MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Titan Q]

Those who read other boards know that I've been saying for a year or so now that we're starting to see the effects of the redshirting ban on the WIAC.  Just yesterday on the Top 25 board I posted:

I've posted this before, but I continue to feel strongly that the WIAC has come back to the pack in a big way now that redshirting has been banned.  Former UW-Stevens Point head man Dick Bennett pointed to this as well in a radio interview he did early in the year.  The feasibility of redshirting (for non-medical reasons) was a huge advantage for the WIAC.

For a number of years, I think the WIAC was by far the best league in Division III.   The last three years or so, I believe there have been better leagues - the CCIW in 2005-06 (Illinois Wesleyan, Augustana, Elmhurst, and North Central were powers), and the UAA the last two. 

The WIAC is still right in the middle of the "best conference" conversation with its depth and parity, but the league isn't producing dominant teams ala Bo Ryan's Platteville squads, the Eau Claire team that got to Salem in 2000 and lost without their best player (injury), or the back-to-back Stevens Point teams of 2004 and 2005.  This year, the WIAC tournament teams were eliminated by two IIAC teams - Loras won @ Whitewater and Buena Vista beat Stevens Point on a neutral court.  A few years ago, that just would not have happened.

The WIAC coming back to the pack is one factor I'd point to in the recent parity in Division III.

I absolutely don't think the WIAC schools were doing anything wrong by redshirting.  But on the other hand, the private schools (which make up the majority of D3 schools) just could not redshirt due to the cost of tuition.  I've been around the CCIW 19 years now and have never heard of a non-medical redshirt.  In the WIAC it was fairly common.  Example:

"This was a unique year," Bowen said. "We had four junior college kids, three from Minnesota and one from Arizona, who were very interested in us and they fit. Two of them have some size - 6-6 and 6-8 - and another fits a desperate need we have at point guard. The recruiting just kind of fell into place and that allowed me to redshirt our entire freshmen class, and I like them."

http://www.uwrf.edu/sports_archive_0304/basketball-mens/02-03/mbbresults.stories.2003.html



When I'd see WIAC schools play in the past (say 1995-2005), I was always struck by the physical maturity of the players.  It was that size that was the biggest difference between the WIAC teams and other good D3's and I suspect a lot of those good big guys were redshirted as freshmen.

I use this example to sort through it in my own head.  Illinois Wesleyan had a 1st Team All-American a couple years ago - 6-6 wing Keelan Amelianovich.  Keelan was a JV player at IWU as a freshman - he just wasn't ready to play varsity that first year.  The next year, he made that freshman to sophomore year jump you see so often, and in Keelan's case it led him to be the CCIW Most Oustanding Player that season.  He was an All-American as a junior and senior at IWU.  Now...let's say IWU had redshirted Amelianovich as a freshman (as UW-Stevens Point did with Nick Bennett).  Instead of that "wasted" year as a freshman, what if Keelan was a freshman that year he ended up being the CCIW's M.O.P. and then a senior last year?  Or current IWU senior Darius Gant - a JV player as a freshman, a first year varsity player last year as a junior, and a 1st Team All-CCIW player this year (his senior year).  What if Darius had a year left at IWU?  That makes an enourmous difference for all four years of eligibility.  Then add a couple more redshirts to the same team (say IWU's 6-6 Jones brother twins), and you have an even bigger advantage vs teams that don't have redshirt players.  What if Steve Hicklin had not redshirted his freshman year, and had blown his freshman year on the end of the bench, and had graduated last year?  Big impact on the Pointers the last couple years I think.

Again, the WIAC wasn't doing anything wrong at all by redshirting (it wasn't against the rules), but the playing field wasn't level.  The WIAC - which is always going to be one of the premier leagues in Division III - has come back to the pack of the other great leagues.  Some years it will be the #1 conference, other years the CCIW will be, then the UAA, etc..

[Greek Tragedy]

Thanks for your thoughts, I'd like to hear what some of my fellow WIACers think as well.  Good stuff.

I'm definitely not beating myself up because Whitewater lost to Ill. Wes. that year.  That team was amazing and that was the first time I've seen them play.  So, like I said in my post, NO APOLOGIES THERE!

Redshirting is a biggie, I'll admit that.  You mentioned Nick Bennett.  I would also have to say that Jason Kalsow DID NOT redshirt...I guess an exception to the rule.

