MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Titan Q]

Personally, I'm fine with #2. Either way it's a big target.

I would be interested in hearing a bit more about Grinnell, particularly how they run their offense. It sounds like they have a fairly unorthodox way of doing things, to say the least. Do they forgo defense in hopes of outscoring the other team? Their scores remind me of the semi-pro leagues we have here in Grand Rapids that are simply offensive shootouts.

http://www.4seasonsbasketball.com/01-Menu/04-Articles/CoachsScrapbook/TheSystem.html

----------
The idea behind Grinnell's system is take as many shots as possible and be sure that at least half of them come from behind the 3-point line.

The team averages 101 shots a game, compared with 65.5 shots a game taken by Arizona, the top-ranked team in Division I.

The system involves constant running, so Arseneault substitutes all five players at the first opportunity after 35 seconds of the game have elapsed.

Because players are in the game for only short periods, they're able to go all-out the whole time they're on the floor.

"The other team is usually playing seven guys," said Steve Wood, Grinnell's top scorer at 25.4 points a game. "After a while, they're not able to keep up with the pace."

By contrast, 13 Grinnell players are averaging more than 10 minutes a game.

Grinnell sends most of its players to rebound after a shot and will try to steal the other team's inbounds pass if the shot is made.

Trading 3s for twos

When the other team can break the press, it often leads to uncontested layups. Grinnell allows the easy shots so it can get the ball back quickly and take more 3-pointers. Trading 3-pointers for two-pointers usually works in Grinnell's favor.

[Titan Q]

Here is a link to Grinnell's season stats...

http://wm.grinnell.edu/athletics/mbasketball/statistics/MBK0809/teamcume.htm

- Avg FG attempts per game = 93 (Wheaton opponents avg = 53)

- Avg opponent FG attempts per game = 69 (Wheaton avg FGA = 54)

- Avg 3-pt attempts per game = 64 (Wheaton opponents avg - 16)

- Avg opponent 3-pt attempts per game = 9 (Wheaton avg = 13)

- Avg turnovers forced per game = 32 (Wheaton average = 12)

- Avg points per game = 127 (Wheaton opponents average = 54)

- Avg opponent points per game = 106 (Wheaton average = 80)

- Grinnell players who average over 5 minutes per game = 14

- Wheaton players who average 5 minutes per game or more, Wheaton = 8


When you play Grinnell, you are forced into a completely different style of game - it is absolutely nothing like you're used to playing, and there is really nothing you can do to prevent that from happening.  Even if you take care of the basketball (and keep turnovers under, say, 20), The System still creates a pace that is as fast as you'll ever see because at some point in a possession, Grinnell will just give you a free layup in order to get the ball back.  Unlike playing any other opponent, there really isn't much you can do to control the tempo vs Grinnell...they dictate everything in that regard.

Obviously the key to beating Grinnell is limiting turnovers.  Here is the boxscore from IWU's 2001 NCAA tournament game vs GC:

http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2001/030101m.htm

IWU turned it over just 14 times.  The Titans led by 25 at halftime and won 132-91.  Joe Ramsey, who was the head coach at Blackburn at the time and the longtime head man at Millikin, was at the game as the NCAA Midwest rep.  After the game he told me he knew IWU would have zero trouble with GC after the first possession of the game.  The Pioneers hit a 3 right off the tip.  IWU guard Adam Osborn, the in-bounder, calmy let the ball bounce after it went through the net as he slowly sized up the GC press and where IWU's players were setting up.  He finally picked it up and threw it in.  Ramsey said that most teams against Grinnell are so caught up in the madness that they grab the ball right out of the basket, start frantically shuffling up and down the sidelines on the in-bound, and just look a bit frazzled in dealing with the press.  That simple observation always stayed with me.  It seems to say a lot about what it takes to deal with Grinnell - poise and discipline, which IWU definitely played with that night (and which were staples of all Dennie Bridges teams in general).

Note that IWU used a rotation of 11 players that night.  Dennie Bridges added freshmen guards Jim Lehan and Shawn McGuire, who were JV players that season, to the rotation for the game.  I remember talking to Bridges in the days leading up to that game and listening to him explain the need to add a couple ball-handlers to the mix specifically for the Grinnell game.  He basically used a rotation of 6 guards that night.

