MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[oldknight]

I am a football guy (sort of) so I dont' have a lot to add to the Peter's minutes saga. I would suggest we are all over thinking it. My observation has been that Schauer's main guys have always played heavy minutes, he also has a history of getting them out of blowout games (later than most) and his comments on the post game would suggest he was making a point to TP in this specific instance about pushing him (and the team).

I wouldn't expect to see a repeat of this when Wheaton is leading by 20 vs Hope AND Calvin this weekend! 

If Coach Schauer was punishing a player for not working hard enough by giving him more minutes than he would have otherwise gotten, that's a curious way to make a point. When I was playing I wish I had only known that the key to getting extra court time was to make my effort more casual.

[Gregory Sager]

Carthage put up a heckuva fight tonight and would have subdued many teams.  Stritch has some excellent three-point shooters and that was the difference (Stritch hit two threes near the end when a miss would have buried them).  It's hard to tell over the internet how good a team is, but I think Stritch would definitely do well in the CCIW (how do you guys rate NAIA D2 vs. NCAA D3 anyway?). 

I believe Cardinal Stritch would be right in the middle of the CCIW title picture this year.  That was a really good showing by Carthage tonight.  I watched a lot of that game online - the Red Men are much improved this year.  Carthage is going to give a lot of teams trouble.  I do think Carthage is too thin in the low post though - that will hurt them.

I usually consider the top 5 of NAIA D2 to be very even with the top 5 of NCAA D3 - I don't see much separation there.  I believe the top 5 of NAIA D1 is significantly better than the top 5 of NCAA D3.  The elite NAIA D1 teams would typically be competitive with good NCAA D2 teams.

With regard to the above question, keep in mind that historically, many kids that CCIW and other local D3 teams recruit are also being recruited by NAIA D2 teams.

I'm glad someone brought this up.  This is exactly what I see from kids that get recruited at the local high schools in my area.....I would think D3 would be at a disadvantage with the partial to full athletic scholarship $$ that NAIA can offer.  That was the difference recently for a couple of highly D3 recruited players that I know......Came down to one D3 school and one NAIA school; all things were equal in their interest......So who is going to turn down school B that is 50 to 100% cheaper?  Most can't afford that luxury.

I think that you may be overestimating the value of a typical NAIA D2 scholie. Schools on that level are only permitted six men's basketball scholarships, and the usual practice is for a coach to divide them up into partials and distribute them amongst his players. Some coaches spread the scholie money out among the entire roster. Also, a lot of NAIA schools have limited economic means and are tuition-driven institutions, which means that: a) they don't have a lot of scholie money to give out; and b) they need their students to pony up most of the bill, even if they're on scholarship. That's why many (perhaps most) NAIA schools don't come even close to disbursing all of the athletic scholarship money that they are permitted to give out by the NAIA's rules.

It's not uncommon for NAIA D2 scholies to therefore be pretty miniscule; in other words, nowhere near 50 to 100% of the bill for tuition and housing. I've known instances in which NAIA D2 student-athletes were getting as little as $750 per year in basketball scholarship money.

A lot of basketball players will opt for an NAIA D2 school over an NCAA D3 school in part because the NAIA school is cheaper to begin with (if you were to go through the laborious process of charting out all of the average costs of NAIA D2 private schools and NCAA D3 private schools, you'd find that ours are much pricier on average). But I think what really draws players to NAIA D2 programs instead of their D3 counterparts is the ego thing. You know, you don't have to tell people that you're only getting $750 off of your school bill thanks to your basketball scholarship. All you have to tell them is that you're going to college on a basketball scholarship, and you're automatically Mr. Hotshot Hoopster in their eyes.

The annual running tally of D3 vs. NAIA D2 contests kept in the Multi-Regional Topics section of d3boards.com has indicated in recent years that the balance of power between the two divisions, once fairly even, has swung the way of NAIA D2 fairly consistently. While a lot of that has to do with which D3 teams are playing which NAIA D2 teams -- their division isn't any more balanced geographically in terms of competence than ours is -- I think that it might in some small way reflect the fact that kids these days are opting for cheaper schooling alternatives.

I am a football guy (sort of) so I dont' have a lot to add to the Peter's minutes saga. I would suggest we are all over thinking it. My observation has been that Schauer's main guys have always played heavy minutes, he also has a history of getting them out of blowout games (later than most) and his comments on the post game would suggest he was making a point to TP in this specific instance about pushing him (and the team).