The only reason, I think, redshirting is perceived as making the field not level (uneven, unlevel? lol)  is due to the fact that public schools are cheaper than private schools.  It's not level by the private school's student-athlete's choice.  They can't afford it (I know, I went to a private school) and won't go for 5 years.  But, it's not the public school's fault.  I think redshirting is like the baseball's salary cap.  Teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can afford to go over it because they have the money to.  Teams like the Brewers and Devil Rays can't afford to.  It's unfair, but it's legal (of course, now, they pay a tax on that).  I believe the NCAA got rid of redshirting for the sole reason to take that ADVANTAGE away from public schools.  That's fine.  I'm sure we'll deal with that (maybe get JV teams going). 

[John Gleich]

I don't want to rehash this whole thing again... but can someone please explain how, the FOUTH YEAR after getting rid of redshirting, one can truly make an argument about the impact of not having redshirting?  Each and every player that is a part of a team and has been since the 03-04 year (the first year without redshirting) would have been part of each team playing this season.  The first opportunity for those players to play with an additional year, due to redshirting, would be NEXT year (in other words, their redshirt-senior year). 

I've made this argument before and just been waved off, so I'd really like someone to explain the err of my thinking.  I can provide player examples to show that each player that was a freshman on each team in 03-04 would be a senior this year.  The first opportunity for there to truly be an impact would be next year, or their potential redshirt-senior year.  Each year up until next (including this year), redshirt seniors are possible.  Case in point... Steve Hicklin is a redshirt senior.

Plain and simple, I disagree with what has previously been said on the subject, including what Coach Bennett said (write this date down, this doesn't happen very often...!).  Though the WIAC may be perceived as being down compared to previous years, in my estimation, the reason can NOT be due to the ban on redshirting, as this season STILL has players who were redshirted.  Next year is the first season where there will be no (CAN be no) more players who redshirted.  I'm not trying to belabor this more than I already have... but can someone honestly explain how, if the WIAC is down, this reason is due to the ban on redshirting, when no players would have had their eligibility effected by the rule change?  I understand the points that have been made, but these seem invalid to me, as each and every player would be on the team still, regardless of their inability to redshirt.  This year's true seniors would have been freshmen in 04-05, the first year that the redshirt ban went in place, so, FIVE seasons after that (not four) would be the first opportunity for any impact whatsoever to be attributed to the redshirt ban.


That being said, I would love for the WIAC to have JV teams, but there needs to be a rule change for that to be implemented.  In the WIAC basketball bylaws [link], there is a limit to 7 JV games during the course of a season, and players can't miss class for these games.  As the WIAC has implemented double-headers for men's and women's games, the logical time/place for these to be played would be before Saturday contests... but these are currently being played by the other gender.

[SLP-O-8]

I'm not sure what the rule is for the IIAC regarding JV teams but BV played/scheduled 13 JV games this year.    Im not sure if any games got canceled.   Im not sure what other IIAC teams have JVs but we played Central, Simpson, and Wartburg.  I think it is a very good thing to have a JV because it develops players in a game situation and kids get game minutes.  BV graduates 7 seniors with all 7 being a part of their 11 man rotation that plays.  The JV level should be able to get some of these guys ready to go for next year.  Hopefully our 7 footer can put some more weight on his frame and can be a force next year off the bench. 

[Titan Q]

PS, I am not totally following you.  What about all of the players who used to be redshirt freshmen, sophomores, and juniors at this point who are now, without redshirting, one year younger and one year behind in terms of development?  Aren't there a lot of current WIAC players in the FR-JR classes who would have much more impact had they been redshirted (and were a year older and bigger/stronger)?  I used the Keelan Amelianovich hypothetical above.  While JV player freshman to league POY sophomore in a good conference might be extreme, aren't there dozens of players in every league who are a lot better as sophomores than they are as freshmen...and better as juniors than sophomores?

That's three classes worth of impact players you seem to be discounting.  Or am I misunderstanding your point?  (Or even "misremembering" as the Rocket might say.)

[Titan Q]

For example, Nick Bennett's career stats...

2000-01: redshirt
2001-02: 5.6 ppg (13.9 min/game)
2002-03: 13.5 ppg (27.5 min/game)
2003-04: 17.2 ppg (31.9 min/game)
2004-05: 18.3 ppg (32.1 min/game)

Aren't there a few Nick Bennett's out there in the WIAC who would be making a significant impact as a redshirt sophomore (when Bennett started and averaged 13.5 ppg), who are maybe an 8th or 9th man "real" sophomore right now?  Or a couple kids who'd be stud redshirt juniors, who instead are developing sophomores?

[Greek Tragedy]

Case in point... Steve Hicklin is a redshirt senior.

I think TQ is saying that Hicklin wouldn't have played this year had he not redshirted.  If there wasn't redshirting, he would've been a senior last year. 

