MBB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Title IX doesn't come into play at all with single-gender institutions, of course.

[phoenix_rising]

ThanK you.

[SLP-O-8]

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. 

BV has 8 that are on the varsity roster but only see time in blowouts at the end of the game and 6 more that dont suit up. 

[Pioneer Hoops Fan]

Title IX doesn't come into play at all with single-gender institutions, of course.

Naturally 

I know these schools are obviously not state sponsored public institutions like the WIAC, but where do they fall into the argument of Title IX?  I'm sure the limit of 20 is either a WIAC rule, or due to limitations under Title IX is all we're allowed or both.  I know there are percentages that come into play, % of male students in general population vs. % of female students in general population, has to the same approximately in the Athletic programs.  UWP is approx 67%, give or take a few %, male.  Football has a 100 man limit, we have 20, not sure on wrestling, baseball, or Cross Country and Track and Field.

[Just Bill]

Private schools must comply to Title IX just as state schools do, since virtually all private schools accept some kind of federal money (Pell Grant, etc.).

[badgerwarhawk]

I believe the maxiumum roster size is a conference limitation though the influence of Title IX may have been a factor.

The past couple of years at WW the women's basketball team has carried additional players on their roster to help offset the size of the football roster and that was prompted to comply with Title IX.

[Pat Coleman]

Any roster limit is a conference or school rule. There is no Division III rule regarding maximum regular-season roster size in any sport.

[Titan Q]

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. 

But there are less redshirts than there used to be.  If I understand the timing right, the WIAC "redshirt matrix" goes...

2004-05
RS Freshmen
RS Sophomores
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2005-06
RS Sophomores
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2006-07
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2007-08
RS Seniors


Aren't there now true freshmen and sophomores getting time, for example, where those spots would have been filled by RS freshmen and sophomores in past (i.e., kids older, bigger, stronger, and better)?

[Mr. Downtown]

As far as the redshirting impact, I think we will see it in this upcoming Football season. Without redshirting, in Oshkosh's case, they would have been without Joe Patek and Andy Moriarty this season, and I'm pretty sure the back-up's wouldn't have done nearly as good as a job those guys did, and the Titans wouldn't have been a 7 win team (and perhaps Coach Cerroni wouldn't be at the helm for this up coming year).

We might not have red-shirting, but I do think what balances it all is the amount of transfer kids that each team seems to be getting every year. It's truly amazing how many Wisconsin kids decide taking the scholarship to go play for D-I or D-II, and come back within a year or two to the WIAC. 

They go to the scholarship school only because they know they will be red-shirted, and tuition will be paid for the first year. After that, when they realized they don't like the school nor the situation they are in, they still have 4 years left and they transfer back to the WIAC to play right away, instead of sitting out. Plus, it's a great conference, and they have a chance to win a championship, instead of playing for some Horizon League bottom feeder that's going nowhere fast.

Sure the WIAC doesn't have red-shirting, but look at the Player of the Year for the WIAC this season!

I think transfer students make a bigger impact on the conference, then say red-shirting. Today, we are talking about who everyone is returning next year, not knowing who the next "Matt Goodwin" will be and for whom.

As far as the WIAC the past year's at the national tournament, I think it really comes down to two things: 1.) How tough this part of the country is for basketball and 2.) Coaching.

Today's sports world is all about what have you done for me lately, not what you did 10 years ago. I just think that the WIAC has good coaches, but not great one's like Coach Bennett was that led them to back-to-back championships. Not saying anything against Coach Miller, he's still fairly new and I'm sure he will find a way to get over the hump.

However, with that being said without naming names, their are some WIAC coaches that have had great success in the past that have not lived up to the billing the past 5 years. However, this is not D-I, and loyalty is huge for the WIAC as whole to coaches that have been around 10+ years. I just think that some are losing touch with today's game, or with players in general, and that's whats hurting the WIAC in the National Tournament the past season's.

This year, the CCIW and UAA were better from top to bottom, and the IIAC's top teams were better then the WIAC's. Will it magically change next season because of the experience each team is bringing back?

I think, it will all come down to coaching. Each coach in the WIAC for 08-09 will have the weapons to win the conference, it's just who is the best coach to get them to win together and play championship winning basketball.

[Greek Tragedy]

This year, the CCIW and UAA were better from top to bottom, and the IIAC's top teams were better then the WIAC's. Will it magically change next season because of the experience each team is bringing back?

Granted you said, THIS YEAR, and I'll agree with the CCIW and UAA statements.  I'm still not convinced about Buena Vista and Loras being better than the WIAC's.  Sounds like a dumb statement since they just beat Whitewater and Point, but play them a best of 5 and I think the WIAC takes them.  They were both surprises and I'm not trying to take anything away from either upsets.