I wouldn't expect to see a repeat of this when Wheaton is leading by 20 vs Hope AND Calvin this weekend! 

Let me see if I've got your hypothesis correct. Are you suggesting that Coach Schauer was punishing a player for not working hard enough by giving him more minutes than he would have otherwise gotten? When I was playing I wish I had only known that the key to getting extra court time was to make my effort more casual.

Yes, but Wheaton's men's basketball program has a tradition of marching to a different drummer than everybody else. We're talking about the team whose head coach (like his predecessor and mentor) frequently calls timeouts after Wheaton has done something great -- as opposed to the usual basketball coach m.o. of calling timeouts after the team has done something badly. I sometimes wonder if Wheaton does things backwards in order to set itself apart. But, then again, I'm frequently accused of being uncharitable towards my orange-flavored Christian brothers and sisters in DuPage County. I'm not exactly sure why.

[sac]

I had a conversation with a long retired MIAA coach last week who related his frustration with recruiting against NAIA's.  In many cases you are correct the scholarships offered is not necessarily more than what a D3 can legally give.  However as he said it was common for the NAIA to offer as little as $500 more in aide than they knew the D3 could offer because they knew they could and knew it would make the difference.

It was a very interesting conversation.

[oldknight]

I had a conversation with a long retired MIAA coach last week who related his frustration with recruiting against NAIA's.  In many cases you are correct the scholarships offered is not necessarily more than what a D3 can legally give.  However as he said it was common for the NAIA to offer as little as $500 more in aide than they knew the D3 could offer because they knew they could and knew it would make the difference.

It was a very interesting conversation.

One additional factor working against D3, vis-à-vis NAIA, is that the NAIA allows a far less restrictive recruiting environment than NCAA member institutions. Cynics would say there are basically no recruiting restrictions in NAIA. A friend of mine had his son recruited by both NCAA and NAIA schools. The father--himself a former D3 athlete--was shocked by how NAIA schools basically have no restrictions on when, how or how often coaches could contact his son while he was still a high school athlete. Dad described the NAIA as "the Wild West of recruiting." One NAIA school invited the kid to work at that college's summer camp where he could live on campus and get paid for the week. Try doing that at an NCAA school and see if you get away with it. The playing field ain't exactly level, and that has to have some impact.

[Gregory Sager]

I had a conversation with a long retired MIAA coach last week who related his frustration with recruiting against NAIA's.  In many cases you are correct the scholarships offered is not necessarily more than what a D3 can legally give.  However as he said it was common for the NAIA to offer as little as $500 more in aide than they knew the D3 could offer because they knew they could and knew it would make the difference.

It was a very interesting conversation.

One additional unfairness working against D3, vis-à-vis NAIA, is that the NAIA allows a far less restrictive recruiting environment than NCAA member institutions. Cynics would say there are basically no recruiting restrictions in NAIA. A friend of mine had his son recruited by both NCAA and NAIA schools. The father--himself a former D3 athlete--was shocked by how NAIA schools basically have no restrictions on when, how or how often coaches could contact his son while he was still a high school athlete. Dad described the NAIA as "the Wild West or recruiting." One NAIA school invited the kid to work at that college's summer camp where he could live on campus and get paid for the week. Try doing that at an NCAA school and see if you get away with it. The playing field ain't exactly level, and that has to have some impact.

Yep. That's true, too. Very good point, OK.

[John Gleich]

tooold---

1. With 10 minutes left, the Weenies were up by 17. With 8 left they were still up by the same margin. Chicago was really not gaining anything while losing time. Time for the All-American to come out. Still too close? How about with 6 minutes remaining the WC lead had been upped to 21?

Who do you think the onus is on for clearing the bench...? Is it the team getting beaten or the team providing the beating?

If it is, in fact, the team getting beaten (i.e. if they keep their starters out there the whole game) does the coach of the Whollopers still have to call off the dogs?


That's more of a broader question... it seems like it may be something that both coaches come to realize at the same time (and, perhaps, both make their substitutions at the same time) and it would clearly be unsporting if a losing team put in subs, but the winning team kept their starters out there for the full 40 minutes...

