MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[izzy stradlin]

I doubt either Berg or Smith grew too much over the summer. As far as added weight, hopefully if so, its muscle, not just weight. Both may have metabolisms that make it difficult to add extra bulk. The difference between the two is that Smith played pretty effectively at 190 last year while Berg was not nearly as effective despite having 10 more pounds behind him. 190 might be right for Smith. 190 might actually be better for Berg too as he really isn't an inside player and as such, more weight might make him slower without really adding anything to his game.

Well, neither of those guys were major impact players last year offensively (I don't really think Wheaton needs them to be) so I was just hoping for a little more muscle to defend and rebound against all of IWUs 230 pounders.

But remember, rebounding is much more than solely bulk alone. Ability to both read the ball off the rim/backboard, quickly move to that spot, and to effectively block out are all important ingredients. Also, you're never going to collect many boards if you have an affinity for hanging out in the corners rather than mixing it up underneath.

Makes me think of Andy Wiele.   As a frosh, he spent much of his time shooting the three (hit 6 in one game at the Shirk).   In subsequent years, he bulked up big-time and couldn't make a foul shot, but he was an excellent defender and rebounder not afraid to mix it up.   Much more of what his team needed.

[AndOne]

Good memory Izzy. And absolutely correct!

[AndOne]

Article about former CCIW Player Of The Year, Alonzo Alexander who will be inducted into North Central's Athletic Hall Of Fame on Oct. 26.

I'm sure that our old-timer CCIW posters will remember Alonzo. Not to imply that either they or Alomzo are actually "old." 

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2013/10/16/MBB_1016131859.aspx

[Mr. Ypsi]

Article about former CCIW Player Of The Year, Alonzo Alexander who will be inducted into North Central's Athletic Hall Of Fame on Oct. 26.

I'm sure that our old-timer CCIW posters will remember Alonzo. Not to imply that either they or Alomzo are actually "old." 

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2013/10/16/MBB_1016131859.aspx

I confess that I never even heard of Alonzo Alexander - because I am AM old, and d3hoops.com did not yet exist.

I did not even know about Jack Sikma until he was in the NBA - the IWU alumni association apparently did not learn of my address until after he had graduated.   (Since then, they have found me but good! )

[iwu70]

. . . and Ypsi, you know you deserve to be found now! 

I never heard of Alonzo Alexander either.

Agree with Q that the Titans these year have more size, strength than almost any of the teams we've seen in the past 30+ years.  Some of these guys would be good match-ups for Sheldon Thompson.  They are that solid, strong with obvious payoffs from the weight work. 

No doubt, it's clear we are both not any younger. 

IWU70

P.S.  Had a great Homecoming weekend, especially the events honoring Paul Bushnell's 47 years of scholarship, teaching, mentoring, and being an important public intellectual in the IWU and B/N communities.  Be sure to make plans for IWU Homecoming 2015, our 45th reunion.  Getting to be a pretty big number.  ms

ms

[Mr. Ypsi]

With their length, they hopefully could take Sheldon (though he did do a helluva job on 7'0" Elmore Smith, so so who knows?)

Really looking forward to the season.  I always HOPE for a national title, but this year it seems very realistic.

[Gregory Sager]

Alonzo Alexander was a terrific 6'4 swingman for the Cardinals at the end of the Warden heyday. If that buddy of his whom he mentioned in the press release, Michael Patterson, had managed to avoid becoming an academic casualty, there's no telling what heights the Cardinals might've reached while 'zo was wearing NCC crimson. As it was, they were still very, very good during his underclassmen days, before fading out when he was an upperclassman. Fun player to watch.

Really looking forward to the season.  I always HOPE for a national title, but this year it seems very realistic.

We can't wait for you to post your percentage odds, Chuck.

[robertgoulet]

Article about former CCIW Player Of The Year, Alonzo Alexander who will be inducted into North Central's Athletic Hall Of Fame on Oct. 26.

I'm sure that our old-timer CCIW posters will remember Alonzo. Not to imply that either they or Alomzo are actually "old." 

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2013/10/16/MBB_1016131859.aspx

Ah yes. Zo used to be an occasional participant in open gyms. Could still play a little back then 

[BlueJay21]

The 2013-2014 Wheaton Thunder roster is up:

http://athletics.wheaton.edu/roster.aspx?path=mbball&

Just four freshmen, all of them guards. The only big man that Wheaton has "added" this year, 6'7 Drew Wikelius, is a sophomore who was on last season's roster but didn't play due to injury.

Also noticed Michael Berg is still listed at 6-6 200lbs and Peter Smith 6-6 190lbs.   Hopefully they just haven't updated the height/weight on the returning players?