OK, ASIDE FROM REDSHIRTING, what are your thoughts on the other topics I mentioned:

Scheduling hurting?
Was last year or two years ago, in the tourney actually disppointments?
JV teams have been discussed
Coaching in decline?
I do think our competition in the MWC is getting stronger and more scheduling with the CCIW has added stiff competition as well.

[Mr. Downtown]

I'll try to tackle these topics one by one with my thoughts.

1) Schedule Hurting : When teams have to play Finlandia multiple times a season to get games in, you know scheduling is getting tough. I do think the CCIW and WIAC moving forward and having games like Point/Augustana and Oshkosh/Elmhurst does help both conferences. Would like to see more of that.

2) Last two seasons: After the battle we had this year, I honestly thought Whitewater was tough enough to get at least the sweet 16 (they were playing on their home court for the first two rounds). Instead, both Point and Whitewater might have been a bit banged up after the tough WIAC regular season. On Point's end, not a real surprise cause I thought they weren't going to get past Chicago (and they way the game started, it looked like it would be), plus they were in one of the toughest pods/sectionals of the country. So a chance to reach the Sweet 16 or Elite 8 was asking too much from this Pointer squad. Whitewater was a shock, Point not so much.

Year previously? Yes, I do think it was shocking to see 3 teams from the WIAC go in, and none got past the second round.

3.) I think JV would be beneficial, for both younger players and coaches. In those games, perhaps try something different, and see how it works in a live game setting. Helps players and coaches. Even if it is for 7 games.

4.) I think Coach Pat Miller is good coach that is only going to get better with age. I think Coach Paul Combs is the same way in Platteville, Coach Semling has a big shadow to overcome, but I think he will find a way to get Point back where it belongs. Also, cannot say how great of a job that Coach Buchanan did this year in Superior.

There are two coaches next year that have experience being successful in Dance, and will have a player each that very well could be POY. Again, I'm not naming names cause I don't want to get into that, but I think Coaching is going to be the biggest difference maker going into next season.

[Titan Q]

One thing to consider in evaluating why the WIAC might be down a bit - and this is something Greg Sager has pointed out about the CCIW this year - is that the league is pretty senior-thin.  Of the 19 All-WIAC selections (1st Team + Honorable Mention), only 5 were seniors.  And only 2 of the 10 1st Teamers were seniors (Beyer, Hicklin).  Consider...

% of players on All-WIAC team (1st Team & HM) who were seniors:

07-08: 26%
06-07: 50%
05-06: 37%
04-05: 56%
03-04: 47%
02-03: 56%
01-02: 41%
00-01: 55%
99-00: 52%
98-99: 56%

14 of the 19 all-conference picks return...

UW-Oshkosh (3)
D.J. Marsh, SO (6-4 F) - 1st Team
Matt Miller, JR (5-9 G) - HM
Dane Seckar-Anderson, JR (6-7 F) - HM

UW-Superior (3)
Jake Smith, FR (6-6 F) - 1st
Dwight Hill, SO (5-8 G) - HM
Shane Manor, FR (6-6 F) - HM

UW-Whitewater (3)
Matt Goodwin, JR (6-1 G) - 1st
Myles McKay, JR (6-3 G) - 1st
Kori Vernon, JR (6-6 F) - HM

UW-Platteville (2)
Jeff Skemp, JR (6-10 C) - 1st
Curt Hanson, SO (6-1 G) - 1st

UW-Stevens Point (2)
Pete Rortvedt, JR (6-5 F) - 1st
Bryan Bemish, JR (6-6 F) - 1st

UW-La Crosse (1)
Tony Mane, FR (6-1 G) - HM

UW-Eau Claire - 0
UW-Stout - 0
UW-River Falls - 0


On the 15-member All-CCIW team, 13 players return.  The WIAC and CCIW could both be very good next year.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Q, and petemcb is working on Kent Raymond coming up a few credits short!

[John Gleich]

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.

I remember some of those WC/IWU games in the mid 90's.  Bryan Crabtree was pretty much my idol growing up, watching him play at Wheaton North and then when they'd play at Wheaton College.  I was so torn because I knew the players from the WC Crusader camps I'd gone to in the summers, but I love Crabtree so much too!

FYI,

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

Thus, Vince Thomas is not a player who can be brought up for the traditional redshirt discussion.  Medical redshirts (or, as they are called now, medical exemptions) are allowed now as much as then, so it isn't germaine for the discussion.  VT was actually hurt for the majority of TWO of his 5 seasons, but only got one extra, but even so, it was granted by the NCAA for medical reasons, not by UW Sup as a traditional redshirt.

I didn't know about Melzer... or the rest of the conference as much as I do know about Point.  Thanks for the heads up.

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.