Where Wheaton might have a problem vs Grinnell is in the area of depth.  On the season as a whole, the Thunder have basically played 8 guys...and that includes Wiele.  Wheaton typically uses 4 guards - Raymond, Panner, Jahns, Pflederer.  Against Grinnell, Wheaton will have to play 10 or 11 players, and probably more than 4 guards.  That means some guys who aren't used to getting varsity time right now will probably be thrown into the madness that is playing Grinnell....that's when it can get dicey vs the Pioneers (and that is a key part of their system - forcing the opponent's best players to the bench).  Wheaton could get in trouble if reserve guards Pflederer and Jahns, and whatever new players Bill Harris adds to the rotation for this game, turn it over a bunch.  Also, Grinnell will make every Wheaton player handle the ball a little bit - how will McCrary and Carwell and guys like that handle the pressure?  I think a team like Carthage, which is loaded with guards up and down the roster, actually matches up a lot better vs Grinnell than Wheaton does...put it this way, you are not rewarded for being a balanced team (with good inside play) vs GC.

As far as where the points come vs Grinnell, it is usually the frontcourt players that have crazy games - the small forward and power forward it typically seems like.  They get all the free layups and dunks.  I'm sure Prospect H.S. head coach John Camardella is a big fan of System ball.  Against Grinnell, your guards usually end up in a "defensive" mode all night while you have the ball - the guards are usually dealing with all of the crazy traps.  If the guards take care of it, and you make 3-4 quick passes, the big guys will lay it in.  Some guard will be the beneficiary of a record-setting assist performance...some forward (maybe multiple) will score his career high.  It is definitely nuts. 

I do think it is kind of fascinating that David Arsenault has basically created a new way to play the game.  And I appreciate the level of student-athlete participation Grinnell achieves each season (with the # of players they use).  What I really hate is the perception Grinnell's System, and all of the attention that has come with it, has created with others who don't know D3 basketball.  Stuff like this from the link above:

"It epitomizes what Division III is all about," said former St. John's University coach Fran Fraschilla, now an analyst with ESPN. "Play hard, have fun and not take yourselves too seriously. It's a great way to play."

I think most of us would agree that D3 student-athletes take the game as seriously as they do in Division I.

[Titan Q]

Happy New Year to all...here is to a great season in the College Conference of Illinois & Wisconsin!

[cardinalpride]

Here is a link to Grinnell's season stats...

http://wm.grinnell.edu/athletics/mbasketball/statistics/MBK0809/teamcume.htm

- Avg FG attempts per game = 93 (Wheaton opponents avg = 53)

- Avg opponent FG attempts per game = 69 (Wheaton avg FGA = 54)

- Avg 3-pt attempts per game = 64 (Wheaton opponents avg - 16)

- Avg opponent 3-pt attempts per game = 9 (Wheaton avg = 13)

- Avg turnovers forced per game = 32 (Wheaton average = 12)

- Avg points per game = 127 (Wheaton opponents average = 54)

- Avg opponent points per game = 106 (Wheaton average = 80)

- Grinnell players who average over 5 minutes per game = 14

- Wheaton players who average 5 minutes per game or more, Wheaton = 8


When you play Grinnell, you are forced into a completely different style of game - it is absolutely nothing like you're used to playing, and there is really nothing you can do to prevent that from happening.  Even if you take care of the basketball (and keep turnovers under, say, 20), The System still creates a pace that is as fast as you'll ever see because at some point in a possession, Grinnell will just give you a free layup in order to get the ball back.  Unlike playing any other opponent, there really isn't much you can do to control the tempo vs Grinnell...they dictate everything in that regard.

