MBB: Midwest Conference

[cciwrabblerouser]

Given the way Grinnell plays, a 24-point deficit isn't an impossible task to reverse. 

There in lies the rub...with 20 years of evidence to work from, those familiar with Grinnell's style of play understand that seemingly big leads are lost in the same manner that they are gained. So when  others claim that a 30 or 40 point lead should result in letting off the gas, they are not only asking the Grinnell players to change to a style that they aren't coached to play, they are removing the opportunity for the opponent to get back into the game.

Which raises an interesting thought...why is it that teams that play up tempo and score a lot of points are expected to change style when their approach works and they get a lead, but low scoring teams aren't expected to change their style when they fall behind? Why is it reasonable/appropriate to expect a Loyola Marymount team to become Princeton when they are winning big, but not reasonable/appropriate for Princeton to have to shoot early and often if they are losing big? Does that indicate a bias on the part of the advocate?

again -- no one is critical of 'the system.'  it's the specific idea of what happened against faith bible.  had the leading scorer for grinnell put up 50 points in the game, it would be much different.  but, of course, it also wouldn't get the national attention either.  so the coach(es) removed integrity from the game for the sake of the pub.  appalling.

[systemfan86]

oh heck, no one has pointed this out, so....

GC won last night, 113 to 76 over KC.  I don't know if a 37 pt margin is enough to spark outrage. But they tried.

KC's David Jones, who has been quite a player in past seasons, didn't seem to be engaged. Maybe he was recovering from an injury?

GC's Adams, McManamy (who suffers from a name no one can pronounce), Levin, and Yeager all had a solid game.

Looking forward to Saturday's meetup with Ripon.

Adding to my sense that the 138 point game was a novelty, I find it interesting that people like Kindred are seeking out Grinnell games to watch Taylor.

Last night's game box score indicates that balanced playing time in the Grinnell approach works pretty well: 20 players had playing time, 13 players had more than 10 minutes of floor time (15 minutes was the most), 5 players with double digit points (Taylor's 18 leading the way), 16 players got a rebound, and only one player didn't make a FG or FT attempt. 

Yeah this team is a travesty to the TEAM concept. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

oh heck, no one has pointed this out, so....

GC won last night, 113 to 76 over KC.  I don't know if a 37 pt margin is enough to spark outrage. But they tried.

KC's David Jones, who has been quite a player in past seasons, didn't seem to be engaged. Maybe he was recovering from an injury?

GC's Adams, McManamy (who suffers from a name no one can pronounce), Levin, and Yeager all had a solid game.

Looking forward to Saturday's meetup with Ripon.

Adding to my sense that the 138 point game was a novelty, I find it interesting that people like Kindred are seeking out Grinnell games to watch Taylor.

Last night's game box score indicates that balanced playing time in the Grinnell approach works pretty well: 20 players had playing time, 13 players had more than 10 minutes of floor time (15 minutes was the most), 5 players with double digit points (Taylor's 18 leading the way), 16 players got a rebound, and only one player didn't make a FG or FT attempt. 

Yeah this team is a travesty to the TEAM concept. 

No one has said they are a travesty to the team concept in general.  Against Faith Bible they were a travesty to the team concept, and a travesty to any sense of sportsmanship.

I've said my piece.  If you Grinnell apologists cannot understand what was wrong about THAT game, there is no point in continuing to talk.

[cciwrabblerouser]

oh heck, no one has pointed this out, so....

GC won last night, 113 to 76 over KC.  I don't know if a 37 pt margin is enough to spark outrage. But they tried.

KC's David Jones, who has been quite a player in past seasons, didn't seem to be engaged. Maybe he was recovering from an injury?

GC's Adams, McManamy (who suffers from a name no one can pronounce), Levin, and Yeager all had a solid game.

Looking forward to Saturday's meetup with Ripon.

Adding to my sense that the 138 point game was a novelty, I find it interesting that people like Kindred are seeking out Grinnell games to watch Taylor.

Last night's game box score indicates that balanced playing time in the Grinnell approach works pretty well: 20 players had playing time, 13 players had more than 10 minutes of floor time (15 minutes was the most), 5 players with double digit points (Taylor's 18 leading the way), 16 players got a rebound, and only one player didn't make a FG or FT attempt. 

