MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

What I can say, John, is that this is the slippery slope. I am not about to sit here and tell you what UWSP has allegedly done is not being done by others. I have been inundated in the last 24 hours by plenty of stories, off the record. I have also been familiar with my own stories over the course of the last 20 years. Coaches are constantly skirting the rules whether purposely or not.

One person gave me a great analogy that I am going to change a bit to protect the innocent (guilt?) LOL.

Let's say we know that there is a way to can do something that is normally impermissible. To do it correctly, it costs a certainly amount of money. But in an effort to save money, we find a way to do the same but run the risk of being caught. We aren't caught that often, but when we do there is a fine imposed. The fine is more than the cost to do it correctly for a week, but I only get caught once every four weeks or something. In other words, it is cheaper for me to pay the fine and get caught than it is to pay to do it correctly. The fine never changes and I change my habits briefly to not get caught again, but once again I return to doing it impermissibly until I am caught again. Now if the fines were increasing on each offense, you bet I am going to do it correctly to save myself money.

That is kind of what schools do with these rules. Let's take the UWSP as a great example. Semling knew from the Bennett case that they could skirt the practice rules, gain an advantage (whether you want to admit it or not), and if the "fine" was losing just a few preseason practices that price is well worth it especially since it has lead to a national championship(s) in the past. The thing is, the NCAA hasn't been cracking down. I applaud if the NCAA is now saying enough is enough and amping up the punishments to make sure schools "get it." Yes, UWSP may be the sacrificial lamb here, but they are also a repeat offender.

And yes, the loophole of additional jobs including classes is a dangerous area for Division III. However, the intent of those loopholes/rules is NOT to allow for backdoor situations. It was to help schools hire people full time. Schools who are using these opportunities to benefit their programs are in violation and if the NCAA is told about them they will be punished.

Per your analogies, nearly all of them are not permitted and coaches, ADs, and others know better (and arguing they don't know better is not good enough; see the Thomas More case). Division III may be a bit old-school and you could argue that some of these rules should be changed to benefit people like recruits (I totally understand the idea of letting recruits practice with a team when they visit; I also totally understand how schools would abuse that rule if allowed - more than they are apparently doing now... oh the stories...). However, the only way to change NCAA rules is if Division III institutions change those rules themselves. This isn't some random group in Indy making up the rules Division III lives by... it is Division III themselves. And since this is the rule the division lives under, they need to be followed. Until a majority of Division III institutions say otherwise, those (not you, John) that complain need to understand there is no point - all institutions know the rules and so do we.

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. 

This is BS. The investigators, the infractions committee, the rules committees, everyone are Division III people... institutions... etc. Those who control Division III are Division III. We need to stop pretending to be martyrs and that those above Division III walk all over the division. I can't tell you how many times at the two NCAA conventions I have attended in the last two years (can't make this year's convention) where Division I and Division II people spoke highly of Division III along with trying to adopt what Division III does into their own ranks (national SAAC has members on the Division III management council and have a voice in legislation; that is now being adopted at Division I and Division II who never had it).

Sure, we can make an argument about the budget, but that is also far more difficult to change than just saying it. Division III gets 3.18% of the budget and that has been the case since the dawn of the three divisions. Let's be realistic, we are spending money created by Division I. The basketball and other contracts (not football) fuel a vast majority of the overall NCAA budget. Division III supplies next to nothing to that budget - just the fees schools and conferences pay. The division doesn't have any TV contracts that bring in money.

I will also say, to say they aren't doing anything to help the division is incorrect as well. Last year it was approved to raise Division III membership fees from around $900 per institution per year to under $2000. By the letter of the rules in the NCAA, Division III should have only gotten 3.18% of those increase funds. The rest of the NCAA allowed Division III to keep the increased money themselves. 100% of that increased money goes to Division III. That is a major deal and could lead to an eventual change of 3.18% to maybe 3.5 or 4%. But that change is like changing the US Constitution. ALL THREE Divisions have to approve it (like approving women's beach volleyball as a championship sport two years ago). You have to convince Division I institutions who are responsible for bringing in the operating budget to begin with to part with more of their money. We have enough problems in this country having the idea of the rich being taxed more than the middle class... so you can probably guess how this might go at the NCAA level.