Obviously the key to beating Grinnell is limiting turnovers.  Here is the boxscore from IWU's 2001 NCAA tournament game vs GC:

http://www.iwu.edu/~iwunews/sports/mbb2001/030101m.htm

IWU turned it over just 14 times.  The Titans led by 25 at halftime and won 132-91.  Joe Ramsey, who was the head coach at Blackburn at the time and the longtime head man at Millikin, was at the game as the NCAA Midwest rep.  After the game he told me he knew IWU would have zero trouble with GC after the first possession of the game.  The Pioneers hit a 3 right off the tip.  IWU guard Adam Osborn, the in-bounder, calmy let the ball bounce after it went through the net as he slowly sized up the GC press and where IWU's players were setting up.  He finally picked it up and threw it in.  Ramsey said that most teams against Grinnell are so caught up in the madness that they grab the ball right out of the basket, start frantically shuffling up and down the sidelines on the in-bound, and just look a bit frazzled in dealing with the press.  That simple observation always stayed with me.  It seems to say a lot about what it takes to deal with Grinnell - poise and discipline, which IWU definitely played with that night (and which were staples of all Dennie Bridges teams in general).

Note that IWU used a rotation of 11 players that night.  Dennie Bridges added freshmen guards Jim Lehan and Shawn McGuire, who were JV players that season, to the rotation for the game.  I remember talking to Bridges in the days leading up to that game and listening to him explain the need to add a couple ball-handlers to the mix specifically for the Grinnell game.  He basically used a rotation of 6 guards that night.

Where Wheaton might have a problem vs Grinnell is in the area of depth.  On the season as a whole, the Thunder have basically played 8 guys...and that includes Wiele.  Wheaton typically uses 4 guards - Raymond, Panner, Jahns, Pflederer.  Against Grinnell, Wheaton will have to play 10 or 11 players, and probably more than 4 guards.  That means some guys who aren't used to getting varsity time right now will probably be thrown into the madness that is playing Grinnell....that's when it can get dicey vs the Pioneers (and that is a key part of their system - forcing the opponent's best players to the bench).  Wheaton could get in trouble if reserve guards Pflederer and Jahns, and whatever new players Bill Harris adds to the rotation for this game, turn it over a bunch.  Also, Grinnell will make every Wheaton player handle the ball a little bit - how will McCrary and Carwell and guys like that handle the pressure?  I think a team like Carthage, which is loaded with guards up and down the roster, actually matches up a lot better vs Grinnell than Wheaton does...put it this way, you are not rewarded for being a balanced team (with good inside play) vs GC.

As far as where the points come vs Grinnell, it is usually the frontcourt players that have crazy games - the small forward and power forward it typically seems like.  They get all the free layups and dunks.  I'm sure Prospect H.S. head coach John Camardella is a big fan of System ball.  Against Grinnell, your guards usually end up in a "defensive" mode all night while you have the ball - the guards are usually dealing with all of the crazy traps.  If the guards take care of it, and you make 3-4 quick passes, the big guys will lay it in.  Some guard will be the beneficiary of a record-setting assist performance...some forward (maybe multiple) will score his career high.  It is definitely nuts. 

I do think it is kind of fascinating that David Arsenault has basically created a new way to play the game.  And I appreciate the level of student-athlete participation Grinnell achieves each season (with the # of players they use).  What I really hate is the perception Grinnell's System, and all of the attention that has come with it, has created with others who don't know D3 basketball.  Stuff like this from the link above:

"It epitomizes what Division III is all about," said former St. John's University coach Fran Fraschilla, now an analyst with ESPN. "Play hard, have fun and not take yourselves too seriously. It's a great way to play."

I think most of us would agree that D3 student-athletes take the game as seriously as they do in Division I.

nice piece TQ!

Happy New Year to everyone!

[usee]

re: Grinnell... I don't have any stats to back this up, but I've heard discussion of the "Grinnell effect," where a team that plays Grinnell loses the next game they play... largely because they're tired from trying to keep up with the Pio's.  Don't know if it has been "proven" or if it is just an excuse for losing after you play Grinnell... but I've heard the discussion in years past.

Happy New Year!

I'm not sure what affect Grinnell will have on Wheaton Saturday but their "next" is January 7th against a team they went 0-3 against last year.

[usee]

Thanks Q, that is a great piece on Grinnell and it inspired me to check out their stats.

