MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[Titan Q]

Final non-conference record = 55-33 (.625)

Relatively speaking, that's not so good.

[Titan Q]

and radio guy?

Art Kimball, with honorable mentions for Johnny "Bud" Weiser and Bob Quillman and a special Student Broadcaster of the Decade plaque for Paul Carr.

Thanks!  I'll hang the plaque next to my runner-up trophy from the 2001-02 CCIW fantasy league. I think Wheaton C won that year.

Back to lurking in Bristol...

Good to hear from you Paul.  Sounds like a good gig...

http://cjonline.com/sports/2009-07-04/column_carr_drives_in_background_for_mike_mike

[John Gleich]

Final non-conference record = 55-33 (.625)

Relatively speaking, that's not so good.

Q,

What do you think accounts for the lower numbers?  Conference youth?  More parity in D-III?  A high number of games against teams who are on an upswing (eg. Wash U)?

I don't know how many other conferences compile this number (The WIAC is .776 with 4 very winable games left... they should end up .786 and .813 against D-III), but it would be interesting to see how the conferences stack up.  The MIAC compiled their number (.654) though that is helped by winning 14/15 against their local punching bag, UMAC foes.

[Titan Q]

Q,

What do you think accounts for the lower numbers?  Conference youth?  More parity in D-III?  A high number of games against teams who are on an upswing (eg. Wash U)?

Point, I do not attribute the down non-conference record to the schedule...this year's CCIW non-conference schedule is basically the same as it always is.  If anything, it may be weaker as it seems like the CCIW is playing less scholarship-level teams (D2's and strong NAIA's).

In general, I think it has to do a lot with this...

Based on the starters I posted above...

2009-10 starters by class:

Seniors: 14 (35%)
Juniors: 8 (20%)
Sophomores: 12 (30%)
Freshmen: 6 (15%)

Junior & Seniors = 22 (55%)
Freshmen & Sophomores = 18 (45%)

The league is relatively young and inexperienced this year - the CCIW, as a conference, is kind of in rebuilding mode.  2005-06 and 2008-09 were banner years at the top, behind senior-dominated teams, but there were a couple seasons like this one between the two.

Looking at the teams, in order of the non-conference standings...

IWU (9-2) - returned most of team from last year, but still just junior/sophomore-dominated nucleus
Wheaton (8-3) - lost All-American Raymond and 6-8 Andy Wiele from last year's CCIW title team
Carthage (8-3) - starts 1 senior, 1 junior, 1 soph, 2 freshmen
Augustana (7-4) - graduated 4 starters from last year, playing a really young/inexperienced group  
North Central (7-4) - graduated 4 starters from last year's 4th place team
North Park (6-5) - playing a bunch of sophs
Millikin (6-5) - the most experienced CCIW team, but offensively challenged
Elmhurst (5-6) - a Top 25 team the last few years, but in complete rebuilding mode


A quote from Carthage coach Bosko Djurickovic today...

"It should be fun against Wheaton," Djurickovic continued, "and we should have a nice crowd. It'll be nice to play at home. We have a tough four-game schedule to open league play. I think there four or five teams who think they can win the CCIW, and all eight teams think they can be in the top-four. That's how good the league is this year, from top to bottom, and it also speaks to the fact that the CCIW doesn't have a super team this year."

http://athletics.carthage.edu/news/2010/1/3/Mens_Basketball_0103101216.aspx

That kind of sums it up.  (By saying "good" I assume he is referring to the parity, as opposed to the quality of the teams top to bottom.)

[Titan Q]

I should add that I won't be surprised if 1 or 2 CCIW teams end up being very dangerous come NCAA tournament time.  In no way am I writing this season off as a year where the CCIW rep(s) will go down in Round 1.  There are some very talented teams trying to put it all together, and you never know how that's going to turn out.

[Mr. Ypsi]

Q, I agree with your analysis with one minor quibble: I don't think anyone has ever scheduled a game at Gonzaga before!  IF Augie beats whoever they play instead, that alone moves the CCIW from .625 to .636.

Still, it does appear to be a 'rebuilding' year.  Someone may yet emerge (hopefully IWU! ), but I just don't see a FF or even top ten team this year.

Saw your latest post just before hitting 'post'.  I concur.  Someone will win a couple of games, perhaps even two will make the round of 16.  FF seems like it would take some VERY good fortune.

[kenoshamark]

Replying to USee's post - here is one fan's response that Antioine McDaniel was definitley the PG of the decade ahead of Dauksis.  Both were great players and both played on very good teams, but I think that McDaniel just did more for his team than Dauksis did. 

No matter what your pick is, I think it's awfully hard to say one should "definitely" get the nod over the other.  I mean, it's close any way you look at "impact"...