And BTW - budgets have ballooned? Again, if Division III gets 3.18%... where do you get the idea that other budgets have ballooned that haven't also affected Division III? Our budget has increased almost every year ... but we are also the largest division and the only one working in a deficit most years. It is what it is.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

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.

I know of coaches who have told me it goes on and it frustrates many who believe that it is a minority of coaches who are doing it (we do have a lot of coaches if you think about it). The rules have also changed a few times between when you and I played an now, but I hear about it happening now. I would love to expand on this, but I really can't because much of my info is privy to being between me and the person I am talking with.

The problem with uniform administration of justice is simple... the NCAA doesn't have someone at every school... they trust the schools to report and to administrate the rules. That's they come down hard on a school like Thomas More when they clearly don't follow the rules. To be honest, more people need to report infractions - sad as that is to say. Also, coaches, programs, departments, schools need to stop trying to cut corners because they can. I realize that is naive to say, but that is the problem. Maybe this case will wake others up to the fact that the NCAA at the Division III level has decided enough is enough. We catch you, you will feel the punishments. Again, we haven't heard from the NCAA per this case, but we certainly have a strong indication where this is headed.

[John Gleich]

Dave,

I accept your criticism of my comments and I thank you for your reporting, as well as the opportunity to have this platform to voice my opinions. I'm OK with disagreeing with you and I apologize if I crossed any lines in my comments.

Thanks, as well, for including Dale Ryman, Jack Bennett, and Alex Richard in last night's show. You went above and behind in your investigation and your thoroughness isn't unappreciated.

None of this means I'm not still frustrated. And I don't speak in any official capacity for the program or university. But I still just want you to know that this story, as well as all stories in d3 have greater exposure because of what you do. Usually, this is good exposure. Occasionally, like in this case, it's not good. But you're still here to report it, so thanks you.

I need to step away from this for a while. It has consumed far too much of my last 24 hours.

Go Pointers! Good luck Coach Dernbach! Come back soon Coach Semling!

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Dave,

I accept your criticism of my comments and I thank you for your reporting, as well as the opportunity to have this platform to voice my opinions. I'm OK with disagreeing with you and I apologize if I crossed any lines in my comments.

Thanks, as well, for including Dale Ryman, Jack Bennett, and Alex Richard in last night's show. You went above and behind in your investigation and your thoroughness isn't unappreciated.

None of this means I'm not still frustrated. And I don't speak in any official capacity for the program or university. But I still just want you to know that this story, as well as all stories in d3 have greater exposure because of what you do. Usually, this is good exposure. Occasionally, like in this case, it's not good. But you're still here to report it, so thanks you.

I need to step away from this for a while. It has consumed far too much of my last 24 hours.

Go Pointers! Good luck Coach Dernbach! Come back soon Coach Semling!

John, if I was in your shoes... I would be just as frustrated. A long time ago there was bad news at my alma mater (not to this scale, more local) and I was all kind of frustrated and confused. Just didn't know what to think or who to believe. I can't imagine being in your shoes, but the best I can come up with is appreciating where you are standing.

Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate them. I do respect that you are willing to disagree and let me disagree. I don't feel you crossed the line in any way... I hope you don't think the same of me (if I have, I apologize).

Last night's show was unreal. I was finishing up a pretaping when it all hit the fan (might notice me get distracted late in the Geneseo interview as I look at my laptop and see Gordon and Pat discussing UWSP ... my mind was right back to my TV news producing days of how do I blow up my rundown. LOL

I will continue to work on this story. I hope to get more people to discuss it and the amount of phone calls and emails will only increase. We have some time to analyze it before we start all over when the NCAA comes out with their report (from what I've been told).

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

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.

This is what I referred to about being singled out.  It's common practice.  I didn't play in college, but every time a recruit was on campus the varsity guys would come round some of us up to have "open gym" with the recruit - the thought being that if it's mostly non-team members, no one will be the wiser and they could get a look at the kid.