Some amazing stuff. Here are a few of the things that stick out to me (keep in mind Grinnell has played 7 games to Wheaton's 10):

-John Gotberg, Grinnell's leading scorer, is 52-128 from the 3pt line this season. Wheaton as a TEAM is 55-132.
-Grinnell is 167-450 from the arc.
-Grinnell has 8 players who have attempted at least 21 3pters this season. Wheaton has 2.
-Grinnell has 16 players with 3pt attempts to Wheaton's 5.

I will be interested to see if Wheaton can limit their turnovers and keep Grinnell from shooting their average percentage of FGA.

[sac]

Thanks Q, that is a great piece on Grinnell and it inspired me to check out their stats.

Some amazing stuff. Here are a few of the things that stick out to me (keep in mind Grinnell has played 7 games to Wheaton's 10):

-John Gotberg, Grinnell's leading scorer, is 52-128 from the 3pt line this season. Wheaton as a TEAM is 55-132.
-Grinnell is 167-450 from the arc.
-Grinnell has 8 players who have attempted at least 21 3pters this season. Wheaton has 2.
-Grinnell has 16 players with 3pt attempts to Wheaton's 5.

I will be interested to see if Wheaton can limit their turnovers and keep Grinnell from shooting their average percentage of FGA.

What about assists?  We all know the Grinnell system is all about racking up assists. 

[Gregory Sager]

Comparing rates between NP and MU is an apples to apples "argument."  That is, both teams have languished in the bottom half of the tough CCIW for a while.

I compared NPU's four-year senior rates to four CCIW rivals: Millikin, Illinois Wesleyan, Carthage, and Wheaton.

[Ralph Turner]

+1 Titan Q! 

[AndOne]

CCIW OVERALL:    66-15 (.845)

CCIW vs. D1	1-1
CCIW vs. NAIA-1	1-3
CCIW vs. NAIA-2:	3-1
CCIW vs. USCAA:	2-0
CCIW vs. D3:	59-10 (.856)
...	vs. D3 non-region:	10-1
...	vs. D3 region:	49-9 (.845)
...	...	vs. ASC:	1-0
...	...	vs. HCAC:	7-0
...	...	vs. IIAC:	8-0
...	...	vs. MIAA:	1-0	(4-0 overall)
...	...	vs. MIAC:	1-0
...	...	vs. MWC:	5-1
...	...	vs. NAthCon:	9-0
...	...	vs. SCIAC:	2-1
...	...	vs. SLIAC:	8-0
...	...	vs. UAA:	4-3	(5-3 overall)
...	...	vs. UMAC	1-0
...	...	vs. WIAC:	2-4

While the CCIW as a whole s/b congratulated and proud of its non-conference record to this point, further analysis suggests it may have been achieved against some less than stellar competition. Some of this, no doubt, is due to the conference coaches artful scheduling against historically weaker opponents.

I think its generally acknowledged that the top 3 CCIW teams this season are expected to be Wheaton, Augie, and Elmhurst. Given that, lets examine the records of these 3 teams opponents to date in greater detail.

The combined record of Wheaton's, Augie's, and Elmhurst's opponents is a very pedestrian 142-183 which calculates to a winning percentage of only 43.7. Specifically, Wheaton's (D3Hoops #2, 10-0) opponent's are 42-64 (40.5 winning percentage), Elmhurst's (#7, 9-1) are 53-50 (51.4 percent), and Augie's (#9, 8-2) opponents to date are 47-69 (only 32.9 percent)!

* All three teams have played only 2 opponents who have won at least 3 more games than they have lost.

* Elmhurst has played 3 teams who have lost at least 3 more games than they have won, Wheaton 5, and Augie has played 7 such opponents. 

* As far as facing teams with "very good" or "outstanding" records, I think it can be said Elmhurst has faced 2 (Stevens Point & Wash U.), Augie 2 (Wash U. & Cornell), and Wheaton really has not faced any as the best record any of their opponents has attained so far is 7-4. 