I think everyone realizes it won't be TOTALLY effected until next year when teams won't have ANY redshirts on their team. TQ is saying that every player that was a redshirt the last year it was legal, has an advantage of having an extra year of maturity.

The impact is very year until all the redshirts are through the cycle.  I understand what TQ is saying.  It's not just that additional last year, it's every year after they redshirt because they gain a year of maturity.

[John Gleich]

PS, I am not totally following you.  What about all of the players who used to be redshirt freshmen, sophomores, and juniors at this point who are now, without redshirting, one year younger and one year behind in terms of development?

Why are they one year behind in terms of development?  I my comparison, I'm not comparing true freshmen with redshirt freshmen.  I'm comparing redshirt freshmen with true sophomores.  These players are going to be in the same place.  Actually, I think the true sophomore will probably be farther along, as he's likely gotten some game experience in his first year, while the redshirt freshman was sitting, watching.  Both have had the same amount of practice.

Aren't there a lot of current WIAC players in the FR-JR classes who would have much more impact had they been redshirted (and were a year older and bigger/stronger)?  I used the Keelan Amelianovich hypothetical above.  While JV player freshman to league POY sophomore in a good conference might be extreme, aren't there dozens of players in every league who are a lot better as sophomores than they are as freshmen...and better as juniors than sophomores?

I understand your point here, but it isn't the same point I'm trying to make.  I'm comparing two second year players... one is a redshirt freshman, one is a true sophomore.  These two players are going to be essentially the same in their development, for their second year.  Why would a player who is out a year, redshirting, any farther along than a player who played as a freshman for the second year?  Both are in their second year, thus both are the same age. 

Now, the ONLY impact that I can see with these two players is going to be in year 5, when the true senior has graduated, and the redshirt senior is using year number 5 as a 23 year old, and playing.  In this instance, certainly, the team with the 23 year old is going to be a better one than the team without the 23 year old.

But this year (07-08) is only year #4 in the non-redshirting experiment.  Thus, there are redshirt seniors this year (Steve Hicklin), who were redshirt freshmen during the 04-05 year, and true seniors, guys who were TRUE freshmen during the 04-05 year (like Darius Gant).

That's three classes worth of impact players you seem to be discounting.  Or am I misunderstanding your point?  (Or even "misremembering" as the Rocket might say.)

I think so, based on my statements above.

For example, Nick Bennett's career stats...

2000-01: redshirt
2001-02: 5.6 ppg (13.9 min/game)
2002-03: 13.5 ppg (27.5 min/game)
2003-04: 17.2 ppg (31.9 min/game)
2004-05: 18.3 ppg (32.1 min/game)

Aren't there a few Nick Bennett's out there in the WIAC who would be making a significant impact as a redshirt sophomore (when Bennett started and averaged 13.5 ppg), who are maybe an 8th or 9th man "real" sophomore right now?  Or a couple kids who'd be stud redshirt juniors, who instead are developing sophomores?

In my estimation, the redshirt year is a wash between a player using his first year of eligibility up and one who is not.  Actually, to be honest, as someone who redshirted, a player who is using his first year of eligibility has more incentive to improve in that particular year than a player who is redshirting.  During the redshirt year, you have to self-motivate, and you aren't going to be able to see any solid results.  As a player using his first year of eligibility, the motivation is to get more playing time, make an impact in your first season.

Looking back to Nick's career, he really vaulted his game forward from his freshman to his sophomore year, and from his sophomore to junior.  Guys in front of him did graduate, giving him more of a chance, but he busted his tail, too.  And yes, the fifth year of eligibility was his most effective, and the one that showed the fruits of his labor.  I'm not discounting that at all.  What I'm saying is that, in the whole discussion of a league with the redshirt ban, we're currently in year 4...  to parallel, we'd be in Nick Bennett's redshirt junior year.  Now, of couse, without the redshirt, his 4th year would have been his senior year.  The point I'm trying to make isn't that a redshirt senior will be better than a true senior... my point is that a redshirt junior and a true senior (i.e. Nick Bennett in his 4th year), are on the same playing field.  They are the same player.  The impact isn't seen until the 5th year, when Nick would be a senior.  Had he not redshirted, he would have graduated after championship #1.


To bring in a completely twist on the topic, Nick is a very rare example of a player who vaulted himself to an All-American status AFTER having been a redshirt.  In fact, there are few players who were redshirted who were even All-Conference players.  Steve Hicklin is another exception, but one of only a few.  Jon Krull played as a true freshman.  So did Jason Kalsow.  So dids Eric Maus.  And Josh Iserloth.  And Kalonji Kadima.  Other WIACers can pipe in about their stars from the past, but I know that Aubey Lewis-Beyers didn't redshirt.  Vince Thomas didn't redshirt as a freshman (he did later as a medical redshirt).  Rich Melzer didn't redshirt.  Tim Dworak (to my knowledge) didn't redshirt.  Joe Werner didn't redshirt.  These guys all had amazing careers... without the help of an additional year.