[Flying Dutch Fan]

tooold---

1. With 10 minutes left, the Weenies were up by 17. With 8 left they were still up by the same margin. Chicago was really not gaining anything while losing time. Time for the All-American to come out. Still too close? How about with 6 minutes remaining the WC lead had been upped to 21?

Who do you think the onus is on for clearing the bench...? Is it the team getting beaten or the team providing the beating?

If it is, in fact, the team getting beaten (i.e. if they keep their starters out there the whole game) does the coach of the Whollopers still have to call off the dogs?


That's more of a broader question... it seems like it may be something that both coaches come to realize at the same time (and, perhaps, both make their substitutions at the same time) and it would clearly be unsporting if a losing team put in subs, but the winning team kept their starters out there for the full 40 minutes...

I always appreciate the approach of the winning team going first - heck sometimes you even see it in the first half of a really lopsided game.  Give your bench the opportunity to play against the best the oposition has to offer - that can pay dividends later.

[USee]

I am a football guy (sort of) so I dont' have a lot to add to the Peter's minutes saga. I would suggest we are all over thinking it. My observation has been that Schauer's main guys have always played heavy minutes, he also has a history of getting them out of blowout games (later than most) and his comments on the post game would suggest he was making a point to TP in this specific instance about pushing him (and the team).

I wouldn't expect to see a repeat of this when Wheaton is leading by 20 vs Hope AND Calvin this weekend! 

If Coach Schauer was punishing a player for not working hard enough by giving him more minutes than he would have otherwise gotten, that's a curious way to make a point. When I was playing I wish I had only known that the key to getting extra court time was to make my effort more casual.

I never said he was punishing him. That's your word. I said he was trying to make a point. I can envision a coach reinforcing something good by keeping someon on the floor longer. That's what I think happened. He was doing what he wanted, so he kept him out there. Kind of like hitting an extra bucket of balls on the range after you figured out a good swing key. Create muscle memory. 

[USee]

tooold---

1. With 10 minutes left, the Weenies were up by 17. With 8 left they were still up by the same margin. Chicago was really not gaining anything while losing time. Time for the All-American to come out. Still too close? How about with 6 minutes remaining the WC lead had been upped to 21?

Who do you think the onus is on for clearing the bench...? Is it the team getting beaten or the team providing the beating?

If it is, in fact, the team getting beaten (i.e. if they keep their starters out there the whole game) does the coach of the Whollopers still have to call off the dogs?


That's more of a broader question... it seems like it may be something that both coaches come to realize at the same time (and, perhaps, both make their substitutions at the same time) and it would clearly be unsporting if a losing team put in subs, but the winning team kept their starters out there for the full 40 minutes...

Also, I am sure AndOne meant "Wheaties" not "Weenies" in his quote above. But I am also sure that, in his mind, the terms are interchangeable for something evil.

[oldknight]

I am a football guy (sort of) so I dont' have a lot to add to the Peter's minutes saga. I would suggest we are all over thinking it. My observation has been that Schauer's main guys have always played heavy minutes, he also has a history of getting them out of blowout games (later than most) and his comments on the post game would suggest he was making a point to TP in this specific instance about pushing him (and the team).

I wouldn't expect to see a repeat of this when Wheaton is leading by 20 vs Hope AND Calvin this weekend! 

If Coach Schauer was punishing a player for not working hard enough by giving him more minutes than he would have otherwise gotten, that's a curious way to make a point. When I was playing I wish I had only known that the key to getting extra court time was to make my effort more casual.

I never said he was punishing him. That's your word. I said he was trying to make a point. I can envision a coach reinforcing something good by keeping someon on the floor longer. That's what I think happened. He was doing what he wanted, so he kept him out there. Kind of like hitting an extra bucket of balls on the range after you figured out a good swing key. Create muscle memory. 

When every one of the four coaches for whom I played wanted to make a point with me, he did it the same way. He sat my ass on the bench; he didn't give me extra minutes. That was their way of creating muscle memory. I guess the game has changed.

[USee]

Not sure.  Were you better than Tyler Peters?

[oldknight]

Not sure.  Were you better than Tyler Peters?

I'm confident I was better than TP in 1998, the last year I played rec league basketball (I still have my Hudsonville Recreation League Champs T-shirt to prove it). By my reckoning Peters was in first grade back then so I guess I should cut him some slack.