While the won/lost records are outstanding, are they deserving of #2, #7, and #9 national rankings given the level of competition they've faced to date? Or, as has been suggested previously, are their current rankings based more on the respective school's basketball tradition, reputation, and recent conference championships, and tournament advancement? Perhaps, Wheaton, Elmhurst, and Augie have merely done what was expected for the most part. Elmhurst has, by far, the most outstanding win in knocking off then #1 Wash U. I think they also have a "good" loss to Stevens Point. Augie has a "good" loss to 9-1 Wash U., but the worst "bad" loss to 6-5 LaCrosse. Their last 4 opponents have a combined 8-30 record. Wheaton has merely has done what should be expected against a schedule wherein the best team they've faced is a mediocre 7-4.

While there is every reason to suspect and expect these 3 teams will occupy the top 3 rungs on the CCIW ladder when all is said and done, there is also the very real possibility that any of them can be knocked off by not only each other, but by the 5 other conference teams as well, on any given night. If any team manages to win the conference portion of the schedule by 2-3 games, then that team will most assuredly be one of the premier teams in the nation. 

   

[usee]

Thanks Q, that is a great piece on Grinnell and it inspired me to check out their stats.

Some amazing stuff. Here are a few of the things that stick out to me (keep in mind Grinnell has played 7 games to Wheaton's 10):

-John Gotberg, Grinnell's leading scorer, is 52-128 from the 3pt line this season. Wheaton as a TEAM is 55-132.
-Grinnell is 167-450 from the arc.
-Grinnell has 8 players who have attempted at least 21 3pters this season. Wheaton has 2.
-Grinnell has 16 players with 3pt attempts to Wheaton's 5.

I will be interested to see if Wheaton can limit their turnovers and keep Grinnell from shooting their average percentage of FGA.

What about assists?  We all know the Grinnell system is all about racking up assists. 

Grinnell has 190 assists through 7 games to Wheaton's 174 through 10 games. what is interesting is that the coaches son, David Arsenault, has 95 of Grinnell's 190 assists (about half). No other player has more than 20 for them. Wheaton's leader is Raymond with 39 assists.

[AndOne]

Isn't Arsenault the stat "doctor" who rewrites the score book after almost every game, especially with the intent to make his son's star shine a little brighter?

[Titan Q]

Here is how everyone's CCIW road shapes up...

Augustana
Jan. 3  North Park       
Jan. 7  Elmhurst       
Jan. 10  at Carthage       
Jan. 14  at Wheaton       
Jan. 17  North Central     
Jan. 21  Millikin       
Jan. 24  Illinois Wesleyan     
Jan. 28  at North Park       
Jan. 31  Wheaton       
Feb. 4  at Elmhurst     
Feb. 7  Carthage       
Feb. 11  at Millikin     
Feb. 14  at North Central     
Feb. 21  at Illinois Wesleyan   

Carthage
Jan. 7  at Millikin       
Jan. 10  Augustana       
Jan. 14  Illinois Wesleyan       
Jan. 17  at North Park       
Jan. 21  at Wheaton       
Jan. 24  at North Central       
Jan. 28  Elmhurst       
Jan. 31  North Park       
Feb. 4  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Feb. 7  at Augustana       
Feb. 11  North Central       
Feb. 14  Millikin       
Feb. 18  Wheaton       
Feb. 21  at Elmhurst     

Elmhurst
Jan. 7  at Augustana     
Jan. 10  Millikin       
Jan. 14  North Park       
Jan. 17  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Jan. 21  North Central       
Jan. 24  at Wheaton     
Jan. 28  at Carthage       
Jan. 31  Illinois Wesleyan     
Feb. 4  Augustana       
Feb. 7  at Millikin       
Feb. 11  Wheaton       
Feb. 14  at North Park     
Feb. 18  at North Central     
Feb. 21  Carthage     

Illinois Wesleyan
Jan. 7  at Wheaton       
Jan. 10  North Central       
Jan. 14  at Carthage       
Jan. 17  Elmhurst       
Jan. 21  North Park     
Jan. 24  at Augustana       
Jan. 28  Millikin       
Jan. 31  at Elmhurst       
Feb. 4  Carthage       
Feb. 7  at North Central       
Feb. 11  at North Park       
Feb. 14  Wheaton       
Feb. 18  at Millikin       
Feb. 21  Augustana     

