MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[tomt4525]

I will suggest the possibility of a larger question(s) which the NCAA will have to ask/examine 1) Does this problem extend to other teams/sports at UWSP?
2) Given the conference was involved in the prior investigation and the conference essentially represents State of Wisconsin athletics, does the problem exist at other schools in the WIAC? 

Number 1 will be examined IMHO. Why? because of the nature of a second violation and the Major violation status.  And, the NCAA is not going to be embarrassed by having another violation pop up after investigating this one.
Not too sure about 2 unless the investigation resulted in statements which indicate UWSP was 'doing what the conference was doing' in which case NCAA will have no choice but to investigate further.

To your first question, the NCAA investigator on campus and the investigation itself is never limited to just the complaint. I think we have already seen that in the fact that there was a problem with "tryouts" for prospective student-athletes (recruits). The investigation goes where ever the questions and answers take it. If it is revealed that other programs are having a similar problem, we will know about it. I will say that I don't think we will see that for two reasons: it wasn't addressed in the recent punishments and I have enough background information to feel comfortable that this was isolated primarily to basketball. Now that being said, the fourth allegation points at an overall lack of compliance on the part of the department and does not directly point at basketball (if memory serves; I don't have the allegations in front of me right now). That could be a hint of bigger problems, but nothing I have heard on or off the record is pointing in that direction. This seems to be a men's basketball problem primarily.

Per the second question, I think the WIAC definitely treated the first investigation "kindly" in retrospect and that is the exact reason why the NCAA didn't allow them to investigate this time. I do NOT think this is a problem across the board in the WIAC. Maybe there are others, but certainly not across the board. I have had enough conversation with people elsewhere to feel confident others are not circumventing any of the rules. However, the conference very well may have tried to treat one of its members with kid gloves the first time and was unable to do that again, even though we certainly do not know if they would have.

I am quite sure nothing in the investigation will reveal that UWSP was 'doing what the conference was doing' in the slightest.

If it makes you feel any better, Tom, UWSP will potentially pick up a lot more fans for this season as a result of all this. Many people who root for the teams in the upper half of the CCIW, as well as fans of Chicago, Wash U, St. Norbert, Ripon, etc., are now likely to root for the Pointers as well. Why? Because the more that the Pointers win, the more it hurts the chances of the other WIAC teams to register in the Central Region rankings and get ahead in the Pool C line in front of those teams from the other leagues on Selection Monday. Since UWSP is itself ineligible for Pool C, the Pointers are therefore not a threat to anybody from outside the WIAC as far as regional rankings are concerned.

Yeah, it's a mercenary attitude, and it doesn't mean that outsiders are condoning what the UWSP program has done. But all's fair in love, war, and Pool C.

This created a question in my mind.  Should UWSP play well enough going forward, could they still be regionally ranked - in other words, if it is a self-imposed post season ban, does that "ban" them from being ranked?

I wouldn't think so. The regional advisory committee's purpose is to identify and rank teams for tournament selection. There's truly no reason to include an ineligible team.

I actually disagree. By leaving out UWSP (if they are worthy of being ranked), you end up hurting even more teams than just UWSP or the WIAC. If UWSP was undefeated and the best team in the region, they better be regionally ranked number one because those who played them deserve to have that vRRO - or better, if they had two or three losses, the teams that beat them deserve to have the advantage of a win in the vRRO category over them. Removing them hurts an opponent's resume and now we are doing a disservice to those who have absolutely nothing to do with UWSP or the case.

Furthermore, they changed the rule recently that teams in the process of joining Division III would be count as in-region opponents and for regional rankings (especially the years they were full members, but not eligible for the NCAA tournament). This was done because many conferences were getting screwed with top teams having two games not counted, but had to be played for conference reasons. St. Mary's (Md.) comes to mind with Southern Virginia. Granted they were 2-0 against a sub-par team, but their overall record suddenly had two less wins on it that was not in their control. Seemed a little unfair.