Years as starter: Dauksas 4, McDaniel 4
CCIW Titles: Dauksas 3, McDaniel 3
Sweet 16's: Dauksas 3, McDaniel 2
Final Fours: Dauksas 1, McDaniel 1
CCIW M.O.P: Dauksas 1, McDaniel 1
CCIW 1st  Team: McDaniel 3, Dauksas 2
All-American: McDaniel 2 (2nd Team 2002, 2nd Team 2003), Dauksas 2 (1st Team 2005, 1st Team 2006)

Senior year stats:

Dauksas ('06): 14.4 ppg, 6.2 apg
McDaniel ('03): 16.5 ppg, 2.3 apg

McDaniel was a little bit better scorer, but Dauksas was a better distributor.  Both were phenomenal leaders and floor generals.

Whatever way you go here, it is hard to argue, but I think to say McDaniel was "definitely" the PG of the decade - when Dauksas was the 1st Team All-American PG his JR and SR years - is tough.

It's close...very, very close.

Bob,

Just a point of clarification, Antoine was only a first team all-conference pick twice, not three times.   As far as who was better, I will agree, it would be close.  I would of course tip my hat to Antoine only because of how effective a point guard he was and also the player who could knock down the big shot with the clock ticking down.   Both would be a coaches dream

[Titan Q]

Still, it does appear to be a 'rebuilding' year.  Someone may yet emerge (hopefully IWU! ), but I just don't see a FF or even top ten team this year.

Saw your latest post just before hitting 'post'.  I concur.  Someone will win a couple of games, perhaps even two will make the round of 16.  FF seems like it would take some VERY good fortune.

I think it is too early to really speculate.  I certainly agree with Bosko that the CCIW doesn't appear to have a powerhouse team this year, but who exactly are the powerhouse teams in the Midwest/West this year (the teams a CCIW entrant will bump into)?  The Wash U team IWU and Wheaton were tied with late and just lost to Transylvania?  The Bears are great, but I don't think quite as good as with Tyler Nading.  Stevens Point and Whitewater sound very good...but beatable.  St. Norbert?  

I mean, look, you never know how this will play out.  These CCIW teams might not look like "Final Four teams" when you compare them to past great Final Four teams, or even recent great CCIW teams (like Wheaton last year), but there seems to be a lot of parity out there.

[Dennis_Prikkel]

and radio guy?

Art Kimball, with honorable mentions for Johnny "Bud" Weiser and Bob Quillman and a special Student Broadcaster of the Decade plaque for Paul Carr.

Thanks!  I'll hang the plaque next to my runner-up trophy from the 2001-02 CCIW fantasy league. I think Wheaton C won that year.

Back to lurking in Bristol...

tell mark schlerth that he's an idiot on this mike leach discussion

[petemcb]

and an assistant coach

Antoine McDaniel of Carthage, because no coach in the league has better fashion sense than Twan.

I assume Owen Handy and his self-hand-tied bow ties were under consideration in this category..... 

[Gregory Sager]

While GS and I don't always agree on everything, I personally was happy to see Greg list 5 teams. After all, when we're talking about a decade worth of players, that entails a lot of names. For someone whose knowledge of the conference only goes back 5 years it was nice to "learn" some additional names of players who had significant careers in terms of achievement when measured against the hundreds of players who comprised the conference teams over the period in question.
Also, I think its nice to see 5 teams listed as I don't think listing only 25 players out of the hundreds that played is too many. I think too often we recognize only the top few in whatever arena we choose to consider while ignoring those that were better than 98 or 99 percent of the others who participated, and who also deserve a little recognition for their significant achievements.
So---Thanks for the added insight, GS.

I agree with what AndOne said about Greg's list. It was interesting to see all those guys. Good job Mr. Sager.

Thanks, guys, although I'm pretty sure that USee was just messing with me. He's probably trying to get back at me for that crack I made about him being the group project of a Wheaton computer science seminar.

Greg is partially right. I was messing with him on this specific post but I should mention that listing 15-25 guys was not the question I posed. I purposely asked for 5 guys on a Team of the Decade because I would much rather see the old schoolers debating the merits of Dauksas vs McDaniel or Kolmodin vs Ruch than see posts like AO and Magicman (i.e. "it was interesting...thanks Mr Sager") .

Having said that, the same excercise in the football chat room hasn't generated any debate at all so what do I know??

As any politician would tell you (off the record, of course), the key to debate is answering the question that you want to answer, not the question that you were asked. Seriously, though, I did have a first team among my top twenty-five. Why would that not qualify as an answer to your question?

Final non-conference record = 55-33 (.625)

Relatively speaking, that's not so good.

Q,

What do you think accounts for the lower numbers?  Conference youth?  More parity in D-III?  A high number of games against teams who are on an upswing (eg. Wash U)?