Now, this certainly DOES discount the roll players who are the glue in special seasons.  Tamaris Relerford redshirted, as did Kyle Grusczynski (albiet at Wisconsin), and Nick Bennett, so they were around on year 5 (for championship 2), when a player who didn't redshirt wouldn't have been.  But the entire point I'm trying to make is that this year is season #4 of the redshirt ban.  This is the FINAL year for any redshirted players.  They would be redshirt seniors this year and would graduate, so the "help" of the redshirt would still be felt this year.  Next year would be the first season where redshirting can have zero impact, because it isn't possible for any redshirted players to be on the rosters anymore.  There will have been a full class of student-athletes who will graduate this May (true freshmen in 04-05 who have used up their 4 years of eligibility) who didn't have an opportunity to redshirt and a class of student athletes who were redshirts in 03-04 who have now used up their 5th year of eligibility.

I hope this ramble is clear now...  and it's the whole reason why I've said that the ban on redshirting can't have an impact yet...  there are still players who redshirted on the rosters.  Now, I certainly understand that a full 4 years of players (your freshmen from 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, and 07-08) who didn't have an opportunity to redshirt... but these players would be eligible right now, regardless, and except for the graduating (redshirt AND true) seniors they will be eligible next year too. 

Case in point... Steve Hicklin is a redshirt senior.

I think TQ is saying that Hicklin wouldn't have played this year had he not redshirted.  If there wasn't redshirting, he would've been a senior last year. 

I think everyone realizes it won't be TOTALLY effected until next year when teams won't have ANY redshirts on their team. TQ is saying that every player that was a redshirt the last year it was legal, has an advantage of having an extra year of maturity.

The impact is very year until all the redshirts are through the cycle.  I understand what TQ is saying.  It's not just that additional last year, it's every year after they redshirt because they gain a year of maturity.

But how is a redshirt freshman any different than a true sophomore in terms of maturity?  That's my whole point.  We still have redshirt seniors this season, like Steve Hicklin.  So, if there's been a decline in the WIAC, it can't be due to the ban on redshirting, because we've still got redshirts. 

I'm merely saying that there are factors, but it isn't the ban of redshirts.

I think one thing that not too many people have looked at is a change in the guard of coaches.  Of the 9 WIAC schools, only Ted Van Dellen and Terry Gibbons have been at their respective schools for more than 7 years.  Look at the guys who these current coaches replaced... Just a thought (that I can hash out more tomorrow).  Also, look at how players from Wisconsin have been recruited elsewhere to scholarship schools more often.  Check out your area DII and lower DI scholarship schools... they've got lots of kids that used to go to the WIAC.

[Gregory Sager]

Point 2: don't bother beating up Whitewater for its 2006 loss to IWU.  That was probably the best team ever to NOT win the national title (2 first team AAs that year, and another the next year; and unanimously ranked #1 in several polls during the season).

I'm not so sure that the individual player accolades prove that the 2005-06 Illinois Wesleyan team was "probably the best team ever to not win the national title." Heck, that IWU team didn't even win its own league. It finished in a three-way tie for second, two full games behind Augustana in the standings. That was a dynamite IWU team, but given the vast sweep of D3 history and all the teams that neither you nor I have seen over the years I think that you really overreached with that one, Chuck.

[Gregory Sager]

The only reason, I think, redshirting is perceived as making the field not level (uneven, unlevel? lol)  is due to the fact that public schools are cheaper than private schools.

I think that you're confusing the cause with the result, Tom. The reason why redshirting was perceived as creating an uneven playing field was because of what Bob said: Redshirt seniors were older, stronger, more polished, and more mature student-athletes. Nobody was protesting the cause (public schools are cheaper than private schools and thus make a fifth year of undergraduate education much more feasible), because nobody can change that cause, short of forcing the publics to leave D3 -- and that would never happen. They were protesting the result.

It's like a handicap in bowling or golf. It evens out play between more experienced and less experienced players so that they can compete with each other, rather than forcing the more experienced players to not participate so that the playing field can be level for everyone else.

I don't want to rehash this whole thing again... but can someone please explain how, the FOUTH YEAR after getting rid of redshirting, one can truly make an argument about the impact of not having redshirting?  Each and every player that is a part of a team and has been since the 03-04 year (the first year without redshirting) would have been part of each team playing this season.  The first opportunity for those players to play with an additional year, due to redshirting, would be NEXT year (in other words, their redshirt-senior year).