If UWSP has a resume that deserves to be ranked, they should be ranked. This allows any of their opponents to not be punished. It is not that hard if UWSP were to be ranked higher to come to the "table" for an at-large to skip over them and select the next team in the rankings. Leaving UWSP out of the rankings goes too far.

(That all said, I will reach out to those I need to chat with to see how UWSP will be treated.)

I will say that I'm not entirely sure which part of the allegations the bolded part is directed at, but either way...I'm disagreeing with it 100 percent.  Yes, UWSP was doing some things that got them in trouble...that part is quite obvious at this point.  Other schools in the WIAC not circumventing ANY rules is 100 percent false.  One of the allegations against UWSP deals with prospective athletes participating in "open gyms," apparently 16 times.  That happens everywhere.  I've talked to some recruits and know they have played in open gyms on every school visit they have taken, this includes most every WIAC school.  I've heard things about certain schools where coaches actually run recruits through certain drills while on campus visits, that's way more egregious than a recruit jumping into some pickup games.  In fact, recruits playing in open gyms happened so often everywhere that I just assumed there was zero problem with it.

[AppletonRocks]

Hold on--Open gyms aren't against the rules.  Open gyms coordinated and observed by the coaching staff are.  So if a group of players and a group of recruits play for a few hours, at the Y or in the school gym, and the coaches didn't coordinate or oversee that, and that space was open to anyone else eligible to use the facility, what is wrong with that? 

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

I will never disagree that rules are bent or broken in Division III... also will not disagree that what happens with recruits is broken or bent sometimes on purpose and other times with care... but I do not think it is a conspiracy. I have talked to my fair share of people in and out of the conference and they have enough credible stories that I know it is happening. However, to say something like "it is happening across the board" or "across the WIAC" would make it a conspiracy and I do not believe that is happening. Furthermore, I have talked to those inside the WIAC and trust them when they tell me "not at our place." Maybe in the past and it has been cleaned up or never before. Furthermore, many recruits will tell stories about their recruiting to make themselves bigger than they are or because they confuse schools. I know, for example, of recruits who get confused when multiple types of schools are recruiting them: DIII, DII, DI, NAIA. Their experiences are not the same across the board, but they may generalize them as across the board.

I am not saying recruits are lying... just saying their stories, when pushed, do not necessarily line up or stay cohesive. That is also the same in many other cases about many other things as well beyond recruits.

My point being... I do not think other schools in the conference are purposely breaking the rules and that it is a conference-wide problem. Each problem is a school problem. And if it is happening at other places, here is hoping this case wakes people up. Division III isn't having any of it. I can't tell you how many coaches I have talked to angry that they are playing by the rules, their jobs are on the line, and another coach is breaking the rules for an advantage (and yes, coaches see it as an advantage, plain and simple). Hopefully departments now see that and if they are allowing things to slide by, they crack down because you never know where the next anonymous tip will come from or affect who.

Hold on--Open gyms aren't against the rules.  Open gyms coordinated and observed by the coaching staff are.  So if a group of players and a group of recruits play for a few hours, at the Y or in the school gym, and the coaches didn't coordinate or oversee that, and that space was open to anyone else eligible to use the facility, what is wrong with that? 

Technically, the recruit can't feel like he is trying out with the team. I will double-check the rules on an "open gym" with the team that doesn't have a coach in attendance and the gym wasn't reserved... or even worse, the team mandated everyone on the team be there (all of those make it a "practice" in the eyes of the NCAA).

If the recruit just picked up a game with the team... I don't believe that breaks the rules, but I will clarify.

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

To follow up... recruits are allowed to play pick-up games, or open gyms, with the team as long as no coaches are involved and as long as there are no requirements from players to be there (expectations). If it is just guys playing... so be it. No big deal.

[fredfalcon]

It will be good when this whole boring discussion of Stevens Point's problems is over. Enough already!

[Greek Tragedy]

It will be good when this whole boring discussion of Stevens Point's problems is over. Enough already!

