applicable transfer requirements. Any student-athlete who has been charged
with two (2) or more seasons of participation (which may be nonconsecutive) at a single WIAC
institution must establish a (one) year of residency (see 13.3.1) in order to be eligible to compete in that
sport upon transferring from one conference institution to another. A season of participation regained as
a result of an approved medical-hardship is not considered a season of participation in the application of
this bylaw. [Revised 6/1/06, 4/15/14]

13.6 Transfer Restriction. A student-athlete transferring within the conference is prohibited from
competing for more than one (1) WIAC institution in the same sport during that same academic year.
[Revised 6/15/12]

[Just Bill]

I thought you had to sit out a year to transfer to another WIAC school. Not sure if there are exceptions.

You sit a year for a WIAC to WIAC transfer if you have spent TWO years at the school you're departing.

[Just Bill]

It will be interesting to see how the UWSP team responds to the sanctions.  With no postseason to look forward to, will they go into the toilet, or will they take an "us vs. the world" attitude and be even more dangerous, trying to wreck OTHER teams' postseason hopes?

I wonder if the WIAC will consider them eligible for the regular season championship. Can they still win the regular season and get a trophy and hang a banner?

[Pat Coleman]

I see we are having a lot of conversation here over the difference between open gym and practice. And where does a so-called "captains' practice" fall in that spectrum?

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

UW-Stevens Point

As a former UWSP player who played under Jack Bennett (with Bob Semling as the top assistant for two years) and who was a member of two of Stevens Point's four national titles, I'm very familiar with the program and how it is run. I also know the men who have run and are currently running the program.

However, I didn't play on a Bob Semling-led team. I do know dozens of other alums who did and they say that these allegations have no merit. I believe them because they were there. The current AD was not. The school administration was not. The NCAA was not. That's all that I really can say about it.

I do, however, have an issue with a word that was used repeatedly used in the interviews. Please know, though, Dave, that I'm trying my best to be fair and level headed under what has become an unfortunate situation.

But I believe that you did, at the very least, misspeak. (Note: I wrote this post before hearing Alex Richard's comments on Hoopsville. That they are nearly identical should only reiterate the level to which former players know what did and did not happen with how the program was run and what activities took place both in and out of season).

In the interviews, you talked about out-of-season practices. Practices is the word that I have an issue with. The implication of "practices" is that Bob Semling had his whistle in his mouth and was running team drills in September and in April. Actively coaching. Stopping play mid-stream to teach our instruct.

But the four violations don't mention practice.

If practices had occurred, it would have been a major NCAA violation. But it didn't happen.

Further, no practices were conducted with recruits. That allegation makes no sense. UWSP practices are held in the mid-afternoon, while prospective student athletes would be in school (at the very least) or at their own practices. And, as stated, practices only occur during the season...

The whole thing began with a gutless, anonymous letter that unfortunately wasn't addressed by the administration. This (unsigned) letter accused the basketball team of practicing prior to Oct 15th. The only things that occur prior to OCT 15th when I played was university conditioning class that did not include any balls whatsoever that is open to all students (and a few non-basketball players tried to do it but I don't remember then being able to finish it), and player-led open gyms.

Based upon all the conversations that I've had with former players who played after me, that's all that had continued to happen.

But, like I said, the Chancellor didn't respond to the October 2015 letter that accused the program of practicing early.. And because of this, the administration ultimately has over-reached to compensate for it.

As an alum, I had thought highly of the administration up until now. Based on their actions (or inaction), I think that they may need to be replaced. Had Chancellor Patterson addressed the issue when it initially came across his desk, then this likely wouldn't be the issue that it is today. It was only after that letter was forwarded to the NCAA that Patterson responded and the investigation dug into. If UWSP had self-reported violations, then it's entirely likely that this may have stopped at the initial practice relinquishment.

NCAA letter
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=11

Patterson's reprimand:
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=19

UWSP investigation report:
http://www.wisinfo.com/stevens-point/pdf/index.php?x=18


And, finally, you mentioned that Jack Bennett had issues with practices. This also is, at best, inaccurate.

http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/story/sports/2016/06/23/ex-coach-uwsps-violations-akin-littering/86210262/

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt for an incident that happened a dozen years ago.

Coach Bennett observed a preseason, player-led, open gym. This was a violation and, as I recall, we had two player-led practices after Oct 15th as a result, with the suspension being handed down by AD Frank O'Brien.

The word is "practice," because, in the eyes of the NCAA, once the alleged violation occur, whatever was happening (open gym, student led activity, etc) it becomes a practice.  The violation in question are violations of out-of-season practice rules.