I think that your point is valid, PS.

That being said, I would love for the WIAC to have JV teams, but there needs to be a rule change for that to be implemented.  In the WIAC basketball bylaws [link], there is a limit to 7 JV games during the course of a season, and players can't miss class for these games.  As the WIAC has implemented double-headers for men's and women's games, the logical time/place for these to be played would be before Saturday contests... but these are currently being played by the other gender.

I don't see why that seven-game limit should be interpreted as being the equivalent of a ban. If the league allows you to play seven JV games, then use them! Also, men's/women's doubleheaders need not be an obstacle to playing those seven JV games. You can simply schedule those JV games as stand-alones. F'rinstance, NPU played 18 JV games this season. Six of those 18 games were stand-alones (three home, three away), played on nights in which neither North Park's varsity men's team nor the NPU women's team suited up.

[Titan Q]

Point 2: don't bother beating up Whitewater for its 2006 loss to IWU.  That was probably the best team ever to NOT win the national title (2 first team AAs that year, and another the next year; and unanimously ranked #1 in several polls during the season).

I'm not so sure that the individual player accolades prove that the 2005-06 Illinois Wesleyan team was "probably the best team ever to not win the national title." Heck, that IWU team didn't even win its own league. It finished in a three-way tie for second, two full games behind Augustana in the standings. That was a dynamite IWU team, but given the vast sweep of D3 history and all the teams that neither you nor I have seen over the years I think that you really overreached with that one, Chuck.

Most IWU fans (including me) don't even think that was the best IWU team to not win the national title.  The 1995-96 team that lost to Rowan was better in my opinion.  On that IWU team, former starter at D1 Illinois State Jon Litwiller was the 3rd best player (behind Bryan Crabtree and Chris Simich), and former D1 player Scott Peterson (NIU) was the 6th man.

The '96 Rowan team was the best D3 I've ever seen.

PS  That IWU team didn't win the CCIW either - they went 12-2 and Wheaton was 13-1.  Most regard that team as the best non-Sikma IWU team though.

[Cody-1-Kastern]

FYI,

Vince Thomas did redshirt (medical reasons)
Rich Melzer did redshirt (1999-2000 season)

[phoenix_rising]

I'd like to question a point I think I saw made in an earlier post about redshirts having to self-motivate. I don't think that's true (is it?). I thought there used to be redshirts and greyshirts--the latter possibly being unofficial-bordering-on-illegal; redshirts could attend practices, greyshirts couldn't. In that case, redshirts have an advantage all the way along ESPECIALLY if the redshirt was a non-medical delay. And that's a second point: a medical redshirt--currently available--has all kinds of baggage attached to it that the arbitrary redshirt did not have. Rehab being a big part; an injury is the first obstacle to overcome, catching up with the team the second.

In the past, the redshirt was used to build up an athlete before putting him on the floor, and possibly to keep from overstacking an already loaded team. Didn't Pete Rortvedt redshirt his true freshman year? I remember seeing him at games--sitting in the stands with his dad. Maybe he participated in greyshirting and didn't have any official connection with the team.

I don't know how I feel about non-medical redshirts. I think it's a waste of time; a player who wants to play should go where he or she can be involved right away. Like Superior.

[Just Bill]

I think it's a waste of time; a player who wants to play should go where he or she can be involved right away. Like Superior.

Shameless plug.  +1 K

[Pioneer Hoops Fan]

I don't see why that seven-game limit should be interpreted as being the equivalent of a ban. If the league allows you to play seven JV games, then use them! Also, men's/women's doubleheaders need not be an obstacle to playing those seven JV games. You can simply schedule those JV games as stand-alones. F'rinstance, NPU played 18 JV games this season. Six of those 18 games were stand-alones (three home, three away), played on nights in which neither North Park's varsity men's team nor the NPU women's team suited up.

Just wondering, but do NPU, Loras, IWU, BV, Central, etc. have separate JV rosters?  Are any of these kids "suiting up" for Varsity games?  If so, do they receive government funding or rely on their trusts?  I believe I recall, seeing a school a while back when playing (St Johns, MN) had a separate roster.  Where does Title IX come into play with the private schools?  It seems as though it doesn't. 

Our rosters are limited to 20 players.  Not 20 for varsity, and 15 for JV.  UWP played a couple of JV, or what we like to call "Futures" games this year against Loras and Clarke.  These are the 7 guys that don't get any minutes other than slop up minutes at the end of games.  It would be great if teams like UWP could have a 30 man roster, but we can't.  If I am wrong on any of this, please fill me in and correct me.