To the contrary, this board is boring without it.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

To follow up... recruits are allowed to play pick-up games, or open gyms, with the team as long as no coaches are involved and as long as there are no requirements from players to be there (expectations). If it is just guys playing... so be it. No big deal.

There also can't be evaluation.  I believe, if the players report back to the coaches about how good the recruit is or whether he'll fit in, strengths/weaknesses, etc - that's prohibited.

[AppletonRocks]

To follow up... recruits are allowed to play pick-up games, or open gyms, with the team as long as no coaches are involved and as long as there are no requirements from players to be there (expectations). If it is just guys playing... so be it. No big deal.

There also can't be evaluation.  I believe, if the players report back to the coaches about how good the recruit is or whether he'll fit in, strengths/weaknesses, etc - that's prohibited.

I think Point's case is more extreme, but here is an example case:

A current player at UW Eau Claire goes to a YMCA and plays in a pick-up game with a high school kid who tells him he is a senior at Eau Claire Memorial HS and might want to play college basketball.  The player tells his coach about the kid (his name, skills, demeanor and potential interest) and the coach follows up with an introductory phone call to his coach and/or the player.   

Three scenarios: 

1) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He does nothing to influence the kid and says nothing to his coach after,

2) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He does nothing to influence the kid, but updates the  coach after,

3) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He tells the kid he would like him to visit Eau Claire and meet the team, and updates the  coach after.

Which of these is a violation?  Should any of them be a violation?  This is crazy if these activities aren't allowed.  I don't know how coaches can possibly not get into non-compliance positions (without malice) as good players want to play with good players, whether they become recruits or not.  WIAC schools don't pay coaches enough to have eyes in the back of their head.   



 

[Greek Tragedy]

River Falls' Herink hits a jumper with a second left for the win over Point. 69-68. He was fouled, missed the free throw (purposely?)...

[fredfalcon]

Yes, Greek,  purposely. He's a 90% f.t. shooter and nearly missed the rim, on purpose.

[fredfalcon]

The  most glaring stat deficiency between SP and RF was rebounding:  37-18 advantage for RF. SP got only 2 O.Rbds. RF got 9.

But RF committed 18 turnovers to 10 for SP. SP is weak in the middle, or was tonight. Neither team played their best basketball.

[fredfalcon]

Whitewater 68-66 over Pville.

[badgerwarhawk]

To follow up... recruits are allowed to play pick-up games, or open gyms, with the team as long as no coaches are involved and as long as there are no requirements from players to be there (expectations). If it is just guys playing... so be it. No big deal.

There also can't be evaluation.  I believe, if the players report back to the coaches about how good the recruit is or whether he'll fit in, strengths/weaknesses, etc - that's prohibited.

I think Point's case is more extreme, but here is an example case:

A current player at UW Eau Claire goes to a YMCA and plays in a pick-up game with a high school kid who tells him he is a senior at Eau Claire Memorial HS and might want to play college basketball.  The player tells his coach about the kid (his name, skills, demeanor and potential interest) and the coach follows up with an introductory phone call to his coach and/or the player.   

Three scenarios: 

1) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He does nothing to influence the kid and says nothing to his coach after,

2) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He does nothing to influence the kid, but updates the  coach after,

3) A week later, the player goes back and plays in the same pick-up game.  He tells the kid he would like him to visit Eau Claire and meet the team, and updates the  coach after.

Which of these is a violation?  Should any of them be a violation?  This is crazy if these activities aren't allowed.  I don't know how coaches can possibly not get into non-compliance positions (without malice) as good players want to play with good players, whether they become recruits or not.  WIAC schools don't pay coaches enough to have eyes in the back of their head.   



 

From my understanding of what we've been discussing for a week there may not be a violation in any of the three but D'Mac will be able to shed more light on it. 

[stoutguy]

It will be good when this whole boring discussion of Stevens Point's problems is over. Enough already!

Could not agree more, Fred. 

[fredfalcon]

Will you be around on January 25th? I think you will be on vacation then but if you are not I hope to see you at RF for the Stout game. Stout obviously has a good team.