Ever since last season ended I've been harping on the theme that the CCIW's class of '10 is the weakest senior class I think I've ever seen in my thirty years of following this league. Now that the non-conference slate is complete, I'm even more convinced of that. Look at this year's seniors and tell me who looks like a potential All-American. Nick Williams? He's NPU's mainstay and one of the two or three most talented players in this league, but he scored 16 points total in North Park's first three games and was very ordinary in the overtime loss to UW-Superior. Reid Barringer? He followed up his 44-point performance against Rockford with a mere five points against Adrian. Ben Panner? He's probably the most well-rounded senior in the league, but he's not going to carry Wheaton on his shoulders the way that Kent Raymond could (and did). Matt Pelton? Very solid player at both ends of the floor, but not a superstar. Dustin Bainter and Chris Childs? They're good, but not dominant -- and Elmhurst is increasingly becoming Zach Boyd's team, anyway. And all of those Millikin seniors are offensively challenged.

We may be looking at a season that doesn't have more than three or four seniors on the All-CCIW team. I haven't looked up what the all-time-low is for senior inclusion on the All-CCIW team, but it's gotta be higher than three or four.

You take seniors out of the equation, and your capacity to win regularly is diminished. I knew that there'd be a dropoff in November and December this year as far back as last March, although I admit that I didn't think that the dropoff would be this sharp. There's your answer right there as to why the league is so weak at the moment. One more thing, though: While the junior class is better than the senior class -- it almost has to be, when you think about it -- the real strength of the league this year, I think, is in its sophomore class. I'm not much for predicting but, based upon what I've seen, the CCIW will do much better in 2010-11 in non-conference play than it did this year -- and the 2011-12 performance of the CCIW in November and December could turn out to be absolutely spectacular.

Having said all that, I think that Bob's right on the money when he says this:

I should add that I won't be surprised if 1 or 2 CCIW teams end up being very dangerous come NCAA tournament time.  In no way am I writing this season off as a year where the CCIW rep(s) will go down in Round 1.  There are some very talented teams trying to put it all together, and you never know how that's going to turn out.

Iron sharpens iron, and two months' worth of CCIW games could leave us with a team in March that, seniors or no seniors, has tested veterans whose talent, savvy, and ability to perform under pressure makes up for the lack of senior leadership.

[Gregory Sager]

These aren't the final numbers, of course, but even a great run by the CCIW in March isn't going to change these much:

CCIW overall: 55-33 (.625)

...	vs. D1	0-1
...	vs. D2	1-0
...	vs. NAIA-1	0-1
...	vs. NAIA-2	3-1
...	vs. other	1-0
...	vs. D3	50-30 (.625)
...	... ... ...	vs. non-region* D3	2-1
...	... ... ...	vs. in-region indies	0-1
...	... ... ...	vs. ASC	2-2
...	... ... ...	vs. HCAC	5-1
...	... ... ...	vs. IIAC	3-1
...	... ... ...	vs. MIAA	6-4
...	... ... ...	vs. MIAC	1-1
...	... ... ...	vs. MWC	9-2
...	... ... ...	vs. NAthC	6-5
...	... ... ...	vs. NCAC	1-0
...	... ... ...	vs. SCAC	2-0
...	... ... ...	vs. SCIAC	4-0
...	... ... ...	vs. SLIAC	6-3
...	... ... ...	vs. UAA	2-4
...	... ... ...	vs. WIAC	1-5

* not including MIAA and NCAC

[Gregory Sager]

... and, to put the CCIW's non-conference performance in historical perspective:

1998-99	59	34	.634
1999-00	63	26	.708
2000-01	75	25	.750
2001-02	56	32	.636
2002-03	61	30	.670
2003-04	62	28	.678
2004-05	63	27	.700
2005-06	63	34	.649
2006-07	66	23	.741
2007-08	66	28	.702
2008-09	73	19	.793
2009-10*	55	33	.625

*games played to date

Prior to 1998-99 the CCIW went through a real low period: Nine straight seasons in which the league's non-conference record did not reach the .600 mark, including a 1990-91 low of .473 that stands as the last losing mark that the league has ever posted. (Keep in mind that the CCIW was playing a lot more D1 and D2 schools back then.) The league's mark in 1997-98 was .511.

[Titan Q]

Congrats to Jordan Zimmer on the Player of the Week nod...

http://www.cciw.org/winter_bball_m/pow09_6.php

Stay hot, kid.

[usee]

As any politician would tell you (off the record, of course), the key to debate is answering the question that you want to answer, not the question that you were asked. Seriously, though, I did have a first team among my top twenty-five. Why would that not qualify as an answer to your question?

As any good marketer would tell you "alway keep them wanting more". Listing 5 teams answers most questions (asked and not asked) and limits the debate.