Practice, which is defined as any meeting, activity or instruction involving sports-related information and
having an athletics purpose, held for one or more student-athletes at the direction of, or supervised by,
any member or members of an institution's coaching staff. Practice is considered to have occurred if one
or more coaches and one or more student-athletes engage in any of the following activities:
(1) Field, floor or on-court activity;
(2) Setting up offensive or defensive alignment;
(3) Chalk talk;
(4) Lecture on or discussion of strategy related to the sport;
(5) Activities using equipment related to the sport;
(6) Discussions or review of game films, motion pictures or videotapes related to the sport; or (Revised:
10/17/06)
(7) Any other athletically related activity.

If an athlete is shooting FTs by himself and a coach is watching from their office above the floor, it can be considered a practice.  Now, I know lots and lots of coaches think these restrictions are too tough - and I'm sure lots of schools violate them to some degree (unknowingly or knowingly) and maybe Stevens Point gets targeted because of prominence, but they're going to be a big deal precisely because so many coaches are upset with them and work hard not to break them, not because anyone is super happy with the rules themselves.

I've heard multiple people say Semling was questioned about these alleged violations over the years (and the NCAA has been very clear that ignorance is no excuse), so even if he didn't think they were violations, he knew - and if those witnesses tell the NCAA what they saw/said/did in a credible way, they're going to be hard to refute.

I read the entire Manual over the summer to be up on the minutia, because I was blown away that it's a violation for student athletes to even watch a recruit play basketball during a visit (because I've personally seen that happen often).  I suspect some of these rules haven't been strictly enforced over the years and while I agree its unfortunate Stevens Point is the one being made example of, these are the rules and given what we know, I'm hard pressed to doubt the allegations, but we'll wait and see what the NCAA decides.

[AppletonRocks]

Maybe all this will result in a reasonable modification of the rules so that compliance can have a "brighter line" test.  Lots of team players  play in summer leagues and coaches might be there but they are not coaching or doing "chalk talk" after.  Pick up games at the YMCA can include high school and college players, no foul there. If the game is organized by the college players at the direction of the coach to attempt to recruit the high school player, but the coach doesn't observe, is that a violation?  How do you police that?

Maybe Stevens Point is the sacrificial lamb, but interestingly I heard the same said about the New England Patriots.  When first announced, there was plenty of "there's no way they did that" talk in the press.  When the investigation of the clandestine filming was done, they were guilty, and teams began to pay closer attention to the rules.

Lets call it like it is--the NCAA doesn't really care about D3, they just need to say they do, hence these types of actions in an effort to prove it.  If they care, they will allocate more funds to their championships and events.  So far that has not been the case, even as their budgets have ballooned.  We shall see. I am not holding my breath. 

[Greek Tragedy]

Sun shines in the dogs a$$ every now and then

Maybe you should take that computer of yours and actually watch some games.  La Crosse's victory last night wasn't the "sun shining in the dog's ass."  They're a good team.  The sun, dog's asses and even the blind squirrel had nothing to do with what happened last night.  They're going to win a bunch of games in the league and be in the thick of it come February.

So no game review or do those just come after wins?   

[John Gleich]

Practice, which is defined as any meeting, activity or instruction involving sports-related information and
having an athletics purpose, held for one or more student-athletes at the direction of, or supervised by,
any member or members of an institution's coaching staff. Practice is considered to have occurred if one
or more coaches and one or more student-athletes engage in any of the following activities:
(1) Field, floor or on-court activity;
(2) Setting up offensive or defensive alignment;
(3) Chalk talk;
(4) Lecture on or discussion of strategy related to the sport;
(5) Activities using equipment related to the sport;
(6) Discussions or review of game films, motion pictures or videotapes related to the sport; or (Revised:
10/17/06)
(7) Any other athletically related activity.

If an athlete is shooting FTs by himself and a coach is watching from their office above the floor, it can be considered a practice.  Now, I know lots and lots of coaches think these restrictions are too tough - and I'm sure lots of schools violate them to some degree (unknowingly or knowingly) and maybe Stevens Point gets targeted because of prominence, but they're going to be a big deal precisely because so many coaches are upset with them and work hard not to break them, not because anyone is super happy with the rules themselves.

I've heard multiple people say Semling was questioned about these alleged violations over the years (and the NCAA has been very clear that ignorance is no excuse), so even if he didn't think they were violations, he knew - and if those witnesses tell the NCAA what they saw/said/did in a credible way, they're going to be hard to refute.