Yeah this team is a travesty to the TEAM concept. 

No one has said they are a travesty to the team concept in general.  Against Faith Bible they were a travesty to the team concept, and a travesty to any sense of sportsmanship.

I've said my piece.  If you Grinnell apologists cannot understand what was wrong about THAT game, there is no point in continuing to talk.

mr. ypsi, i agree that a dead horse is being beaten here.  if the 'system' guy can't even read and understand what has been said, then what's the point of trying to point out the error of that record-setting game?

one last comment here ... big deal that kindred showed up.  his job is not to write stories about sportsmanhip or character building.  his job is to write things to entertain people and sell magazines.  he's typical media -- they show up when a fire is burning down a building or whe  kids get shot at school.

[systemfan86]

oh please... a "silly novelty???"  yes, it did make division III basketball look very silly across the nation.  but other than that there was nothing silly about it.

look, no one is knocking "the system" here.  what is being critcized is the idea of pouring it on against a hapless opponent when there was no reason to do so.  i haven't seen anyone khock mr. taylor, either.  the criticism rests on the coach's (and his assistants') shoulders for intentionally embarrassing an opponent.  maybe, just maybe, there was a minor bit of 'teamwork' since the others had to get taylor the ball.  but where was the character-building in the travesty?  where was the fairness in what happened?  how does this stack up with the division III philosophy?  what were the life lessons here?

the overriding life lesson is that one way to garner national publicity is to humiliate another group of players.  and in doing so, grinnell college has prostituted its integrity for the sake of espn.

the grinnell community needs to rethink its principles and determine if the college should even play division III basketball.

Wow. I just don't share your passion on the matter.

I'm not a fan of the record. But I don't agree that it was a humiliation. Faith Bible was (obviously) outmatched. But it's likely that the margin of victory was not directly attributable to the attempt to break the record. Without the attempt the margin was likely in the 50-60 range - the two teams played two years ago and it was a 34 point margin.

The only perceived humiliation comes from the publicity. Had the game occurred 20 years ago, you would never had heard about it.

If it is any consolation, back in 2002, Grinnell played D1 Drake and got whupped by 52. Read the recap and you'll see that Drake was dunking the ball on Grinnell when they had a big lead. It happens when the talent is mismatched. http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=223452181

I think you're too worked up over it.

[systemfan86]

oh heck, no one has pointed this out, so....

GC won last night, 113 to 76 over KC.  I don't know if a 37 pt margin is enough to spark outrage. But they tried.

KC's David Jones, who has been quite a player in past seasons, didn't seem to be engaged. Maybe he was recovering from an injury?

GC's Adams, McManamy (who suffers from a name no one can pronounce), Levin, and Yeager all had a solid game.

Looking forward to Saturday's meetup with Ripon.

Adding to my sense that the 138 point game was a novelty, I find it interesting that people like Kindred are seeking out Grinnell games to watch Taylor.

Last night's game box score indicates that balanced playing time in the Grinnell approach works pretty well: 20 players had playing time, 13 players had more than 10 minutes of floor time (15 minutes was the most), 5 players with double digit points (Taylor's 18 leading the way), 16 players got a rebound, and only one player didn't make a FG or FT attempt. 

Yeah this team is a travesty to the TEAM concept. 

No one has said they are a travesty to the team concept in general.  Against Faith Bible they were a travesty to the team concept, and a travesty to any sense of sportsmanship.

I've said my piece.  If you Grinnell apologists cannot understand what was wrong about THAT game, there is no point in continuing to talk.

mr. ypsi, i agree that a dead horse is being beaten here.  if the 'system' guy can't even read and understand what has been said, then what's the point of trying to point out the error of that record-setting game?

one last comment here ... big deal that kindred showed up.  his job is not to write stories about sportsmanhip or character building.  his job is to write things to entertain people and sell magazines.  he's typical media -- they show up when a fire is burning down a building or whe  kids get shot at school.

I get that the game upset you. And I understand why. I wish it hadn't happened, but it did. 

But the evidence is there that it was a single game and not a consistent pattern. Can you acknowledge that? So your advocating that they consider giving up playing D3 basketball - which you did - is an over reaction. That's part of what I'm responding to.

[sac]

Its been nine days.