My alma mater has a new men's coach this year, with largely NAIA experience.  The first thing he asked me when we met was how D3 coaches can ever evaluate a player when they can only watch them play off campus.  He was upset enough I was starting to wonder if he regretted taking a d3 job.  I don't think the issue is necessarily that the rules are good (everyone thinks they should be better defined) or that there are lots of teams doing this.

You're rightly frustrated that your team is being used as the wake up call.  I think we're all with you there.  It probably could have been 99% of the schools in d3.  I am assuming, though, both the prominence of the school and the witnesses they are alleged to have that testify to the coach and AD being challenged about the appropriateness of these actions, is what made UWSP the target this time.

If it had been a few instances in one pre-season, as we initially thought, it would've been minor (as it was treated initially) - now that it's four or five seasons and dozens of instances, it becomes a better choice for them to make a statement.

[Gregory Sager]

You're rightly frustrated that your team is being used as the wake up call.  I think we're all with you there.  It probably could have been 99% of the schools in d3.  I am assuming, though, both the prominence of the school and the witnesses they are alleged to have that testify to the coach and AD being challenged about the appropriateness of these actions, is what made UWSP the target this time.

If it had been a few instances in one pre-season, as we initially thought, it would've been minor (as it was treated initially) - now that it's four or five seasons and dozens of instances, it becomes a better choice for them to make a statement.

D-Mac thinks that the fact that UWSP is a potential two-time offender, having been dinged (actually, self-dinged) in the past during the Bennett era for a rules infraction involving practices, may be playing into UWSP being singled out as well.

[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?   

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!!! 

Thanks, Cubs. Completely missed that! LOL

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

You're rightly frustrated that your team is being used as the wake up call.  I think we're all with you there.  It probably could have been 99% of the schools in d3.  I am assuming, though, both the prominence of the school and the witnesses they are alleged to have that testify to the coach and AD being challenged about the appropriateness of these actions, is what made UWSP the target this time.

If it had been a few instances in one pre-season, as we initially thought, it would've been minor (as it was treated initially) - now that it's four or five seasons and dozens of instances, it becomes a better choice for them to make a statement.

D-Mac thinks that the fact that UWSP is a potential two-time offender, having been dinged (actually, self-dinged) in the past during the Bennett era for a rules infraction involving practices, may be playing into UWSP being singled out as well.

I feel that is absolutely the reason this has gone from possibly a secondary violation to a major one - along with the fact that yesterday's information alludes to the fact this wasn't isolated incidents... that it appears to be ongoing, with frequent occasions (16 when it comes to recruits). Bob Semling was on Jack Bennett's staff when the first investigation took place. In Bennett's own words, they felt it was akin to "jay walking." There are some who feel that is a very easy thing to point to when it comes to lack of institutional control. If the feeling is that these "practices" and other items are considered to be minor violations by a coaching staff despite the fact they are not considered minor (no rule is truly considered minor) in the eyes of the NCAA... coupled with the fact that Semling was part of the first investigation is grounds to make this a major violation(s). In other words, he knew better because of the first investigation.

(I will add this as an aside: several former players and others have stated, mainly on Twitter, that some of this was approved by the former AD and thus why was Bob or others at fault. The NCAA does not believe in this way of thinking. We have seen that in several cases including the Thomas More Case. The head coach is responsible for creating and maintaining an atmosphere of compliance. If someone above him tells him to do something that breaks the rules, he should know better than to follow that guidance. And no, job security is not an argument the NCAA will accept. Coaches go to the same compliance meetings as everyone else and part of their job is to keep their program in compliance. Whether an AD said they could do it, allowed it to continue, looked the other way, or dismissed those who said otherwise does not give a coach carte blanche to continue breaking the rules - especially in a case they should already know better due to history. The NCAA will find whoever needs to be at fault at fault... but it doesn't stop higher up... anyone and everyone involved, including all the way down to assistant coaches - again, see the Thomas More Case where the NCAA nearly found the assistant coach guilt of breaking ethical rules - are responsible for maintaining compliance.)