I read the entire Manual over the summer to be up on the minutia, because I was blown away that it's a violation for student athletes to even watch a recruit play basketball during a visit (because I've personally seen that happen often).  I suspect some of these rules haven't been strictly enforced over the years and while I agree its unfortunate Stevens Point is the one being made example of, these are the rules and given what we know, I'm hard pressed to doubt the allegations, but we'll wait and see what the NCAA decides.

Ryan (or whomever else wants to answer),

Which of the seven points does observation (in the case of a coach seeing a player shooting free throws from your example) violate? I'm more curious than anything else... Because if the rules are going to be so elastically translated as this, then every team from every sport from every university is in violation. Because a coach telling a player to work on their game in the offseason becomes a violation. A coach who sends an email with the upcoming schedule or a note of encouragement in the offseason is in violation. Heck, even a coach who is teaching a non-sport-related (IE golf for a basketball coach) course that uses a basketball analygy outside of the season is in violation EVEN IF they don't have any players in their class, unless that class is composed entirely of members of the opposite gender. Because any eligible student is a prospective student athlete and thus Tuesday April 3rd at 9:34 was suddenly a practice because the teacher uttered the phrase "right down the lane" when describing a straight good shot... Which could be interpreted as a violation of either 3 or 4, if not 7 outright... Because golf is an "athletically related activity."

Please know, Ryan and Dave, that while you may be the recipient of my frustration and consternation, it isn't directed at you. I appreciate your reporting and your thoroughness and I hope that you can accept my (hopefully) civil disagreement.

Because, ultimately, it isn't disagreement with you, it's disagreement with the (as yet unreleased) NCAA report.

[cubs]

Sun shines in the dogs a$$ every now and then

Maybe you should take that computer of yours and actually watch some games.  La Crosse's victory last night wasn't the "sun shining in the dog's ass."  They're a good team.  The sun, dog's asses and even the blind squirrel had nothing to do with what happened last night.  They're going to win a bunch of games in the league and be in the thick of it come February.

So no game review or do those just come after wins?   

Old School-
Check last post on page 1225.....   I suppose you might try anything to get the attention off of your beloved Stevens Point right now though!!! 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

To follow up on on what Ryan had to say... the easiest way to define what is a practice and what is not a practice in the eyes of the NCAA is "accountability." If the players feel they are held accountable or there is a level of accountability to participate or not participate, it is now a practice.

Before I go any further, I am garnering this point of view from coaches I have spoken with who are always invaluable in providing an understanding of the rules, what goes on behind the scenes, and much more on all topics discussed or not discussed.

If a coach is on hand and directing, obviously there is accountability. If the captains report back to the coach on who showed up, how they did, what was done, etc., there is accountability. If the captains or players say to other players that the "open-gym" is mandatory and you must show up, there is accountability - even though the coach is not involved. If the players/captain/whomever says you have to be able to run 8 laps in two minutes to participate even in May, there is accountability. Anything where the players are held accountable for being there, not being there, being able to participate, etc. changes the "open-gym" get-together into what the NCAA considers a "practice." From what I am reading between the lines and hearing off air... this may be part of the problem at UWSP.

Another thing, if the gym is "reserved" for the men's basketball team, it is now considered a practice. That's because the "reserved" aspect makes it appears as being closed to anyone else. Sure, teams may over run an open-gym when they show up, but those instances are not usually considered the same as actually reserving the gym or giving an air that no one can use the gym when a team shows up out of season.

Back to the "reporting back to coach" aspect, this is very important with how strength trainers are now used in Division III especially. Student-athletes can work with strength trainers at any time of the year with pretty much no major restrictions (that I am aware of). However, if a strength trainer reports to a coach on what students are showing up or who isn't, how students are doing and how others might be struggling, etc. then those instances turn into "practices" in the eyes of the NCAA. Again, accountability whether perceived or behind the scenes is now taking place.

This also gets to another aspect of this that isn't being talked about... part of the initial complaint was the conditioning class that Bob was teaching. That students not on the team were encouraged to drop the class and that only basketball players took part. I have no idea where things stand with this class, BUT if Bob told his players they HAD to take the class or he did actually tell non-basketball players to drop the class for any reason, then that would be considered a practice as well. Again, there is accountability in telling his players to take part and there is an effort to give the student-athletes an opportunity over other students.

I did my best in the show to not throw "practice" around, but as a former student-athlete it isn't that easy. We called any time we got together to play soccer in the off-season as practice. I got badly injured (strained MCL) in a soccer "practice" in the school's old gym. No idea if we reserved the space, though it was certainly available for us. We all talked about going to "practice" that night. There wasn't a coach to be seen - heck, they probably weren't even on campus most times - but we called it practice. The term is easy to use and can best describe when players get together to play the game with each other. If you listened to the Alex Richard part of the interview carefully, you heard me doing my best to clarify the situations we are talking about.