On a serious note, TP is a significantly better player than I ever was which may explain why my various coaches didn't let me play 36 minutes a game.

[AndOne]

tooold---

1. With 10 minutes left, the Weenies were up by 17. With 8 left they were still up by the same margin. Chicago was really not gaining anything while losing time. Time for the All-American to come out. Still too close? How about with 6 minutes remaining the WC lead had been upped to 21?

Who do you think the onus is on for clearing the bench...? Is it the team getting beaten or the team providing the beating?

If it is, in fact, the team getting beaten (i.e. if they keep their starters out there the whole game) does the coach of the Whollopers still have to call off the dogs?


That's more of a broader question... it seems like it may be something that both coaches come to realize at the same time (and, perhaps, both make their substitutions at the same time) and it would clearly be unsporting if a losing team put in subs, but the winning team kept their starters out there for the full 40 minutes...

Traditionally, I believe the coach getting beaten takes his players out first. However, why always do things traditionally? I mean what's the point? The leading coach knows he is going to win so what's there to prove. Is it also necessary to make the losing coach cry uncle by submitting and yanking his starters? I think its a nice gesture for the leading/winning coach to pull his starters first. Additionally, I don't think the earth would stop rotating if the leading coach took the top star out a few minutes before the other starters. They don't all have to exit at the same time. JMHO.

[John Gleich]

tooold---

1. With 10 minutes left, the Weenies were up by 17. With 8 left they were still up by the same margin. Chicago was really not gaining anything while losing time. Time for the All-American to come out. Still too close? How about with 6 minutes remaining the WC lead had been upped to 21?

Who do you think the onus is on for clearing the bench...? Is it the team getting beaten or the team providing the beating?

If it is, in fact, the team getting beaten (i.e. if they keep their starters out there the whole game) does the coach of the Whollopers still have to call off the dogs?


That's more of a broader question... it seems like it may be something that both coaches come to realize at the same time (and, perhaps, both make their substitutions at the same time) and it would clearly be unsporting if a losing team put in subs, but the winning team kept their starters out there for the full 40 minutes...

Traditionally, I believe the coach getting beaten takes his players out first. However, why always do things traditionally? I mean what's the point? The leading coach knows he is going to win so what's there to prove. Is it also necessary to make the losing coach cry uncle by submitting and yanking his starters? I think its a nice gesture for the leading/winning coach to pull his starters first. Additionally, I don't think the earth would stop rotating if the leading coach took the top star out a few minutes before the other starters. They don't all have to exit at the same time. JMHO.

Not to just play the devil's advocate... But there's probably an example (somewhere) of a coach pulling his starters early and the opponent not doing so... and then getting beat.

I agree that it's a nice gesture... but, as with an election, a politician typically doesn't claim the victory unless either the opponent calls to concede/congratulate them or the official votes have been counted (i.e. the clock reads 0:00 and the team who has more points is declared the victor by the officials).

On the other hand, the opponent may accept defeat... but the "offender" may just continue to pour it on (Grinnell, anyone?).  This is clearly unsporting (unless the person rationalizing the practice is drunk on Grinn-Aide).  Clearly, that's an explosive thing to imbibe...

[WUPHF]

I had a conversation with a long retired MIAA coach last week who related his frustration with recruiting against NAIA's.  In many cases you are correct the scholarships offered is not necessarily more than what a D3 can legally give.  However as he said it was common for the NAIA to offer as little as $500 more in aide than they knew the D3 could offer because they knew they could and knew it would make the difference.

It was a very interesting conversation.

I used to work at an NAIA school that regularly fielded Top 25 teams in nearly every sport.  It was very rare for an individual to earn more than a 50 percent tuition scholarship.  Even more so for 100 percent tuition.  The $2,000-5,000 scholarships were the norm, but I did see $500 scholarships and even had a 100 percent tuition, room, board and books from the track team.

The football coach had a former wide receiver in the admissions office who would tweak the academic scholarships.  He could push the scholarships to $9,900 without getting noticed.  The women's soccer coach would sweet talk the financial aid advisor who worked with his students.  As long as the student completed the FAFSA, they would get a lot of need-based aid, especially if they were from out of state.  The advisor loathed an assistant with the women's basketball team.  They received very few favors.

Of course, I would have to think that the retired MIAA coach could name a few Division III schools that seemingly had more money to offer.