Back when the Bennett case took place, the WIAC petitioned, and was granted, for the right to investigate the case. This time around, the WIAC also petitioned to investigate (I can not remember where I read that, sorry, I will look)... they were denied by the NCAA. This is a repeat offender in the eyes of the NCAA and once they opened the investigation, it wasn't going to be limited to whatever the original complaint discussed. When someone answers a question and there is a nugget of information, the investigator(s) is going to follow that as well. This opened the door at UWSP and I strongly believe the NCAA has found far more than what people realized was happening behind the scenes. This also is why the NCAA didn't want, or maybe trust, the WIAC to do its own investigation.

I hate to say this, but we all don't know what we don't know. We are basing a lot on: reports from UWSP based on information from the NCAA investigation, media reports that seem to have solid information as well, and whatever anyone has said on record. Until the NCAA comes out with its final report, there is going to be a lot we don't know. That final report... probably March or April until we see it unless it is sped up in the standard time line along the way by entities involved - doubt it.

[Greek Tragedy]

I really think the most recent championship could be in jeopardy.

Anyway, big weekend of WIAC games again.

Could Point surprise La Crosse after the Eagles' big win in Whitewater?

Can River Falls continue the momentum against Platteville?

Is it possible that Stout can go into Oshkosh and win? Catch the Titans on the rebound?

Can this year's National Champions actually start off 0-2 in the WIAC up in Eau Claire?

[AppletonRocks]

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.

What I can say, John, is that this is the slippery slope. I am not about to sit here and tell you what UWSP has allegedly done is not being done by others. I have been inundated in the last 24 hours by plenty of stories, off the record. I have also been familiar with my own stories over the course of the last 20 years. Coaches are constantly skirting the rules whether purposely or not.

One person gave me a great analogy that I am going to change a bit to protect the innocent (guilt?) LOL.

Let's say we know that there is a way to can do something that is normally impermissible. To do it correctly, it costs a certainly amount of money. But in an effort to save money, we find a way to do the same but run the risk of being caught. We aren't caught that often, but when we do there is a fine imposed. The fine is more than the cost to do it correctly for a week, but I only get caught once every four weeks or something. In other words, it is cheaper for me to pay the fine and get caught than it is to pay to do it correctly. The fine never changes and I change my habits briefly to not get caught again, but once again I return to doing it impermissibly until I am caught again. Now if the fines were increasing on each offense, you bet I am going to do it correctly to save myself money.

That is kind of what schools do with these rules. Let's take the UWSP as a great example. Semling knew from the Bennett case that they could skirt the practice rules, gain an advantage (whether you want to admit it or not), and if the "fine" was losing just a few preseason practices that price is well worth it especially since it has lead to a national championship(s) in the past. The thing is, the NCAA hasn't been cracking down. I applaud if the NCAA is now saying enough is enough and amping up the punishments to make sure schools "get it." Yes, UWSP may be the sacrificial lamb here, but they are also a repeat offender.

And yes, the loophole of additional jobs including classes is a dangerous area for Division III. However, the intent of those loopholes/rules is NOT to allow for backdoor situations. It was to help schools hire people full time. Schools who are using these opportunities to benefit their programs are in violation and if the NCAA is told about them they will be punished.

Per your analogies, nearly all of them are not permitted and coaches, ADs, and others know better (and arguing they don't know better is not good enough; see the Thomas More case). Division III may be a bit old-school and you could argue that some of these rules should be changed to benefit people like recruits (I totally understand the idea of letting recruits practice with a team when they visit; I also totally understand how schools would abuse that rule if allowed - more than they are apparently doing now... oh the stories...). However, the only way to change NCAA rules is if Division III institutions change those rules themselves. This isn't some random group in Indy making up the rules Division III lives by... it is Division III themselves. And since this is the rule the division lives under, they need to be followed. Until a majority of Division III institutions say otherwise, those (not you, John) that complain need to understand there is no point - all institutions know the rules and so do we.