Apparently someone from Wheaton is reading the board. Michael Berg's weight has been updated to 210 pounds. After working out with him all summer, I can definitely say that he has added more weight and more importantly more muscle. Also notice that he has changed his number to his old high school number.

Wheaton is sure thin on the inside. Their guards are going to have to be very good for them to contend for the league title.

[BlueJay21]

I'm excited about the big offseason that Elmhurst had. Bringing Coach Baines back was a huge step in the right direction, and with the recruiting class that him and Chris Martin landed, I think the Jays are going to surprise some people.

[Pat Coleman]

Speaking as a NESCAC fan, Amherst definitely loses a lot, as Williamson is actually a bigger loss than the stats would indicate -- he may have been Amherst's best player in the NESCAC and NCAA tourney, became a true dominant force by season's end.  On the other hand, Amherst had a lot of talent buried on the bench that will get a chance to shine this season, and Connor Green could make a very big leap.  Still, I probably would not rate them first just because of such huge shoes to fill at three positions.  I think the pre-season number one is between IWU and Williams.  Williams I believe has more talent at the top of the roster (unless the two IWU D-1 transfers are nationally elite players right away), with at least two (possibly three) all-American caliber players leading the way.  But IWU is much deeper in overall talent and has fewer question marks in the rotation heading into the season.  I also feel like Stevens-Point is a worthy contender for pre-season number one, with Tillema coming back from injury, and like IWU, a talented higher-level transfer coming in and nearly everyone back.  If I was ranking, I'd go IWU 1, Williams 2, Stevens-Point 3, Amherst 4. 

IWU – Clear favorite in conference, and has a legit shot at being preseason #1 when d3hoops poll comes out (though with Toomey back I'm not sure they unseat Amherst, at least in the preseason poll).

I'm not sure what the resumes of all of the preseason #1 candidates look like, but the defending champs might be a stretch to be the choice.  I'm sure Amherst will be great again this season, but they lost a bunch.  The D3hoops.com voters typically don't just automatically put the defending champs back in the #1 spot to start the season.

G Aaron Toomey, 6-1 (17.3, 4.8 rpg, 5.0 apg)
G Allen Williamson, 6-4 (11.9 ppg, 5.1 rpg
F Tom Killian, 6-4 (7.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg)
F Willy Workman, 6-6 (12.2 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 3.9 apg)
C Peter Kaasila, 6-9 (12.6 ppg, 6.0 rpg)

G David Kalema, 6-0 (9.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg)
F Ben Pollack, 6-7 (4.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg)
G Connor Green, 6-4 (9.3 ppg, 3.1 rpg)

I'm pretty sure IWU will be ranked ahead of Amherst in the preseason poll.

To me, Williamson was indeed Amherst's best player in the tournament. Notwithstanding overall statistics, it seemed like he made more big plays at critical junctures of games.
With regard to rankings, Amherst may indeed have had a lot of talent buried on the bench as NESCAC suggests. However, that is talent that was indeed "buried on the bench" as opposed to spending a majority of their time on the floor, which is where the IWU returning starters spent a majority of their time. Additionally, many of what will be IWU's reserves this year also saw considerable time last year. Much more so, I believe, than the group of players who will comprise the Amherst bench this season.

As far as "D3Hoops.com voters typically don't just automatically put the defending champs back in the #1 slot to start the season," they seemingly typically just automatically put the national tourney runner-up in the #2 spot in the final poll, so you never know. 

Don't be a jerk. Read up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/preseason
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2012-13/preseason

[cardinalpride]

Speaking as a NESCAC fan, Amherst definitely loses a lot, as Williamson is actually a bigger loss than the stats would indicate -- he may have been Amherst's best player in the NESCAC and NCAA tourney, became a true dominant force by season's end.  On the other hand, Amherst had a lot of talent buried on the bench that will get a chance to shine this season, and Connor Green could make a very big leap.  Still, I probably would not rate them first just because of such huge shoes to fill at three positions.  I think the pre-season number one is between IWU and Williams.  Williams I believe has more talent at the top of the roster (unless the two IWU D-1 transfers are nationally elite players right away), with at least two (possibly three) all-American caliber players leading the way.  But IWU is much deeper in overall talent and has fewer question marks in the rotation heading into the season.  I also feel like Stevens-Point is a worthy contender for pre-season number one, with Tillema coming back from injury, and like IWU, a talented higher-level transfer coming in and nearly everyone back.  If I was ranking, I'd go IWU 1, Williams 2, Stevens-Point 3, Amherst 4. 

IWU – Clear favorite in conference, and has a legit shot at being preseason #1 when d3hoops poll comes out (though with Toomey back I'm not sure they unseat Amherst, at least in the preseason poll).