Per the four violations... they are discussing practices even if they don't use the word.

1. It is alleged that during the 2011-12 through 2015-16 academic years, the men's basketball coaching staff impermissibly directed, observed and engaged men's basketball student-athletes in athletically related activities outside the institution's declared playing seasons.

2. It is alleged that in spring semesters between 2012 and 2015, the men's basketball coaching staff impermissibly observed approximately 16 men's basketball prospective student-athletes as they participated with men's basketball student-athletes in activities detailed in allegation No. 1.

In the eyes of the NCAA... those are practices. That is what the NCAA is saying (these allegations from the UWSP statement are written in NCAA language - could have been almost a directly copy and paste).

- By impermissibly directing, observing, and engaging in athletically related activities - makes them a practice.
- By observing prospective student-athletes in activities both makes them practices AND violates a major rule in Division III regarding recruiting.

You may not see the word "practice," but in NCAA speak they are describing what they would consider practices.

John - you may not appreciate my comment about Jack Bennett having problems with practices, but to be blunt - the exact same thing Bob Semling is in trouble with is the exact same thing Bennett (with Semling on his staff, I believe) got in trouble with as well. Out of season, early season, practices. Whether either man directed them personally or created an environment where practices were to be held beyond the definition of what is allowed. While Jack Bennett may have dismissed his incident as being nothing (I have read his words more than I can count), it isn't nothing in the eyes of the NCAA - and remember the NCAA isn't some random office in Indy in these cases; the rules and the enforcement is conducted by fellow institutions and members of these institutions. Indy doesn't make the rules; schools do. Indy doesn't rule on punishments; the schools do (committees made up of fellow institutions). For many in Division III, these practice rules are just as important as not providing money or admissions illegally or outside the scope of Division III. This is not a minor, no big deal infraction. This isn't "like jaywalking" no matter how Jack Bennett, then or now, wants to spin it.

You played under Jack Bennett, as you admit, and while you may not want to admit it... many believe Jack Bennett got a slap on the wrist considering he was punished a couple of pre-season practices and then immediately went on to win the national championship. For many, being able to monitor your team, guide them directly or indirectly, and skirting the practice rules absolutely is a benefit because others are not doing it. One could absolutely argue that the extra practices, guiding, direction, etc. could absolutely lead to a national championship. The team is more cohesive when they get together on October 15 meaning less time getting on the same page and more time focusing on more complicated situations. It means being in a better place to win games early in the season than others which is absolutely an advantage when it comes to at-large selections, bracket placement, hosting opportunities.

Let me also say as a former student-athlete, it isn't like SAs now or even when I played had any idea what the actual rules of the Division where and thus if we were or were not breaking them. I never read the Division III manual in detail until the last ten or so years. I never knew it existed as a player. I trusted my coaching staff. And if they tell me this is how we do things, who am I to argue? So of course, John, you are going to feel nothing was done wrong when you were there even if it turns out it was wrong (no idea, just using an example).

The AD handed down the punishment to keep the NCAA from doing it. The NCAA approved of the punishment and the rest is history. Here is the catch, this is now considered a second violation in the eyes of the NCAA even if the coach is different (though he was on the staff for the first violation, I believe) and the administration is different. It is still a second offense. We all know how second offenses are dealt with.

Now per your comments about administration and a self-reported case... I think you might be naive.

First off, one could argue the administration has been the root cause of the problem. They have allowed Bob Semling and the program to allegedly create an environment where skirting or purposely breaking NCAA rules was allowed. I have seen a number of former players saying "the AD approved it!" If that is indeed the case, then both the former AD and Bob Semling are going to be at fault. It doesn't matter if the higher-ups approve something, everyone is supposed to know the rules and thus everyone will be punished.

Secondly, I have now heard the argument that the administration has to change because the punishment against Semling is too harsh. I hate to be blunt, but since when is the administration the ones making a mistake for a coach's alleged missteps? They are the runs running the college, not the basketball coach, right? Did it occur to anyone in this camp that if the administration, including a brand-new (but not unfamiliar) AD, has gotten word from the NCAA that the s--- is about to hit the fan? That they need to get aggressive in their punishment (their second attempt at it; first attempt was the "slap on the wrist" punishment Jack Bennett got - team had two or more practices pulled from them in the preseason). Why would anyone say the administration needs to be replaced because they have heard from the NCAA where an investigation is headed and they have acted accordingly? Especially on the heals of both the Baruch (several show of cause punishments handed down including to an administrator) and Thomas More (title and season vacated) cases. Blaming the administration for this is pointing the finger in the wrong direction and trying to distract from the problem at hand.