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. 

This is BS. The investigators, the infractions committee, the rules committees, everyone are Division III people... institutions... etc. Those who control Division III are Division III. We need to stop pretending to be martyrs and that those above Division III walk all over the division. I can't tell you how many times at the two NCAA conventions I have attended in the last two years (can't make this year's convention) where Division I and Division II people spoke highly of Division III along with trying to adopt what Division III does into their own ranks (national SAAC has members on the Division III management council and have a voice in legislation; that is now being adopted at Division I and Division II who never had it).

Sure, we can make an argument about the budget, but that is also far more difficult to change than just saying it. Division III gets 3.18% of the budget and that has been the case since the dawn of the three divisions. Let's be realistic, we are spending money created by Division I. The basketball and other contracts (not football) fuel a vast majority of the overall NCAA budget. Division III supplies next to nothing to that budget - just the fees schools and conferences pay. The division doesn't have any TV contracts that bring in money.

I will also say, to say they aren't doing anything to help the division is incorrect as well. Last year it was approved to raise Division III membership fees from around $900 per institution per year to under $2000. By the letter of the rules in the NCAA, Division III should have only gotten 3.18% of those increase funds. The rest of the NCAA allowed Division III to keep the increased money themselves. 100% of that increased money goes to Division III. That is a major deal and could lead to an eventual change of 3.18% to maybe 3.5 or 4%. But that change is like changing the US Constitution. ALL THREE Divisions have to approve it (like approving women's beach volleyball as a championship sport two years ago). You have to convince Division I institutions who are responsible for bringing in the operating budget to begin with to part with more of their money. We have enough problems in this country having the idea of the rich being taxed more than the middle class... so you can probably guess how this might go at the NCAA level.

And BTW - budgets have ballooned? Again, if Division III gets 3.18%... where do you get the idea that other budgets have ballooned that haven't also affected Division III? Our budget has increased almost every year ... but we are also the largest division and the only one working in a deficit most years. It is what it is.

Dave--Several institutions in D-3 (large and small, private and public) have told me that their (not extravagant) travel costs to national championships were not properly reimbursed such that they needed to raise money to fund their participation.   That seems extreme.  I can't imagine any team in the D-1 tourney needs to do that.  I stayed in the Wisconsin Badgers hotel at the 2000 and the 2015 Final Four, and they were not at the Red Roof Inn.   Is a decent bus, a clean room and a few meals too much to ask if you qualify for a D-3 Championship?  Is the funding that you suggest is increasing not getting to the schools and being absorbed in investigations like the Point scandal?   

I really appreciate your digging into the rules and explaining them at such depth.  It appears to me there are many ways that a "practice" could occur inadvertently and violations of this type are likely rampant.  Point may be more guilty, but I suspect many coaches are not fearful of the Oct. 15 rule but all the other means they can hold a "practice" you documented.

It should be interesting to see how Point impacts the WIAC race now that it's started.  They can do some damage for sure.  Seems they are dead to rights on this; not good judgement on their part.   

[tomt4525]

Being the best D3 team ever, including a top 5 player ever in the WIAC, certainly employing a bold strategy losing the first 2 games of the conference season, right Shinetime??

[Greek Tragedy]

Point answers the critics with a nice 76-58 win in La Crosse...up 13 at halftime!

The 2017 National Champs slip to 0-2 in conference play...playing possum and have the rest of the league right where they want them!

[ShineTime]

If a team can't win with as much talent is on that squad then you have to dig really deep and find where the problem lies.  I'm pretty sure any d3 coach would love to have that lineup is it the players not jelling together or poor coaching?

[AppletonRocks]

If a team can't win with as much talent is on that squad then you have to dig really deep and find where the problem lies.  I'm pretty sure any d3 coach would love to have that lineup is it the players not jelling together or poor coaching?

They may need to abandon the new calm/cool/polite Pat Miller approach.   

[chmarx]

Miller calm?  Do they have a wealthy booster paying for his Prozac???

Seriously, congratulations to Point for an impressive win.  We were never really in it.