Millikin
Jan. 7  Carthage       
Jan. 10  at Elmhurst     
Jan. 14  at North Central       
Jan. 17  Wheaton       
Jan. 21  at Augustana       
Jan. 24  North Park       
Jan. 28  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Jan. 31  North Central       
Feb. 4  at Wheaton       
Feb. 7  Elmhurst       
Feb. 11  Augustana     
Feb. 14  at Carthage       
Feb. 18  Illinois Wesleyan     
Feb. 21  at North Park       

North Central
Jan. 7  North Park       
Jan. 10  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Jan. 14  Millikin       
Jan. 17  at Augustana       
Jan. 21  at Elmhurst       
Jan. 24  Carthage       
Jan. 28  Wheaton       
Jan. 31  at Millikin       
Feb. 4  at North Park       
Feb. 7  Illinois Wesleyan     
Feb. 11  at Carthage       
Feb. 14  Augustana       
Feb. 18  Elmhurst       
Feb. 21  at Wheaton   

North Park
Jan. 3  at Augustana       
Jan. 7  at North Central     
Jan. 10  Wheaton       
Jan. 14  at Elmhurst     
Jan. 17  Carthage       
Jan. 21  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Jan. 24  at Millikin       
Jan. 28  Augustana     
Jan. 31  at Carthage     
Feb. 4  North Central     
Feb. 7  at Wheaton       
Feb. 11  Illinois Wesleyan     
Feb. 14  Elmhurst     
Feb. 21  Millikin   

Wheaton
Jan. 7  Illinois Wesleyan     
Jan. 10  at North Park       
Jan. 14  Augustana       
Jan. 17  at Millikin       
Jan. 21  Carthage       
Jan. 24  Elmhurst       
Jan. 28  at North Central       
Jan. 31  at Augustana       
Feb. 4  Millikin       
Feb. 7  North Park       
Feb. 11  at Elmhurst     
Feb. 14  at Illinois Wesleyan       
Feb. 18  at Carthage       
Feb. 21  North Central 

[Titan Q]

While the won/lost records are outstanding, are they deserving of #2, #7, and #9 national rankings given the level of competition they've faced to date? Or, as has been suggested previously, are their current rankings based more on the respective school's basketball tradition, reputation, and recent conference championships, and tournament advancement?

I assume you are referring to this post:

Speaking as a longtime voter in the poll, I will just add that, here in December, not many teams have "earned" their ranking.  Most rankings at this stage still have more to do more with 2007-08 results and preseason assumptions than actual 2008-09 season results.  Afterall, Wheaton doesn't "deserve" to be ranked #2 based on anything that has happened so far this year (they should be undefeated with their schedule)...most of the Thunder's current ranking has to do with last year and who returned. 

Augustana won one the nation's best conferences last year and took the eventual national champions to overtime in the NCAA tournament.  The Vikings returned all but one player from that team.  Despite two losses, I still think #8 is fair for now.  By late January, the polls sorts itself out.

I think what I said and how you paraphased it are a little different. 

But again, what team has "earned' its ranking at this stage?  The poll is just guess work at this point...that applies for every team.  Wheaton, Augustana, and Elmhurst are deserving of high rankings at this stage...league play will sort things out.

[dansand]

While the CCIW as a whole s/b congratulated and proud of its non-conference record to this point, further analysis suggests it may have been achieved against some less than stellar competition.

AndOne,
You've made some valid points that have been addressed previously, but I'm curious as to why you think the league should be congratulated and proud of a record achieved against less than stellar competition?

Augie's (#9, 8-2) opponents to date are 47-69 (only 32.9 percent)!

That's actually a .405 opponents' winning percentage. Not great certainly, but better than .329.

While there is every reason to suspect and expect these 3 teams will occupy the top 3 rungs on the CCIW ladder when all is said and done, there is also the very real possibility that any of them can be knocked off by not only each other, but by the 5 other conference teams as well, on any given night. If any team manages to win the conference portion of the schedule by 2-3 games, then that team will most assuredly be one of the premier teams in the nation.

Augie won the league by two games last year and in 2005-06. Does that mean that Wheaton, who advanced to the final eight last year, or IWU, who reached the final four in 2005-06 were not among the nation's premier teams?