[Mr. Ypsi]

I agree that calling for Grinnell to give up d3 bball was a gross overreaction.  (And with the record now in presumably unreachable territory, perhaps we will be spared any further travesties - the one silver lining .)

That said, I can also understand how any non-conference coach would be loathe to schedule Grinnell.  Having to prepare for a style of play you will never see again is a real distraction in preparing a team for the games that really count.

Re: the Drake game.  If starters were dunking late with a big lead (if starters were even IN), shame upon them.  If the dunking was by guys who rarely see the floor, that is still perhaps regretable but a whole different matter.

[jeffdc]

Nice post - thanks!

My midweek look at the MWC as well as the WIAC and NathCon http://diiihoopsblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/midweek-blog-1-tis-season.html

[AO]

I agree that calling for Grinnell to give up d3 bball was a gross overreaction.  (And with the record now in presumably unreachable territory, perhaps we will be spared any further travesties - the one silver lining .)

That said, I can also understand how any non-conference coach would be loathe to schedule Grinnell.  Having to prepare for a style of play you will never see again is a real distraction in preparing a team for the games that really count.

Re: the Drake game.  If starters were dunking late with a big lead (if starters were even IN), shame upon them.  If the dunking was by guys who rarely see the floor, that is still perhaps regretable but a whole different matter.

You probably won't want to watch the final 7 minutes of the St. Thomas - Macalester game from last night then.  Dunking is a part of the game, the difference is that after the game they didn't go on ESPN to proclaim themselves as having just completed one of the greatest sporting feats of all time by dunking late in a game against an inferior opponent.

[woosterbooster]

Given the way Grinnell plays, a 24-point deficit isn't an impossible task to reverse. 

There in lies the rub...with 20 years of evidence to work from, those familiar with Grinnell's style of play understand that seemingly big leads are lost in the same manner that they are gained. So when  others claim that a 30 or 40 point lead should result in letting off the gas, they are not only asking the Grinnell players to change to a style that they aren't coached to play, they are removing the opportunity for the opponent to get back into the game.

Which raises an interesting thought...why is it that teams that play up tempo and score a lot of points are expected to change style when their approach works and they get a lead, but low scoring teams aren't expected to change their style when they fall behind? Why is it reasonable/appropriate to expect a Loyola Marymount team to become Princeton when they are winning big, but not reasonable/appropriate for Princeton to have to shoot early and often if they are losing big? Does that indicate a bias on the part of the advocate?

Really?  You're really asking this question?

[systemfan86]

You probably won't want to watch the final 7 minutes of the St. Thomas - Macalester game from last night then.  Dunking is a part of the game, the difference is that after the game they didn't go on ESPN to proclaim themselves as having just completed one of the greatest sporting feats of all time by dunking late in a game against an inferior opponent.

I believe if you look up hyperbole in the dictionary, they use this as an example.

[systemfan86]

I agree that calling for Grinnell to give up d3 bball was a gross overreaction.  (And with the record now in presumably unreachable territory, perhaps we will be spared any further travesties - the one silver lining .)

That said, I can also understand how any non-conference coach would be loathe to schedule Grinnell.  Having to prepare for a style of play you will never see again is a real distraction in preparing a team for the games that really count.

Re: the Drake game.  If starters were dunking late with a big lead (if starters were even IN), shame upon them.  If the dunking was by guys who rarely see the floor, that is still perhaps regretable but a whole different matter.

Well put.

To your point, I believe it has been a Catch-22 for Grinnell. People complain that they play inferior teams non-conference and Grinnell complains that no one will schedule them - for many of the reasons you site.

And based on the media hype this little event caused, finding another team that is willing to put themselves in this position may have just become significantly harder, so the record - good bad or however you choose to classify it - is likely safe.

One other comment indirectly related to this...I was surprised to here that Taylor transferred to Grinnell from UW-LaCrosse (?). Typically, the school doesn't have a high volume of transfers in, and I don't know that I've ever heard of a player transferring from a WIAC school to a place like Grinnell. Anyone have any background on this?

[jeffdc]

I heard he was dissatisfied with the academics at UW. GC certainly offers a better academic experience. Getting to play a lot was, I'm sure, an attractive bonus.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Without knowing anything about the transfer, my guess would also have been that it was primarily academics.  This IS d3 after all - the last holdout where (generally speaking) 'student-athlete' still has some meaning!