The discussion hasn't been redshirts versus grayshirts.  It's been redshirts versus non-redshirts, guys who DO use up a year of eligibility.  And guys who are redshirting aren't going to see ANY fruits from the labor they're putting in during the redshirt year.  Yes, they can see improvement in their individual skills in practice, but until this translates into more playing time during the games, the it really doesn't have much of a motivating factor during that year.  Now, that said, the point of redshirting was to improve, both with skills and physically, so that after the redshirt year, the player would be more prepared (and more familiar with the system) AFTER the redshirt year than before, with 4 full years of eligibility remaining.  But that's not being debated.  What's being debated is if the current downturn is due to the inability for WIAC teams to redshirt players... but my point has been that this is year #4, so we can't have seen any impact yet... there are still redshirted players who are on the rosters.  This is, however, the FINAL season where this can occur, so next year, the argument can be made.  Not now though.

In that case, redshirts have an advantage all the way along ESPECIALLY if the redshirt was a non-medical delay.

I don't understand this point at all.  I'm not comparing a redshirt freshman with a true freshman.  All along, I'm comparing two second year players... a redshirt freshman and a true sophomore.  Both were members of the team last year, one used up the year of eligibility, the other did not.  Thus, the ONLY impact you'll be able to see when comparing these players is in year #5, when the one who didn't redshirt is cheering from the stands and the redshirt senior is finishing up his eligibility on the bench.

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.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this applies to the current discussion.  As you said, medical redshirts (or, medical exemptions, as I believe they're being termed now) are still available, as ever, and they continue to be on a case-by-case basis.

[quoteIn 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.[/quote]
Pete (and Khalif El-Amin, and Brian Beamish, and Drew Jackson)did not Redshirt.  They were a part of the team all the way up to the first game, and then they were no longer on the team.  You can thing of this as grayshirting if you'd like, but it abides completely by the NCAA rules.  Think of this as an extended tryout.  If people want to do away with this practice, then the NCAA would need to institute a rule where ANYONE trying out would lose a year of eligibility, or to clarify it.  I don't think this is going to happen, personally.

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.

Well, for better or for worse, it doesn't really matter anymore, because redshirting isn't around anymore!

[John Gleich]

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. 

But there are less redshirts than there used to be.  If I understand the timing right, the WIAC "redshirt matrix" goes...

2004-05
RS Freshmen
RS Sophomores
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2005-06
RS Sophomores
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2006-07
RS Juniors
RS Seniors

2007-08
RS Seniors


Aren't there now true freshmen and sophomores getting time, for example, where those spots would have been filled by RS freshmen and sophomores in past (i.e., kids older, bigger, stronger, and better)?

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I'm not comparing true freshmen with redshirt freshmen.  I'm only comparing two players who both started at the same time... a redshirt freshman with a true sophomore.

And though I certainly do agree that there are fewer players on the rosters now that were redshirted (potentially about 1/4 as many as prior to the ban of the redshirt in 04-05), the question I raise is this... How is a player who has been redshirted any more prepared that one who has used up a year of eligibility?

The only impact will be felt in the 5th year, when the player who used up eligibility is no longer on the team, and the player who redshirted is on the team.  Now, the argument can be made that he's using 4 BETTER years, and I certainly agree with that... after having one year to learn the system, get used to college speed, athleticism, toughness, etc, a redshirt freshman is going to be more prepared than a true freshman in all of these regards.  But that's not the argument I'm trying to make.

And to answer your question about the true freshmen and sophomores getting time vs the redshirt freshmen and sophomores, these players really didn't get that much playing time unless they were good enough anyway, or unless they were truly needed.  And if a player was good enough, they likely wouldn't have been redshirted in the first place, like my all-conference examples from last night.

I see what you're saying, but my thought is that a player who would have been redshirted wouldn't have played in the first year anyway.  So, if he's now not able to redshirt, the impact is a wash.  If, after redshirting, he is then able to contribute, what is preventing him from making that SAME contribution as a true sophomore?  The argument follows for his third year of college... if he's a true junior or if he's a redshirt sophomore, he either is, or isn't going to make an impact...  Now, his fourth year of college, he either is, or is not going to make an impact...  but the impact is the same, whether he redshirted or not.  The ONLY time you're going to see a supreme difference in this player, whether he redshirted or not, is in year #5, when the one who played as a true freshman has run out of his eligibility, and the one who redshirted has one final year.  This is going to be a large impact, because he's probably about 23, and has already had 4 years in the program.

This year, 07-08, is year #4 in the "no redshirting" experiment.  This is the final year that players from 03-04 who redshirted are eligible.  Now, there also are players who were true freshmen in 04-05.  They're true seniors.  There can't be a statement made about why a team or a league is down, or up, though, because, as in the paragraph above, the impact made by players who redshirted the year before redshirting was banned is still being felt.