I will say that if the Chancellor and others did ignore any information sent to them in October of 2015, then certainly they will have responsibilities especially with the NCAA and they will probably be punished as well. However, they also could have checked with Bob Semling and others at the time, told it wasn't true, and thus ignored the allegations based on the word of their coach. I have no idea what did or did not happen, though I am sure the NCAA report will get to the bottom of it.

Now, whether this would be worse if it was self-reported or not is something no one can speak towards. No one can say how the NCAA would have handled this if they had gotten it via the school or a self-report. It was anonymously reported - that is the case we are working with. And let's not start blaming the tipster on this. It isn't like a tipster can fire off an accusation to the NCAA and run away and like it is a grenade and explode without it affecting the tipster. Any case that the NCAA investigates this fully from an tipster has that tipster involved quite a bit - even if people down't know who they are. So that individual(s) has to decide if it is worth writing a letter, gathering their facts, providing those facts, willing to be questioned probably multiple times, and be a part of the case from start to finish (in the Thomas More case, the tipster came back several times with additional information to keep the case moving forward). This isn't something that individual(s) is going to take lightly when it is going to have a major impact on their lives, perceived or not perceived.

Stop trying to blame the messenger. Clearly from the allegations, this was not a one-time mistake. There are strong indications that there was an atmosphere of skirting the rules and the NCAA infractions investigator(s) and committee have apparently told UWSP they are more than displeased about these.

This case along with the Baruch and Thomas More cases are also a wake up call to the rest of Division III. Stop trying to act like this isn't Division III. The division is clearly starting to crack down on what appears to be an increase in violations (may or may not be the case). If other schools are not receiving the message, including UWSP, than they are at fault.

And let's remember one other thing here... the NCAA has not spoken. We have no idea if the NCAA is going to accept this as being good enough. There is a VERY good chance they come down with more punishments (a major fine, additional compliance seminars seem pretty obvious). From what I have been told, we won't know for a little while longer.

[John Gleich]

As an aside, when I was in high school (closing in on 2 decades now... So rules may have changed) I participated in "open gyms" that were observed by d3 coaches that included current college players on several occasions and at EVERY school that I had an official visit at (this didn't include UWSP, though it did include some scholarship schools, including the one I ultimately went to before Point). Certainly, the rules differ between the divisions, but having coaches observe the open gyms with a recruit was the common practice as opposed to the exception.

Again, that was a long time ago and the rules may have changed. But it just goes back to my point that everyone is in violation.

This statement isn't any attempt to absolve Point of any wrongdoing. But it does show a (potential? Probable?) lack of uniform administration of justice. And because the NCAA lacks the resources to administer justice in a uniform manner, then something needs to change.

[badgerwarhawk]

Sun shines in the dogs a$$ every now and then

Maybe you should take that computer of yours and actually watch some games.  La Crosse's victory last night wasn't the "sun shining in the dog's ass."  They're a good team.  The sun, dog's asses and even the blind squirrel had nothing to do with what happened last night.  They're going to win a bunch of games in the league and be in the thick of it come February.

So no game review or do those just come after wins?   

I wrote game reviews after every game last year and we lost a bunch.  Admittedly I was less than enthusiastic about writing one for this game but I did write it like I've written one after probably every game for the past several years.

Here it is.  Evidently you didn't go back enough pages to see it.  I'm disappointed you would think this.     The WARHAWKS are my guys.  I never pick against them and I'll promote them win or lose. 

La Crosse (9-3): 82
WARHAWKS (11-1): 68

The Eagles hit on 9 of their first 10 shots and though we were able to keep up with them for a while they eventually made a 10-2 run opening a double digit lead which we could never overcome.  We did get back to within six points with about two minutes remaining in the half but they hit a three pointer and neither team scored the rest of the way so the Eagle lead at half was nine 43-34.  The Eagles shot 60% for the half.  We didn't shoot that badly ourselves, 50%, but they were 5-8 from beyond the arc, we were 1-5 and their bench outscored ours 12-0.  The second half wasn't a much different.  The Eagles went back up by double digits after a few minutes eventually building their lead to a high of 15 points and every time we reduced it to a single digit, getting as close as 8 points, they hit their shots, went 16-23 from the free throw line and we had empty possessions.  We've lived by the three pointer but last night 48 or our 68 points were scored in the paint and we hit only 3 of 13 treys.

Scotty Tyler: 17 points, 4 rebounds, 3 blocks, 2 steals
Demetrius Woodley: 17 points, 4 rebounds
Andre Brown: 15 points, 3 rebounds, 4 assists

[Just Bill]