I'm not sure what the resumes of all of the preseason #1 candidates look like, but the defending champs might be a stretch to be the choice.  I'm sure Amherst will be great again this season, but they lost a bunch.  The D3hoops.com voters typically don't just automatically put the defending champs back in the #1 spot to start the season.

G Aaron Toomey, 6-1 (17.3, 4.8 rpg, 5.0 apg)
G Allen Williamson, 6-4 (11.9 ppg, 5.1 rpg
F Tom Killian, 6-4 (7.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg)
F Willy Workman, 6-6 (12.2 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 3.9 apg)
C Peter Kaasila, 6-9 (12.6 ppg, 6.0 rpg)

G David Kalema, 6-0 (9.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg)
F Ben Pollack, 6-7 (4.3 ppg, 3.6 rpg)
G Connor Green, 6-4 (9.3 ppg, 3.1 rpg)

I'm pretty sure IWU will be ranked ahead of Amherst in the preseason poll.

To me, Williamson was indeed Amherst's best player in the tournament. Notwithstanding overall statistics, it seemed like he made more big plays at critical junctures of games.
With regard to rankings, Amherst may indeed have had a lot of talent buried on the bench as NESCAC suggests. However, that is talent that was indeed "buried on the bench" as opposed to spending a majority of their time on the floor, which is where the IWU returning starters spent a majority of their time. Additionally, many of what will be IWU's reserves this year also saw considerable time last year. Much more so, I believe, than the group of players who will comprise the Amherst bench this season.

As far as "D3Hoops.com voters typically don't just automatically put the defending champs back in the #1 slot to start the season," they seemingly typically just automatically put the national tourney runner-up in the #2 spot in the final poll, so you never know. 

Don't be a jerk. Read up:
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2011-12/preseason
http://www.d3hoops.com/top25/men/2012-13/preseason

Pat,
I know Andone can rub some the wrong way. However, I believe you crossed the line calling him a jerk after his final comments!

[AndOne]

Hold on just a minute Pat. I honestly believe you need to go back and very carefully re-read what I wrote.

1. I never said the voters would name last year's champ as this year's pre-season #1
2. I implied it might happen ("you never know") because D3Hoops.com voters "seemingly typically put the national tourney runner up in the #2 spot in the final poll."
This is an indisputable fact!

* In 2013 MH-B was the national runner up and was voted #2 in the final poll.
* In 2012 Cabrini finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2011 Wooster finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2010 Williams finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2009 Richard Stockton finished 2nd but was 5th in the final poll.
* In 2008 Amherst finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2007 Va. Wesleyan finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2006 Wittenberg finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.
* In 2005 Rochester finished 2nd but was 4th in the final poll.
* In 2004 Williams finished 2nd and was #2 in the final poll.

In 8 of the last 10 years the national runner-up was voted #2 in the final poll. This is exactly what I said--"The voters TYPICALLY put the national tournament runner up in the #2 spot." I don't think anyone would argue that 8 out of 10 is a TYPICAL result.

The main focus of my post was not about the upcoming pre-season poll. It was about the fact the the #2 finisher usually rather automatically ends up in the final #2 spot. The proof is evidenced above. The inference was that if voters followed that pattern, this season's pre-season poll would find Amherst being named #1.

With all due respect, I think I got it right. I don't think I was being a "jerk" as you called me. And, I think, as Cardinalpride mentioned, that you indeed crossed the line. You misinterpreted what I said and then called me a "jerk" because of it.
Thank you very much. 

[RogK]

Recently, some dullard made a surprisingly cogent argument against pre-season polls (over in the WBB Multi Regional topics section). Some excerpts :
Their innate flaw is that they are based on 0 games. As long as there is a lot of volatility in the subsequent voting, pre-season ratings can be fairly harmless. But, one can imagine some team thinking they deserve to be number 5 if they "upset" the pre-season number 5 team. Or a team rated number 2 thinks they should stay there forever as long as they and number 1 don't lose.
Another issue is that somebody rated 24th has to leapfrog many more teams than does the team who is rated 11 in the pre-season poll.
The point could be summarized as this : every team in the country should be considered side by side at the starting line, as opposed to some teams getting favored "pole positions" as in an auto race.

[madzillagd]

I don't disagree with what you're saying RogK but I can tell you as a fan, I really like having the preseason poll because it helps guide me on which teams I should attempt to watch in the early weeks of the season.  I'm lucky enough to have a job where I can have an afternoon game on almost every day playing in the background and I try to catch as many of those teams as possible.  As teams move in & out of the poll I try to tune in to the newcomers and within 2-3 weeks of the season starting you can get a pretty good comparison of how those teams should be ranked.   

I think the teams should not put too much stock in the rankings.  It's fun to see your team there but it's meaningless in the overall scheme of things of what you are trying to get accomplished on the court.